Some rule improvement proposals

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Some rule improvement proposals

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> Some rule improvement proposals

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Some rule improvement proposals - 8/17/2007 8:36:03 PM

MrLongleg

Posts: 707
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Plymouth, MA, USA
Status: offline

After playing the game for a while and loving it a lot I would like to propose some minor rule adjustments.

Op-Fire should not be possible, if the firer is out of supply. Moreover op-fire should cost a total of 1 supply per round. I found it a bit annoying to successfully cut supply lines and still suffer from potential op-fire.
Why do German subs op-fire on Japanese transports. This does not seem logical to me.

Let me know, what you other guys tg�hink about my proposals.

Otherwise I can say, that this is the best play by email game I know. It is great fun and has incredible strategic depth.

_____________________________

MrLongleg

Life is too short to drink bad wine ;-)

Post #: 1

RE: Some rule improvement proposals - 8/17/2007 11:12:11 PM

BoerWar

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Arlington, VA
Status: offline

Along the same lines why do Soviet naval units OP fire at WA units prior to the Cold war?

(in reply to MrLongleg)

Post #: 2

RE: Some rule improvement proposals - 8/17/2007 11:32:46 PM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

I think the op-fire against friendlies issue is a big simplification in the code, and has been justified by considering that even allies (of the sort we're talking about here, that do not trust each other ... i.e. WA/Soviet and Ger/Jap) could not coordinate well at sea. They may not even recognize the opposing forces as friendly.

I don't know which came first, the justification as design goal or the simplified code requiring justification, but I think it works well enough.

(in reply to BoerWar)

Post #: 3

RE: Some rule improvement proposals - 8/18/2007 4:59:58 AM

mek42

Posts: 78
Joined: 7/27/2007
From: Upstate (Central) NY
Status: offline

Historically US naval units fired on US air units all the time. Jonathon House provides an interesting glimpse at air integration in (or the lack thereof) in his WWII section of his book "Combined Arms Warfare in the 20th Centrury" (that may not be the exact title but it is very close if not).

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 4

RE: Some rule improvement proposals - 8/18/2007 9:10:45 PM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962

Op-Fire should not be possible, if the firer is out of supply. Moreover op-fire should cost a total of 1 supply per round. I found it a bit annoying to successfully cut supply lines and still suffer from potential op-fire.

I think that the best way to handle it is that ACCESS to supply is required for op-fire, but op-fire does NOT EXPEND supply. Otherwise players will burn opponents' supplies in gamey ways with op-fire. Just leave it that the region must actually be attacked in order to burn supply.

IMO this would be an improvement, but it doesn't seem likely to happen based on lack of enthusiasm for the concept.

(in reply to MrLongleg)

Post #: 5