Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

Why i dont like playing with Fractional odds.

Lets pretend we are playing MWiF in a perfect world. The time it takes to move counters is time we enjoy. We share the bliss of counting movement points. The exhilaration of shifting combat factors around 1 hex.
I'm sitting here in rap anticipation of your last and final land move. You have squeezed out every last combat factor to get your 3-1 on the hex NE to Paris. Its 46 to 15. Now its Ground support. All i have is 1 french twin engine bomber. Its got alot going against it flying as a bomber. But if it makes it in its a 2-1. If not it is 3-1.

You the German player know the score. You have to stop that damn french bomber. You knew it as you were setting up the attack. Everyone knows it. But you have the fighters waiting to pounce.

They shoot that little bastard bomber down.

Time for the main event. 3-1 with 1 extra factor over. OMG the fractional odds works and now its a 4-1. Roll for the 4-1. end of story.

So the Defender has a fighting chance to stop a 3-1 and fails in a test of wills through the RNG. Both sides put up a unit. Both sides roll a die. One side wins.

Fractional odds has none of the fairness of shared risk. One player, the Attacker gets what he pays for, or gets an advantage. The defender waits to be the attacker to visit upon his opponent the same measure of inequality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
You make a good point although your example over the board is incorrect because over the board you need 47 to 15. (Fractionals are by tenths - round down). When you compare the two extremes for 1D10, they only balance when the odds of an attack are 1 to 1. Above that every extra defensive factor is "worth" one multiplied by the odds.

Another thing - Fractional odds are actually less of an impact in 2D10 because you are rolling to increase the die roll by one pip whereas every odds shift in a combat equals 2 pips. For your example in 2D10 you'd have a one tenth chance to go up half an odds column.

“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I would also say that if you like realism, and don't think the Russian front should be a game of Berlin > Urals > Back to Berlin, HQ Movement helps tone down the speed of advances at least a little. It is hard to remember when you start playing it, sure…..the computer will help in that regard. In the real war, the Japanese in China could barely operate as their logistics were so stretched by what they did do, which was to just sit on the historical start line WiF players start at in a game of Global War.

“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxelNL

Partisans adds complexity. It is stated it affects both sides in a balanced game (e.g. india), than taking it away would not hinder the game balance too much. In my current game it adds time and dilutes focus. For a minimum set I would vote to keep them out. I will certainly leave them out in my next game.

“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

The absolute minimum for me:

Motorised movement rates
HQ support
Emergency HQ supply
Pilots
USSR-Japanese compulsory Peace
Carrier planes
Additional Chinese cities
Offensive chits
No ZOC on surprise impulse (since it is historically correct to play with this rule, which does favour the Axis). I would have liked to see this rule in the rulebook itself and not having it as an optional one...

Optional rules which I don't want to play with are:

Construction Engineers. There aren't enough engineer units for this rule to be valid. It tends to balance game towards the allied side a lot, since to use factories, the Axis need to repair them and build points gone in 1939 take a huge toll on the Axis economy...

Convoys in Flames. Adds to many units and make the game too complex. But perhaps this will be better in MWIF...
Oil tankers. Adds to the complexity of the game and makes convoy routing even harder than it is now...

In the presence of the enemy. I just don't like this rule.

Limited overseas supply. I simply cannot understand why this optional rule is so popular. Now, I can understand that merchantmen have to be used to supply units overseas, but to use a whole convoy point to supply only one division? That's ridiculous and completely a-historical. There should come a better rule to simulate this. You should be able to break down convoy points into supply ships and than use those for supply. A convoy point simply is to much shipping to keep certain area's in supply. Roughly speaking, a German soldier needed about 400 kg. a month to be fully supplied. So to keep 10.000 men in supply for two months you would need one ship capable of cargoing 8.000 tons, not a convoy point which simulates far more shipping. This rule is too much and a-historical...

Night air missions: too much for a strategic game...
Japanese command conflict: historically correct? I don't know if the producing of planes was really the point where the generals and admirals were bickering about. Anyway, I don't like the way this is done in WiF.

Intelligence: this rule favours the allies too much, since they have far to many build points in late game to spare for intelligence. Also, the US gets far to many for their build points spend. Apart from this I don't like the opportunity to roll for the next impulses weather. The weather comes as it is and there wasn't any country in the world which could make a good forecast during WW II for more than a couple of days...

“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mat_Jack

Just wanted to say great thread idea and great input with back and forth by the more experienced to allow noobs like me to soak up and later try and apply with better understanding.

“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

I agree with your list, mostly. Still advocate:

* Air Rules.
Reasoning: The Air Rules came with PiF and are basically needed to meet that kits' design goals. W/o them you just have convoluted air force pools (more than double available, remember PiF is integral part of MWiF). You will see over time, that there are MANY planes on the table. Vanilla A2A rules are not designed to deplete the amount of planes you suddenly can allocate to a single A2A combat. By that reasoning, any rule that leads to more deadly A2A combat (w/o being ridiculous) is a good one! Most of the air rules do just that.
I recommend in order: <Bounce Combat> (converts AC/DC into something meaningful), <Backup FTR> (let quality matters more that quantity), <Fighter Bombers> (else FRT cannot use their TAC values), <Twin Engine FTR>. Rest is not as crucial, I would still play them any time!
* 2D10 LCRT + fractional odds
This was introduced MiF (Divisions) and is pretty much a stable ever since. In fact I hope RAW8 will purge 1D10 for good, so we don't have to spend time contemplating it existence anymore (just a wet dream sadly). I think the reasons for and against FO have been presented. 2D10 has an emphasis on combined arms and eliminates the gambling on the trials of the distribution. Do not like the 10% gamble for Gibraltar? I don't! 2D10+FO also allows you project your DRM like this: ratio*2, roll for fraction. Simple isn't it?
For someone getting into the game fresh, it would also be somewhat unrewarding to learn that the "easy" ruleset is in fact the "obsolete" ruleset (only partially of course). This would be true for the CRT in particular.
A word on the map rules: a) mot. mv., b) railway mv., b) HQ mv. and c) winterised mv.:
a) [on] has been argued for already, I agree it is a realism option
b) [off] is an artifact of the AiF america maps. They are pacific map scale and you cannot really move about without that option, somewhat true for AS and PC maps in WiF, but you don't really move about much on these. I never liked the implications of this on the European maps (effectively negating weather!). I certainly don't like it on an all-european-scale map.
c) [off] no clue who came up with this and for what reason. it somewhat addresses the GE advance outpacing RU retreat kinda-issue. But that is actually all right, you should be punished if you gamble by stuffing.
d) new option from the 2008 annual, we like it so far! (is it in MWiF?)

But I already see we disagree on that one. In any case, they are probably not part of the "absolute minimum"(tm) ;)

“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

Divisions
Artillery
Ski Troops
Engineers - Combat
Chinese Warlords
Siberians
Queens
Offensive Chits
Fortifications
Motorized Movement Rates
Blitz Bonus for 1D10
Amphibious Rules
SCS Transport
Emergency HQ Supply
Fighter Bombers
Tank Busters
Flying Boats
Extended Aircraft Rebasing
Saving Oil Resources and Build Points
Off City Reinforcement
Scrap Units
Fractional Odds

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Also I'd add CVPs and Pilots to the list - no need to go with 2 CVPs per CV, but the mechanics of having the CVP intrinsic to the CV are just so awful...


Pilots - because I like the realism of the orange results wherein you are more likely to lose pilots over enemy territory than your own.

I would always out and out veto Railway Movement which gives the Germans a HUGE and very unhistorical advantage in Russia where there was maybe one road on the entire front that could be classed as providing the assistance that rule does. (Minsk to Moscow) Allows the German units to ignore Rain if they march along a railway line, so forget about their armor outpacing their infantry - won't happen. Allows armor to Blitz advance into forest along a RR and stay organized - overall really a game breaker IMO.

quote:

Another observation is that if you are using Saving Oil and BPs then you should have Oil on the list.

“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Another observation is that if you are using Saving Oil and BPs then you should have Oil on the list.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarHunter
Railway Movement: You do not like this one i see. Your group must have some players that make great use of the rule. I have never seen huge 1 sided landslides with this option in play. But then we also use HQ Movement which tones down the supply advancement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

Really enjoying this thread. One of the best in awhile.. and delightfully well mannered and I mean that sincerely.

I love the insight some of the real vets give about how optional rules combinations work together!

I would point out one thing said about Fractional Odds. That its something for the attacker. Well I think that is just a world view really. It doesn't really matter who rolls the die. Let the defender roll to try and keep the lower odds. In some sense its just "The Real Odds are 3.5 - 1 a high roll gives the defender a boost, a low roll the attacker"

“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

For a "maximum" list - why not? In the vast majority of games, the Allies will eventually totally crush the Axis so I can see people playing it out if they miss the artificial game end deadline - just to see how much longer it might take. It appears the option can be invoked any time and if both sides agree, then why not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I have enjoyed these discussions and rationalizations. I am taking a slightly different approach because my main interest is eventually playing the Fascist Tide ETO scenario versus AI when those become available. And I'm not particularly interested in the additional complexity provided by divisions, CiF/pilots, and oil optional rules. So I'm choosing to focus on the following options in a customized rule set:

Flying Boats
Limited Overseas Supply
Limited Supply Across Straits
HQ Support
Emergency HQ Supply
Off City ReinforcementV Weapons
Frogmen
Saving Resources
Carpet Bombing
Tank Busters
Motorized Movement Rates
Blitz Bonus (with the 1D10 variability)
Bomber ATR
Large ATR
Fractional Odds
Extended Aircraft Rebasing
Partisans
Night Missions
Twin Engined Fighters
Fighter Bombers
Offensive Chits
Queens
City Based Volunteers
Siberians
Naval Supply Units
Guards Banner Armies
Scrap Units

I will probably also include Territorials, Bottomed Ships, Atomic Bombs, Kamikazes, Chinese Warlords and Additional Chineses Cities; these don't seem particularly relevant to the ETO scenario but they're consistent witht the type of rule set I'm looking for. And I figure a couple of additional options such as Allied Combat Friction and Food in Flames may be helpful for handicapping the AI if necessary.

My only point sharing these thoughts is there may be other players with a similar (narrow?) interest. I want to start getting used to "my" rule set as I learn the game solo while waiting for "my" scenario and AI. For now. Later on I may start to add more complexity but I'm in no rush. So far, so good.

“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

quote:

ORIGINAL: r6751

I'm not sure I understand the optional 'pilots'. Would not you need pilots?