Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: House Rules

 
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] >> World in Flames >> RE: House Rules Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 12:35:17 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		No, I wouldn't say it is the norm, actually. The norm is to land Gort and two corps on the coast, they sit there holding two hexes, occasionally have to retreat a hex row or two, the Germans ignore them, take Paris, and then the Royal Navy picks them up and the campaign in France is over. The Germans move onto the next phase of their strategy in full control of the pace of the game.

But let's say there was a stormy March/April 1940 and the German attack in the West starts around the historical date at the beginning of May. What will the Allies do? What if the Germans are going to diverge from the historical strategy in a few turns? What will the Allies do to prepare for that still unknown possibility ..... this is what makes the game so great. They actually have a very wide range of options to respond to the German initiative.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 91
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 4:59:42 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
All valid points. Being new to (M)WiF I'm getting a sense that leaving the BEF in France and taking up residency in Bordeaux or some other French port is the norm? If so, that's what I'm trying to address because I feel that's an exploit, in general. But concede that in certain circumstances it isn't (e.g., the cases you described above). However, if leaving the BEF in France after its fall isn't the norm, then I'm making a mountain out of mole hill (i.e., addressing a non-issue). Maybe I'm doing that regardless, but for the way I like to play I just don't like the BEF staying in France after it's conquest. But again, there are exceptions such as an all out CW commitment to France (e.g., your 3 HQ case).


The (partial) fix for this (admittedly gamey) maneuver in RAW8 allows the Axis to enter Vichy - and trace supply through and into its occupied hexes - without collapsing it as long as they are adjacent to allied units. Both sides exert ZoC on each other despite the Vichy border as long as the situation exists.

Not as effective as your house rule but not as exploitable by a crafty Axis player either. The bigger the band-aid, the bigger the risk of other (new) exploits being created. But this is one (RAW7 house) rule (among many) that cannot be replicated in MWiF.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 2/15/2015 6:01:56 AM >

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 92
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 7:24:20 AM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline 		The solution to that via House rule is simple. UK must evacuate the BEF asap as soon as Vichy is declared.
Or that UK must DoW Vichy otherwise. (I assume the French, once signed the armistice, would not like their homeland and cities being object of severe combat and bombardments either)

Anyhow both me and my partner of games are quite new and kept to rather traditional evacuation from the Channel until now (or the BEF being smashed in the area).

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 93
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 7:28:24 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RickInVA

The real beauty of a House Rule is that you don't have to play with it if you don't want to! If its not for you, then no harm done. Also no harm done if the group next door does play with, and enjoys, that particular House Rule.
warspite1

+ 1. It's a good thread to keep ideas coming to use or ignore as players wish.

One that Ormster mentioned to me in our latest game was to restrict the Allies from sending the French into the Baltic on the first impulse.

Worst case (for the Germans) they lose a load of resources and a CP.
Worst case (for the Allies) they lose a French ship or two - that they are going to lose anyway once France falls.

Rationale: Historically, it would have been a suicide mission - with little hope of finding a convoy before being taken out by the German subs and surface vessels in the Baltic. To mirror history it would be good if the Germans could place a couple of sub counters in the Baltic at the start of Impulse 1 - otherwise I am in favour of Orm's suggestion.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to etsadler)
Post #: 94
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 7:52:14 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		The German eventual escorts, or U-boats, in the Baltic would, unfortunately, be surprised as well so it is not really a solution to have them there.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 95
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 7:55:29 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

The German eventual escorts, or U-boats, in the Baltic would, unfortunately, be surprised as well so it is not really a solution to have them there.
warspite1

Agreed - they would need to be NOT subject to the surprise rules to make it work. Without that, then a simple ban on this gamey tactic would be the next best (and simplest) solution.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 96
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 8:11:19 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Since I read about the house rule for CW in France after Vichy has been declared I've pondered on it.

This night I considered a house rule to the effect that CW must reserve sea lift for all units in France after Vichy is declared and until US has entered the war, or Vichy is hostile, or Vichy is disbanded.

For each CW unit in France CW must have a naval unit (sealift) available in port within reach of the French coast where it can evacuate it from France. If there are not enough TRS, or AMPH, available for this purpose the only naval moves CW may do with the sealift is moves so CW can meet this demand next impulse or turn. As long as the CW remain in France the designated TRS (or AMPH) may not be used for any purpose other than to evacuate the CW units in France (or move to a port where it can do so).

So with 4 corps sized units (or larger) in France CW would have to reserve 4 TRS (or AMPH) that may only be used to evacuate the land units from France.

If CW lands additional units in France CW must have reserved sea lift to that unit as well before it is allowed to land in France.

From the turn after there are no CW units in mainland France the rule do not apply.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 97
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 9:41:20 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline 		I'm not convinced that such a rule is necessary. From the historical perspective, the BEF was destroyed around Dunkirk before the fall of France. What would have happened if Germany didn't go towards Dunkirk, but went to go to Paris instead? Would the British have left France, with the BEF still in good order in Northern France and Belgium? Or would the British (who were quite stubborn where withdrawals were concerned) try to stay on shore with the RAF covering there men?

We don't know that. As long as a good fighting force is still there, why withdraw? Because the French surrendered? That's not something which would be good for Churchill to defend in Parliament. No, I believe the British would have fought and tried to keep the BEF on the mainland until the bitter end. And that's something which you can do in WiF by keeping the BEF in France.

The British would not have accepted an armistice in France if that stated that they would have to evacuate the country. If you look on how they reacted on the creation of Vichy, they were mad as hell for the French to stop the fighting...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 98
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 1:25:37 PM   
AllenK


Posts: 7259
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline 		Orm's idea has some merit. Had the BEF stayed in France and without the benefit of a crystal ball, I imagine shipping may well have been held on standby in case the troops had to be got out quickly; either through facing defeat or events elsewhere. Does it need a rule to enforce it though? I'm not sure. I suspect a lot of players would voluntarily keep the shipping on standby for exactly the same reasons. Without the ability to redeploy if and when needed, France would, in effect, become a POW camp, temporarily at least. Let the Allied player take his chances.

Perhaps a way of recreating the 'stand alone' uncertainty would be to have a small chance of USE chit and Russian offensive garrison marker removal each turn the BEF stayed put but what of BEF units that get trapped in France, rather than left through choice? How would that be dealt with?

The discussion seems to be based on the premise it is bad for the Axis (and game play in general) for the CW to be able to leave the BEF in France. Perhaps it's my inexperience but, as Axis player, I don't see it that way. I've got to keep some units in France anyway. Now I know exactly where I need them, as opposed to trying to cover the uncertainty of not knowing where uncommitted units might pop up, especially once the CW has Amphs. The units need supplying, which brings convoys into Biscay where they are easier to reach. Either the CW puts one CP but then commits a disproportionate amount of escorts, CVP's and Navs to protect it, stretching the cover elsewhere, or the CW brings all the CP's through. Either way, I'm happy with that. CW units and a valuable HQ parked doing little in a corner of France probably mean the Italians and/or Japanese are having an easier time of it too, which is all to the Axis good.

Counter viewpoints welcome.



(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 99
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 2:52:50 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		The real Allies re-landed all the French troops evacuated at Dunkirk and I believe had a vigorous debate about whether to land additional British troops in Brittany, after Dunkirk. I think at least a couple divisions of British infantry did land in France, again, after Dunkirk, though they were once again withdrawn as the French collapse accelerated.

The Allies failed a morale check when they saw the unprecedented speed of the German advance to the Channel. You can not force the players to do the same.

I would be pretty confident that the designer of the game would never approve a rule that so limited a player's decision making. And was so easily exploitable by the other player. The Declare Vichy rules are exploitable enough already, but a rule to recreate the historical outcome is needed there. The existence of that rule is what is leading to this discussion. The historical commanders couldn't see the results of the negotiations in the rail car coming.

What if the Germans were detected to be rapidly deploying the Luftwaffe forward for a new campaign to cross the Pyrenees and on into Spain, as is a common game strategy? Perhaps the fortify-Brittany? debate would have come out differently. Tying down significant German forces on their flank in such a manner would be a standard option in military strategy.

And what if the French cabinet ministers had requested British assistance in holding some Atlantic ports until more French military forces could be brought in from the Colonies? The political outcomes there again can not be forced on the players.

What if the Germans use their O-Chit on the first impulse of May/Jun 40 but do not roll high enough to get any Breakthrough results. Do you still put such a proposed House Rule into play?


And yes, World in Flames is like a water balloon. Push on it in one place, and it bulges somewhere else. Put an extra British HQ in France, and the defense of Egypt is weakened. It's your choice, not the rules system's choice.

(in reply to AllenK)
Post #: 100
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 3:01:11 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		Orm does raise an interesting point about a game mechanic players dislike - the "teleportation" of units in certain instances. But it is not easy to overcome the simplicity of that via rules. I would disagree with limiting the TRS counters in any way. Again, you can not force the players to acknowledge defeat in advance.




Also the raid-the-Baltic idea is something from history. Churchill greatly wanted to do it. His naval commanders persuaded him to give up on the suicidal idea.

I do like a House Rule allowing the Germans to move a few ships as if they had moved them on the Jul/Aug 39 turn and left them at sea, to simulate the historical raid of the Deutschland and the Graf Spee, and allowing some basic patrolling in the Baltic Sea. But there is also a simple way for the Germans to avoid an Allied raid on the surprise impulse - simply don't set up Convoy Points in the Baltic Sea, and move them out later in the turn when the only thing left to do is attack Warsaw.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 101
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 6:19:39 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		My suggestion allows for CW to stay in France as long as they like. But they can not just abandon the troops in France either. If they stay, after France have surrendered, they must try to have the resources available to evacuate if needed.

That idea that the CW would have fought to the bitter end on the mainland feels strange to me. They evacuated from France, Norway, Greece and Crete. They did not leave the troops there to fight to the bitter end in order to delay the German plans.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 102
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 7:32:17 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		You can always take the Wif-Zen approach - they fought, the battle was lost (perhaps a counter is removed from the map), and the survivors were evacuated. But the point is - make the Axis fight first, don't just retreat first. Did they evacuate fully intact full strength units from any of those places? No. The real British made contact with the enemy and planned to win the battle, not deploy just to evacuate later; nor did they fight to the last man as too many people are imagining in this thread now. WiF players that just withdraw all the time because they might lose their counters usually lose the game, though first they declare it hopelessly rigged for the Axis. You have to make the other player roll the dice, not just build and hoard the pretty counters and wait for automatic victories.

You have to remember that the combat system is an abstract one, and precise attrition isn't measured as it is in some other games.

The point of deploying units in a delaying tactic is to cost the enemy time ... time which might save other units, elsewhere. It is a standard part of war going back to the 300 Spartans. Once the Allies in WiF figure this out, they do much better. Do you leave a single British Infantry on a clear coastal hex surrounded by three Panzer corps with nothing else to do? No, that would be dumb. Do you leave a strong garrison in Rouen when the Germans have Paris surrounded and the Panzer spearheads are crossing the Garonde river to deploy for an advance into the Pyrenees? Yes, a lot of the time. The Germans want you to give them Rouen for free in that case. You can't do what the enemy wants you to all the time in war.

The game absolutely does not need any special rule forcing the British to run away from anything.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 103
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 9:28:12 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
The game absolutely does not need any special rule forcing the British to run away from anything.
I just love this thread and these discussions. After hearing the arguments pro and con for some sort of house rule along the lines of what I proposed to force the Brits to evacuate the BEF after the loss of France, I'm now swayed to the side that such a rule is not necessary. With such a rule the German player is rewarded by avoiding the BEF and focusing on the French. Where historically, the Germans decided in late May to drive north towards the coast to trap the BEF and divide the French army. In effect they devoted an impulse and stopped their drive towards Paris to target the BEF. With such a rule as I was proposing what is the motivation for the German player to do this if they know the BEF will be withdrawn as soon as Paris falls and Vichy is created?

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 104
RE: House Rules - 2/15/2015 10:37:47 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		And by the way while I'm at it, I think my proposed house rule linking the Soviet borderlands to Norway bites too ...

"Soviet Claim on the Finnish Borderlands and the Germany Invasion of Norway. If the Soviets claim the Finnish borderlands then the Germans must invade Norway within a year. If the Germans deny the claim then both the CW and France can send land and air units to Norway assuming Norway is aligned to one of the allied powers. If the Germans allow the claim by the Soviets, then the CW or France may still align Norway, but neither can send land or air units to Norway. Failure by the Germans to invade Norway within one year of the Soviets claim, allows the CW, or French, player to DOW Norway without Norway aligning to any power and resulting in the immediate conquest of Norway by the allies. "

I just played that rule in a solo game that I have going. The Soviets claimed the Finnish borderlands, the Germans allowed the claim meaning that they had a free go at Norway. In fact they had to invade Norway within a year but were guaranteed no interference from the allies. The Germans, who had already conquered Belgium and Holland got fine weather on the last impulse of March / April 1940. They played an o-chit and blew threw the French lines. Germany also invaded Norway and captured Kirstiansand. The turn ended, the axis won the initiative for the next turn (May/June) and the weather was fine. Going for it all the Germans played another o-chit and blasted a clear path to Paris. They also took Oslo on an attack that was far for sure (50/50 at best). But they took it. Also, Italy DOW France and CW. The French at the end of last turn were forced to return the majority of their navy back to base leaving the Eastern, Western Med and Cape St. Vincent to the RN. The Italians managed to destroy 12 allied CPs and force another 6 to abort in those three areas. The Italians sunk 2 RN CL, 2 CAs and 1 BB and damaged 3 other CLs. All in all a great back to back for the axis, which in effect repeated the stunning success the Germans actually had and gave the Italians a great victory over the RN that they never had.

However, even unopposed the Norway invasion wasn't worth it in my opinion. The attack on Oslo was at best 50/50 and even though that went the German's way, the CW who aligned Norway were the beneficiary of 13 CPs, 2 TRS and 3 CAs from Norway. Honestly, as the CW player I'd happily given Norway to the Germans for that any day! So even under the best of circumstances, I don't see (right now) that Norway is ever worth it for the Germans.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 105
RE: House Rules - 2/16/2015 2:22:18 AM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline 		Someone commented on a house rule about the French attacking the German convoys in the Baltic during the surprise impulse.

I have a lot a of trouble with the initial Allied surprise impulse. Does anyone remember the great Allied offensives at the start of WW II? Me neither.

The Allied declaration of war was a surprise, but it was not a tactical surprise, it was a strategic surprise -- no one expected it, and no one was prepared to deal with it. My suggestion is that a much better modeling of the Allied surprise is that the Allies do not get a surprise impulse, but that no one (on either side) may make any declarations of war S/O 39. This would reproduce the start or WW II much more accurately than the current rules.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 106
RE: House Rules - 2/16/2015 9:27:24 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

but that no one (on either side) may make any declarations of war S/O 39

Then USSR can not demand Bessarabia or the Finnish borderlands during the first turn.

And Japan know that USSR can not declare war during the first turn as well and then the winter is coming. Plenty of time for Japan to focus on China without concern for Soviet interference.

This also removes the German threat of a France first campaign. I suspect that this knowledge may affect the French and CW set up. CW need not be ready to ship BEF for the first turn.

< Message edited by Orm -- 2/16/2015 10:27:47 AM >

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 107
RE: House Rules - 2/16/2015 5:03:47 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		It's funny how often you see new players in WiF come up with "large effect" house rules, only to discover a more egregious flaw with them than the one they thought existed and could be remedied.

The rules platform has been largely unchanged in 15 years and from numerous games I would claim these kind of "fixes" are simply not needed. You have to accept you are playing a history-based simulation game not an historical re-creation. (Although playing is recreation. )

Besides why repeat a story that you know the ending to?

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 108
RE: House Rules - 2/16/2015 6:17:22 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It's funny how often you see new players in WiF come up with "large effect" house rules, only to discover a more egregious flaw with them than the one they thought existed and could be remedied.

The rules platform has been largely unchanged in 15 years and from numerous games I would claim these kind of "fixes" are simply not needed. You have to accept you are playing a history-based simulation game not an historical re-creation. (Although playing is recreation. )

Besides why repeat a story that you know the ending to?

+1

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 109
RE: House Rules - 2/16/2015 11:52:59 PM   
AllenK


Posts: 7259
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It's funny how often you see new players in WiF come up with "large effect" house rules, only to discover a more egregious flaw with them than the one they thought existed and could be remedied.

The rules platform has been largely unchanged in 15 years and from numerous games I would claim these kind of "fixes" are simply not needed. You have to accept you are playing a history-based simulation game not an historical re-creation. (Although playing is recreation. )

Besides why repeat a story that you know the ending to?

+1

As said new player to WiF but who played several of the AH classics in my 'teans, I wish this had been around then. Best game system I've come across. I like the lack of rule enforced limitations to choices. The freedom of choice of what to do but with never quite enough to do it with and each choice having both a counter and long term consequences is what makes this stand out. So a definite +1.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 110
RE: House Rules - 2/17/2015 2:12:07 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It's funny how often you see new players in WiF come up with "large effect" house rules, only to discover a more egregious flaw with them than the one they thought existed and could be remedied.

The rules platform has been largely unchanged in 15 years and from numerous games I would claim these kind of "fixes" are simply not needed. You have to accept you are playing a history-based simulation game not an historical re-creation. (Although playing is recreation. )

Besides why repeat a story that you know the ending to?
I thought this was the house rule thread? I wasn't proposing any changes to the (M)WiF rules but looking for something through a house rule to give the Germans incentive to invade Norway. As I understand it now, I see negative incentive for Germany to invade Norway. It's all risk. Without invading; i.e., a netural Norway, they get the victory point for Oslo and the iron ore through the Baltic from Sweden. If they invade there's a significant chance that they will get bogged down and have to devote scare resources for a sideshow. Even if successful they gain, what? 1 additional resource and an arctic base for their subs if they're willing to allocate a HQ there.

Far from trying to recreate a replay of history, as I see it there's very little incentive for "veteran" players to even attempt a historical campaign (i.e., Wesenbung) in (M)WiF. Am I off base here?


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 111
RE: House Rules - 2/17/2015 2:51:58 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline 		By "Incentive" though I assume it should be an added benefit, not a penalty if you do not invade.
Presently it has more negative sides than positive ones for Germany to invade Norway. Force Germany hand and you make it even worse in the department.

House rules usually - at least in my eyes - should avoid relatively fishy situations (French Fleet in Baltic is a good example), or enforced "Player Awareness" situation that the game allows. (Like the Belgian Plane and Infantry in Belgian Congo to save them from the onslaught coming.).

The case of the French Fleet is pretty simple, a suicidal mission that would never happen.
Same goes for any Minor deploying "oddly" their forces, in colonies. Their main forces and airforce would be defending their homeland (Fleets would be naturally scattered and divided) - especially in a game which envision already specific colonial forces (Territorials can be seen as a mix of recruited native troops and home country smaller units sent as a core / training asset to the colonials).
I do not remember if Internment is an optional rule right now but the Poland planes flying off to a neutral country to give free pilots to the UK is a bit over the top for me too.

Usually House Rules come up to situations which are unveiled via the gameplay, and when it comes up it smells! That's where the feel of a House Rule come in my books.


(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 112
RE: House Rules - 2/17/2015 2:53:47 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

and an arctic base for their subs if they're willing to allocate a HQ there

The U-boats based there would be a nice target for Allied port strikes. It is doubtful that any U-boats based in the Artic part of Norway would survive long. Unless, of course, an effort is made to rebase fighters as well, so that the U-boats gets some protection. A lot of effort just to raid a the Arctic convoy rout that might never be used anyway.

Besides, it would be easier to use Petsamo instead as U-boat base and Finland provide HQ and fighter cover.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 113
RE: House Rules - 2/17/2015 2:56:05 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

I thought this was the house rule thread?

It is and I am glad that you, and others, discuss their ideas here.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 114
RE: House Rules - 2/17/2015 3:23:47 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

I thought this was the house rule thread?

It is and I am glad that you, and others, discuss their ideas here.
warspite1

Me too - it's good to get a sharing of ideas.

I think what this thread had highlighted to me though is that I am unlikely to want to employ many (if any) house rules - but I'm sure there are some good ideas out there.

The reason is that I love the game for what it is. If I want to be pinned down to historical happenings there are plenty of games out there that will do that.

However, I think I liked Orm's Baltic suggestion because the French Fleet is often a problem in WWII strategic games; France WILL fall, the fleet may/may not end up allied to the CW, so why not sacrifice them early doors to assist the Allied cause? That is extreme gamey to me because they can just be sent on suicide missions - against the Germans or Italians for little (if any) downside (but plenty for the Axis).

I have less of a problem with the Belgian or Polish aircraft because that is a real choice for the Allies. Is it better to use the Belgian aircraft in defence of the country or guarantee the pilot by setting up in Africa? Is it better to try and fight with the Polish air force (could be the difference in an attack and/or could cause destruction of a German air unit) or guarantee the pilots to the UK?

As for the free pilots and the historical aspect - well two fighter squadrons of Poles took part in the Battle of Britain, along with a squadron of Czech's + a number of Belgian pilots (among other nationals). Poles also formed two bomber squadrons in the UK early in the war. Many thousands of Poles ultimately served with the RAF in WWII so I have no problem with the internment rule (which has a historical basis).

There was also a plan for the Polish navy to sail to the UK (and most of the destroyers and some subs made it too). You could argue the WIF treatment of the Polish fleet is ahistorical, but in game, if the Polish navy is left alone on the first turn, the Poles could try and sail for the UK or remain in the Baltic to harass the German CP - again, its players choice. A more historical approach means that they would not have that choice.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/17/2015 4:47:01 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 115
RE: House Rules - 2/17/2015 8:44:33 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It's funny how often you see new players in WiF come up with "large effect" house rules, only to discover a more egregious flaw with them than the one they thought existed and could be remedied.

The rules platform has been largely unchanged in 15 years and from numerous games I would claim these kind of "fixes" are simply not needed. You have to accept you are playing a history-based simulation game not an historical re-creation. (Although playing is recreation. )

Besides why repeat a story that you know the ending to?
I thought this was the house rule thread? I wasn't proposing any changes to the (M)WiF rules but looking for something through a house rule to give the Germans incentive to invade Norway. As I understand it now, I see negative incentive for Germany to invade Norway. It's all risk. Without invading; i.e., a netural Norway, they get the victory point for Oslo and the iron ore through the Baltic from Sweden. If they invade there's a significant chance that they will get bogged down and have to devote scare resources for a sideshow. Even if successful they gain, what? 1 additional resource and an arctic base for their subs if they're willing to allocate a HQ there.

Far from trying to recreate a replay of history, as I see it there's very little incentive for "veteran" players to even attempt a historical campaign (i.e., Wesenbung) in (M)WiF. Am I off base here?


Not at all. I only make the observation that it is a complex game with complex rules that interact a lot. So you may think a house rule is good when played within the narrow parameters of the situation it was designed for, but later on discover the cure is worse than the disease because WiF permits so many "alternate" ploys and strategies.

As Germany you can attempt an operation Wesenbung in WiF and MWiF if you use up an O-chit.

But the macro effects of attacking Norway were not to Germany's advantage historically either.


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 116
RE: House Rules - 2/18/2015 3:05:43 AM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It's funny how often you see new players in WiF come up with "large effect" house rules, only to discover a more egregious flaw with them than the one they thought existed and could be remedied.

The rules platform has been largely unchanged in 15 years and from numerous games I would claim these kind of "fixes" are simply not needed. You have to accept you are playing a history-based simulation game not an historical re-creation. (Although playing is recreation. )

Besides why repeat a story that you know the ending to?
I thought this was the house rule thread? I wasn't proposing any changes to the (M)WiF rules but looking for something through a house rule to give the Germans incentive to invade Norway. As I understand it now, I see negative incentive for Germany to invade Norway. It's all risk. Without invading; i.e., a netural Norway, they get the victory point for Oslo and the iron ore through the Baltic from Sweden. If they invade there's a significant chance that they will get bogged down and have to devote scare resources for a sideshow. Even if successful they gain, what? 1 additional resource and an arctic base for their subs if they're willing to allocate a HQ there.

Far from trying to recreate a replay of history, as I see it there's very little incentive for "veteran" players to even attempt a historical campaign (i.e., Wesenbung) in (M)WiF. Am I off base here?



There was an intermediate version of the rules that allowed Germany 2 naval moves during a combined. The rule did not last, as I noticed when I picked up the next boxed version, mainly for the counters. Every box I bought except the first was advertised as "The Final Edition", and I would bring it home and find major rules changes. I chewed through about 8 boxes until about 2005. The last time I ordered, I was promised LOC Vichy annual, but only got the countersheets, and rules. Based on what I've learned of the 3d10 chart and the new rules, I doubt I'll ever play it. I remember one old version allowed you to Air Tranport HQ's which were *prohibited* from moving in mud at the time.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 117
RE: House Rules - 2/24/2015 3:35:17 AM   
dhucul2011

 

Posts: 564
Joined: 9/12/2007
Status: offline 		MWIF definately needs house rules for historical realism. There are too many ridiculous possibilities.

We have revised ours for simplicity:

1. If Narvik is Allied controlled then Germany loses the Swedish resources in Nov-Dec and Jan-Feb.
2. If Germany DOWs Denmark and not Norway then Germany loses one Swedish resource in Nov-Dec and Jan-Feb from Norwegian economic sanctions.
3. Germany must DOW Belgium the same impulse that it DOWs the Netherlands. (but not vice versa) Belgium would not have sat passively by if Germany only DOWd the Netherlands.
4. The land and air units of all neutral minors can only operate in their own or adjacent countries. For example, Bulgarian units can only operate in Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece, Yugoslavia and Romania. Finnish units can only operate in Finland, USSR and Sweden etc. The only exemption is that Hungarian and Spanish units can also operate in the USSR.
5. Vichy cannot DOW the Western Allies even if they are hostile.
6. All minor country (non-territorial) land and air units must start in their home country.
7. USSR must claim the Borderlands by end of 1939 and must claim Bessarabia by end of 1940.
8. No peacekeepers. Stupid rule as it is set out now.
9. All minor country air units must fight to defend their country until the capital is taken before they can flee and be interned.

< Message edited by dhucul -- 2/24/2015 4:37:56 AM >

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 118
RE: House Rules - 2/24/2015 4:20:41 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		I don't agree on 3, 5 and 8 as to being required or historical but that is a separate debate.

What I really like about your suggestions is that they can ALL be implemented in MWiF by the players doing or refraining from certain actions, or idling resources in final production planning, etc.

Unlike other house rules issues (minor country convoys comes to mind for some strange reason) - where MWiF enforcing RAC prevents a player-driven accommodation.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to dhucul2011)
Post #: 119
RE: House Rules - 2/24/2015 5:10:46 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline 		3 is really stupid. In the 1920's the Netherlands and Belgium almost got into an armed conflict. The Dutch and the Belgians didn't like eachother at all in the interbellum. The Belgians were of the opinion that the Dutch did support the Huns in WW I too much with the trade continuing. Personally, I would think that if Hitler had been really smart, he could have promised the Belgians a nice part of the Netherlands and the Belgians than could be persuaded to join the Axis, even with the WW I history between Germany and Belgium...

They hated the Dutch in those years. The Germans were not liked also, but the hatred against the neutral and cowardice Dutch was far, far greater in Belgium during the interbellum.



_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: House Rules Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.938