On the mnp scale and game balance

[Kham]

To pass the time I played through a solo CWIF game to the summer of 1943 and I have some observations for what it is worth

In general, the screen format often led to forgetting a rebase or having a transport forgotten in some forsaken Pacific or African port. You can cycle through units but that just goes through so many that it is not really working. I don't know how it will work in MWIF but I would suggest that you could somehow set a priority flag for some units for future naval actions/rebase phases. So that they come up first when u scroll through units I mean.

The scale changes had great impact, always benefitting the attacking side.

China: Got conquered. Mostly due to infiltration and the use of air supply to reorganize the infiltrators when they got out of supply. This forced the Chinese back to their heartland, i.e. Chung-King, Lanchow and Kunming. The Japanese - having sustained practically no losses could afford low odds assaults and take those cities eventually.

Pacific: The joy of the Japanese was shortlived. The pacific battle turns defensive for the Japanese real quick usually - and all those extra islands are pretty much indefensible and soon become air bases for the americans. There are a bunch right next to Truk, and the marshalls got taken really quick. Rabaul when from a single hex nightmare that usually had to be bypassed to a 5 hex island where low cost units could just hammer away at the defenders and eventually get the port - killing Japanese reinforcements on their transports. (admittedly the Japanese could have prepared a better defense / surprise impulse but had a lot of units stuck inside China when war broke out). The end result was a rapid collapse of the Pacific perimeter and Americans in the Phillipines in 1943. All the extra units and production from a conquered China meant nothing - the Japanese where so busy trying to defend that they dropped all plans on India and Siberia. I have a hard time seeing how the pacific can be defended at all to be honest.

Russia: When the Russians lost the Moscow - Voronetz - Stalingrad line in 1943 and could not form a coherent line anymore they just got slaugthered. Retreating to "the pacific map" did not work. In the board game u need a lot less units to form a line on the pacific scale.

The Atlantic: All those extra islands made land-based air defense against subs much more simple.

Just some observations from trying it out. Use them for what it is worth.

[brian brian]

I think the new scale in China and the Urals will help illustrate that the standard WiF rule on Partisans needs some work...just not counting units for garrison within two hexes of an enemy unit would be a simple, but big, change. The new map and the size of the Japanese army will reveal Japanese strategic dreams to be ... dreams actually.

Also Napoleon would have loved commanding the attacking side in WiF...we all love simple supply rules, so we can be Patton, rather than Montgomery.

Land-based air was deadly against Subs ... but WiF already makes it more of a gimmee than it should be due to the units, the rules system, and their building structure rather than the number of bases to fly them from. I hope the new Portugese GARRison unit is in MWiF but I can't remember. Subs should be more dangerous in the game, where you need too many surprise points to sink something valuable. In real WWII, Subs sank over a dozen carriers. You will never see that happen in a game of WiF.

[Orm]

Portugals 1939 force pool.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Kham

To pass the time I played through a solo CWIF game to the summer of 1943 and I have some observations for what it is worth

In general, the screen format often led to forgetting a rebase or having a transport forgotten in some forsaken Pacific or African port. You can cycle through units but that just goes through so many that it is not really working. I don't know how it will work in MWIF but I would suggest that you could somehow set a priority flag for some units for future naval actions/rebase phases. So that they come up first when u scroll through units I mean.

The scale changes had great impact, always benefitting the attacking side.

China: Got conquered. Mostly due to infiltration and the use of air supply to reorganize the infiltrators when they got out of supply. This forced the Chinese back to their heartland, i.e. Chung-King, Lanchow and Kunming. The Japanese - having sustained practically no losses could afford low odds assaults and take those cities eventually.

Pacific: The joy of the Japanese was shortlived. The pacific battle turns defensive for the Japanese real quick usually - and all those extra islands are pretty much indefensible and soon become air bases for the americans. There are a bunch right next to Truk, and the marshalls got taken really quick. Rabaul when from a single hex nightmare that usually had to be bypassed to a 5 hex island where low cost units could just hammer away at the defenders and eventually get the port - killing Japanese reinforcements on their transports. (admittedly the Japanese could have prepared a better defense / surprise impulse but had a lot of units stuck inside China when war broke out). The end result was a rapid collapse of the Pacific perimeter and Americans in the Phillipines in 1943. All the extra units and production from a conquered China meant nothing - the Japanese where so busy trying to defend that they dropped all plans on India and Siberia. I have a hard time seeing how the pacific can be defended at all to be honest.

Russia: When the Russians lost the Moscow - Voronetz - Stalingrad line in 1943 and could not form a coherent line anymore they just got slaugthered. Retreating to "the pacific map" did not work. In the board game u need a lot less units to form a line on the pacific scale.

The Atlantic: All those extra islands made land-based air defense against subs much more simple.

Just some observations from trying it out. Use them for what it is worth.

Units are much less likely to be forgotten. The 'new' Selectable Units form shows all the air units that can move in each subphase. So fprgetting to rebase a unit shouldn't happen. The same goes for strategic bombing, and fighter support/interception. The Selectable Uuits form is also used for reorganiztion (by HQ or TRS), invasions, and any where else that only a few units can be selected. For example, it is not used for land and naval moves.

We added cities to China (optioanl rule with MWIF) that makes defense easier. We also reworked the China map extensively making the terrain a closer match to reality - which means it is more diverse than in CWIF. And more notable is the rerouting of the Yellow River from a northern path to a southern path, with lake hexsides. This reflects the historical breaking of the dams and canals by the Chinese in the late 1930's.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
In real WWII, Subs sank over a dozen carriers. You will never see that happen in a game of WiF.

Whoa - that sounds wrong. Where's Warspite when we need him?

Subs may have finished off a few CVs but outright credit for sinking a dozen CVs ???

If WiF had a rule that damaged ships had to limp back to a home country port, instead of teleporting through the fourth dimension from, say, Diego Garcia- to the Repair Pool in Japan, USA or England; then we might see more realistic results.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: brian brian
In real WWII, Subs sank over a dozen carriers. You will never see that happen in a game of WiF.

Whoa - that sounds wrong. Where's Warspite when we need him?

Subs may have finished off a few CVs but outright credit for sinking a dozen CVs ???

If WiF had a rule that damaged ships had to limp back to a home country port, instead of teleporting through the fourth dimension from, say, Diego Garcia- to the Repair Pool in Japan, USA or England; then we might see more realistic results.

Warspite1

Top of my head we have:

HMS Courageous
HMS Ark Royal
Shokaku
Shinano
Taiho
4 or 5 smaller Japanese carriers and light carriers
USS Wasp
USS Yorktown (just finished off after being pummelled by the navy bombers)

Brian Brian is right - although look how many were Japanese CV's at the hands of US subs

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: brian brian
In real WWII, Subs sank over a dozen carriers. You will never see that happen in a game of WiF.

Whoa - that sounds wrong. Where's Warspite when we need him?

Subs may have finished off a few CVs but outright credit for sinking a dozen CVs ???

If WiF had a rule that damaged ships had to limp back to a home country port, instead of teleporting through the fourth dimension from, say, Diego Garcia- to the Repair Pool in Japan, USA or England; then we might see more realistic results.

Warspite1

Top of my head we have:

HMS Courageous
HMS Ark Royal
Shokaku
Shinano
Taiho
4 or 5 smaller Japanese carriers and light carriers
USS Wasp
USS Yorktown (just finished off after being pummelled by the navy bombers)

Brian Brian is right - although look how many were Japanese CV's at the hands of US subs

Warspite1

That was unforgivable - I forgot HMS Eagle....[&:]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think the new scale in China and the Urals will help illustrate that the standard WiF rule on Partisans needs some work...just not counting units for garrison within two hexes of an enemy unit would be a simple, but big, change. The new map and the size of the Japanese army will reveal Japanese strategic dreams to be ... dreams actually.

Also Napoleon would have loved commanding the attacking side in WiF...we all love simple supply rules, so we can be Patton, rather than Montgomery.

Land-based air was deadly against Subs ... but WiF already makes it more of a gimmee than it should be due to the units, the rules system, and their building structure rather than the number of bases to fly them from. I hope the new Portugese GARRison unit is in MWiF but I can't remember. Subs should be more dangerous in the game, where you need too many surprise points to sink something valuable. In real WWII, Subs sank over a dozen carriers. You will never see that happen in a game of WiF.

About the subs versus carriers, ...

- Each SUB unit in WIF represents multiple submarines.
- The time line for a naval combat is usually 2 months (there may be multiple combats in a sea areas during a turn, but that is uncommon).
- In WIF subs, surface ships, and land based air often fight together against naval units (e.g., carriers).

So, while the instances of a WIF SUB attacking and sinking a carrier are rare, the involvement of a SUB in a naval combat that sinks a carrier is less rare. Although I have to agree that WIF players do not build SUBs for the purpose of attacking enemy carriers.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think the new scale in China and the Urals will help illustrate that the standard WiF rule on Partisans needs some work...just not counting units for garrison within two hexes of an enemy unit would be a simple, but big, change. The new map and the size of the Japanese army will reveal Japanese strategic dreams to be ... dreams actually.

Also Napoleon would have loved commanding the attacking side in WiF...we all love simple supply rules, so we can be Patton, rather than Montgomery.

Land-based air was deadly against Subs ... but WiF already makes it more of a gimmee than it should be due to the units, the rules system, and their building structure rather than the number of bases to fly them from. I hope the new Portugese GARRison unit is in MWiF but I can't remember. Subs should be more dangerous in the game, where you need too many surprise points to sink something valuable. In real WWII, Subs sank over a dozen carriers. You will never see that happen in a game of WiF.

About the subs versus carriers, ...

- Each SUB unit in WIF represents multiple submarines.
- The time line for a naval combat is usually 2 months (there may be multiple combats in a sea areas during a turn, but that is uncommon).
- In WIF subs, surface ships, and land based air often fight together against naval units (e.g., carriers).

So, while the instances of a WIF SUB attacking and sinking a carrier are rare, the involvement of a SUB in a naval combat that sinks a carrier is less rare. Although I have to agree that WIF players do not build SUBs for the purpose of attacking enemy carriers.

I only sink carriers if the players is stupid enough to use them to protect convoys ...

really a good use off 3 surprise points

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: paulderynck



Whoa - that sounds wrong. Where's Warspite when we need him?

Subs may have finished off a few CVs but outright credit for sinking a dozen CVs ???

If WiF had a rule that damaged ships had to limp back to a home country port, instead of teleporting through the fourth dimension from, say, Diego Garcia- to the Repair Pool in Japan, USA or England; then we might see more realistic results.

Warspite1

Top of my head we have:

HMS Courageous
HMS Ark Royal
Shokaku
Shinano
Taiho
4 or 5 smaller Japanese carriers and light carriers
USS Wasp
USS Yorktown (just finished off after being pummelled by the navy bombers)

Brian Brian is right - although look how many were Japanese CV's at the hands of US subs

Warspite1

That was unforgivable - I forgot HMS Eagle....[&:]

OK. I sit corrected.

[fallgelb]

IMO to use Argus, Eagle, Hermes as Escort Carriers in the North Atlantic is the right decision as long as the Sunderland from Bermuda or the ASW Carriers are not available. CONV are more important than this old carriers. In any case it absorbes 3 Surprise points otherwise available for raising CONV losses and the carriers have rescue dierolls. Most painful would be to lose a pilot.

[paulderynck]

I agree. Even with more than 10 convoys in the North Atlantic, the chances of the subs finding with 7 or more surprise against a CV with a 4-range aircraft onboard are 16.8%. It will take a lot of subs or a lot more surprise to get an X result.

[michaelbaldur]

I was talking about fleet carriers ...

I have seen a player using his class 2 fleet carriers as convoy escort ..   

[sajbalk]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I agree. Even with more than 10 convoys in the North Atlantic, the chances of the subs finding with 7 or more surprise against a CV with a 4-range aircraft onboard are 16.8%. It will take a lot of subs or a lot more surprise to get an X result.

I would point out only that the convoy points adust the die roll, whereas the CV adjusts the search number. Thus the latter effects surprise points, whereas the former does not.

In non-storm and non-blizzard weather, the SUB will need 7 surprise points to target a CV: 4 to choose surface, and 3 to pick a target. If the SUB is in the 4 box, and the CV in the 1 box (to account for air) the SUB starts out with 3 surprise points. The SUB needs to find (rolling a 5 or less) and outroll the CW side by 4 on the dice.

In storm or blizzard, the CV cannot use its air. Thus the SUB will need 3 surprise points to pick the CV as a target (after choosing surface combat). The SUB starts in the 4 box and the CV in the 0 box. Thus the CW side needs to roll more than 2 less than the SUB side to avoid this (assuming the SUB side finds).

I think it good practice to target the CVs as they are expensive to replace and success in one round makes the battle much easier in the next round, assuming a find.

[paulderynck]

My calculation assumed fair weather and more than 10 convoys (but less than 21), but I counted in the find probability twice.

If 10 or less convoys, the odds are 20%.

Edit: corrected the calculation.

[brian brian]

The whole air/Sub thing in WiF is just goofy ("I'll react my Spitfire out to cover my convoys..."). The Courageous was sunk in the first month of the war on anti-sub patrol ... and it's planes didn't even have a bomb that could hurt a submarine. Here's a good WWII trivia question for you - what happened to the first British aircrew to attack a U-Boat? The U-Boat captured them! How? Their bombs bounced off the water and destroyed the attacking aircraft, and the chivalrous submariners took them back to Germany with them. It took the Allies quite some time to figure out how to sink subs with planes, but in WiF the Courageous is a very effective convoy escort from the very first turn. Convoys in Flames and the sub-chaser plane units help on this some, but the sub/air rules system could still use some deeper thinking, in my opinion. No country in WWII used fleet carriers as anti-sub escorts ... in fact significant ASW assets were kept around fleet carriers at all times due to the sub threat. And while a SUB counter represents 'about' 15-30 subs, how often does the sub side lose an entire counter without scratching an enemy force that has a carrier? It only took one real submarine to sink an enemy capital ship. SUBs do sink CVs on occasion in WiF, but those numbers will never add up to the numbers in the real war, and the CV sinkings during convoy battles is just silly. I guess you could use SUBs in WiF the way Steve mentions, as part of a 'combined arms' action at sea, but that's not how WiF Admirals nor real Admirals tended to use Subs, except of course that Subs and surface ships might operate in the same seas (zones in WiF), so the Subs could finish off stragglers as was mentioned.


I am glad to see the Mech in Flames 2.0 units made it into the game, thanks Steve!

I think the map scale will changes will not affect balance that much, but it will change how you plan. Who wins the game will still depend on who has a realistic plan and builds accordingly, etc.

China will be the biggest change for the players at first...but the Russian empire beyond the Volga will be a wrenching change. Russia can come back from the large scale Asian map, though players don't always try. Where a German high-tide comes to rest on the new map and Russia's chances of return will be interesting to game out. I predict a much more freewheeling mobile battle in 42-43 than tends to happen currently once the Volga becomes the front line. If the real Germans had made it into this area I don't think there would have been a solid 'front' for either side any longer and partisan problems would have become even greater for the Axis all over former Russian territory. WiF does not do well at modeling that.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: brian brian
In real WWII, Subs sank over a dozen carriers. You will never see that happen in a game of WiF.

Whoa - that sounds wrong. Where's Warspite when we need him?

Subs may have finished off a few CVs but outright credit for sinking a dozen CVs ???

If WiF had a rule that damaged ships had to limp back to a home country port, instead of teleporting through the fourth dimension from, say, Diego Garcia- to the Repair Pool in Japan, USA or England; then we might see more realistic results.

Warspite1

Top of my head we have:

HMS Courageous
HMS Ark Royal
HMS Eagle
Shokaku
Shinano
Taiho
4 or 5 smaller Japanese carriers and light carriers
USS Wasp
USS Yorktown (just finished off after being pummelled by the navy bombers)

Aircraft Carriers sunk by submarine by date
09/17/39 HMS Courageous (50) about 190 nautical miles southwest of Dursey Head, Ireland sunk by German submarine U-29
11/13/41 HMS Ark Royal (91) 16:37 about 25 nautical miles east of Gibraltar by German submarine U-81
12/21/41 HMS Audacity (D 10) 21:37 about 500 miles west of Cape Finisterre on the west coast of Galicia, Spain sunk by German submarine U-751
06/06/42 USS Yorktown (CV5) off Midway Islands sunk by Japanese submarine I-168
08/11/42 HMS Eagle (94) during Operation 'Pedestal') bound for Malta sunk by German submarine U-73
09/15/42 USS Wasp (CV7) while in operations off Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands sunk by Japanese submarine I-19
11/14/42 HMS Avenger (D 14) escorting convoy MKF 1 from Gibraltar heading home to the Clyde sunk by German submarine U-155
11/24/43 USS Liscome Bay (CVE 56) off Makin Island sunk by Japanese submarine I-175
12/04/43 IJN Chuyo (CVL) departed Truk for Yokosuka as part of a task force led by IJN Zuiho sunk by USS submarine Sailfish (SS-192)
05/29/44 USS Block Island (CVE 21) northeast of Canary Islands sunk by German submarine U-549
06/19/44 IJN Shokaku (CV) at the Battle of the Marianas sunk by USS submarine Cavalla (SS-244)
06/19/44 IJN Taiho (CVL) at the Battle of the Marianas sunk by USS submarine Albacore (SS-218)
08/18/44 IJN Taiyo (CVL) escorting convoy HI-71 to Manila sunk by USS Rasher (SS-269)
09/17/44 IJN Unyo (CVL) escorting convoy HI-74 of five tankers with six escorts for Moji sunk by USS submarine Barb (SS-220)
11/29/44 IJN Shinano (CV) transporting 6 `Shinyo' suicide boats, 50 Ohka suicide rockets of the "Thunder-Gods" Corps to Kure sunk by USS submarine Archerfish (SS-311)
12/19/44 IJN Unryu (CV) transporting 30 "Ohka" suicide rockets of the “Thunder-Gods” Corps to Manila sunk by USS submarine Redfish (SS-395)

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

The whole air/Sub thing in WiF is just goofy ("I'll react my Spitfire out to cover my convoys..."). The Courageous was sunk in the first month of the war on anti-sub patrol ... and it's planes didn't even have a bomb that could hurt a submarine. Here's a good WWII trivia question for you - what happened to the first British aircrew to attack a U-Boat? The U-Boat captured them! How? Their bombs bounced off the water and destroyed the attacking aircraft, and the chivalrous submariners took them back to Germany with them. It took the Allies quite some time to figure out how to sink subs with planes, but in WiF the Courageous is a very effective convoy escort from the very first turn. Convoys in Flames and the sub-chaser plane units help on this some, but the sub/air rules system could still use some deeper thinking, in my opinion. No country in WWII used fleet carriers as anti-sub escorts ... in fact significant ASW assets were kept around fleet carriers at all times due to the sub threat. And while a SUB counter represents 'about' 15-30 subs, how often does the sub side lose an entire counter without scratching an enemy force that has a carrier? It only took one real submarine to sink an enemy capital ship. SUBs do sink CVs on occasion in WiF, but those numbers will never add up to the numbers in the real war, and the CV sinkings during convoy battles is just silly. I guess you could use SUBs in WiF the way Steve mentions, as part of a 'combined arms' action at sea, but that's not how WiF Admirals nor real Admirals tended to use Subs, except of course that Subs and surface ships might operate in the same seas (zones in WiF), so the Subs could finish off stragglers as was mentioned.

Warspite1

But the point is Courageous would have been an effective convoy escort if used properly. The problem was that right at the start of the war the Royal Navy used their carriers in the wrong way - to search for U-boats, thus making them vulnerable to attack themselves.

The problem in the case you mention was that the attack was made too low and the bomb bounced off the surface of the water - not that the bomb was useless against a submarine. In a follow up attack by a third Skua, U-30 had her conning tower damaged by machine gun fire and was forced to return home. To limit a subs effectiveness just keep her submerged and you have an effective convoy escort.

In reality, while the Royal Navy were quick to realise that aircraft vs subs = good idea, their execution was wrong and this took a while to sort out, but as the CW player you now know the answer from the start. This problem is not limited to naval rules of course.

Remember this is a strategic level game and unless you want a mountain of individual rules stopping this or that, then you have to accept players will use units to their best advantage regardless of whether its a bit gamey or ahistorical; you can't uninvent history.

May be part of the problem is having individual ship units in a strategic level game - but I think Ships In Flames is a brilliant addition and is worth the trade off.

[Skanvak]

The real problem for the map cale is distortion on distance as we go north. Make it a sphere.

As for infiltration or Island, MWiF will have a lot of division that could allow for blocking the path. I think it is more realist than the opposite way.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

The real problem for the map cale is distortion on distance as we go north. Make it a sphere.

Warspite1

That won't happen in MWIF version 1 if at all.