RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play

RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play (Full Version)

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

Message

Centuur -> RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play (6/26/2021 11:27:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: JagWars There are few house rules we use when playing the board game: 1.) Subs cannot leave the Mediterranean unless Gibraltar is neutral or friendly controlled. Enemy subs did not leave the Med during WWII. If anyone has reference that refutes this, I should be very interested in learning of it. Enemy subs entered the Med by cutting their engines and allowing the current to pull them through.However, this was not entirely successful either as many were detected during the attempt. Since a lot of Italian submarines left the Mediterranean for the Atlantic without any losses, I suggest that the German U-boats could have left as well. At least 28 Italian submarines were deployed into the Atlantic theatre after Italy had entered WWII. Picture from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BETASOM [image]local://upfiles/29130/6017124E11CF481F9CBA9207957D938D.jpg[/image] True. The actual number of Italian SUB's operating in the Atlantic was a lot higher... So: that house rule is not historical at all.

ajds -> RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play (6/28/2021 11:04:28 PM)
Your Scandinavian house rule seems like an awful lot of work to stop an initial ploy (deployment to take Murmansk initially) that should be self-correcting. The ploy should require the Finnish HQ-I up there or sea supply - sea supply you can stop with one Commonwealth cruiser. Or stack one setup Soviet corps in Murmansk (which is standard) and toss a reserve in there if threatened - are you telling me the Finns can take an arctic forest city with two corps in it? Even if they try, you should then be walking into Helsinki, which renders the ploy moot. Or am I missing something?

Courtenay -> RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play (6/30/2021 8:54:33 PM)
One change I would like is the alignment of Siam: Instead of being able to align Siam only before Japan is at war with the west, Japan should be able to align it only after Japan is at war with the CW. After all, Thailand only declared war on 25 January, 1942.

rkr1958 -> RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play (6/30/2021 9:35:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ajds Your Scandinavian house rule seems like an awful lot of work to stop an initial ploy (deployment to take Murmansk initially) that should be self-correcting. The ploy should require the Finnish HQ-I up there or sea supply - sea supply you can stop with one Commonwealth cruiser. Or stack one setup Soviet corps in Murmansk (which is standard) and toss a reserve in there if threatened - are you telling me the Finns can take an arctic forest city with two corps in it? Even if they try, you should then be walking into Helsinki, which renders the ploy moot. Or am I missing something? Too complicated I agree. I also agree with all you wrote. The house rule isn't intended to counter an all out push by the Finns to captured Murmansk, which as you so eloquently have pointed out isn't necessary anyway. What I was trying to counter is that the Finns with 1 ski div can easily cut the rail line leading from Murmansk to Soviet proper. If fact, with a couple of divisions the axis can cut the rail line in such a way that it would require a major effort and a Soviet HQ just to uncut it. Maybe a better and certainly simpler house rule is that the axis are "forbidden" to cut this rail line until either they've capture Murmansk or Vologda?

Orm -> RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play (7/1/2021 5:21:20 AM)
USSR had major forces against Finland during the war. At the outbreak of the continuation war the Soviet Northern District had around 450,000 men against Finland. Shouldn't there be a major effort from the Soviet side to protect the railway? And it is a railway that doesn't seem to need protection for US aid since they can just use the historical Soviet Far East, and Persian Gulf, routes with your rule HHR-3. And why is it that Leningrad has no play in the HHR-4? As Finland used Leningrad as an excuse to not advance further into USSR. [image]local://upfiles/29130/40084975315041F3B2F3EF9E5D776E07.jpg[/image]

Orm -> RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play (7/1/2021 5:32:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rkr1958 quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian (Have always thought night PARA missions have historical precedent) Excellent point. Will add para missions and their fighters to strat bombing. (revised) HHR-5. Night Mission Limitations. Only night missions allowed are strategic bombing, para drops and their associated fighter escorts and intercepts. Night PARA missions do have a historical precedent. And the lesson learned from it was 'do not drop paras at night'. Therefore I suggest some sort of penalty if PARA missions are done at night. Maybe removing the +1 attacking bonus for the PARA if it is dropped at night would work?

warspite1 -> RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play (7/1/2021 8:01:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JagWars 1.) Subs cannot leave the Mediterranean unless Gibraltar is neutral or friendly controlled. Enemy subs did not leave the Med during WWII. If anyone has reference that refutes this, I should be very interested in learning of it. Enemy subs entered the Med by cutting their engines and allowing the current to pull them through. However, this was not entirely successful either as many were detected during the attempt. warspite1 This is not true. The Italians sent many subs to the North Atlantic. The reason German subs didn't return to the Atlantic was not was because of the risk, but was political and the reason Donitz never wanted his precious u-boats sent to the Mediterranean in the first place. He knew once a sub was ordered to the Med he would not get it back. And he was right. The problem is that because of the sub counter sizes it is difficult to reflect losses. The option is binary. The counter survives or gets sunk - both are unsatisfactory. A compromise could be that any counter would have to be holed up in port for x number of turns. Its not ideal but at least gives some pain for those attempting to pass the Straits.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.767578