Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Blitz Bonus is not used with 2D10. They are mutually exclusive.

Steve, I beleive that here is a confusion here.

In WiF FE, the Blitz bonus is not mutually exclusive with the 2d10 CRT

It is even more different, it is that the Blitz bonus are indeed included in the 2d10 CRT, just look at the 2d10 CRT table, you'll see them all on the right side, adapted for 2d10 play. the 2d10 optional: They are all there, the bonus for attacking ARM / MECH, the penalty for defending ARM / MECH, the bonus for PARA dropping, the penalty for factories). You'll even see that these modifiers are all preceeded by the "==>" sign, indicating that they are optionals.

Moreover, historicaly those bonuses were first designed for 2d10 CRT, and were then converted for 1d10 CRT play in RAW7aug04, and made an optional rule by themselves.

So you can play 1d10 CRT with or without Blitz bonuses, and you can play 2d10 CRT with or without blitz bonuses, but the more common combination are 1d10 CRT without the Blitz bonuses (the early WiF FE design indeed) and 2d10 CRT with the blitz bonuses (the normal WiF FE 2d10 design).

Yes. I was under the impression that the Blitz Bonus rules were mandatory with the 2D10. That is how I have set up the optional rule 2D10. To disable them for 2D10 seems completely wrong to me.

Yes, to me too, playing the 2d10 without the blitz bonuses would seem completely wrong to me too, but I understand it (because of the "==>" smbol indicating an optional bonus / penalty) that they are indeed optional.

Not a big deal as long as they are included, but saying a WiF player that Blitz bonuses are mutualy exclusive with the 2d10 CRT has chances of him getting angry after you . Should made be clear then that the 2d10 CRT includes the Blitz modifiers.

Sure, what should not be allowed, would be to add the blitz modifiers of the blitz modifiers option to the blitz modifiers of the 2d10 CRT, this would be adding them twice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Blitz Bonus is not used with 2D10. They are mutually exclusive.

Steve, I beleive that here is a confusion here.

In WiF FE, the Blitz bonus is not mutually exclusive with the 2d10 CRT

It is even more different, it is that the Blitz bonus are indeed included in the 2d10 CRT, just look at the 2d10 CRT table, you'll see them all on the right side, adapted for 2d10 play. the 2d10 optional: They are all there, the bonus for attacking ARM / MECH, the penalty for defending ARM / MECH, the bonus for PARA dropping, the penalty for factories). You'll even see that these modifiers are all preceeded by the "==>" sign, indicating that they are optionals.

Moreover, historicaly those bonuses were first designed for 2d10 CRT, and were then converted for 1d10 CRT play in RAW7aug04, and made an optional rule by themselves.

So you can play 1d10 CRT with or without Blitz bonuses, and you can play 2d10 CRT with or without blitz bonuses, but the more common combination are 1d10 CRT without the Blitz bonuses (the early WiF FE design indeed) and 2d10 CRT with the blitz bonuses (the normal WiF FE 2d10 design).

Yes. I was under the impression that the Blitz Bonus rules were mandatory with the 2D10. That is how I have set up the optional rule 2D10. To disable them for 2D10 seems completely wrong to me.

Yes, to me too, playing the 2d10 without the blitz bonuses would seem completely wrong to me too, but I understand it (because of the "==>" smbol indicating an optional bonus / penalty) that they are indeed optional.

Not a big deal as long as they are included, but saying a WiF player that Blitz bonuses are mutualy exclusive with the 2d10 CRT has chances of him getting angry after you . Should made be clear then that the 2d10 CRT includes the Blitz modifiers.

Sure, what should not be allowed, would be to add the blitz modifiers of the blitz modifiers option to the blitz modifiers of the 2d10 CRT, this would be adding them twice.

As Patrice points out there are several arrows in the 2d10 that are "optionals" in the sense that they are variations on the 2d10 (but just to discover that requires a keen eyed player). For example the blitz bonus of the 2D10 is labeled as a optional. This fact does not link it to the blitz optional rule. The blitz optional rule is pretty clear, and can't be misunderstood to be talking about the 2d10. Also the 2d10 optional rule 11.16.6 does not speek of any mapping between the WIF rule book optional rules and the optionals on the 2d10. So likewise:

the 2d10 optional: -1 per defending AT, pink or red AA, if being attacked by ARM or MECH.
Is this optional linked to the Artillery rule, the blitz rule or neither? I am pretty sure it's neither.

the 2d10 optional: -1 ~ Each (co-operating) major power attacking (after the first).
Is this linked to the allied combat friction optional or not. I think not.

the 2d10 optional: +1 ~ per Japanese, Australian, or US Marine attacking a jungle hex. provided the unit attacking is white print.
This optional is clearly linked to no other optional as there is no such optional for 1d10.

the 2d10 optional: +1 ~ for each paradropping unit after air to air combat and antiaircraft fire (if any).
Is this optional linked to the Artillery rule or none? I am pretty sure it's none.

the 2d10 optional: ~ +2 Non territorials attacking territorials.
Is this optional linked to the territorial rule or none? I am pretty sure it's none.

the 2d10 optionals: several city modifiers
Are one or more of those linked to the combat engineer rule, construction engineer rule, and what about the rest, what optinal rule is the city modifiers for HQ supposed to be linked to. I think none, none and none.



To sum up: There are a few cases in the 2d10 where it may be easy to interpret the 2d10 variation to a specific standard optional rule. But in several cases this is not possible because the 2d10 variation links to more than one possible optional rules or to none at all. And in any case ADG have not provieded any mapping between the variations of 2d10 and the other optionals. So I am pretty sure that all 2d10 optionals are stand alone optinals not linked to any other rules.

It's quite possible that Harry Rowland intended there to be a link between the optional rules, but when the rules doesn't tell of any there are none from a rules lawyer point of view.

In my eyes all of blitz, allied combat friction, artillery, engineers and territorial optional rules are irrelevant when using the 2d10. (Well not completly irrelevant since the absense of territorials makes the territorial variation of 2d10 meaningless, but ...)

The question then remains, should Steve be required to implement all these as seperate optionals? (I think not, but not for me to decide.)

Ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Some comments :

For the Advanced set, you activated CoiF and not Food in Flames.
Food in Flames was designed to give the CW the BP necessary to build the ASW unit they need now that (playing with CoiF) they have no more built-in ASW in their CP units.
So, you should activate Food in Flames if activating CoiF.

For the Advanced set, you chose not to activate Japanese Command Conflict.
This is a realism option that tries to put in the game the rivality that opposed the IJN and the IJA, and that led to large wastes of energy, and lots of battles. Have you seen "Letters fro Iwo Jima" that C Eastwood did ? It shows that pretty well. A WWII game without this option is not a WWII game, so I think that it should be activated in the hightest level of option choices.

For the Novice choice, you activate Blitz Bonus, and not for the 2 other sets of options ? Why ? Blitz options were designed for the play with the 2d10 CRT, so it is bizarre to include them in an 1d10 game, and not in the full chrome 2d10 one. I think that this choice should be reversed. BLitz Bonus should be activated for 2d10 play, and unactivated with 1d10 play.

For the Advanced set, you activate the In The Presence Of The Enemy that is in my opinion one of the worst options in the game, resulting in Japan spreading lone cruisers in the Pacific, just top make the TF-58 Armada slow down and unable to wreak havoc in the Japan home waters. If the option required that the blocking TF was at least half the size of the moving TF, but here as is, it is pretty much ridiculous (personal opinion).

On the other hand, you choose in the Advanced set not to activate the En route Interception option that gives a new layer of realism in the game, allowing to intercept long ranged air missions on their way, rather than only at their target. I would reverse this choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

23.7 Blitz Bonus
23.5 2D10 and Combat Results Table

quote:

11.16.1 Declaring combats

Option 39: (Blitz bonus) -1 for attacking a 2 or 3 factory stack.

quote:

11.16.5 Resolving attacks

Option 39: (Blitz bonus) Add 1 to the die roll for each two attacking ARM, MECH and HQ-A units conducting a blitz attack against a clear or desert (non city) hex in fine weather. Subtract one from the roll per defending ARM, MECH and HQ-A in a (non city) clear or desert hex in fine weather. Add 1 to the roll for each paradropping unit (after air to air combat and anti aircraft fi re, if any).

quote:

11.16.6 2die10 Land CRT (option 43)

On page 59 of this rule book is the 2 die 10 combat results table. This table replaces the standard combat tables included in the combat charts.

If you play with the 2 die 10 table, whenever you normally roll one die for land combat, you now roll 2 and add up their values. You then apply the modifiers below the tables, and cross-index the modified total with the table being used, to find the result.

The 2 die 10 table includes 2 new results, the half disrupted and the extra loss to the attacker in bad weather or terrain. The half disrupted result means that during Facing (see 11.16.5), half the surviving faceup attackers remain face-up, owner’s choice.

The extra loss in bad terrain and/or bad weather will mean the attacker takes more losses and makes bad terrain even more of a premium. However, the table is also slightly more bloody for the defender too so the net effect is heavier casualties all around.

The other change to the current combat system is to increase the modifier from +/-1 to +/-2 in most cases. Thus being disrupted is worse now than it was, placing a greater premium on air-ground cooperation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Some comments :

For the Advanced set, you activated CoiF and not Food in Flames.
Food in Flames was designed to give the CW the BP necessary to build the ASW unit they need now that (playing with CoiF) they have no more built-in ASW in their CP units.
So, you should activate Food in Flames if activating CoiF.

For the Advanced set, you chose not to activate Japanese Command Conflict.
This is a realism option that tries to put in the game the rivality that opposed the IJN and the IJA, and that led to large wastes of energy, and lots of battles. Have you seen "Letters fro Iwo Jima" that C Eastwood did ? It shows that pretty well. A WWII game without this option is not a WWII game, so I think that it should be activated in the hightest level of option choices.

For the Novice choice, you activate Blitz Bonus, and not for the 2 other sets of options ? Why ? Blitz options were designed for the play with the 2d10 CRT, so it is bizarre to include them in an 1d10 game, and not in the full chrome 2d10 one. I think that this choice should be reversed. BLitz Bonus should be activated for 2d10 play, and unactivated with 1d10 play.

For the Advanced set, you activate the In The Presence Of The Enemy that is in my opinion one of the worst options in the game, resulting in Japan spreading lone cruisers in the Pacific, just top make the TF-58 Armada slow down and unable to wreak havoc in the Japan home waters. If the option required that the blocking TF was at least half the size of the moving TF, but here as is, it is pretty much ridiculous (personal opinion).

On the other hand, you choose in the Advanced set not to activate the En route Interception option that gives a new layer of realism in the game, allowing to intercept long ranged air missions on their way, rather than only at their target. I would reverse this choice.

My view of the optional list:

Apart from the disagreement about the 2d10 stated in an earlier post I agree with the comments made by Patrice in the quoted post. (I would point out though that I know some really like the presence of the enemy and it does affect play, so I don’t see a good reason why it should not be in the advanced list.) I would stress that I agree with Patrice on the Japanese Command Conflict and the En route Interception.

When reviewing the optiona rules I tend to think that in general the process from novice to standard to advanced should be an increased level of experienced, and a more advanced game. That is I would suggest that rules that changes the game to become more realistic or advanced should be added, while rules that are mostly play balance rules should not be added (unless specifically wanting to change the play balance).

I would add the following comments:

In Novice you did not include neither limited overseas supply nor isolated reorganization limits. I will try to tempt you to include isolated reorganization limits: because it's easier to understand that they are isolated, than the fact that they are not! As long as the limited overseas supply is not included, only completely surrounded units would be affected by the isolated reorganization rule (with an expection when next to a neutral country). I would expect the novice player would assume that completely surrounded units would not get supplies, and the surprise would be when they got supplies anyway (and not the other way around).

I agree that the 1d10 is easier than the 2d10 because of less modifiers. But how big is the difference, and the consequence is that the step from novice to standard is a great leap. (A lot of what you should and shouldn’t do changes when going from 1d10 to 2d10.) On top of this comes the recommendation from ADG to use 2d10. Because of all this I would suggest: Why not use 2d10 with all levels of experience and leave 1d10 for the hard core WIFers who want to play it their old way?

Chinese Warlords is included with all levels of experience. I think this is weird as I believe that this rules is less used than the territorial rule that is not included in all levels of experience.

I also don’t understand why territorial isn’t included in all level of experience since territorials basically are just poor militias. There is nothing advanced about them, and I think it makes sense to have them there when the amphibious rules are not used. Although I am not sure. (At least they should be included in standard.)

VariableReorganizationCosts is included in both standard and advanced. I am sure that some uses this, but I don’t think it’s that many. Do you have an idea Patrice? Do you use it? I thought this rule was so seldom used it shouldn’t be in neither standard nor advanced. (I don’t understand what the rule adds to the game really.)

Bottomed ships: is this an advanced option to add more realism or is it an option just to make port attacks harder. I think the last interpretation is the more important one, and therefore don’t see why it should be added to any list since I perceive it only as a play-balance option and not an enhancing option. (But if you guys think the play balance is better with the option on, I’ll bow for such an argument. My group does not use it because we think play balance is better with the option off.)

Intelligence? Should be on in the most advanced list? (As its more of an enhancment than a play balance issue.)

Unlimited break down. Why is it on in any list? Although I at first liked the idea, my experience with CWIF was that the idea wasn’t playing out well in WIF. For several countries the INF is the best unit, and giving unlimited break down is basically the same as giving the countries more INF. (Is the rule changed?)

Also I think the unlimited break down and the territorial unit rule should be mutually exclusive. I am probably the first one to suggest such a thing but I’ll state my reasons:
For several countries the most important thing is to have the highest possible number of cheap land units, and the quality of the units is of less importance. Territorials costs the same as divisions (actually divisions cost less if you build an INF and then do a break down of the corps). However: with the unlimited break down rule the divisions will have the same average combat factors as the territorials, the divisions do not have a combat penalty like the territorials. That means that it will usually be tougher to fight a single division than to fight a single territorial. Also the territorial have the ability to stack three in a hex and can be transported by SCS. None of these possibilities exist for territorials. When you build a territorial you usually don’t know where it will show up (unless you have just one country with territorials) but with divisions you have better control. The only advantage the territorials get are a ZOC in neighbouring hexes, and the only in game effect I ever saw of this is that it’s usually easier to invade on top of a territorial than next to it. Conclusion is that a division is better than a territorial in every aspect, the only advantage territorials ever had was the fact that they where more abundant than MIL and divs and costs one BP less than inf. With the unlimited break down rule this is no longer any advantage. (No matter how the unlimited break down rule is spelled out.)

Ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern
I also don’t understand why territorial isn’t included in all level of experience since territorials basically are just poor militias. There is nothing advanced about them, and I think it makes sense to have them there when the amphibious rules are not used. Although I am not sure. (At least they should be included in standard.)

quote:

VariableReorganizationCosts is included in both standard and advanced. I am sure that some uses this, but I don’t think it’s that many. Do you have an idea Patrice? Do you use it? I thought this rule was so seldom used it shouldn’t be in neither standard nor advanced. (I don’t understand what the rule adds to the game really.)

quote:

Bottomed ships: is this an advanced option to add more realism or is it an option just to make port attacks harder. I think the last interpretation is the more important one, and therefore don’t see why it should be added to any list since I perceive it only as a play-balance option and not an enhancing option. (But if you guys think the play balance is better with the option on, I’ll bow for such an argument. My group does not use it because we think play balance is better with the option off.)

quote:

Unlimited break down. Why is it on in any list? Although I at first liked the idea, my experience with CWIF was that the idea wasn’t playing out well in WIF. For several countries the INF is the best unit, and giving unlimited break down is basically the same as giving the countries more INF. (Is the rule changed?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin

Hello sir's.
I was wondering about the optional rule of taskforces?
Is this going to be implemented? Becourse i really liked those rules, made it more realistic when using merchant raiders.

Andi.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Someone in a post above gave a real good reason for not using Japanese Command Conflict.

I can't see any.
It is as if you said me that someone gave a real good reason for not using Kamikaze, or the A-bomb, or Tank Busters. WWII without Japanese Command Conflict is not WWII .

PS : Look at "Letters from Iwo Jima", it is a blast.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

What does "RAW 68" means for the Siberians here ?
Seems that it means RAW Option 68. Maybe it would be better it it was written RAW Option 68 ?

quote:

Original: WiFFE-RAW-7.0.pdf

22.4.7 Siberians (AfA option 68)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


My next task for this page, now that it exists, is to highlight those optional rules that are On for the current game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

What does "RAW 68" means for the Siberians here ?
Seems that it means RAW Option 68. Maybe it would be better it it was written RAW Option 68 ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


My next task for this page, now that it exists, is to highlight those optional rules that are On for the current game.

Looks like color coding the active options is going to be your best bet since you have almost no room for some sort of 'checkmark' icon.

Maybe White for active and the current color for inactive?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

This is the type of chart I'll end up spending time visually searching for a particular option, possibly frequently.  Try to make the form colors easy enough to stare at without making your eyes bleed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

What does "RAW 68" means for the Siberians here ?
Seems that it means RAW Option 68. Maybe it would be better it it was written RAW Option 68 ?

I'll tidy this up then. As I recall, I wasn't sure about all the cross references and just put in my best guess when I was compiling the list.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

What does "RAW 68" means for the Siberians here ?
Seems that it means RAW Option 68. Maybe it would be better it it was written RAW Option 68 ?

I'll tidy this up then. As I recall, I wasn't sure about all the cross references and just put in my best guess when I was compiling the list.

A playtester can do that for you I guess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
The other day I had a thought that with MWiF will probably be the first time I go back to trying WiF Classic, since when I can get together ftf to play WiF none of us can resist trying most every bell and whistle. I am OK with WiF Classic with Ships in Flames though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I have a hard time thinking about using Pilots without the Planes in Flames counters ??? - which leads me to think that perhaps the Planes/Ships/Mech/Politics in Flames kit decisions could perhaps be handled with the optional rules?

(iirc Ships in Flames will be mandatory?)

(and Mech in Flames would have - ALL ??? - of it's pieces covered in optionals)

(but Politics in Flames has some regular units, like additional HQs and minor country corps, not covered by an optional - maybe it would be easier to ignore this separate kit/counter-sheet and pretend it is part of standard WiF?)

Might some of the aircraft optionals only come in to play if using the Planes in Flames pieces?


Those are the only caveats I can think of that go with your list of dependant optionals. I guess the dependant ones would need a header explaining they can only be selected after selecting the pre-requisite. Doesn't seem too tough to program?

The other day I had a thought that with MWiF will probably be the first time I go back to trying WiF Classic, since when I can get together ftf to play WiF none of us can resist trying most every bell and whistle. I am OK with WiF Classic with Ships in Flames though.