Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: winky51

well I would make as many things optional as possible because WIF is very exploitive. Like letting all units breakdown into infinite divs is a problem IMO. I have already thought of creative ways to exploit that vs an opponent.

How?

I haven't added an upper limit (yet) to the number of INF divisions a major power can create. Instead of just a flat number, it could be a function of the major power and/or the number (or percentage) of corps/armies the major power has on the map.

We've thought of several ways to 'exploit' this rule, but I am interested in others - I do not want MWIF to play substantially differently from WIF FE.
===
From the MWIF Players Manual:

Effects on Game Play
One effect of this optional rule is that the division units included in the counter mix are only available to the player: (1) by building them or (2) when specified as part of a scenario’s setup. They are never used when units are broken down into divisions nor can they be used to reform corps/armies. Indeed, when a division unit from the counter mix is destroyed, it is treated differently from one created through breakdown. Those from the counter mix go back into the force pools, while those divisions created when a corps/army is broken down go into the BreakDown Pool when they are destroyed. Whenever divisions are used to reform a corps/army, the divisions are removed from the game.

However, for all other game play purposes there is no difference between the division units from the counter mix and those created when a corps/army is broken down into divisions.

The effect this rule has on play balance is uncertain and controversial. On the one hand it removes a somewhat artificial restriction on breaking down units that was imposed by the counter sheet limitations of WIF FE. On the other hand, it enables the Japanese player, for example, to generate a lot of divisions, place them on SCS units and invade numerous islands and other hexes in the Pacific simultaneously. Note that doing so makes the total strength of the Japanese army units much less, but that is only temporary, until they can be reformed back into corps/armies.

This change also enables the major powers to use divisions more readily for taking casualties during land combat. But that applies to all the major powers, both on offense and defense. Again, breaking down corps/armies will reduce the total combat strength of the forces in the front lines. And one last use for this increase in the number of divisions is the opportunity to hold individual hexes with less expensive division units. This can be of use to Germany in Norway, and Japan for holding islands in the Pacific, as just 2 examples. It also has potential for helping to defend the somewhat porous front line and exposed supply lines in China.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think there was a thread for this somewhere?

I don't think lots of mostly 1 factor divisions will make as much difference as it seems at first. The Japanese can grab more minor port bases, sure, but they won't be able to hold them very well if they dilute their total quantity of corps/army sized units too much as they never have enough of those in the first place. Either way, it is still best Japanese play to grab the outer edges of the perimeter first and deal with interior objectives second. Creating a bunch of divisions to both simultaneously might weaken their land forces a bit too much. Perhaps if you are concerned about this as the Allies, I would suggest playing with limited overseas supply and many of these advanced Japanese outposts will never be in supply and easy prey for the USMC corps, who already usually have plenty of divisions accompanying them for losses. Hint: no one says the USMC has to approach the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere from the east, since WiF makes it very easy, logistically, to operate in the Indian Ocean.

For increased loss-taking units, I think any armored power will appreciate having more motorized infantry divisions to take as loss units, but usually if you are good at managing your force pools while on the attack you don't run out that often. On the defense, a third unit in a hex is important in that it requires the attacker to get an S result to take the hex on assault. But there is one flip side...if the third unit is a flipped/disorganized 1 factor division, the defense of the hex is actually weaker. For that reason an artillery unit of some sort usually makes a far better "topper" unit to be the third piece in the hex.

I know where I will exploit with extra divisions ... as the Russians fighting the Japanese, with lots and lots of cavalry divisions running around on the big new map, with wonderful logistic bases in the Siberian wilderness to do this from. In China I don't think it will be an issue as the theater is still actually a little small. Any 'raiding' divisions are easily taken out by corps/army sized units, unless carefully backed with long-range aircraft (or if you leave all those optional new Chinese cities all over the place, then the Japanese are screwed by Chinese cavalry divisions taking them near the end of the turn). And Japan needs their long-range fighters out in the Pacific for the most part. Is Isolated Reorginasation still an optional? I've played with it for so long (since 4th Edition as a House Rule) that I don't even think of it as optional. Anyway isolated re-org makes far-flung divisional raids not as hard to deal with on the defense as you can just cut the raiding division's supply line. (And the obvious counter-move there is to build an ATR).

Move - Counter-move.....what makes WiF a great game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Problems with this:

- Above all: Invading is a different game, specially in the mediterranean.

How many times I have wished having a couple more of divisions to invade from cruisers, at the early years of the game, when there are no marines in the british/Commonwealth pool... Two or three divisions, additiona to the one/two existing ones, can make the war at the Mediterranean completely different, Gibraltar would be more at danger Italy could not be almost totally empty, the units at the desert could be faced from both sides after successful invasions (i.e. El Agheila area)...

- Loss taking unit as stated above, for attacker and defender.

- Possibility to reinforce stacks with a third unit, as stated above.

- In the Pacific, once invaded the most interesting hexes, they can be reinforced with militias or garrisons and make them much more resistant, there is expansion but no need to dillute the power. Besides, once occupied most of these hexes with garr + mil, you can rebuild the original units to defend the rst of the hexes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

(78) Unlimited Breakdown (MWIF addition)

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think there was a thread for this somewhere?

I don't think lots of mostly 1 factor divisions will make as much difference as it seems at first. The Japanese can grab more minor port bases, sure, but they won't be able to hold them very well if they dilute their total quantity of corps/army sized units too much as they never have enough of those in the first place. Either way, it is still best Japanese play to grab the outer edges of the perimeter first and deal with interior objectives second. Creating a bunch of divisions to both simultaneously might weaken their land forces a bit too much. Perhaps if you are concerned about this as the Allies, I would suggest playing with limited overseas supply and many of these advanced Japanese outposts will never be in supply and easy prey for the USMC corps, who already usually have plenty of divisions accompanying them for losses. Hint: no one says the USMC has to approach the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere from the east, since WiF makes it very easy, logistically, to operate in the Indian Ocean.

For increased loss-taking units, I think any armored power will appreciate having more motorized infantry divisions to take as loss units, but usually if you are good at managing your force pools while on the attack you don't run out that often. On the defense, a third unit in a hex is important in that it requires the attacker to get an S result to take the hex on assault. But there is one flip side...if the third unit is a flipped/disorganized 1 factor division, the defense of the hex is actually weaker. For that reason an artillery unit of some sort usually makes a far better "topper" unit to be the third piece in the hex.

I know where I will exploit with extra divisions ... as the Russians fighting the Japanese, with lots and lots of cavalry divisions running around on the big new map, with wonderful logistic bases in the Siberian wilderness to do this from. In China I don't think it will be an issue as the theater is still actually a little small. Any 'raiding' divisions are easily taken out by corps/army sized units, unless carefully backed with long-range aircraft (or if you leave all those optional new Chinese cities all over the place, then the Japanese are screwed by Chinese cavalry divisions taking them near the end of the turn). And Japan needs their long-range fighters out in the Pacific for the most part. Is Isolated Reorginasation still an optional? I've played with it for so long (since 4th Edition as a House Rule) that I don't even think of it as optional. Anyway isolated re-org makes far-flung divisional raids not as hard to deal with on the defense as you can just cut the raiding division's supply line. (And the obvious counter-move there is to build an ATR).

Move - Counter-move.....what makes WiF a great game.

It will make a huge difference when the Japanese use two SCS to drop off two divisions, then recombine them to gain a corp without the use of a TRS. It works so well over-the-board that it surely will be even more effective with unlimited DIV breakdown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think there was a thread for this somewhere?

I don't think lots of mostly 1 factor divisions will make as much difference as it seems at first. The Japanese can grab more minor port bases, sure, but they won't be able to hold them very well if they dilute their total quantity of corps/army sized units too much as they never have enough of those in the first place. Either way, it is still best Japanese play to grab the outer edges of the perimeter first and deal with interior objectives second. Creating a bunch of divisions to both simultaneously might weaken their land forces a bit too much. Perhaps if you are concerned about this as the Allies, I would suggest playing with limited overseas supply and many of these advanced Japanese outposts will never be in supply and easy prey for the USMC corps, who already usually have plenty of divisions accompanying them for losses. Hint: no one says the USMC has to approach the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere from the east, since WiF makes it very easy, logistically, to operate in the Indian Ocean.

For increased loss-taking units, I think any armored power will appreciate having more motorized infantry divisions to take as loss units, but usually if you are good at managing your force pools while on the attack you don't run out that often. On the defense, a third unit in a hex is important in that it requires the attacker to get an S result to take the hex on assault. But there is one flip side...if the third unit is a flipped/disorganized 1 factor division, the defense of the hex is actually weaker. For that reason an artillery unit of some sort usually makes a far better "topper" unit to be the third piece in the hex.

I know where I will exploit with extra divisions ... as the Russians fighting the Japanese, with lots and lots of cavalry divisions running around on the big new map, with wonderful logistic bases in the Siberian wilderness to do this from. In China I don't think it will be an issue as the theater is still actually a little small. Any 'raiding' divisions are easily taken out by corps/army sized units, unless carefully backed with long-range aircraft (or if you leave all those optional new Chinese cities all over the place, then the Japanese are screwed by Chinese cavalry divisions taking them near the end of the turn). And Japan needs their long-range fighters out in the Pacific for the most part. Is Isolated Reorginasation still an optional? I've played with it for so long (since 4th Edition as a House Rule) that I don't even think of it as optional. Anyway isolated re-org makes far-flung divisional raids not as hard to deal with on the defense as you can just cut the raiding division's supply line. (And the obvious counter-move there is to build an ATR).

Move - Counter-move.....what makes WiF a great game.

It will make a huge difference when the Japanese use two SCS to drop off two divisions, then recombine them to gain a corp without the use of a TRS. It works so well over-the-board that it surely will be even more effective with unlimited DIV breakdown.

Good point. TRS and AMPH will be reserved for use only by units that can not break down and be transported by SCS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Good point. TRS and AMPH will be reserved for use only by units that can not break down and be transported by SCS.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. Nor does it address the real issue with unlimited breakdown. By itself, it may be OK, but combined with SCS transport of INF class Divs, probably will have the biggest impact in terms of changing the WiF paradigm.

1) I am with Paul. I'm not sure this is a good idea.
Unlimited division breakdown are really not that much unlimited, they are limited indeed. That exploit from coregame sounds good on the paper, but it will sound less good on the map. a) Not all DIV are capable of being SCS transported. b) Instead of having to escape 1 interception attempt, it will have to intercept 2. c) the destination place will have to only have 1 unit prior to that operation.

2) Those who fear exploits just have not to use the option.

3) Why not a new thread to talk about this ?

Is he perhaps saying that AMPH's and TRS's will only be used by units that cannot breakdown to be sailing on SCS's as a result of being able to use SCS's?

So not as a rule but as a players usage consequence.

I do not think that either Japan or the USA has enough units to break down without severely limiting their offensive or defensive capabilities in general.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

If it bothers you that much (and I could see why) turn off the option allowing SCSs to transport Divs. I'm not sure how historical that really is, and if it was I don't think it was done all that much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: BallyJ

To recombine divisions you need an infantry and a motorise infantry.
I thought that SCS could not transport motorised divisions??

In WiF yes. With Unlimited Breakdown in MWiF you need two Divs of the same type and combat factor as were received from the breakdown. Since you have the choice with INF corps to receive two INF Divs, you can get twice as many as you have INF corps plus one for every other corps you are willing to break down.

True SCS can only transport INF class Divs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

very good point BallyJ

I'm guessing Steve meant players would tend to reserve TRS/AMPH for moving corps/army size units as they play, not that MWiF would change the rule that TRS can transport one or two divisions.

I don't think SCS transport always represents loading infantry onto naval combat ships, though the Germans did this at Narvik and I think the Japanese also used destroyers for this purpose on rare occasion. I just wif-zen the idea as moving a smaller infantry unit with a few small transports, rather than moving multiple divisions in a large convoy represented by a TRS counter — like the Tokyo Express moving a regiment per night down The Slot to Guadalcanal using some barges and some light patrol craft close escorts, with a Heavy Cruiser providing additional cover a little ways off. It just gives the player a little more flexibility commanding his forces at a finer scale than the counters represent. I've used the rule with no regrets ever since it came out.

I think some of the theoretical conversation here is overestimating the combat power of divisions. As the Japanese, I'd rather have three INF and a good MIL in an attack than 2 INF, 2 divisions and a MIL. In other words, keeping your MIL pool built out gives you more combat power as you use those for attritional loss-taking at only .5 BP more expense than using an infantry division created by break-down (perhaps the MIL are cheaper over time as higher attacking factors create less attacker losses?). So don't play like Hitler, always building shiny new units at the expense of the traditional replacement system, which I like to think the MIL counters represent in part. (Manstein's great complaint if you have ever read his book).

Also, by themselves divisions have a hard time landing successfully in a major power home country, for one. And it is not super easy to recombine them into the best corps sized units. You can't fool with divisions with GARR or MIL units, and those make the best island garrisons anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I don't get the point of requiring matching combat factors and unit types from the break-down to re-create corps however. Why over-complicate the procedure for the player? Though come to think of it, I don't think I have ever re-built a corps sized unit anyway.

Perhaps a really good use for additional divisions will instead be the ability to create an armored division when you need one. Pure armor divisions really help on both attack and defense when you want to pick the combat table, but they are hard to work into your build plans due to gearing limits.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Shannon V. OKeets
If history is any teacher, [and we all believe that don't we?], this post will generate some comments.

A couple more optional rules for you to critique.
=============================================================
[0][Divisions][RAW 2 s. 22.4.1]
This optional rule adds divisions to the game. Originally, WIF only contained corps/army sized units. In order to add more realism, Australian Design Group introduced division sized units, which have a major effect on stacking. Also, most specialty units are modeled at the division level in WIF. Just for simplicity’s sake, brigade sized units are included under the name division. Note that this optional rule does not add all division sized units to the game. For example, artillery and engineers are added under separate optional rules.

The primary effect of divisions is that they give a player the ability to have smaller, weaker units do things that otherwise would require a full corps/army sized unit. The change in the stacking rules enables players to use division sized units to add strength to individual hexes both when defending and attacking. And, as one final major effect divisions have on game play, a division can absorb a land combat loss that otherwise would have to be taken by a corps sized unit.

Divisions can be thought of as half a corps sized unit. This is an oversimplification, but not too much so. That’s because a corps sized unit can be broken down into 2 division sized units and 2 division sized units can be reformed into a corps sized unit. But there are a lot of details to performing either of those actions.

In general, divisions have the same abilities and restrictions as the corresponding unit type of corps/army size. For instance, armor divisions are like armor corps, motorized divisions are like motorized corps, and so on. Each division type goes into a new force pool. For gearing limits: (1) armor and mechanized divisions counting against armor gearing limits, (2) cavalry divisions count against cavalry gearing limits, and (3) all other infantry divisions count against infantry gearing limits.

Here is a list of restrictions and abilities pertaining to divisions:

∙ Stacking limits are 3 land units per hex but only 2 can be corps or army sized. This means that a hex can contain a maximum of 2 corps sized units plus a division.
∙ A division exerts a ZOC only into its own hex.
∙ A passive division is only worth 1 combat factor if attacked while out of supply.
∙ When choosing combat tables, divisions count as ½ a unit (rounding up). Specifically, armor and mechanized divisions count as only half an armor or mechanized unit for deciding who has the choice of combat table.
∙ In advance after combat, a motorized and cavalry corps/army cannot advance a second hex if only stacked with a mechanized or armor division. It could if it were stacked with a comparable corps/army sized unit.
∙ Although they are armor units, the Commonwealth 79th and US Marine Armor divisions can also invade from a naval transport (even when the optional rule for Amphibious Units is being used).
∙ The Commonwealth 51st air landing and German 5th mountain divisions are mountain units that can paradrop, but only into the same hex as a cooperating paratroop unit. If the accompanying paratroop is destroyed or aborted by Air-to-Air Combat or Anti-Aircraft Fire, while the air landing division survives, the air landing division must return to base.
∙ Divisions may be built ahead even though their equivalent corps type is still available in the force pools. The opposite is also true, with a corps sized unit being permitted to be built ahead even though equivalent division sized units are still in the force pool.
∙ At the start of the production step you can break down a corps or army sized unit into divisions provided that it is: (1) on-map, (2) active, and (3) not in an enemy ZOC.
∙ Divisions have the abilities and restrictions of their equivalent corps or armies in all other respects, with the exception of Invasions and Paradrops.

Breaking Down into Divisions

You may build divisions like any other land unit of its type. Or, at the start of the production step you can break down into divisions an on-map, active, corps or army unit that isn't in an enemy ZOC. Each corps or army breaks down into 1 division of the same type and 1 infantry or motorized division (the owning player’s choice). An SS corps breaks down into 1 SS division of the same type and 1 SS or regular German infantry or motorized division.

The combined strength of the 2 divisions is much weaker than the strength of the original corps/army. Precisely, the total combat factors of the divisions won't exceed half (rounding up) the combat factors of the corps or army. If there aren't enough divisions in the force pools to break down a corps or army, then you can not break down the corps or army. [This is different from WIF FE which lets the player magically pluck a division from anywhere on the map when there are not enough units in the force pool. However, a separate MWIF optional rule permits the unlimited break down of corps/army units into divisions. See that rule for the details of its implementation.]

Reforming a corps/army from Divisions

Divisions can reform into a corps or army. If 2 active divisions are stacked together, not in enemy ZOCs, at the end of the production step, and 1 of them is a motorized division, you can reform them into a corps or army of the same type as the non-motorized division. If there are no corps or armies of that type available, you can reform them as an infantry corps or army instead. The corps or army is randomly chosen from the force pools. Note that the combat factors of the corps/army will be less than twice those of the 2 divisions combined. The divisions are returned to the force pools.

For example, the Germans have a 2 factor motorized division and a 4 factor SS armor division stacked together at the start of the production step. They can be replaced by an SS armor or infantry corps that has 11 or less combat factors.

=============================================================
[78][Unlimited Breakdown][MWIF addition]
This optional rule modifies the restriction on breaking down corps/army sized units into divisions. The modification only affects the number of divisions available when breaking down a corps/army. All the other restrictions on breaking down units remain unchanged.

Also, this rule only applies to the major powers. Minor countries, even those that have a divisional unit as part of their force pools, are still unable to break down corps/army units into divisions (as is the case in WIF FE).

When this optional rule is in effect, rather than use the divisional units in the counter mix for breaking down divisions, when a player breaks down a crops/army unit, 2 new divisional units are created. As when normally breaking down units, one of the divisions is of the same type as the original unit and the second is either an infantry or motorized division (the owning player chooses). The combined strength of the divisions is always ½ or less the combat strength of the corps/army.

When a corps or army unit is broken down, it is not returned to the force pool (as it would be under the usual rules for breaking down units). Instead, it is placed in a separate pool, called the “Reform Pool”. Units in the reform pool remain there until either: (1) they are selected as the corps/army to replace 2 divisional units that are reformed into a corps/army, or (2) 2 divisional units that were created when a crops was placed in the Reform Pool are destroyed. You can basically think of the later situation as the two destroyed divisional units reforming as a corps sized unit that is then destroyed and returned to the force pool. Units in the Reform Pool can never be built while they reside there!

One effect of this optional rule is that the divisional units included in the counter mix are only available to the player by building them. They are never used when units are broken down into divisions. Indeed, when a divisional unit from the counter mix is destroyed, it is handled separately from one created through breakdown. Those from the counter mix go back into the force pools, while those divisions created when a corps/army is broken down simply disappear when they are destroyed.

However, for all other game play purposes there is no difference between the divisional units from the counter mix and those created when a corps/army is broken down into divisions.

The effect this rule has on play balance is uncertain and controversial. On the one hand it removes a somewhat artificial restriction on breaking down units that was imposed by the counter sheet limitations of WIF FE. On the other hand, it enables the Japanese player, for example, to generate a lot of divisions, place them on SCS units and invade numerous islands and other hexes in the Pacific simultaneously. Note that doing so, makes the total strength of the Japanese army units much less, but that is only temporary, until they can be reformed back into corps/armies.

This change also enables the major powers to use divisions more readily for taking casualties during land combat. But that applies to all the major powers, both on offense and defense. Again, breaking down corps/armies will reduce the total combat strength of the forces in the front lines. And one last use for this increase in the number of divisions is the opportunity to hold individual hexes with less expensive divisional units. This can be of use to Germany in Norway, and Japan for holding islands in the Pacific, for just 2 examples. It also has potential for helping to defending the somewhat porous frontlines and exposed supply lines in China.
========================
Everyone agrees on this, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Shannon V. OKeets
If history is any teacher, [and we all believe that don't we?], this post will generate some comments.

A couple more optional rules for you to critique.
=============================================================
[0][Divisions][RAW 2 s. 22.4.1]
This optional rule adds divisions to the game. Originally, WIF only contained corps/army sized units. In order to add more realism, Australian Design Group introduced division sized units, which have a major effect on stacking. Also, most specialty units are modeled at the division level in WIF. Just for simplicity’s sake, brigade sized units are included under the name division. Note that this optional rule does not add all division sized units to the game. For example, artillery and engineers are added under separate optional rules.

The primary effect of divisions is that they give a player the ability to have smaller, weaker units do things that otherwise would require a full corps/army sized unit. The change in the stacking rules enables players to use division sized units to add strength to individual hexes both when defending and attacking. And, as one final major effect divisions have on game play, a division can absorb a land combat loss that otherwise would have to be taken by a corps sized unit.

Divisions can be thought of as half a corps sized unit. This is an oversimplification, but not too much so. That’s because a corps sized unit can be broken down into 2 division sized units and 2 division sized units can be reformed into a corps sized unit. But there are a lot of details to performing either of those actions.

In general, divisions have the same abilities and restrictions as the corresponding unit type of corps/army size. For instance, armor divisions are like armor corps, motorized divisions are like motorized corps, and so on. Each division type goes into a new force pool. For gearing limits: (1) armor and mechanized divisions counting against armor gearing limits, (2) cavalry divisions count against cavalry gearing limits, and (3) all other infantry divisions count against infantry gearing limits.

Here is a list of restrictions and abilities pertaining to divisions:

∙ Stacking limits are 3 land units per hex but only 2 can be corps or army sized. This means that a hex can contain a maximum of 2 corps sized units plus a division.
∙ A division exerts a ZOC only into its own hex.
∙ A passive division is only worth 1 combat factor if attacked while out of supply.
∙ When choosing combat tables, divisions count as ½ a unit (rounding up). Specifically, armor and mechanized divisions count as only half an armor or mechanized unit for deciding who has the choice of combat table.
∙ In advance after combat, a motorized and cavalry corps/army cannot advance a second hex if only stacked with a mechanized or armor division. It could if it were stacked with a comparable corps/army sized unit.
∙ Although they are armor units, the Commonwealth 79th and US Marine Armor divisions can also invade from a naval transport (even when the optional rule for Amphibious Units is being used).
∙ The Commonwealth 51st air landing and German 5th mountain divisions are mountain units that can paradrop, but only into the same hex as a cooperating paratroop unit. If the accompanying paratroop is destroyed or aborted by Air-to-Air Combat or Anti-Aircraft Fire, while the air landing division survives, the air landing division must return to base.
∙ Divisions may be built ahead even though their equivalent corps type is still available in the force pools. The opposite is also true, with a corps sized unit being permitted to be built ahead even though equivalent division sized units are still in the force pool.
∙ At the start of the production step you can break down a corps or army sized unit into divisions provided that it is: (1) on-map, (2) active, and (3) not in an enemy ZOC.
∙ Divisions have the abilities and restrictions of their equivalent corps or armies in all other respects, with the exception of Invasions and Paradrops.

Breaking Down into Divisions

You may build divisions like any other land unit of its type. Or, at the start of the production step you can break down into divisions an on-map, active, corps or army unit that isn't in an enemy ZOC. Each corps or army breaks down into 1 division of the same type and 1 infantry or motorized division (the owning player’s choice). An SS corps breaks down into 1 SS division of the same type and 1 SS or regular German infantry or motorized division.

The combined strength of the 2 divisions is much weaker than the strength of the original corps/army. Precisely, the total combat factors of the divisions won't exceed half (rounding up) the combat factors of the corps or army. If there aren't enough divisions in the force pools to break down a corps or army, then you can not break down the corps or army. [This is different from WIF FE which lets the player magically pluck a division from anywhere on the map when there are not enough units in the force pool. However, a separate MWIF optional rule permits the unlimited break down of corps/army units into divisions. See that rule for the details of its implementation.]

Reforming a corps/army from Divisions

Divisions can reform into a corps or army. If 2 active divisions are stacked together, not in enemy ZOCs, at the end of the production step, and 1 of them is a motorized division, you can reform them into a corps or army of the same type as the non-motorized division. If there are no corps or armies of that type available, you can reform them as an infantry corps or army instead. The corps or army is randomly chosen from the force pools. Note that the combat factors of the corps/army will be less than twice those of the 2 divisions combined. The divisions are returned to the force pools.

For example, the Germans have a 2 factor motorized division and a 4 factor SS armor division stacked together at the start of the production step. They can be replaced by an SS armor or infantry corps that has 11 or less combat factors.

=============================================================
[78][Unlimited Breakdown][MWIF addition]
This optional rule modifies the restriction on breaking down corps/army sized units into divisions. The modification only affects the number of divisions available when breaking down a corps/army. All the other restrictions on breaking down units remain unchanged.

Also, this rule only applies to the major powers. Minor countries, even those that have a divisional unit as part of their force pools, are still unable to break down corps/army units into divisions (as is the case in WIF FE).

When this optional rule is in effect, rather than use the divisional units in the counter mix for breaking down divisions, when a player breaks down a crops/army unit, 2 new divisional units are created. As when normally breaking down units, one of the divisions is of the same type as the original unit and the second is either an infantry or motorized division (the owning player chooses). The combined strength of the divisions is always ½ or less the combat strength of the corps/army.

When a corps or army unit is broken down, it is not returned to the force pool (as it would be under the usual rules for breaking down units). Instead, it is placed in a separate pool, called the “Reform Pool”. Units in the reform pool remain there until either: (1) they are selected as the corps/army to replace 2 divisional units that are reformed into a corps/army, or (2) 2 divisional units that were created when a crops was placed in the Reform Pool are destroyed. You can basically think of the later situation as the two destroyed divisional units reforming as a corps sized unit that is then destroyed and returned to the force pool. Units in the Reform Pool can never be built while they reside there!

One effect of this optional rule is that the divisional units included in the counter mix are only available to the player by building them. They are never used when units are broken down into divisions. Indeed, when a divisional unit from the counter mix is destroyed, it is handled separately from one created through breakdown. Those from the counter mix go back into the force pools, while those divisions created when a corps/army is broken down simply disappear when they are destroyed.

However, for all other game play purposes there is no difference between the divisional units from the counter mix and those created when a corps/army is broken down into divisions.

The effect this rule has on play balance is uncertain and controversial. On the one hand it removes a somewhat artificial restriction on breaking down units that was imposed by the counter sheet limitations of WIF FE. On the other hand, it enables the Japanese player, for example, to generate a lot of divisions, place them on SCS units and invade numerous islands and other hexes in the Pacific simultaneously. Note that doing so, makes the total strength of the Japanese army units much less, but that is only temporary, until they can be reformed back into corps/armies.

This change also enables the major powers to use divisions more readily for taking casualties during land combat. But that applies to all the major powers, both on offense and defense. Again, breaking down corps/armies will reduce the total combat strength of the forces in the front lines. And one last use for this increase in the number of divisions is the opportunity to hold individual hexes with less expensive divisional units. This can be of use to Germany in Norway, and Japan for holding islands in the Pacific, for just 2 examples. It also has potential for helping to defending the somewhat porous frontlines and exposed supply lines in China.
========================
Everyone agrees on this, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
===
9.3.8 Unlimited Breakdown This optional rule modifies the restrictions on: (1) breaking down corps/army sized units into divisions, and (2) reforming corps/armies from divisions. When this optional rule is in effect, rather than use the division units in the counter mix for breaking down divisions, 2 new division units are created (out of thin air) when a player breaks down a corps/army unit.

This rule only applies to the major powers. Minor countries, even those that have a division unit as part of their force pools, are still unable to break down corps/army units into divisions or reform divisions into corps/armies (as is the case in WIF FE). During the Breakdown phase you can break down into divisions an on-map, organized corps or army unit that isn't in an enemy ZOC. Only the following unit types can break down into divisions:
• Infantry,
• Cavalry,
• Paratroop,
• Marine,
• Mountain,
• Armor,
• Mechanized, and
• Motorized.

Division Unit Types
When a corps/army is broken down using the optional rule Unlimited Breakdown, two (brand new) division sized units replace the corps/army unit (the parent unit). The 1st division is of the same type as the parent and the 2nd is either an infantry or motorized division (the owning player chooses).

Combat Factors
The sum of the combat factors of the two divisions is half the combat factors of the parent, rounding up. For example, a 4 strength parent unit breaks down into two divisions with combat factors of 1 each. A parent 5 breaks down into a 1 and a 2; a parent 6 breaks down into a 1 and a 2; and a parent 7 breaks down into a 2 and a 2. When one division has more combat factors, then it is the 1st division that gets the extra combat factor.

Movement Factors
The 1st division has the same movement factors as the parent.

The 2nd division’s movement factors are the same as its parent’s, with the following modifications:
• When the 2nd division is infantry:
• if the parent is INF, PARA, MAR, or MTN, same as parent.
• if the parent is MOT or CAV, same as parent, minus one.
• if the parent is MECH or ARM, same parent, minus two, but never less than 3.
• When the 2nd division is motorized:
• If the parent is INF, PARA, MAR, or MTN, same as parent, plus one.
• If the parent is MOT or CAV, same as parent.
• If the parent is MECH or ARM, same as parent, minus one, but never less than 4.

When a corps or army unit is broken down, it is not returned to the force pool (as it would be under the standard rules for breaking down units). Instead, it is placed in a separate pool, called the "BreakDown Pool". MWIF maintains a record of which divisions were created when a corps/army was broken down and will not reform the corps/army unless two identical divisions are used. They do not have to be the same divisions, just identical in type and combat factors (i.e., a 1-4 infantry is a 1-4 infantry is a 1-4 infantry).

When destroyed, divisions created by breaking down corps/armies are placed in the BreakDown Pool. Divisions that are part of the standard counter mix, and therefore either part of setup or built by the player using the normal production rules, are returned to the force pool when destroyed.

Reforming a Corps/Army from Divisions
Players can only reform corps/armies that are in the BreakDown Pool. This is a major change from the standard rules where you can reform on-map divisions into corps/armies that are drawn from the Force Pool. Units in the BreakDown Pool remain there until either: (a) they are selected as the corps/army to replace 2 division units that are reformed into a corps/army, or (b) 2 division units that were created when a corps was placed in the BreakDown Pool are destroyed. You can basically think of the later situation as the two destroyed division units reforming as a corps sized unit that is then returned to the force pool. Units in the BreakDown Pool can never be built during the Production phase while they reside there! To avoid misuse of this rule by players, if two divisions in the BreakDown Pool can be reformed into one of the corps/armies in the BreakDown Pool, they the player must do so. However, he has the choice of which corps/army is reformed. This mandatory reformation occurs during the BreakDown phase.

Because MWIF has a record of which divisions were created when a crops/army was broken down, it permits a player to reform the exact same corps/army from those divisions (or identical divisions). This is a pleasant change from the standard rules because it lets players who reform corps/armies get the exact same unit back that they had originally broken down. Under the standard rules, the process of breaking a corps/army down and later reforming it can generate a weaker corps/army than the player had at the start.

So, here is the revised rule on reforming divisions into a corps/army:

• If, during the reform phase, 2 organized divisions are stacked together on map, not in enemy ZOCs, and their factors match the factors of the original divisions that were created from a corps/army in the BreakDown Pool, the player can reform them into that corps/army.

• If more than one corps/army in the BreakDown Pool satisfies this criteria, the player gets to choose which one is reformed.

• Divisions in the BreakDown Pool can also be reformed, with the same restrictions as for on-map divisions. Indeed, they must be reformed during the BreakDown phase.

Effects on Game Play
One effect of this optional rule is that the division units included in the counter mix are only available to the player: (1) by building them or (2) when specified as part of a scenario’s setup. They are never used when units are broken down into divisions nor can they be used to reform corps/armies. Indeed, when a division unit from the counter mix is destroyed, it is treated differently from one created through breakdown. Those from the counter mix go back into the force pools, while those divisions created when a corps/army is broken down go into the BreakDown Pool when they are destroyed. Whenever divisions are used to reform a corps/army, the divisions are removed from the game.

However, for all other game play purposes there is no difference between the division units from the counter mix and those created when a corps/army is broken down into divisions.

The effect this rule has on play balance is uncertain and controversial. On the one hand it removes a somewhat artificial restriction on breaking down units that was imposed by the counter sheet limitations of WIF FE. On the other hand, it enables the Japanese player, for example, to generate a lot of divisions, place them on SCS units and invade numerous islands and other hexes in the Pacific simultaneously. Note that doing so makes the total strength of the Japanese army units much less, but that is only temporary, until they can be reformed back into corps/armies.

This change also enables the major powers to use divisions more readily for taking casualties during land combat. But that applies to all the major powers, both on offense and defense. Again, breaking down corps/armies will reduce the total combat strength of the forces in the front lines. And one last use for this increase in the number of divisions is the opportunity to hold individual hexes with less expensive division units. This can be of use to Germany in Norway, and Japan for holding islands in the Pacific, as just 2 examples. It also has potential for helping to defend the somewhat porous front line and exposed supply lines in China.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

EDIT: This thread is created at Steve's request to take the Unlimited Breakdown discussion off the "When" thread.

Posts have been copied here, if quoted with a reply, then they only show up in the quote, not separately.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
===
9.3.8 Unlimited Breakdown This optional rule modifies the restrictions on: (1) breaking down corps/army sized units into divisions, and (2) reforming corps/armies from divisions. When this optional rule is in effect, rather than use the division units in the counter mix for breaking down divisions, 2 new division units are created (out of thin air) when a player breaks down a corps/army unit.

This rule only applies to the major powers. Minor countries, even those that have a division unit as part of their force pools, are still unable to break down corps/army units into divisions or reform divisions into corps/armies (as is the case in WIF FE). During the Breakdown phase you can break down into divisions an on-map, organized corps or army unit that isn't in an enemy ZOC. Only the following unit types can break down into divisions:
• Infantry,
• Cavalry,
• Paratroop,
• Marine,
• Mountain,
• Armor,
• Mechanized, and
• Motorized.

Division Unit Types
When a corps/army is broken down using the optional rule Unlimited Breakdown, two (brand new) division sized units replace the corps/army unit (the parent unit). The 1st division is of the same type as the parent and the 2nd is either an infantry or motorized division (the owning player chooses).

Combat Factors
The sum of the combat factors of the two divisions is half the combat factors of the parent, rounding up. For example, a 4 strength parent unit breaks down into two divisions with combat factors of 1 each. A parent 5 breaks down into a 1 and a 2; a parent 6 breaks down into a 1 and a 2; and a parent 7 breaks down into a 2 and a 2. When one division has more combat factors, then it is the 1st division that gets the extra combat factor.

Movement Factors
The 1st division has the same movement factors as the parent.

The 2nd division’s movement factors are the same as its parent’s, with the following modifications:
• When the 2nd division is infantry:
• if the parent is INF, PARA, MAR, or MTN, same as parent.
• if the parent is MOT or CAV, same as parent, minus one.
• if the parent is MECH or ARM, same parent, minus two, but never less than 3.
• When the 2nd division is motorized:
• If the parent is INF, PARA, MAR, or MTN, same as parent, plus one.
• If the parent is MOT or CAV, same as parent.
• If the parent is MECH or ARM, same as parent, minus one, but never less than 4.

When a corps or army unit is broken down, it is not returned to the force pool (as it would be under the standard rules for breaking down units). Instead, it is placed in a separate pool, called the "BreakDown Pool". MWIF maintains a record of which divisions were created when a corps/army was broken down and will not reform the corps/army unless two identical divisions are used. They do not have to be the same divisions, just identical in type and combat factors (i.e., a 1-4 infantry is a 1-4 infantry is a 1-4 infantry).

When destroyed, divisions created by breaking down corps/armies are placed in the BreakDown Pool. Divisions that are part of the standard counter mix, and therefore either part of setup or built by the player using the normal production rules, are returned to the force pool when destroyed.

Reforming a Corps/Army from Divisions
Players can only reform corps/armies that are in the BreakDown Pool. This is a major change from the standard rules where you can reform on-map divisions into corps/armies that are drawn from the Force Pool. Units in the BreakDown Pool remain there until either: (a) they are selected as the corps/army to replace 2 division units that are reformed into a corps/army, or (b) 2 division units that were created when a corps was placed in the BreakDown Pool are destroyed. You can basically think of the later situation as the two destroyed division units reforming as a corps sized unit that is then returned to the force pool. Units in the BreakDown Pool can never be built during the Production phase while they reside there! To avoid misuse of this rule by players, if two divisions in the BreakDown Pool can be reformed into one of the corps/armies in the BreakDown Pool, they the player must do so. However, he has the choice of which corps/army is reformed. This mandatory reformation occurs during the BreakDown phase.

Because MWIF has a record of which divisions were created when a crops/army was broken down, it permits a player to reform the exact same corps/army from those divisions (or identical divisions). This is a pleasant change from the standard rules because it lets players who reform corps/armies get the exact same unit back that they had originally broken down. Under the standard rules, the process of breaking a corps/army down and later reforming it can generate a weaker corps/army than the player had at the start.

So, here is the revised rule on reforming divisions into a corps/army:

• If, during the reform phase, 2 organized divisions are stacked together on map, not in enemy ZOCs, and their factors match the factors of the original divisions that were created from a corps/army in the BreakDown Pool, the player can reform them into that corps/army.

• If more than one corps/army in the BreakDown Pool satisfies this criteria, the player gets to choose which one is reformed.

• Divisions in the BreakDown Pool can also be reformed, with the same restrictions as for on-map divisions. Indeed, they must be reformed during the BreakDown phase.

Effects on Game Play
One effect of this optional rule is that the division units included in the counter mix are only available to the player: (1) by building them or (2) when specified as part of a scenario’s setup. They are never used when units are broken down into divisions nor can they be used to reform corps/armies. Indeed, when a division unit from the counter mix is destroyed, it is treated differently from one created through breakdown. Those from the counter mix go back into the force pools, while those divisions created when a corps/army is broken down go into the BreakDown Pool when they are destroyed. Whenever divisions are used to reform a corps/army, the divisions are removed from the game.

However, for all other game play purposes there is no difference between the division units from the counter mix and those created when a corps/army is broken down into divisions.

The effect this rule has on play balance is uncertain and controversial. On the one hand it removes a somewhat artificial restriction on breaking down units that was imposed by the counter sheet limitations of WIF FE. On the other hand, it enables the Japanese player, for example, to generate a lot of divisions, place them on SCS units and invade numerous islands and other hexes in the Pacific simultaneously. Note that doing so makes the total strength of the Japanese army units much less, but that is only temporary, until they can be reformed back into corps/armies.

This change also enables the major powers to use divisions more readily for taking casualties during land combat. But that applies to all the major powers, both on offense and defense. Again, breaking down corps/armies will reduce the total combat strength of the forces in the front lines. And one last use for this increase in the number of divisions is the opportunity to hold individual hexes with less expensive division units. This can be of use to Germany in Norway, and Japan for holding islands in the Pacific, as just 2 examples. It also has potential for helping to defend the somewhat porous front line and exposed supply lines in China.

Is this the way it will be found in the RAC (Rules As Coded)?

Or is this waiting to be edited by your technical report writer that was selected to define the rules for MWiF?

I ask because I'm curious about the "(out of thin air)" remark.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL:  BallyJ

To recombine divisions you need an infantry and a motorise infantry.
I thought that SCS could not transport motorised divisions??

In WiF yes. With Unlimited Breakdown in MWiF you need two Divs of the same type and combat factor as were received from the breakdown. Since you have the choice with INF corps to receive two INF Divs, you can get twice as many as you have INF corps plus one for every other corps you are willing to break down.

True SCS can only transport INF class Divs.

...and yes, this should be in a different thread...