Absolute Minimum

[WarHunter]

I'm curious.

The only option i feel is absolutely necessary in a game is Scrap units. Anything added from then on is personal taste.
No other option is required to play the game and still have fun. Or am i wrong?

What are the absolute minimum options you would play with?

Options added since topic started.
Divisions
Artillery
Ski Troops
Engineers - Combat
Chinese Warlords
Siberians
Queens
Offensive Chits
Fortifications
Motorized Movement Rates
Amphibious Rules
SCS Transport
Emergency HQ Supply
Fighter Bombers
Tank Busters
Flying Boats
Extended Aircraft Rebasing
Saving Oil Resources and Build Points
Off City Reinforcement
Scrap Units
Fractional Odds
Extended Game
Additional Chinese Cities
Blitz Bonus for 1D10 or 2D10 whatever your preference.

[AxelNL]

Offensive chits? Important for USA late-game? And to break open French and Russian defensive lines, and Pearl Harbour ...?

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: AxelNL

Offensive chits? Important for USA late-game? And to break open French and Russian defensive lines, and Pearl Harbour ...?

You bring up a good point. Offensive chits help add choices to any nation willing to spend for them. Especially the boost depending on impulse choice. This option is worth considering as an absolute minimum.

[warspite1]

My absolute minimums i.e. if I was offered, at some point in the future, a multi-player game - what would I point-blank refuse to play without?

Carrier Planes
Cruisers In Flames
Convoys In Flames (if available)
Amphibious Rules
Divisions
Artillery
Pilots
Saving Build Points - I did not include this in my current AAR and its a pain...

[Courtenay]

I regard motorized movement costs as fundamental to the play of the game.

O-chits are pretty high up there.

Fractional odds and saving build points are not essential, but both of them make the game easier to play, not harder.

There are many rules that I will not play without, but they are not essential.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

I'd say that

Pilots
Partisans
O-Chits
Motorized Movement
SiF
Compulsory USSR-Japan peace

Are the vital ones.

Shortly behind them are

Amphibious rules
Limited Overseas supply
Oil
Divisions/Artillery
In the Presence of the Enemy (to keep the U.S. from launching suicide cruisers at the Sea of Japan until they get a lucky roll)


Warspite: I don't mean this in an accusatory way, but why did you list Cruisers in flames as a "vital" optional? I'm not even 100% convinced it makes the game better, it makes this much, much easier for the Allies to operate, especially early in the game.

[paulderynck]

Have to agree about Cruisers in Flames. I think that option is almost as unbalancing in favor of the Allies as No ZOC on Surprise favors the Axis.

[WarHunter]

If its not clear by now, I'm trying to get an idea of what options would make an ideal "absolute minimum" global campaign scenario.

Disclaimer
All opinion is directed at the options not the individual. This is a mental exercise to find the fewest options to use in a game, and still have fun. A sort of balance between history and playability. Nothing is personal.

Thank you for your participation, in advance.

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

My absolute minimums i.e. if I was offered, at some point in the future, a multi-player game - what would I point-blank refuse to play without?

Carrier Planes
Cruisers In Flames
Convoys In Flames (if available)
Amphibious Rules
Divisions
Artillery
Pilots
Saving Build Points - I did not include this in my current AAR and its a pain...

Warspite1,
I'm glad you included Convoys in Flames. Even though its not coded for the name yet. It is worth noting the options not yet active for the future.
Now about your choices.

Amphibious Rules: This is a great canidate for inclusion. It adds to gameplay choices without added complexity.
Saving Build Points: Another very good addition. Not being forced to discard 1 BP and save it for use later is noteworthy.

Pilots: With this option you get a pilot counter for the cost of 2 BP. All aircraft are 2BP less. So you end up buying more of them. Without this option all aircraft costs are increased by 2 BP. You make due with the random pick of aircraft. Because of the minimumlist approach. pass.
Carrier Planes: Another option that adds many counters and complexity. Mixing and matching CVP with CV. up to 2 CVP per CV. This another option i love to play with. So with much remorse. pass.
Cruisers In Flames: I like it. It just adds alot more counters. This one gets passed over.

Divisions & Artillery: These 2 options add a very important change to the game. Being able to stack up to 3 land units in a hex. I like the options. Have always played with them. Even though the options add counters, for the scale of the game they may be needed additions. I'm on the fence. Help me!

Convoys in Flames: Sidelined awaiting the day of activation.

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay
I regard motorized movement costs as fundamental to the play of the game.
O-chits are pretty high up there.
Fractional odds and saving build points are not essential, but both of them make the game easier to play, not harder.
There are many rules that I will not play without, but they are not essential.

Courtenay, Thanks for the input.

Motorized movement costs: This is another fine addition to minimum options. It recreates the differences between leg and motor units pretty well. Added.

Saving build points: Agree that it makes playing easier.
O-chits: Another vote in favor.

Fractional odds: Do not agree it makes playing easier. It just means a player can be sloppy. Rather than sending 15 combat factors for a 3-1. A player will send more units equal to X and hope the RNG gives him another odds in his favor. Because this option only favors the attacker, it will not be included as absolute.

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge
I'd say that

Pilots
Partisans
O-Chits
Motorized Movement
SiF
Compulsory USSR-Japan peace

Are the vital ones.

Shortly behind them are

Amphibious rules
Limited Overseas supply
Oil
Divisions/Artillery
In the Presence of the Enemy (to keep the U.S. from launching suicide cruisers at the Sea of Japan until they get a lucky roll)

Ur_Vile_WEdge, Thanks for adding to the conversation.

O-Chits: Added.
Motorized Movement: Added.
Amphibious rules: Added.


Partisans: Another rule that probably should be included. Without it, too many areas of the map become empty. The inclusion of this option gives ammo to include Divisions and Artillery. On the fence waiting for more input.

Divisions/Artillery: You are helping convince me to include it as core minimum.

Pilots: Another vote for pilots. The allure is there, the multitude of counters in its wake. Your vote gives strength to including it. I really want to include it. But must resist just for the sake of letting others have a say.


Limited Overseas supply: Using counters meant for another purpose. Now doing double duty for an idea that should have had its own counter set. Not a good fit for an absolute minimum option.

In the Presence of the Enemy (to keep the U.S. from launching suicide cruisers at the Sea of Japan until they get a lucky roll): Interesting caveat. I suspect this is a gamey tactic you despise with a passion. I'm not in favor of using this option. Not convinced a rule should be included because of possible gamey tactics. We are adults. This is something that could be talked about before hand. I would lend an ear to what house rule you have come up with without resorting to this marginal use option.

Oil: Currently i won't touch this one until it flows like black gold from a gushing Texas oil well right into the refinery. If it was working smoothy. Is the added complexity worth the time? I'll let the audience have their say. Kinda in the camp of a non-absolute minimum scenario.

Compulsory USSR-Japan peace: This is one I'd like to see coded. How it affects deployments for the Japanese and Soviets won't be known until it is. Sidelined.

SiF: An option to add even more ships? [:)]

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

paulderynck,
Have to agree about Cruisers in Flames. I think that option is almost as unbalancing in favor of the Allies as No ZOC on Surprise favors the Axis.

I have not played with Cruisers in Flames. Please give us some background on the unbalancing nature of this option. When you have some time. I'd like to read what is known.

[Dabrion]

my 2cents:

First stating the obvious: the absolute minimum is everything unchecked;) Not sure it makes for a good game.


Most of the "options" reflect evolution of the game/rules over the years and editions. I would say that these should be ON as the foundation. They also have a high chance to be core in future version of WiF. These include:
* Divisions, Artillery, Funnies, Partisans, GBA!!, CBV, Siberians, Pilots, CVP, Queens, OChits (Points preferred), Forts & facilities
* Mot.Move, 2D10 LCRT
* Amphibious, Annual naval offensive bonus,
* Emergency HQ supply
* all air rules, exc. en-route and night missions
* off-city reinf., fractional odds, scaping units (this is an option?!)

Pretty sure most of these are rather undisputed in WiF SD games. This makes a solid basis and leave lot of room to customise with the rest.


Second block (balancing options):
* CLiF - the amount of CL the CW starts with is insane! JP has the best cruiser pool (quality wise), but still it favours the allies, esp. early on. It also has issues with SCS transport acting as divisional launchpads.
* ITPOTE - incentifies to stay at sea, favours the defender (IT/JP), tones down allied naval power projection
* No ZOC in surprise - killer, can go either way, generally said to favor axis
* nation specific rules - their effect is obvious
* carpet bombing - pro allies


Third block (flavour):
LOS - some say its too trivial to hold supply without, convoy tax for wallies, supply is more of a search roll gamble now
OIL - AfA oil is bad, hopefully we see KiF oil soon, without oil the axis will play balls out (including saved oil and synth)
CoiF - larger focus on strategic naval warefare (more subs, convoy patrols, surface raiders, subhunters), by favorite naval kit
TERR, Partisan HQ, NSU, and basically all other options that add counters are fine
Hitlers War - only tried once and didn't like it - some say it is pro axis
Supply rules - straights will have you transport more by CP
night missions - only for strat bombing would be ok
Intelligence - aka "sanctioned cheating" .. another set of variable to track.. old rules where to powerful (interfering with USE), the KiF variant seems alright

Not sure what I forgot... Most other rules will act as a magnifying glass for a specific aspect of the rules (variable reorg etc.)

[paulderynck]

r.e. CLiF - pretty much what Dabrion said. With so many CLs the CW can make the Battle of the Atlantic useless to even try, when it's already very difficult for the Axis.

[Dabrion]

Is the CL damage rule in MWiF, where you have to allocate a damage/destroyed towards one BB or 2 CA/CL ?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

I'd say that

Pilots
Partisans
O-Chits
Motorized Movement
SiF
Compulsory USSR-Japan peace

Are the vital ones.

Shortly behind them are

Amphibious rules
Limited Overseas supply
Oil
Divisions/Artillery
In the Presence of the Enemy (to keep the U.S. from launching suicide cruisers at the Sea of Japan until they get a lucky roll)


Warspite: I don't mean this in an accusatory way, but why did you list Cruisers in flames as a "vital" optional? I'm not even 100% convinced it makes the game better, it makes this much, much easier for the Allies to operate, especially early in the game.

warspite1

Warhunter asked for personal opinions on what are the minimum options we would each play with. I gave mine as each have given theirs.

I chose cruisers in flames because that option is important to me. The naval aspect of WWII holds the most interest and getting to play with all those famous ships is a bonus for me.

I am new to the current rule set and many of the options. If Cruisers In Flames unbalances the game that much then maybe over time I will be forced to think differently, but that is not my view at present.

BTW You mentioned SiF - but I did not think that was an option - that is compulsory, or have I missed something?

[WarHunter]

Dabrion, Happy to see you pitch in your 2cents. I knew you liked the game, just not happy with the money spent. Same way i felt about my last trip to the strip club. Over priced drinks, Cheap no skillz dancers and only 1 person in the joint, me. At least the DJ played my requests. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c24SiqJbLDg

The Absolute Minimum should be no options. But without Scraping as a starting point the game fails. I've tried it more than a few times since buying. Since not using it is so painful. I've decided it will be the foundation of a Absolute Minimum option scenario.

I'm not going to comment on your 2nd or 3rd Block options. Suffice to say they are far up the ladder and are effectively out of range for this conversation.

Your 1st block is worth discussing. Going to break them down a little.
Scraping units, OChits, Amphibious, Motorized Movement. These 4 have made the cut in my opinion.

Hobart Funnies? Divisions, Artillery, Partisans: Again these show up. The overall tilt is going there way. Not yet though.

Fractional odds: Still not sold that this option does anything but help the attacker. It is being mentioned, so must have consideration.


First time mentioned. If anyone has something to add about these options, please speak up.

Queens: Fast transport for infantry types. Its not hard to implement and gives variety and flavor.
Siberians: Historical flavor. Can't think about the East front without Siberians.
Fortifications: Allowing players to build forts is not excessive addition. Pretty easy to implement.
Off City Reinforcement: Helps with stacking problems during reinforcements.
Emergency HQ supply: Allow HQ to supply in an out of supply condition.

2D10 Land CRT: This is an option. Advanced play. 1D10 is more of the basic training CRT.

All air rules, exc. en-route and night missions: The fact this adds sixteen options -2. We will pass on these. Unless some sort of reason is put forth for each individually.

Not exactly clear on what Facilities. Synthetic Oil Plants? Factory Destruction & Construction?

Annual naval offensive bonus: Never heard of this option in MWiF. Is there another name for it?

City Based Volunteers, Guards Banner Armies: Currently not coded. Sidelined for later discussion.

My purpose is to create a list of options to be used by a new player, old player, returning player anyone who wants to learn the game and not be overwhelmed. If we have an understanding of what options people like to play with, we can go forward with a basic set of options and add from there.

Its just a starting point for players to decide what is a fun, fair game. No arguments. Just set up and play. We all know what to expect. I already see some options are popular. To a new person this is helpful to know. When playing solo, adding these well liked options will help ease a new player into the game. Hopefully an old hand at the game will be more inclined to include a new player with these options as a foundation.

Hell, I'm not even sure anyone would play with the options chosen in this topic. But I'll give it a damn good try at finding out.

[AxelNL]

Partisans adds complexity. It is stated it affects both sides in a balanced game (e.g. india), than taking it away would not hinder the game balance too much. In my current game it adds time and dilutes focus. For a minimum set I would vote to keep them out. I will certainly leave them out in my next game.

Divisions adds counters, but not that much time. Makes play a bit easier I would say. I would vote in favour.

[AxelNL]

Pilots adds counters and an extra phase to spend time/mental power on. Yes, it makes Air more flexibile, but is that needed in the minimum set?

[Centuur]

The absolute minimum for me:

Motorised movement rates
HQ support
Emergency HQ supply
Pilots
USSR-Japanese compulsory Peace
Carrier planes
Additional Chinese cities
Offensive chits
No ZOC on surprise impulse (since it is historically correct to play with this rule, which does favour the Axis). I would have liked to see this rule in the rulebook itself and not having it as an optional one...

Optional rules which I don't want to play with are:

Construction Engineers. There aren't enough engineer units for this rule to be valid. It tends to balance game towards the allied side a lot, since to use factories, the Axis need to repair them and build points gone in 1939 take a huge toll on the Axis economy...

Convoys in Flames. Adds to many units and make the game too complex. But perhaps this will be better in MWIF...
Oil tankers. Adds to the complexity of the game and makes convoy routing even harder than it is now...

In the presence of the enemy. I just don't like this rule.

Limited overseas supply. I simply cannot understand why this optional rule is so popular. Now, I can understand that merchantmen have to be used to supply units overseas, but to use a whole convoy point to supply only one division? That's ridiculous and completely a-historical. There should come a better rule to simulate this. You should be able to break down convoy points into supply ships and than use those for supply. A convoy point simply is to much shipping to keep certain area's in supply. Roughly speaking, a German soldier needed about 400 kg. a month to be fully supplied. So to keep 10.000 men in supply for two months you would need one ship capable of cargoing 8.000 tons, not a convoy point which simulates far more shipping. This rule is too much and a-historical...

Night air missions: too much for a strategic game...
Japanese command conflict: historically correct? I don't know if the producing of planes was really the point where the generals and admirals were bickering about. Anyway, I don't like the way this is done in WiF.

Intelligence: this rule favours the allies too much, since they have far to many build points in late game to spare for intelligence. Also, the US gets far to many for their build points spend. Apart from this I don't like the opportunity to roll for the next impulses weather. The weather comes as it is and there wasn't any country in the world which could make a good forecast during WW II for more than a couple of days...