Europe map?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: jcprom

On the downside are 2 items:
1 - changing any of the data files while in the middle of a game is verboten.
2 - the AI Opponent may not be able to cope, since it assumes certain aspects of the map are unchanged from how it was shipped in the product release.

I gather it's possible to add or remove 1 or 2 units from at start forces ? (for play-balance purposes using a particular set of options).

Ah, no.

The starting setups are taken from the WIF FE spreadsheets and if you look at them you will notice all these 'notes' that apply to each scenarios, and each major power. There is also all that stuff at the start of the scenario booklet about which optional rules are being used, sorting out the counters, and on and on.

The scenario booklet has a bunch of text at the end describing game play strategies, but if you remove all of that, you are still left with a hefty volume of fine print about how to set up the units for each major power for each scenario. That is 11 scenarios with an average of 6 or 7 major powers per scenario. Let's call it 70 major powers, each of which has, on average, over 6 set up locations. I make it 400+ setup locations, each of which has units that are to be placed on the map or in one of the off-map pools.

It is very difficult to write code to accommodate all the variety of 'special' rules concerning setup. [vast under-statement][8|]

Most, but not all, of the code concerning setting up units is in one Pascal module containing 5400 lines of code. 3200 of those lines are 'pure' data. The rest of the code is to handle 'stuff'.

I have put zero effort into making this accessible to the players - the code is far too complex with interactions within it that can cause program failure if they are even slightly out of sync.

This is something for the "WIF game design kit", and not part of my current task list.

[jcprom]

This already exist in WiF FE, with the penalty for the number of factory stacks that the city have.

You're right, Paris has factories, unlike Liege.

Anyway, I just meant the designer has a lot of options available to help the German attack across a narrow Belgian border IF he thinks it's useful to do so.

For example, "other cities" like Liege could have their "defender's choice" of CRT canceled during surprise impulse(s).

This is something for the "WIF game design kit", and not part of my current task list.

All right. Thanks for the explanations.

[brian brian]

In WiF, there isn't much of a way to simulate Hitler's tendency to procrastinate on major decisions. He had no idea what to do in the summer of 1940. Now, human players can easily have this problem too, and that's fine, but one of the purposes of playing the game is to see what Germany could have done with more effective leadership. Further weakening the French might help the less skilled German players, but would result in a Germany always free to roam in 1940, in every game.

Giving the Germans a third O-chit is right out, in my opinion. Changing that hex to a Dutch hex is a whole nother kettle of fish. It does incredibly complicate the German's rather handy no-Netherlands option...due to the other terrain in Belgium and the mechanics of ZoCs and cities in WiF. To change that hex and then try and get an historical result would require at a minimum subject the Belgians to no ZoC on surprise, or some other changes to the terrain in Belgium (such as jcprom's idea on cities and table choice on surprise). In WiF, the Germans can't screen Brussels with an Infantry corps while the panzers simultaneously plunge through the Ardennes and smoke the French forces on the Meuse. True, the German/Belgian frontier is much shorter in reality than in WiF...but the 1940 Belgians probably didn't exert a Zone of Control either.

P.S. If you can't figure out how to beat the French as the Germans, here is the longwinded short version: play 2d10; S/O 39 - Build the Guderian HQ (yes, that means you have to dive in to the add-on kits and play with the Politics in Flames countersheet); M/A 40 DoW Belgium and drop the Paras on Brussels (make your own choices on to Holland or not to Holland, to try and go first or second that turn and know the weather for this op or the potential counter-attack, and whether to do it late in the turn or not, but definitely do it with Rundstedt, and the 4-2 ART adjacent, as well as most of the Luftwaffe in range, as well as being ready in the German hex in question in this thread with an excellent stack (9-4 INF, Rundstedt, 4-2 ART or ENG with AA cover adjacent) ready to roll the bones against a cheeky Belgian set-up in Antwerp (hint: the Luftwaffe flying Artillery doubled on surprise makes this easy actually)); then wait and see what the French do (the odds are good for you, maybe a +6 if you cover your end correctly); M/J 40 when the weather clears, take an air impulse and re-org 4 Stukas with Guderian; smash the flipped over French; repeat. It also helps to understand the basics of 2-hex vs 3-hex attacks...2-hex ones are risky for the attacker and only a fool keeps valuable defensive units in a hex that the Wehrmacht has a 3 hex-side frontage against. If the Paras fail in Brussels somehow or the Stuka-less French get lucky against them, you'll probably have to resort to an O-chit to break in to the tank country, and if you are afraid to risk the Paras like that, I have to ask - WHY? They'll be back in time for Gibraltar; the only thing they could miss out on would be the ever exciting 1940 SeaLion. Also, I highly suggest using the LoC Vichy rules - they are fun and make every game of WiF unique.

And let's look at a one stack German attack on the two Belgian INF in Antwerp in current WiF, or against two in Brussels sheltered behind the truly Dutch Maastricht: Rundstedt ( 7(4)4 ), an Engineer (1-4) , and the 9-4 INF make up the stack. Two Stukas rolling two dice most likely flip both defenders. A Stuka and/or several twin engine bombers double the land attack. Now we are at 34:9, a +7.5. +4 for flips, +2 HQ Support and you have a +13.5; Germany takes the hex on a 6 or higher, depending on how you play fractional odds, and without casualties on a 10 or higher and a couple other results between 6 & 10. Not such a terrible proposition. Things probably get better if you use the 4-2 ART instead of the Engineers I think - 40 : 9 = +14.8 all together (only +13.8 on Brussels) unless you have bad Stuka dice and a unit didn't flip (maybe 25% chance? 12% for neither?)

[Gendarme]

Can't maintain silence any more on this point. 

Of course I realize my opinion matters not, but I'm hoping HR does change the map to give the Netherlands that hex, and I'd like to see Luxembourg as that one hex of the Ardennes too.  I realize it will change the whole opening of the Battle for France.  But if this change reflects increased accuracy for the map, then arguments like "it's more difficult for Germany now" don't cut it for me.  The German player will just have to change his plans now, adapt to the new situation, instead of doing it the way we've been used to after umpteen games of Wif.  I realize Luxembourg will be one more minor, one more DOW, one more USE.  Oh well.  If you want that room to maneuver and outflank the cities and rivers, you have to go through the Netherlands.  If you want to leave the Dutch neutral so as to avoid giving all those ships to the Allies, there's a price to pay.  Less wriggle room.

Once Germany gets to those clear hexes anywhere on the French border, with the blitz/armor bonuses of the 2d10 chart and average luck, the Germans start chewing up the pale blue guys quickly.  How is France too strong?  If it seems that France is too strong already, it may be because the Allied players just aren't playing into the German's hands like they did historically, that's why France may not fall in three impulses of May/June 1940 like they did.  Hopefully, us players aren't going to make some of the mistakes our historical counterparts did, and hence the flow of the game will be different.  (Italy invading Greece on a storm/snow impulse with two INF corps, and leaving their fleet with no air cover in Taranto waiting to be port struck?  USSR setting up the bulk of its army on the border waiting to be surprised?)  But that's all a different issue than having a map that's as accurate as possible.  And I agree that the Benelux borders should be altered for increased accuracy. 

As someone else on the forum mentioned already, it seems that if we were to try and translate history into a Wif turn, then May/June 1940 was a long turn with lots of clear weather, Germany rolled exceptionally well in the air and on the ground, and the Allied player(s) kind of bumbled around the map straight into disaster.

If Germany doesn't roll well, then the one Dutch hex more or less isn't going to make or break them anyway. 

About breaking into France on the same impulse as advancing into Belgium and the Netherlands -- historically, what was the frontage of the German attack at Sedan, how many corps were involved and how many French were defending? If we were going to Wif it, were the Germans attacking from the one hex where Luxembourg should be, or both of the forest hexes south of Liege? Was it against one French INF corps, like a 3-3, or one of the better ones? With the Guderian HQ, another ARM corps, ARM div, and ground strikes/support, I think you can gain the French hex west of Metz the same impulse as you go into the low countries. After that, you're getting two-hex attacks with armor and the blitz table on French infantry stacks all the way to the Channel.

Anthony DeChristopher

[brian brian]

it's not a question of the Germans having the combat power to do it, but rather the I-go You-go stop-in-ZoC movement system. The Belgians set up in Liege and west of Brussels, the Germans move into the initial border hexes and have to stop due to ZoC, and can't attack an empty hex in front of them. The game mechanics just don't permit the Germans to enter France or cross the Meuse on the first impulse of war with Belgium unless you use Option 20, no ZoC-on-surprise, which is quite unpopular.

Basically, if Maastricht is Dutch, the Belgians can guarantee to hold Brussels if the Germans don't attack the Netherlands ... unless the Germans use an O-chit to overrun the 5-3 INF in front of Brussels, making the price of the no-Netherlands option one O-chit most of the time. An interesting decision to make.

[Gendarme]

True, true.

After reading a map of the campaign [:o], I see that the German advance was not south into the hex west of Metz, it was through both forest hexes of the Ardennes straight west into France.  Which of course cannot be replicated in the game with a Belgian unit in Liege exerting a ZOC.  So game mechanics prevent a perfect re-creation of Guderian's blitz, not anything else, in my opinion.  I wouldn't rectify that with a no-ZOC rule, however.

P.S. if the German wants to get silly he can paradrop onto an empty hex against the (surprised) notional, and with another land unit in an adjacent hex aiding so the Para won't be alone after the combat is resolved... still doesn't give them the breakthrough they achieved in what must be one impulse.

Anthony DeChristopher 

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Gendarme

True, true.

After reading a map of the campaign [:o], I see that the German advance was not south into the hex west of Metz, it was through both forest hexes of the Ardennes straight west into France.  Which of course cannot be replicated in the game with a Belgian unit in Liege exerting a ZOC.  So game mechanics prevent a perfect re-creation of Guderian's blitz, not anything else, in my opinion.  I wouldn't rectify that with a no-ZOC rule, however.

Wrong.
You are forgetting the ZoC exerted by the French units in France, on their border. This is they who prevent the historical breakthrough in the forest, not the unit in Liege, and playing with or without the NoZoC don't change that as the Germans don't surprise the French.

P.S. if the German wants to get silly he can paradrop onto an empty hex against the (surprised) notional, and with another land unit in an adjacent hex aiding so the Para won't be alone after the combat is resolved... still doesn't give them the breakthrough they achieved in what must be one impulse.

Anthony DeChristopher 

You can also advance from SW of Liege to SE of Liege, paradrop into the hex SW of Brussels with helping armor, and breakthrough into the forest where there is the partisan number, or the hex W of Brussels. If breakthouging into the forest, you will disrupt, so you need a nearby HQ to reorg.

You can also paradrop SE of Liege with helping armor, and breakthrough into the forest where there is the partisan number with nearby HQ to reorg.

Both these moves recreate the historical breakthrough.

[wosung]

I can see the need for map congruence between MWIF and WIFE. ADG will decide this issue (probably in a conservative way). For decades they are used to critics and maybe bored by them.

I also, quite naively, think mapping and military matters should not be discussed too closely. First represent geography, then tailor the rules. But the problem is: Nearly all the posts for leaving the Dutch border as it is are based on non-geographical arguments (WIF-tradition, game balance). So it’s hard to counter them only with geography. And Markus already did this in a very eloquent way, having also the strategic implications in his mind.

To represent the setting for the campagain in the West (1940) is one of the trickier parts in most grand strategy games I know. Often the player thinks this campaign is too hard for the German side, having a script in mind of what should happen. So much for the often demanded openess of game narrative.

History
The historical strategy discussion for the campagain in the West (1940) itself somewhat was a horse beaten to death: Quite a fixed strategical situation. At least decades of planning on the German and the French sides. All variants seemingly well-known, most of them (un)successfully put into practice once in a while. If they do this, we do that (quite like the WIF opening moves).
The revolutionary Manstein plan played with this strategic canon (No Schlieffen, no Manstein. No 1914, no 1940), adding the one element, which changed over the time: Technology. Fast Troops through the hill-mountain forests of the Ardennes (Luxembourg/Belgium) using 8 E-W roads for Guderians 19th Corps (1st, 2nd, 10th Panzer Divs, Infantry Reg. Grossdeutschland). The corps, with its division slices, would form a column of 80 km lenght. On the 5th day of the campaign (13th of May) it was supposed to cross the Meuse.
The revolutionary plan had only a chance of ever being adopted against the will of a conservative tank-sceptical military, because of the internal struggle beween the the rather cautious military, which feared a repetition of WW1 in France, and the vabanque-player Hitler.
The original plan in 1939 has been some sort of Schlieffen 2: Outflanking the fortified French border through Belgium and even through the Netherlands (neutral in WW1) by a rather broad offensive without a real Schwerpunkt.
The German attack on the Netherlands 1. camouflaged the unthinkable attack over the Meuse, 2. set the trap for the French. In anticipation for an ordinary, albeit extended Schlieffen maneuver the most mobile elements of the French Army rushed into Belgium to bolster the Belgian defences.
The Belgian Ardennes only were lightly defended by the Belgian 7th Corps (8th Div, Motorized 2nd Chasseurs Ardennais Div) in Namur and by French Cavalry. Why? According to common military wisdom (on Wally and on the German side) it would have needed 10 days to reach the Meuse: Enough time to move reserves to the river if needed.
But Guderians 19th Corps crossed the river on day 5 on both sides of Sedan (another historical marked place) under an air umbrella. This sector then was only defended by the French 55th Inf. Div (with only 5 of 9 authorized bataillons of 40 year old reservists) and the Fortress Infantry Regiment 147 (2 bats.) in bunkers. Counter attacks by the French light Tank Bataillons 4 and 7 couldn’t destroy the German bridgehead, nor could British bomber attacks destroy the German ponton bridges over the Meuse.
Afterwards Guderians 19th Corps raced towards the Atlantic coast (Abbéville) which was reached on May 19th. Until then Corps (Kleckern, nicht klotzen, schnell, schnell!!) and Heeresgruppe (caution!!) constantly struggled about the pace of this thrust.

Bottom line, translated to WIF :
1. The German advance was south into the hex west of Metz and not straight to the West, because it crossed the French part of the Meuse, not the Belgium part. (IRL the Meuse crossing was in N-S direction, due to the River course around Sedan.). From then onwards it went into a bow (“Sichel”, like in “Sichelschnitt”) to Abbéville via St. Quentin
2. To make such a thrust possible it would need no ZOC, at least for the “Saa”[brücken] hex.
3. IRL and in WIF there’s only a limited set of operational choices for the German side:
a) through Belgium (Schlieffen)
b) through Belgium and the Netherlands (Schlieffen 2)
c) through the Ardennes (Manstein/Guderian)
e) through the fortified German-French Rhine-Border
f) combinating c) and a) or b) (France 1940)
4. IRL and in WIF both sides know the operational choices (well, except for the Meuse variant in 1940) and know the other side know this.
5. So both sides have to make operational choices and live with the consequences.

Regards

[marcuswatney]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
Basically, if Maastricht is Dutch, the Belgians can guarantee to hold Brussels if the Germans don't attack the Netherlands ... unless the Germans use an O-chit to overrun the 5-3 INF in front of Brussels, making the price of the no-Netherlands option one O-chit most of the time. An interesting decision to make.

I think this is a very telling point. While I agree that an extra O-Chit could have undesirable ramifications if used elsewhere on the map, and that this needs to be debated, would the risk-reward balance not favour the use of the extra O-Chit in Belgium most times? Thoughts?


COMPLETELY NEW IDEA:

A new proposal for solving the over-strong Belgium/France 1940 problem...

In Guns of August, with which I have been amusing myself recently, you have no control over the set-up of neutrals when they join your side. Why not incorporate this excellent idea into MWiF (as an optional rule if you like)?

I am not suggesting a totally random set-up. Rather, Steve would program, say, six set-ups for each neutral, and the AI would then choose one randomly (even in player-vs-player games), biassed according to who is attacking.

Some of the set-ups would be optimum, some would be foolish. For Belgium, at least one such set-up would involve leaving a clear path through the Ardennes (stack everything in Brussels?) in which event suddenly the historical campaign becomes a game-possibility.

This idea will introduce some much needed variety into games between experienced players, without actually adding any more luck than is already present in some of the extreme CRT results. The French player in 1939 will no longer be able to assume that the Belgians will set up optimally, which in turn will require some shrewd risk-reward decisions on his part.

This idea is also solidly grounded in history. In the first months of 1940, the Belgiums stubbornly refused to co-operate with the British and French at all (our officers had to go on 'holiday' in Belgium to reconnoitre the terrain). The Allied 'player' had no influence on the Belgium 'set-up' at all.

I think this approach also has great merit elsewhere on the map: for example, Spain. Whichever side gets to control Spain, the Spanish always act as lackeys to the controlling player's interests. In reality, if the Axis attacked Spain, Franco wouldn't have given two tosses about the fate of Gibraltar.

If Steve finds this idea too time-consuming, then I suggest he programs only the two really critical minors, Belgium and Spain. Then if there is time and inclination, program set-ups for Poland, Turkey, Norway, Sweden, and perhaps some of the Balkan states...

[brian brian]

Dropping Paras in front of you can't help recreate the German break-through...the Allied player can 'deny the notional' and the Paratroopers just land without a land attack, so the adjacent armor can't advance into their hex.

As usual Steve is very gracious to host this kibbitzing about the future of World in Flames, but that's all we can do here, discuss the future in theoretical terms.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Dropping Paras in front of you can't help recreate the German break-through...the Allied player can 'deny the notional' and the Paratroopers just land without a land attack, so the adjacent armor can't advance into their hex.

As usual Steve is very gracious to host this kibbitzing about the future of World in Flames, but that's all we can do here, discuss the future in theoretical terms.

not sure what you mean .... but if the armor attack with the paratroper .... they can always advance into the hex ...

[composer99]

What brian means is that if you paradrop or invade into a hex, with or without supporting land units attacking from other hexes, the defender has the option of using a 'notional' unit to assist in defending the hex.
 
If the hex is otherwise empty, then if the defender uses the notional, there is a land combat that the supporting hexes can assist in fighting, and advance into/break through out of the hex when the battle is over.
 
However, if the paradrop is into a hex devoid of 'real' enemy land units, then if the defender ignores the notional unit, there is no land combat, and the adjacent supporting land units do not participate in conquering the hex and therefore may not advance.
 
 
Incidentally, the real hold-up for the Germans in bashing their way through the Low Countries is not the Belgians. It's the French. It's French ZoCs extending into the Ardennes that prevent the German push through the forests right up to the border, not Belgian ZoCs.
 
My friend Pablo recently proposed a possible solution, as a variant on 'No ZoC on surprise'. Instead of surprised units exerting no ZoCs, units exert no ZoCs into hexes belonging to a surprised country if they are not units of that country.
 
So:
- Belgian units exert ZoCs into Belgian hexes when they are surprised, but not French or Dutch hexes.
- Dutch units exert ZoCs into Dutch hexes when they are surprised, but not Belgian or German hexes.
- French units, not being surprised by the Germans, exert ZoCs into French or German hexes, but not Belgian hexes while Belgium is surprised.
 
Most importantly, Red Army units still exert ZoCs in Soviet territory (this was the big bugaboo of No ZoCs on Surprise).
 
This definitely is a house rule, so it is waaaaay out of the scope of MWiF 1. However, it would probably ensure French defeat in a reasonable timeframe in WiF (except for really short turns, bad weather, or exceptionally bad German die rolling).

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

COMPLETELY NEW IDEA:

A new proposal for solving the over-strong Belgium/France 1940 problem...

In Guns of August, with which I have been amusing myself recently, you have no control over the set-up of neutrals when they join your side. Why not incorporate this excellent idea into MWiF (as an optional rule if you like)?

I am not suggesting a totally random set-up. Rather, Steve would program, say, six set-ups for each neutral, and the AI would then choose one randomly (even in player-vs-player games), biassed according to who is attacking.

Some of the set-ups would be optimum, some would be foolish. For Belgium, at least one such set-up would involve leaving a clear path through the Ardennes (stack everything in Brussels?) in which event suddenly the historical campaign becomes a game-possibility.

This idea will introduce some much needed variety into games between experienced players, without actually adding any more luck than is already present in some of the extreme CRT results. The French player in 1939 will no longer be able to assume that the Belgians will set up optimally, which in turn will require some shrewd risk-reward decisions on his part.

This idea is also solidly grounded in history. In the first months of 1940, the Belgiums stubbornly refused to co-operate with the British and French at all (our officers had to go on 'holiday' in Belgium to reconnoitre the terrain). The Allied 'player' had no influence on the Belgium 'set-up' at all.

I think this approach also has great merit elsewhere on the map: for example, Spain. Whichever side gets to control Spain, the Spanish always act as lackeys to the controlling player's interests. In reality, if the Axis attacked Spain, Franco wouldn't have given two tosses about the fate of Gibraltar.

If Steve finds this idea too time-consuming, then I suggest he programs only the two really critical minors, Belgium and Spain. Then if there is time and inclination, program set-ups for Poland, Turkey, Norway, Sweden, and perhaps some of the Balkan states...

One simple new rule regarding minor country setup would solve some of the trouble with Belgium.

-At least one corps sized unit must be set up on the minors capital. (You could add - if the minor has 2 land units or more)

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: wosung

I can see the need for map congruence between MWIF and WIFE. ADG will decide this issue (probably in a conservative way). For decades they are used to critics and maybe bored by them.

I also, quite naively, think mapping and military matters should not be discussed too closely. First represent geography, then tailor the rules. But the problem is: Nearly all the posts for leaving the Dutch border as it is are based on non-geographical arguments (WIF-tradition, game balance). So it’s hard to counter them only with geography. And Markus already did this in a very eloquent way, having also the strategic implications in his mind.

Since MWIF is a conversion of the boardgame WIF you can't tailor the rules as Matrix do not create a new game. The same applies to mapchanges.

With that said there would probably be alot of changes on the central european map if we start to change it. For example I notice that with 90 km a hex Netherlands should only be 2 hexes on the east - west axis.

Please do not let the MWIF map alter from the WIF map in the european theatre.

[Gendarme]

Changes to Central Europe... interesting... What did you have in mind? I notice Liechtenstein is missing. [:D]

Anthony DeChristopher

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: composer99

What brian means is that if you paradrop or invade into a hex, with or without supporting land units attacking from other hexes, the defender has the option of using a 'notional' unit to assist in defending the hex.

If the hex is otherwise empty, then if the defender uses the notional, there is a land combat that the supporting hexes can assist in fighting, and advance into/break through out of the hex when the battle is over.

However, if the paradrop is into a hex devoid of 'real' enemy land units, then if the defender ignores the notional unit, there is no land combat, and the adjacent supporting land units do not participate in conquering the hex and therefore may not advance.

Yes indeed, Brian is totaly right.

Incidentally, the real hold-up for the Germans in bashing their way through the Low Countries is not the Belgians. It's the French. It's French ZoCs extending into the Ardennes that prevent the German push through the forests right up to the border, not Belgian ZoCs.

My friend Pablo recently proposed a possible solution, as a variant on 'No ZoC on surprise'. Instead of surprised units exerting no ZoCs, units exert no ZoCs into hexes belonging to a surprised country if they are not units of that country.

So:
- Belgian units exert ZoCs into Belgian hexes when they are surprised, but not French or Dutch hexes.
- Dutch units exert ZoCs into Dutch hexes when they are surprised, but not Belgian or German hexes.
- French units, not being surprised by the Germans, exert ZoCs into French or German hexes, but not Belgian hexes while Belgium is surprised.

Most importantly, Red Army units still exert ZoCs in Soviet territory (this was the big bugaboo of No ZoCs on Surprise).

This definitely is a house rule, so it is waaaaay out of the scope of MWiF 1. However, it would probably ensure French defeat in a reasonable timeframe in WiF (except for really short turns, bad weather, or exceptionally bad German die rolling).

This is a good idea to me !

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Orm
One simple new rule regarding minor country setup would solve some of the trouble with Belgium.
-At least one corps sized unit must be set up on the minors capital. (You could add - if the minor has 2 land units or more)

Nikolaj (npilgaard) already proposed something like that :
************************************
At DoW on Minor country: attacker can choose among the Minor’s units 1 INF-type unit and set it up in the Minor’s capital. Defender set up remaining units.
At alignment of Minor country: A major power of the other side of the one aligning can choose among the Minor’s units 1 INF type unit and set it up in the Minor’s capital. Aligner set up remaining units.
Rationale : Avoid unrealistic setups, where homeland is unguarded to save units.
************************************

[peskpesk]

IMO No change can be made to the important Netherland/Belgium/Germany border without compensating Germany (I have seen too many Germans bog down already). A restriction on the minor country setup is a option that would suffice.

[wosung]

Many good ideas!

If there should be the need to manipulate the setting for the German campaign in France, probably it's better to restrain/weaken the Wallies (by setup or ZOC rules) instead of strengthening the German side (by OC), because, as was said before, the latter also would change the game balance in the East too much.

If I may ask, how often are house rules used for WIF board gaming? They are probably easily negotiated at the table, but hard to code.

Regards

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: wosung

Many good ideas!

If there should be the need to manipulate the setting for the German campaign in France, probably it's better to restrain/weaken the Wallies (by setup or ZOC rules) instead of strengthening the German side (by OC), because, as was said before, the latter also would change the game balance in the East too much.

I agree that strengthning the Axis side is not a good idea.
But, weakening the wallies side may not be a good idea either, because it could create an unwanted France 39 effect. The No ZoC rule has principaly this effect. This makes attacking in surprise so much successful, that it is very tempting to attack in the west in 39, combining the No ZoC rule to the weak 1939 wallies.

If I may ask, how often are house rules used for WIF board gaming? They are probably easily negotiated at the table, but hard to code.

We use a couple in our gaming group (from our house rules, a couple became official errata, that's great !)