Let's Talk Optional Rules (Full Version)

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



Message

76mm -> Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 4:12:32 AM)

I'm still reading through the rules, but so far most of the optional rules sound like things that I'd want to use. I know there are default sets of optional rules, but I'll probably want to create my own tailored set very quickly. Therefore I'd be interested in hearing from experienced players which rules they especially like/dislike.

The main two rules that don't appeal to me so are are:
1) Pilots: ugh, I really have to create planes and pilots separately?? Smacks of micromanagement--why?

2) Oil: Sounds "realistic" enough but seems like it would really hurt the Axis, and again more micro-management. Worth it?

Please keep this thread about optional rules CURRENTLY IN THE GAME, not ones you want to see implemented, etc.



brian brian -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 4:42:55 AM)

Pilots give you a bit more flexibility to change the composition of your air force, but more so they represent the fact that you lose more pilots when you are fighting air combats over enemy controlled hexes, rather than over your own areas. So using the rule also makes production somewhat more flexible; you will need more pilots on the offense than on defense. It isn't a very difficult rule to implement. Some air combat results result in the loss of an aircraft counter and a Pilot, some only the aircraft counter. If the Pilot is not eliminated, it is just returned to a numerical pool of how many you have; when a new aircraft counter is coming out of the production system, you can only place it on the map if you have a pilot available. If there are more aircraft than Pilots, the aircraft is placed in a Reserve Pool; the player can move aircraft between the map and the Reserve Pool at the start of each turn.

The main considerations about using the Pilot rule or not are more about the density of aircraft counters you wish to play with. As the game moves into the second half, aircraft density keeps going up and as there are more and more air missions, play slows down some. Without using the Pilots rule, there is more attrition of the aircraft counters.


Oil - not using an Oil rule is a huge boost to the Axis. It is of course a little bit simpler game, but the main argument against using the Oil rule is the bookkeeping chore of counting up your oil dependent units at the end of the turn. With a computer this bookkeeping task is of course reduced considerably.

In one sense, WWII was partially fought over oil, especially in the Pacific, though even there political ideology was a component. In Europe the war might not have started over oil, but it soon dominated the strategy concerns of the Major Powers. Playing a grand strategy game about WWII while pretending the only benefit of capturing oil wells is that you can create more forces is a little too simplistic for most players, and most people do use an Oil rule when they play.



bo -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 4:58:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I'm still reading through the rules, but so far most of the optional rules sound like things that I'd want to use. I know there are default sets of optional rules, but I'll probably want to create my own tailored set very quickly. Therefore I'd be interested in hearing from experienced players which rules they especially like/dislike.

The main two rules that don't appeal to me so are are:
1) Pilots: ugh, I really have to create planes and pilots separately?? Smacks of micromanagement--why?

2) Oil: Sounds "realistic" enough but seems like it would really hurt the Axis, and again more micro-management. Worth it?

Please keep this thread about optional rules CURRENTLY IN THE GAME, not ones you want to see implemented, etc.


Many of the optional rules do not really effect the game too much but a few can. I find the most realistic are Carrier planes and pilots, when I first beta tested I did not like pilots because of so called micro mgt, but that is long gone in my mind, I never saw this game until a year ago. Oil rule is to me the toughest rule in the book and it favors the allies no question about that.

Limited overseas supply really effects the Pacific war than the European war in my opinion.

Amphibious rule really changes the way invasions are done way more realistic.

A rule that favors Japan is the division, unlimited breakdown and cruisers in flames rule.

Reason, the Japanese supply lines are very vunerable and the extra cruisers are needed to protect their supply sea lanes. Divisons are very important to Japan they can put divisions on the outer perimeter islands like Tarawa, Wake, Kwajeline etc. and save their bigger units corps and armies for China, Burma, defending the Phillpines etc.

The unlimited breakdown rule allows you to take corps and break them down into divisons because actually Japan does not have a lot of units in the game.

Remember this not a beer and pretzel game if that is the kind of game you want than just play fast start, not that fast start is a beer and pretzel game but it plays much easier than if you add cetain rules, most board game players want to play with every rule they can, I will tell you this there is no computer war game anywhere that is as realistic as this game is.

The pilot rule is an easy rule you purchase a plane you train a pilot truly not a big deal, read my posts and my AAR's and you will see I tell it like it is whether a person or management here likes it or not hopefully in a nice way meaning I do not sugar Coat anything The carrier rule is awsome you dont have some implied air power like you do in fast start you have actual air wings you put on carriers, really the best way to do the Pacific theater war.

I also feel when Steve puts in the half maps Fascist tide and Day of Infamy everyone will be pleased, Guadalcanal is five turns long and helps you with the sea battles, Barbarossa [five turns] with the land battles. Global war is a little daunting for new players because you are dealing with the full map.

It's a bit late for me if you want to cover optional rules one by one I will be glad to do that tomorrow.

PS didnt see you doing a post brian I was typing this.

Bo



jomni -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 4:58:40 AM)

Many strategic decisions made in ww2 were in relation to oil.



warspite1 -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 5:08:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I'm still reading through the rules, but so far most of the optional rules sound like things that I'd want to use. I know there are default sets of optional rules, but I'll probably want to create my own tailored set very quickly. Therefore I'd be interested in hearing from experienced players which rules they especially like/dislike.

The main two rules that don't appeal to me so are are:
1) Pilots: ugh, I really have to create planes and pilots separately?? Smacks of micromanagement--why?

2) Oil: Sounds "realistic" enough but seems like it would really hurt the Axis, and again more micro-management. Worth it?

Please keep this thread about optional rules CURRENTLY IN THE GAME, not ones you want to see implemented, etc.
warspite1

76mm, I played with Planes in Flames almost from the start of my WIF experience so for me the pilot rule is not an additional layer of complexity or micro-management - its just part of the game. I think it works well.

Oil on the other hand, IS a new development since my board game days ended. I am struggling a little with exactly how this works (with the Production Planning form) but I think - given how crucial oil was in WWII - I will persevere with it for that extra layer of realism.

The way I have approached my AAR is to choose ALL optionals and then I can see to what extent I can do without one or more. I guess the other way is to go vanilla and add optionals bit by bit.

Must haves? Well I never got to play with light cruisers so, as a naval fan, that is a must. Divisions, artillery, ski troops, engineers, territorials - all good extra chrome.

Will probably dispense with? Forts look like extra clutter.



76mm -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 5:13:11 AM)

Very helpful, thanks for the replies. No need to go one-by-one through all of the optional rules, most of them sound pretty uncontroversial to me.



aspqrz02 -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 5:35:16 AM)

The Pacific war was, in a sense, entirely about Oil.

The US ultimatum to Japan for them to get out of China (sort of) and the simultaneous embargo of three things - oil from US sources, US flagged shipping (almost all Japanese oil imports were moved in US flagged and owned ships) and the withdrawal of credit facilities that made it possible for the Japanese to buy oil from other sources (Venezuela, IIRC, rather than the DEI and Borneo) - left the militarist/military crazies in charge of Japan with, they believed, enough oil for about a year's operations - about six months leading up to a DoW followed by about six months of wartime operations thereafter ... after which they believed that their economy would be crippled. [:@]

As it turns out, they were not only crazy, but grossly incompetent ... their oil reserves were actually considerably larger than they had estimated, and they were able to keep going into early 1943 before major problems arose with oil ... and, even then, they never really knew how much oil they actually had at any given time. It was evidently only the allied powers and their bureaucrats who were occupying/running Japan at the end of the war who actually ferreted out this last fact [X(]

Germany had their Synthetic Oil plants, and had at least some idea of what they might be facing ... but even their usage estimates were way off. Their mechanized units, they found out, burned through fuel like it was going out of fashion ...

To begin with, they captured enough oil in Poland to keep the economy and armed forces ticking over for the invasion of the west. Then they glommed enough oil in France and the Low Countries to keep things going for Barbarossa and the first year of the war in the east, more or less. But from late 1942 and, certainly, 1943 they were being forced to make strategic deployment decisions for army, navy and airforce units based purely on the amount of oil they actually had on hand.

Things went downhill from there. And by the end of the war, late 1944 and 1945, their 'reserves' actually consisted of ONLY the oil in tanker cars on the way to the end user. That is, there WAS no reserve.

(Note: The idea that they could have gained any oil from the Soviet fields is simply not on. The Soviets basically destroyed them and the Germans found that they simply didn't have the trained technical manpower or the special order long time delay equipment needed to get even the handful of wells they actually did get back into very limited production into serious operation. Then, of course, there was the problem that they had no actual capacity to ship it back to Germany as the Soviets had destroyed all the relevant rail lines and ports ... and, even if they hadn't, the Germans found during the war that they could never produce enough railway POL tanker cars to do more than barely meet shipping needs for their own homegrown and Western European production, so there weren't spare POL tankers to move it anyway. Much the same issues apply to the Iraqi and other Middle Eastern oil fields. Which is not to say they could never have gotten any oil from them - just they couldn't do it in the timeframe of the game. Insofar as the Oil rule makes this sort of situation probable, it is realistic).

The Italians, on the other hand, were in a real pickle. They imported something like 90% of their POL (Germany only 70%), had virtually no reserves, and lost almost their entire tanker fleet (which was tiny anyway) on the DoW as it was overseas at the time! Things were so bad that they had to move POL to Libya in regular merchant ships in 44 gallon drums, just about the most inefficient and marginally effective way of doing this possible ... except for transporting it by air ... which they also did by 1943, loading 44 gallon drums or bladders into Me-232 Gigants and flying it across!

The Italian fleet spent most of the war in port for the very good reason that they barely had enough oil in their bunkers to keep maintenance levels of steam up in their boilers. What little they did manage to procure came from Kriegsmarine stocks that Hitler ordered the KM to provide, against much bitter and vehement protest.

So, yes, you could well say that 'many strategic decisions ... were related to oil' [:D]

Phil



76mm -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 5:58:36 AM)

The oil comments are very interesting, and I can't argue about the realism aspect, and generally I'm intersted in playing games which are more realistic rather than less. And as many have pointed out, WWII strategy is impossible to understand with considering the implications of oil.

What I'm not sure about, however, is if I want to play a game where the Italian fleet can't leave port, I can't move my panzers, etc. because of a lack of oil, it just doesn't sound very fun.

Maybe this dilemna explains why I've never really gotten into WWII grand strategy games in the past...



warspite1 -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 6:03:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

The oil comments are very interesting, and I can't argue about the realism aspect, and generally I'm intersted in playing games which are more realistic rather than less. And as many have pointed out, WWII strategy is impossible to understand with considering the implications of oil.

What I'm not sure about, however, is if I want to play a game where the Italian fleet can't leave port, I can't move my panzers, etc. because of a lack of oil, it just doesn't sound very fun.

Maybe this dilemna explains why I've never really gotten into WWII grand strategy games in the past...
warspite1

Agreed. The game I played (5th Ed.) was certainly simpler than the latest version and there is always a trade-off realism vs complexity. But that is the great thing about optional rules - if you don't like 'em, bin 'em. I will do that with the oil rule if I think the fun aspect is hit too hard, but I will at least give it a try.



willbowe -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 6:04:38 AM)

I don't like pilots, for precisely the reasons you say, and I've been searching in vain for another player who shares this opinion. Oil though is indispensable as far as I'm concerned, as it introduces a strategic dimension that makes the game immensely more realistic.



Horaf_1 -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 6:29:52 AM)

Pilots are ok. Makes air-wars over the enemy hexes more realistic, in a Battle-of-Britian kinda way. Oil is good, cause it provides grand strategic focus---On to Baku!

The rule I dislike, which sounds innocuous, is Defensive Shore Bombardment. Huge fleets, each on a different side of a small island (or Gibraltar) providing countless factors during a landing.... I hate it. Both fleets should have to be in the same sea area, to affect the decisive area of operation. (Both sides are coming down 'the slot' at Guadalcanal, not firing over the length of the island...). Our group stopped playing with it, after a few contentious arguments. [&:]



aspqrz02 -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 6:33:58 AM)

The Italian Fleet DID leave port, just not all that often ... but still more often than the Kriegsmarine did, or, at least, more often than the Major Fleet Units of the KM.

So there's no reason why you can't decide to spend the oil to move the Regia Marina, even her major fleet units. And, depending on the circumstances, you may ... or may not ... get in some major blows against the RN and Commonwealth. But you can't do it often.

I don't know enough about the game to say definitively, but the RM mainly deployed her Subs (in the North Atlantic, as often as not) and her Destroyers in action rather than the larger units, simply because they burnt less fuel (and, of course, there were fewer major fleet units to move after Taranto!) ... and WiF doesn't really represent DDs, though the Cruisers in Flames aspect probably comes close, I would suspect. Likewise, the shortage of oil didn't stop the Subs from being active.

It's all about choices. Its not that Italy couldn't do those things - she just had to cut her suit according to her cloth. Its just that the entire RM won't be able to sortie every single turn, or phase, unless you strip the oil from other activities ... like the airforce or, to a lesser extent, the army.

It certainly would make it less likely that you'd build a lot of the Mech, Air or larger Naval units in the force pool ... concentrate on Subs, CLs and Infantry, more or less like the Italians did in reality.

If you want an Italian uber-Panzer army with massive air support invading Britain, well, sadly, I don't think it would work ... even if Italy's countermix allowed it [:D]

For most German players I suspect that the KM major fleet units are about as useful as tits on a Boar also ... unless they try what should be the massive gamble of a Sealion attack ... but, of course, if that fails they've screwed any chance of winning against any but the most incompetent player (and AI, perhaps?) ... which is as it should be.

It's all about choices.

If you want a fantasy game about Tannu Tuva conquering the world, Hearts of Iron is perfect ... but WiF should at least make you aware that there were reasons for the Axis (and Allied) powers doing some of the things/making some of the choices they did.

Maybe they weren't the best choices or smartest actions, but there were real world reasons and constraints that were behind them.

I don't see this as a negative, but YMMV!

[;)]

Phil



aspqrz02 -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 6:41:01 AM)

Except that Baku and the whole of the Caucasus were a chimera ... a nonsense ... the Germans simply didn't have the ability to get any oil from those locations except through the Russo-German Pact ... all they will get by invasion is scorched earth that will take far longer to repair and rehabilitate than before the end of the game.

Theoretically, the best reason for taking Baku and the Caucasus is that it takes oil from the USSR ... the only problem with that is that the Russians destroyed most of the wells themselves, then redrilled them when the threat was over, and they never had a problem with oil supplies, especially as the US and Western Allies shipped them a lot of POL (presumably a chunk that was no longer being shipped, first, to Germany and Italy [and conquered Europe] and, then, to Japan) ... US and Allied controlled New World and/or African/Middle Eastern sources were more than enough to even make up for the loss of the DEI/Borneo.

So, realistically, the only reason you'd want to attack the Caucasus as the Germans is if the USSR has pissed off the Commonwealth and the USA in a multiplayer game OR if you wish to reproduce some of the more idiotic Hitlerian decisions. How this plays in actual RAW or RAC for CWiF I have no idea, but that's a real life take on it.

Phil



76mm -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 6:43:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Freychris
The rule I dislike, which sounds innocuous, is Defensive Shore Bombardment. Huge fleets, each on a different side of a small island (or Gibraltar) providing countless factors during a landing.... I hate it. Both fleets should have to be in the same sea area, to affect the decisive area of operation. (Both sides are coming down 'the slot' at Guadalcanal, not firing over the length of the island...). Our group stopped playing with it, after a few contentious arguments. [&:]


Indeed, this one sounded pretty uncontroversial to me, so thanks for your comments on this one. That said, I'm not sure that I understand why it is unrealistic for a fleet to provide defensive shore bombardment from either the east or west side of Gibraltar, for instance?



delatbabel -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 6:46:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Freychris

Pilots are ok. Makes air-wars over the enemy hexes more realistic, in a Battle-of-Britian kinda way. Oil is good, cause it provides grand strategic focus---On to Baku!

The rule I dislike, which sounds innocuous, is Defensive Shore Bombardment. Huge fleets, each on a different side of a small island (or Gibraltar) providing countless factors during a landing.... I hate it. Both fleets should have to be in the same sea area, to affect the decisive area of operation. (Both sides are coming down 'the slot' at Guadalcanal, not firing over the length of the island...). Our group stopped playing with it, after a few contentious arguments. [&:]


In v.8 of the rules this problem is fixed -- you might want to adopt the fix for your own games. Basically, in a defensive or offensive effort, only the same number of ships can provide shore bombardment as the number of units in the attack or defense. So if there are 2 units defending, then only 2 ships can provide defensive shore bombardment.

That of course also makes battleships more valuable! Once you're out of battleships then you start getting 1 or 2 factors from the cruisers of course, but not nearly as useful.

There is also the spotting fleets rule which I also believe appeared in v.8 of the rules. At the option of the opponent, the player who uses bombarding ships or unloading transports must move those ships/transports down to the 0 box (after being flipped of course). At the option of the owning player, the owner may also move any accompanying ships from the same sea box section also down to the 0 box. What that means is that you can no longer stand off shore and provide shore bombardment over and over again -- because you risk your fleets being broken up. With half your fleet in the 0 box and half in the 3 box it becomes much more vulnerable to attack.

Hopefully some of these changes will make it into a future edition of MWIF, but even without the change in the game it's possible to adopt the first item as a house rule.



delatbabel -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 6:49:49 AM)

bo and others above have given a reasonably good summary of the optional rules and what their impact on the game is.

The most useful feature of the optional rules is that they do tend to change the balance of the game one way or the other, very slightly. What that means for example is that if you have an experienced player playing axis, and an inexperienced player playing allies, you can add in some of the pro-allied optional rules to help rebalance the game, or vice-versa.

examples -- Cruisers in Flames and the divisions rule helps the axis slightly. The Oil rule hurts the axis slightly. Territorials are a bit pro-allied, etc. Play with the mix of optional rules that suits your style of play and the relative levels of the players involved.



Extraneous -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 8:22:49 AM)

The only optional rule I am not fond of is Option 49: (Hitler’s war). Because I think over balances the game in the favor of the Axis.

Pilots allow for less expensive Aircraft Units at the expense of a new gearing limit. Giving you more aircraft units available in the Aircraft unit reserve pool. So if an Aircraft unit gets shot down and the pilot survives the pilot gets a new Aircraft unit without a long delay.

Pilots allow more realism since you can fly the Polish Aircraft units to a neutral country and have the Commonwealth get the Pilots.


Some like the oil rule some dont. It's a preference thing,


[sm=terms.gif] At one point (in the last 8 years and 4 months) someone requested that I look up all the optional rules for them.

Having done this I became fairly familiar with all of the options.





pzgndr -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 12:16:31 PM)

I would still like to see something that more or less rates each of the optional rules as being neutral or favoring Axis or Allies?



Klydon -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 12:33:42 PM)

Good discussion.

The oil rule is one of the big ones for sure. It never existed when I played before, so it is relatively new to me.

My plan with some of the optional rules, especially the oil rule, is to leave them off to start with while relearning the game and the interface. Later on, I will see about adding more in.



brian brian -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 1:57:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I would still like to see something that more or less rates each of the optional rules as being neutral or favoring Axis or Allies?


It is a little more nuanced than that. There are a handful of optional rules that are Major Power specific, in terms of adding units. One unit-based Optional, adding Territorial units, appears to be Pro-Allied on the surface, but the Axis also have some Territorials and they do help Japan hold their garrison values against Partisans.

Some of the rules that affect combat more directly can be looked at as pro-attacker or pro-defender; even choosing the 1d10 or 2d10 combat table has elements of that. Adding divisions to the use of the 2d10 table can be viewed as pro-attacker as the corps units then tend stay on the map more.

In one sense, a pro-attacker or pro-defender rule is side-neutral since each side spends half the game on offense and half on defense. There is a view that pro-attacker rules are pro-Axis in that aiding the offense gives them a better chance to expand their perimeter, making it harder for the Allies to beat the Axis by the time limited end of the game.

So some players will select a number of pro-attacker rules for the Axis when the Axis player is the less experienced player, to help balance things.


For me, I'm not as good at looking at the rules that way. I find the game to favor the Allies, once you figure out how to play defense effectively (hint: it's boring, so it takes many players a longer time to become good at playing the Allies, in my opinion).

But I select the optionals based on my personal preferences for adding realism, which I find to be the general point behind all of the optionals. Dialing up realism comes at the expense of playability - i.e. time - of course. So for a solitaire game, I use 95% or more of them every time, and my occasional face-to-face opponent feels the same.


One little used one that I like is HQ Movement. This makes the first non-rail hex an HQ enters during land movement cost an additional point. I prefer this to slow down the pace of the game, so it is somewhat less likely to see a Berlin > Urals > Berlin mega see-saw affair on the Eastern Front as the HQ-A's race along with the panzer corps. World in Flames is extremely generous with the logistics capabilities it leaves in the background, in the interests of playability. But I found that adding the HQ-A units with movement rates of 4 and 5 really changed the game from 5th edition, when HQs had 2 or 3 movement points.

I think that simple optional brings a lot more realism to the logistics, and actually gives the Germans and Soviets a little more breathing room to consider more Combined Impulses to do a few naval activities as there isn't as much steady pressure to keep their front-line units aligned with their HQs every single impulse. But most players don't like that rule, including my usual FTF opponent. It is challenging to remember at times when pushing cardboard counters, and I expect the computer version will make it much easier to play with.



bo -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 2:16:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

bo and others above have given a reasonably good summary of the optional rules and what their impact on the game is.

The most useful feature of the optional rules is that they do tend to change the balance of the game one way or the other, very slightly. What that means for example is that if you have an experienced player playing axis, and an inexperienced player playing allies, you can add in some of the pro-allied optional rules to help rebalance the game, or vice-versa.

examples -- Cruisers in Flames and the divisions rule helps the axis slightly. The Oil rule hurts the axis slightly. Territorials are a bit pro-allied, etc. Play with the mix of optional rules that suits your style of play and the relative levels of the players involved.


You said that better than I had, well said

Bo



Lingering Frey -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 2:22:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: konevau

I don't like pilots, for precisely the reasons you say, and I've been searching in vain for another player who shares this opinion. Oil though is indispensable as far as I'm concerned, as it introduces a strategic dimension that makes the game immensely more realistic.


The oil rule does not make the game more realistic in the same way that Call of Duty is not AT ALL a realistic portrayal of combat even though a player's mind may feel it is more realistic than Doom.



Lingering Frey -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 2:34:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I'm still reading through the rules, but so far most of the optional rules sound like things that I'd want to use. I know there are default sets of optional rules, but I'll probably want to create my own tailored set very quickly. Therefore I'd be interested in hearing from experienced players which rules they especially like/dislike.

The main two rules that don't appeal to me so are are:
1) Pilots: ugh, I really have to create planes and pilots separately?? Smacks of micromanagement--why?

2) Oil: Sounds "realistic" enough but seems like it would really hurt the Axis, and again more micro-management. Worth it?

Please keep this thread about optional rules CURRENTLY IN THE GAME, not ones you want to see implemented, etc.


In my opinion, there are only two considerations when choosing optional rules. WiF is not a simulation of reality any more than chess is a simulation of two warring kingdoms.

1. Will those playing have more fun with the rule?

2. How will the rule effect the "play balance" between the players? Does the Axis or Allied side need handicapping to create the most enjoyable game? (See rule 1) For example, the oil rule tips the balance towards the Allies. Is the axis player much more experienced? Does the group of players have a history of seeing the Axis win game after game because of how that group plays? If yes to either, the oil rule might be a "must have".



76mm -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 2:52:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lingering Frey
In my opinion, there are only two considerations when choosing optional rules. WiF is not a simulation of reality any more than chess is a simulation of two warring kingdoms.


Of course you are right, and yet...

If I play solely based on the considerations that you mention, I might as well play some fantasy game, because the game could generally become a rather generic "strategy game" with pretty counters in the form of said panzers and aircraft carriers and a map of planet earth instead of orcs & dragons and a map of middle-earth.

But if I specifically want to play a WWII game, as I do, I'd like to be subject to something like the strategic imperatives/constraints as the actual participants.

As previously mentioned, I'm somewhat conflicted on this whole WWII grand-strategy thing.



pzgndr -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 2:54:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lingering Frey

How will the rule effect the "play balance" between the players? Does the Axis or Allied side need handicapping


That's what I was getting at. I understand it's all nuanced and subjective, but at the end of the day clearly there are some options that favor Axis or favor Allies. Players should have a good idea what they're getting into. Also, looking ahead, it's a means of handicapping the AI depending on which side you play. So some simple categorization of the optional rules would be helpful; e.g., a table listing Favor Axis, Neutral, Favor Allies. Something. I'm sure I'm not the only newbie wondering, so this is something useful that some of the vets could put together based on their experience.



Ur_Vile_WEdge -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 3:22:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Except that Baku and the whole of the Caucasus were a chimera ... a nonsense ... the Germans simply didn't have the ability to get any oil from those locations except through the Russo-German Pact ... all they will get by invasion is scorched earth that will take far longer to repair and rehabilitate than before the end of the game.

Theoretically, the best reason for taking Baku and the Caucasus is that it takes oil from the USSR ... the only problem with that is that the Russians destroyed most of the wells themselves, then redrilled them when the threat was over, and they never had a problem with oil supplies, especially as the US and Western Allies shipped them a lot of POL (presumably a chunk that was no longer being shipped, first, to Germany and Italy [and conquered Europe] and, then, to Japan) ... US and Allied controlled New World and/or African/Middle Eastern sources were more than enough to even make up for the loss of the DEI/Borneo.

So, realistically, the only reason you'd want to attack the Caucasus as the Germans is if the USSR has pissed off the Commonwealth and the USA in a multiplayer game OR if you wish to reproduce some of the more idiotic Hitlerian decisions. How this plays in actual RAW or RAC for CWiF I have no idea, but that's a real life take on it.

Phil

quote:

en, of course, there was the problem that they had no actual capacity to ship it back to Germany as the Soviets had destroyed all the relevant rail lines and ports ... and, even if they hadn't, the Germans found during the war that they could never produce enough railway POL tanker cars to do more than barely meet shipping needs for their own homegrown and Western European production, so there weren't spare POL tankers to move it anyway. Much the same issues apply to the Iraqi and other Middle Eastern oil fields. Which is not to say they could never have gotten any oil from them - just they couldn't do it in the timeframe of the game. Insofar as the Oil rule makes this sort of situation probable, it is realistic).



Just noting, if you're playing with factory destruction and synth oil (more optional rules, but ones most people play with, I think) you can mimic this exactly. The Soviets can destroy their oilfields as they retreat at the end of the turn, although if the Germans advance swiftly enough, the Soviets might not have time to. At that point, it'll cost a pretty penny (4 BP per oil resource) to fix up.


While it introduces a bit of an unrealistic element (it is just as easy for the Germans to repair a smashed oil resource as the Soviets)it does allow for the very real possibility that you put a big stack to try to grab the Caucasus oil, and have it gone by the time your panzers get there.



ACMW -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 5:01:29 PM)

I am sort of with you on this: is it fun? and how does it affect balance? But realism is also a factor. Is oil realistic? Depends what you mean. It makes you focus on oil as the axis. This is realistic. And if you take oil in the wider sense to mean strategically critical resources, then read Speer 'Inside the 3rd Reich' to understand the Leadership's focus on this. The oil rule makes you prioritise its USE as well. Also realistic. The actual mechanisms may or may not be realistic. My group (we play once a year for 9-10 days) adopted oil late, but now always use it. Provides texture and the extra admin is worth it for the fun. Easier, I hope, when the computer takes the strain.
We also use Pilots (though not CVPs). The admin is minimal and it adds texture. I actually have philosophical reservations on this, though. Though the logic of higher pilot losses over seas / enemy territory makes sense, the air-to-air rules (elegant though they are) have the feel of single aircraft rather than (proportions of) 250-500 airframes. The Pilots rule emphasises this. Still worthwhile though.
ACMW



bo -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 5:12:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ACMW

I am sort of with you on this: is it fun? and how does it affect balance? But realism is also a factor. Is oil realistic? Depends what you mean. It makes you focus on oil as the axis. This is realistic. And if you take oil in the wider sense to mean strategically critical resources, then read Speer 'Inside the 3rd Reich' to understand the Leadership's focus on this. The oil rule makes you prioritise its USE as well. Also realistic. The actual mechanisms may or may not be realistic. My group (we play once a year for 9-10 days) adopted oil late, but now always use it. Provides texture and the extra admin is worth it for the fun. Easier, I hope, when the computer takes the strain.
We also use Pilots (though not CVPs). The admin is minimal and it adds texture. I actually have philosophical reservations on this, though. Though the logic of higher pilot losses over seas / enemy territory makes sense, the air-to-air rules (elegant though they are) have the feel of single aircraft rather than (proportions of) 250-500 airframes. The Pilots rule emphasises this. Still worthwhile though.
ACMW



You are a board game player and I bow to your expertise in this area. I think the oil rule is so realistic in this game but I also think newbies should stay away from it until they [cough] master this game or at least know how to invade [:(] I feel just as you do about a single plane on the map, I have been testing the game for over a year and that feeling of 200 to 250 planes in one plane is kind of daunting but you get used to it.

Bo



Centuur -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 5:27:00 PM)

I would say that it is wise for new players to play with the novice selection of the optional rules. New players in MWIF have a lot to understand and will not want all that chrome attached to the game, because it makes decision making a lot more difficult.

Start simple (because that's difficult enough)...



bo -> RE: Let's Talk Optional Rules (11/13/2013 5:35:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I would say that it is wise for new players to play with the novice selection of the optional rules. New players in MWIF have a lot to understand and will not want all that chrome attached to the game, because it makes decision making a lot more difficult.

Start simple (because that's difficult enough)...


Now why didn't I say that, hmm, oh well I bow to my peers.

Bo



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.890625