Grand Strategy

[Mad Russian]

Ah...another insight....the game now has forts in it......those should prove interesting.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Ah...another insight....the game now has forts in it......those should prove interesting.

Good Hunting.

MR

We added some forts in Sweden (Lulea) at the start of the war. These are weaker forts (1/2 instead of 1/3 the attacker). Newly constructed forts are also 1/2.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Ah...another insight....the game now has forts in it......those should prove interesting.

Good Hunting.

MR

We added some forts in Sweden (Lulea) at the start of the war. These are weaker forts (1/2 instead of 1/3 the attacker). Newly constructed forts are also 1/2.

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, you're telling me you added forts to the build pools, which are major construction projects that takes MONTHS to construct and require tremendous resources, but not airfields which are relatively easy to make and can be put into operation within weeks...........that makes perfect sense to me....[8|]

Either way, the idea of constructing forts is worthwhile.

Both Brest Litovsk, Konigsberg, Metz should all be forts as well. I guess being able to build them as forts is better than nothing.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
We added some forts in Sweden (Lulea) at the start of the war. These are weaker forts (1/2 instead of 1/3 the attacker). Newly constructed forts are also 1/2.

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, you're telling me you added forts to the build pools, which are major construction projects that takes MONTHS to construct and require tremendous resources, but not airfields which are relatively easy to make and can be put into operation within weeks...........that makes perfect sense to me....[8|]

Either way, the idea of constructing forts is worthwhile.

I think you misunderstood what Steve was saying.

WiF FE always gave the players the ability to build Fort hexsides. They take 5 turns to build. Steve just said above that we decided to give 6 of those hexsides to the hex of Lulea in Sweden, which does not mean that we introduced forts in MWiF. Forts exist in WiF FE since 1996.

Now for airfields, there is no need for that because this notion is abstracted in the stacking limit of each hex. As you know, Ports and cities augment that capacity, because it is assumed that there are more airfields. For a temporary increase of stacking for air units, HQ units and ENG units provide an extra capacity, that you can WiF Zen as beeing extra airfield maintained operational by the presence of the extra ENG presence or HQ organisationnal capacities.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
We added some forts in Sweden (Lulea) at the start of the war. These are weaker forts (1/2 instead of 1/3 the attacker). Newly constructed forts are also 1/2.

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, you're telling me you added forts to the build pools, which are major construction projects that takes MONTHS to construct and require tremendous resources, but not airfields which are relatively easy to make and can be put into operation within weeks...........that makes perfect sense to me....[8|]

Either way, the idea of constructing forts is worthwhile.

I think you misunderstood what Steve was saying.

WiF FE always gave the players the ability to build Fort hexsides. They take 5 turns to build. Steve just said above that we decided to give 6 of those hexsides to the hex of Lulea in Sweden, which does not mean that we introduced forts in MWiF. Forts exist in WiF FE since 1996.

Now for airfields, there is no need for that because this notion is abstracted in the stacking limit of each hex. As you know, Ports and cities augment that capacity, because it is assumed that there are more airfields. For a temporary increase of stacking for air units, HQ units and ENG units provide an extra capacity, that you can WiF Zen as beeing extra airfield maintained operational by the presence of the extra ENG presence or HQ organisationnal capacities.

You're right I didn't understand. I thought the newly constructed forts would remain a fort when the engineer or headquarters left the hex.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
You're right I didn't understand. I thought the newly constructed forts would remain a fort when the engineer or headquarters left the hex.

Humm.... constructed forts have nothing to do with ENG or HQ.
They are built like other units, take 5 turns to arrive on the map, cost between 2 & 5 BP, and need no HQ nor ENG, neither to be built nor to be maintained.

I was just evocating HQ & ENG because they increase the stacking limit of hexes for air units, so you can WiF Zen them as temporarily used extra airfields.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
You're right I didn't understand. I thought the newly constructed forts would remain a fort when the engineer or headquarters left the hex.

Humm.... constructed forts have nothing to do with ENG or HQ.
They are built like other units, take 5 turns to arrive on the map, cost between 2 & 5 BP, and need no HQ nor ENG, neither to be built nor to be maintained.

I was just evocating HQ & ENG because they increase the stacking limit of hexes for air units, so you can WiF Zen them as temporarily used extra airfields.

Okay, the point is exactly that.

Forts are built with a plan and resources. They take time to do. They never disappear unless they are dismantled which can take more resources than putting them together.

The WORST World in Flames rules is where HQ can stack extra air units on them but when they move the extra stacking limits are gone.

250 planes!!!

What gives a HQ or any other unit the ability to manufacture airfield capacity for 250 that can be made and lost within moments?

There is nothing like it in real life. The Japanese spent months trying to put an airfield in Guadalcanal.

The entire reason the US went to Guadalcanal, in the first place, was that airfield. In WiF/MWiF it is already magically operational on the map.

What is one of the reasons for the Germans not taking Moscow? The airfields were muddy fields. If the Germans had made improved fields closer to Moscow, and they could have, they could have continued flying missions during the muddy season. They didn't and it was one of the reasons they didn't take Moscow.

Most hexes in WiF shouldn't automatically have airfields. The game should have airfields at all the major cities and open ground hexes. Anything other than that should require airfields that were built on them.

Think of all the bases that were upgraded in the Pacific on islands that were taken by the US. Every single island the US took had it's airfields upgraded. To do that in WiF you have to supply HQ units to them. How many HQ units are you willing to put in support of airfields that were permanent facilities once the US upgraded them? And that is just from a US perspective. The other nations had the same issues.

A HQ didn't just show up and raise the number of aircraft that could fly off Guadalcanal/Iwo Jima/etc... by 250 and when the HQ went on to other operations have those airfields all at once magically disappear. Many operations in WWII were to capture quality airfields or the locations to build quality airfields.

What did they take bulldozers and knock trees down over the newly constructed runways? Then on penalty of death (overstack and they get removed from the game) you can't put the 250 planes back on those runways until another HQ comes along and says to reopen them?

Yeah, this make a whole lot of sense.

None of this matters because it's not a part of WiF FE. So it won't be a part of MWiF either. When the MWiF2 comes about I'll present my case there for the airfield situation in the game both for exclusion and inclusion.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Forts are built with a plan and resources. They take time to do. They never disappear unless they are dismantled which can take more resources than putting them together.

Forts are removed from the map when the enemy occupy them. This is the only way to remove them from the map. There is no "dismantling".

[brian brian]

Having played a lot of Third Reich before discovering WiF, I have always thought about the airbases. That and the historical campaigns in the Pacific which were frequently airbase driven. This is why I don't think every speck of dry land in the Pacific should become a full hex on the new scale MWiF map with built-in airplane stacking....some should be edited out as just too small to be militarily significant (i.e. they could never hold more than a single squadron or two).

But one of the reasons WiF has had the great run it has had in the gaming world is the bottom line playability it has. (This complicated of a game is highly 'playable'? What is brian brian smoking now?) But seriously, abstract airbases go right along with several other simplifications, such as the shipping required for overseas supply. In WiF, that is invisible. And most of the players like it that way. A perfect example is the Engineers optional. Long before it became an official rule to separate out Combat Engineers from Construction Engineers, players made that so via a simple House Rule before the game started. Similarly, few players want to use the tanker counters, regardless of how important tanker fleets were in the real war.

It is a bit silly that extra airbase capacity disappears when an ENG or HQ moves away, true. But I do like the way the HQ units represent logistic capability, so when one shows up you can use more planes. But after that, how would you represent newly constructed airfields? I don't think anyone who plays with the full current counter set would welcome new counters for airbases. So one has to live with the capacity disappearing when the ENG or HQ moves.

This is where the computer will come in, someday. The computer will be able to handle administrative tasks that are currently difficult to simulate on paper without using up too much of a WiF player's most precious asset - time. But I can predict this...when computerized logistics and airbase stacking and other similar systems are ready, many, many players will ask for the new systems to be optional, and they won't use them by choice. American production would have to be totally re-worked to have the merchant shipping required for D-Day represented in the game, for example.

Wargamers want to be Patton. They don't want to be the guy organizing the motor pool for the Red Ball Express, even though we all know Patton couldn't go anywhere without the Red Ball Express bringing him more gas, and of course neither could the blond German tank commander in the Battle of the Bulge movie.

[LiquidSky]

Actually the blonde guy could buy his gas from the Red Ball express black market.

[micheljq]

If USA lose Pearl Harbor, this is bad, if Japan defends with good land units.

Pago Pago could serve as another base, it's a major port 3 sea zones from Los Angeles, same distance as Honolulu. From Pago Pago, I would advance on the Solomons, try to take Truk. There is also Brisbane in Australia who is a good base or Rabaul if the allies still have it, which happens sometimes because Rabaul is a good defensive spot, it's a major port in a mountain hex.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

Actually the blonde guy could buy his gas from the Red Ball express black market.

But luckily for our hero, he failed to exit the Orient Express. (Being too greedy was his downfall.)