Options

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Tonqeen

Where can I see all the options that can be chosen when you start the game? I read it will be 80 of them.

Here is what I plan on using:

Hi guys this should not be here,I just transfered this info to the Empires in Arms forum,as they are constantly squabling about what they do and don't want in the game,while I just want more options cheers, I can't wait for World in Flames to be released looks superb!

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Yes but why ?

I don't like ITPOTE because it is not realistic and, and that's the main point, not historical at all.

Anywone is still to prove me wwrong by listing a few examples of historical fleet moves that were "slowed down" because of enemy unknown presence. As all the examples I provided the main list, and I can find hundreds others, wwe see that fleets zoomed their way, and stroke what they found, or entered into battle with adversity and either were doomed or successful. But there is nothing as "oh, an enemy cruiser is reported, I'm scared I will be carefull from now on", as fleet admirals were cautioous all the time, even in home waters.

But why is Intell so silly for you ?

Don't you agree that Intell did a great part of the job for the allies during WW2 ? I believe this is true, so I believe that the game has to model that enormous edge they had, don't it ?

Otherwize it would be like saying that LND2 with 5 Tac factors are silly for Germany in 1939, or saying that the Blitz table don't fit your need and forbidding it in your games.

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

      WiF is a fantasy game.  I hope nobody is under any illusions that WiF models some sort of historical outcome.  It is a game, and many things have been changed to make the game enjoyable to play.  Many of those things favour the axis, because they needed some chance to be able to win.  Do you honestly believe that the Italian's should even be represented by as a major power in WWII?  That the Germans could have matched the allies in airpower? 

    In our group, we allow no rule discussion to revolve around 'history'.  We only allow a rule to be discussed for its 'fun factor'.  And possibly for play balance if a person needs a little help, although after 20 years of playing WiF, we dont need to do that anymore.

I'll second that. And an option that allows a re-roll of a die or a secret roll of one is not to my taste, nor do I feel the game needs rebalancing to the extent that Intel does it.

Most options are favorable to one side or the other - ITPOTE not so much - and the Doolittle raid got scared by a fishing boat, but this has all been discussed ad nauseum, ad infinitum, ad barfium, and I'm busy doing US Entry simulation runs.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Yes but why ?

I don't like ITPOTE because it is not realistic and, and that's the main point, not historical at all.

Anywone is still to prove me wwrong by listing a few examples of historical fleet moves that were "slowed down" because of enemy unknown presence. As all the examples I provided the main list, and I can find hundreds others, wwe see that fleets zoomed their way, and stroke what they found, or entered into battle with adversity and either were doomed or successful. But there is nothing as "oh, an enemy cruiser is reported, I'm scared I will be carefull from now on", as fleet admirals were cautioous all the time, even in home waters.

But why is Intell so silly for you ?

Don't you agree that Intell did a great part of the job for the allies during WW2 ? I believe this is true, so I believe that the game has to model that enormous edge they had, don't it ?

Otherwize it would be like saying that LND2 with 5 Tac factors are silly for Germany in 1939, or saying that the Blitz table don't fit your need and forbidding it in your games.

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

      WiF is a fantasy game.  I hope nobody is under any illusions that WiF models some sort of historical outcome.  It is a game, and many things have been changed to make the game enjoyable to play.  Many of those things favour the axis, because they needed some chance to be able to win.  Do you honestly believe that the Italian's should even be represented by as a major power in WWII?  That the Germans could have matched the allies in airpower? 

    In our group, we allow no rule discussion to revolve around 'history'.  We only allow a rule to be discussed for its 'fun factor'.  And possibly for play balance if a person needs a little help, although after 20 years of playing WiF, we dont need to do that anymore.

I'll second that. And an option that allows a re-roll of a die or a secret roll of one is not to my taste, nor do I feel the game needs rebalancing to the extent that Intel does it.

Most options are favorable to one side or the other - ITPOTE not so much - and the Doolittle raid got scared by a fishing boat, but this has all been discussed ad nauseum, ad infinitum, ad barfium, and I'm busy doing US Entry simulation runs.

OK OK, but it was about the Intell rule, not the ITPOTE.

Intell favor the Allied, but, hey, I hope it does ! Who did Intell favor during the war, and how is it modeled in the game if you don't use intell ?

Well, these are my reasons for always using it, there is no re-balancing issues in my choice.

Also, secret rolls are not a problem within our group, we trust each other. We could play without revealing a single die roll. Sometime we don't even look at it, we trust the one who threw it.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

      WiF is a fantasy game.  I hope nobody is under any illusions that WiF models some sort of historical outcome.  It is a game, and many things have been changed to make the game enjoyable to play.  Many of those things favour the axis, because they needed some chance to be able to win.  Do you honestly believe that the Italian's should even be represented by as a major power in WWII?  That the Germans could have matched the allies in airpower? 

    In our group, we allow no rule discussion to revolve around 'history'.  We only allow a rule to be discussed for its 'fun factor'.  And possibly for play balance if a person needs a little help, although after 20 years of playing WiF, we dont need to do that anymore.

Well, I guess we are in the early stages of the WiF FE addiction. We still think that it models some sort of historical activities, and we like that [:D]

Too bad for you that you lost that state.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

OK OK, but it was about the Intell rule, not the ITPOTE.

Intell favor the Allied, but, hey, I hope it does ! Who did Intell favor during the war, and how is it modeled in the game if you don't use intell ?

Well, these are my reasons for always using it, there is no re-balancing issues in my choice.

Also, secret rolls are not a problem within our group, we trust each other. We could play without revealing a single die roll. Sometime we don't even look at it, we trust the one who threw it.

I'd need to know all the other optionals you use/don't use before I could say the net result is balanced one way or the other. Right now I think the game with the optionals we use is quite well balanced, so we don't need Intel.

And it's not to my taste not because we can't trust each other as you seem to imply but funnily enough for someone who thinks there is still a reality to the game as you do, it is because the set of effects seem to imply divine powers have been granted to one of the sides. "Re-roll a die" - What happened, did your side invent time travel and go back and drown the enemy's general in his baby tub?

[brian brian]

My favorite naval mission to consider in regards to In The Presence of the Enemy is the German decision to send the Bismarck west of Iceland, where they still ran into the British Patrol Line maintained by Heavy Cruisers. Kinda like the way it can work out in the game sometimes. Heavy Cruisers go to the high boxes around the North Atlantic while reaction forces wait it out in port to see what the Kriegsmarine might do. Using the Presence optional is very hard on the German ships...but very helpful for the Japanese. I have long thought though, that a given Major Power should be able to use one of it's own SUBs (not an Ally's, even a cooperating one) to get out of paying the movement penalty if the SUB is in the zone at the start of the movement phase. One of the tasks of SUBs was for recon after all.

I like playing with Intell. I think a lot of players don't like it for more than the reason that the USA can buy up all of the goodies later on (which I hate....the Allies need no help in WiF, given equal opponents, as I feel Con results have been showing for a long time now). They have a hard time remembering and dreaming up uses for it in an already highly complicated game. (I think people have a similar issue with using Hidden Task Forces). It's hard enough to manage all of your units in all of their campaigns; adding more tools to your toolbox doesn't always simplify your job.

I like using Intell for the Axis a lot though; knowing the weather in advance (your weathermen won a micro-battle in Greenland or some other Arctic island) can be critical for maximizing the efficiency of your impulse type decisions, and early in the game with few pieces on the board this is very important. For the Allies, I like using it to manipulate the die roll for Partisans, but I guess that will be going away in MWiF.

[csharpmao]

Hello,

Answering the orinial question, I've also found this site (http://www.helsinki.fi/~vsaarine/wif/rules/)

You will foud there ,

• Rules (RAW 7.0) as .doc and .pdf (Part of the options can be found at chapter 22)
• List of optional rules (but related to rules version 6, so maybe there is some minor differences)
• List of scenarios with some advices

I hope it can help you, and maybe others.

Sharpmao

[willycube]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Froonp

OK OK, but it was about the Intell rule, not the ITPOTE.

Intell favor the Allied, but, hey, I hope it does ! Who did Intell favor during the war, and how is it modeled in the game if you don't use intell ?

Well, these are my reasons for always using it, there is no re-balancing issues in my choice.

Also, secret rolls are not a problem within our group, we trust each other. We could play without revealing a single die roll. Sometime we don't even look at it, we trust the one who threw it.

I'd need to know all the other optionals you use/don't use before I could say the net result is balanced one way or the other. Right now I think the game with the optionals we use is quite well balanced, so we don't need Intel.

And it's not to my taste not because we can't trust each other as you seem to imply but funnily enough for someone who thinks there is still a reality to the game as you do, it is because the set of effects seem to imply divine powers have been granted to one of the sides. "Re-roll a die" - What happened, did your side invent time travel and go back and drown the enemy's general in his baby tub?

I try to read everyones point of view with total respect for ones feelings and their expertise in this game that I dont know yet, so why is it necessary to say "go back and drown the enemy's general in his baby tub" when Froonp is expressing his point of view, and clearly he knows what he is talking about, thats the stuff we got rid of 2 months ago.
I truly dont understand this.

Willy

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
And it's not to my taste not because we can't trust each other as you seem to imply but funnily enough for someone who thinks there is still a reality to the game as you do, it is because the set of effects seem to imply divine powers have been granted to one of the sides. "Re-roll a die" - What happened, did your side invent time travel and go back and drown the enemy's general in his baby tub?

Reroll a die is 15 points, that is it is the most expensive intell option ever. I nearly 20 games, I think we never used it, because intell points tend to stay be in small numbers, and when they are over 10 or 20, generaly this transforms (in my group at least) in attempts to take the initiative, or modifying die rolls (5 points each).

This said, there is not divine powers. My WiF Zen for this is : "The battle could have gone wrong, (bad die roll) but thank to extremely helpfull intell (re-rolled die) it was won (good re-roll)".

Remember that you may be able to re-roll, but you may also be able to roll worse than your first roll (which is I believe the reason why we never use this). So this may as well translate into : "The battle could have gone wrong, (bad die roll) but thank to extremely deceitfull intell (re-rolled die) it was an uter defeat (re-rolled die is worse than first die).

Also, keep in mind that sometime you are wasting intell in modifiers that finaly you don't use. Example, my enemy attacks me at +10, I think I can turn the tables with a little intell, and I annouce that I will modify the die roll (+1 / 0 / -1) (before it is cast). My enemy rolls a 4, which leads to the famous 3/1, I'm happy with that so I apply to it a modifier of 0 to keep it that way. I wasted my 5 intell points.

Also, I can't count the times where the USA tried to steal the intitiative using intell (we call it that way) by rolling the die and giving it either to the allies or the axis, and when finally he lost.

So Intell points go much more to the allied than the axis, but intell is not that much of a game breaker nor an all-mighty god like ability.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: csharpmao

Hello,

Answering the orinial question, I've also found this site (http://www.helsinki.fi/~vsaarine/wif/rules/)

You will foud there ,

• Rules (RAW 7.0) as .doc and .pdf (Part of the options can be found at chapter 22)
• List of optional rules (but related to rules version 6, so maybe there is some minor differences)
• List of scenarios with some advices

I hope it can help you, and maybe others.

Sharpmao

You should not use this (RAW + optional rules) it is outdated.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: willycube

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Froonp

OK OK, but it was about the Intell rule, not the ITPOTE.

Intell favor the Allied, but, hey, I hope it does ! Who did Intell favor during the war, and how is it modeled in the game if you don't use intell ?

Well, these are my reasons for always using it, there is no re-balancing issues in my choice.

Also, secret rolls are not a problem within our group, we trust each other. We could play without revealing a single die roll. Sometime we don't even look at it, we trust the one who threw it.

I'd need to know all the other optionals you use/don't use before I could say the net result is balanced one way or the other. Right now I think the game with the optionals we use is quite well balanced, so we don't need Intel.

And it's not to my taste not because we can't trust each other as you seem to imply but funnily enough for someone who thinks there is still a reality to the game as you do, it is because the set of effects seem to imply divine powers have been granted to one of the sides. "Re-roll a die" - What happened, did your side invent time travel and go back and drown the enemy's general in his baby tub?

I try to read everyones point of view with total respect for ones feelings and their expertise in this game that I dont know yet, so why is it necessary to say "go back and drown the enemy's general in his baby tub" when Froonp is expressing his point of view, and clearly he knows what he is talking about, thats the stuff we got rid of 2 months ago.
I truly dont understand this.

Willy

Once again you misjudge me due to your apparent inability to recognize humour that lacks a smiley insertion. Please consider one inserted wherever you think best.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Froonp

OK OK, but it was about the Intell rule, not the ITPOTE.

Intell favor the Allied, but, hey, I hope it does ! Who did Intell favor during the war, and how is it modeled in the game if you don't use intell ?

Well, these are my reasons for always using it, there is no re-balancing issues in my choice.

Also, secret rolls are not a problem within our group, we trust each other. We could play without revealing a single die roll. Sometime we don't even look at it, we trust the one who threw it.

I'd need to know all the other optionals you use/don't use before I could say the net result is balanced one way or the other. Right now I think the game with the optionals we use is quite well balanced, so we don't need Intel.

And it's not to my taste not because we can't trust each other as you seem to imply but funnily enough for someone who thinks there is still a reality to the game as you do, it is because the set of effects seem to imply divine powers have been granted to one of the sides. "Re-roll a die" - What happened, did your side invent time travel and go back and drown the enemy's general in his baby tub?

This is the first time I've read much about the intelligence rules to the game, so keep that in mind......

During the war Allied intelligence was decisive in winning the war in the time it was accomplished. Would the Allies have won the war without Enigma, Red Orchestra and the U.S. having broken the Japanese codes? Who knows. What we do know is that reading the enemies mail was very good when fighting him.

That would be an option that would be pretty historically accurate. As to game play balance it should tip the scales in the Allies favor considerably. Depending on what the intel rules are.

Changing the course of battles was indeed done with the intelligence information the Allies got and used. The Battle of Midway and at Kursk are two examples but the list is very long.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Once again you misjudge me due to your apparent inability to recognize humour that lacks a smiley insertion. Please consider one inserted wherever you think best.

Not to get into this very deep at all but the smiley's are there for use, to keep this very thing from happening. Instead of him determining where you intend humor maybe you should be the one who inserts the smiley and then there is no question.

Maybe he's not used to dealing with humor from the North! [:D]


Good Hunting.

MR

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
That would be an option that would be pretty historically accurate. As to game play balance it should tip the scales in the Allies favor considerably. Depending on what the intel rules are.

I can bring in some experience here, about the "should tip the scales in the Allies favor considerably".

Play experience shows that it helps, that is granted, but it is not tiping consideraly in the allies favor.

At least in the games I played.

There is one caveat to that : The Axis have to invest BP on Intell to limit its availability to the Allies. If they don't, it may tip the scales considerably in the allies favor.


What I exoerienced in our games, is a couple of BP spent on intell by the CW (1-3) each turn, plus 3-4 points for the USA each turn when they enter the war (growing to 5-6 maybe more in 44 / 45), and a couple (most of the time only 1) spent by USSR.

To limit that, Germany often have to invest 2-3 BP in intell per turn too, plus 0-2 for Japan. Italy generaly never spend on intell, except in games where she survives past 42, she have too small production.

We impose gearing limits on Intell expenditures (I'm not sure this is RAW, but it is better, as everything you build is subject to gearing limits), so no country can spend a very large amount suddenly. It have to grow from 1 BP initially, plus 1 BP per turn each turn if it want to grow. So generaly the BP spent are pretty much consistent through all the turns, and tend to increase when the Production Multiple increase, and toward the end of the war when there is nothing more to build.

[Caquineur]

Hello everyone,

ORIGINAL: Froonp

...We impose gearing limits on Intell expenditures (I'm not sure this is RAW, but it is better, as everything you build is subject to gearing limits)...

From RAW, "...During the intelligence step, active major powers can attempt to gather intelligence. Each of them has a free intelligence operation. For each build point you spent on intelligence during production, you have a further intelligence operation. Intelligence operations are subject to gearing limits (see 13.6.6) as a separate class...", so if I understand correcty, "this is RAW" ? Am I right, wrong or left with my doubts ? [;)]

I've never played WiF, so my experience is... somewhat limited !

Alain

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Caquineur

Hello everyone,

ORIGINAL: Froonp

...We impose gearing limits on Intell expenditures (I'm not sure this is RAW, but it is better, as everything you build is subject to gearing limits)...

From RAW, "...During the intelligence step, active major powers can attempt to gather intelligence. Each of them has a free intelligence operation. For each build point you spent on intelligence during production, you have a further intelligence operation. Intelligence operations are subject to gearing limits (see 13.6.6) as a separate class...", so if I understand correcty, "this is RAW" ? Am I right, wrong or left with my doubts ? [;)]

I've never played WiF, so my experience is... somewhat limited !

Alain

Yes, this is right. From what you quoted, my group is playing that correctly.
You see, I forgot. It's been so long since we play that option (since day 1, in 1997), and it is never argued, so we don't go re read it very often and I did not remember it was RAW.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Once again you misjudge me due to your apparent inability to recognize humour that lacks a smiley insertion. Please consider one inserted wherever you think best.

Not to get into this very deep at all but the smiley's are there for use, to keep this very thing from happening. Instead of him determining where you intend humor maybe you should be the one who inserts the smiley and then there is no question.

Maybe he's not used to dealing with humor from the North! [:D]


Good Hunting.

MR

I agree the written word alone is an imperfect form of communication. [:(] But, good grief, [8|] if you're going to misinterpret that sentence then, let's face it, you can misinterpret [>:] any smiley as well [:@]

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: Froonp


We impose gearing limits on Intell expenditures (I'm not sure this is RAW, but it is better

It is RaW now, and that is definitely the better way to play it. I think a lot of the opposition to the rule comes from when there was no gearing limit on it. I think there is a lot of opportunity in the future of WiF with the Intell system.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Once again you misjudge me due to your apparent inability to recognize humour that lacks a smiley insertion. Please consider one inserted wherever you think best.

Not to get into this very deep at all but the smiley's are there for use, to keep this very thing from happening. Instead of him determining where you intend humor maybe you should be the one who inserts the smiley and then there is no question.

Maybe he's not used to dealing with humor from the North! [:D]


Good Hunting.

MR

I agree the written word alone is an imperfect form of communication. [:(] But, good grief, [8|] if you're going to misinterpret that sentence then, let's face it, you can misinterpret [>:] any smiley as well [:@]

Sorry about the BO thing I changed my e-mail address and screwed it all up.

I apoligize Paul for not noting the humor, it did not seem to upset Patrice so I should have shut up and zipped it as my grandson says to me [but what does he know[:D]] I guess I still remember all the nasty remarks a couple of months ago, anything you posted was ripped apart and panned all the time, until I believe many people did not want to post here, when you think about it with all the many thousands of posts here on the Matix forums only a very few do the posting and if snide remarks are made by anyone about their post just maybe they are afraid to post. I am reffering to the snide remarks made two months ago by a few people. You and Patrice and MR are very knowlegable about this game and you may not feel the frustration that myself and other newbies go through trying to understand this game. I trully need your input to help me learn what seems to be a brillant war game. Again I apoligize to you for my comments which as I see now were inappropriate.

Willy

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: bo
I apoligize Paul for not noting the humor, it did not seem to upset Patrice so I should have shut up and zipped it as my grandson says to me [but what does he know[:D]]

Hey, you did well indeed ! [:D] I did not reply to Paul's "humor", because I'm used having people being rude with me and treating me as childish. Anyway I like it, who don't want to be childish here ? We all want, and we all are [:D]

I guess I still remember all the nasty remarks a couple of months ago, anything you posted was ripped apart and panned all the time,

Funny that I don't remember that time that you speak about. Are you sure it is the MWiF Forums ?

until I believe many people did not want to post here, when you think about it with all the many thousands of posts here on the Matix forums only a very few do the posting and if snide remarks are made by anyone about their post just maybe they are afraid to post. I am reffering to the snide remarks made two months ago by a few people. You and Patrice and MR are very knowlegable about this game and you may not feel the frustration that myself and other newbies go through trying to understand this game. I trully need your input to help me learn what seems to be a brillant war game. Again I apoligize to you for my comments which as I see now were inappropriate.

Don't be afraid to post, I think that ea all want to share our gaming (and history ?) experience of WiF FE here with you and any so called newbie.

I hope I was not one of those that made those "snide remarks" that you talk about from 2 month ago, I don't remember seing them. I'm not too sure either by what you mean by "snide remarks", but I know that I can be quite rude myself sometimes from time to time, but usualy it is not with people that don't know the game.