Naval Bombardment

[Orm]

My main trouble with shore bombardment is with the sea box system. The ships are close to the shore bombarding enemy troops yet they are very hard to find for short range aircraft. No mines either. No torpedo boats.

There are no risk involved with shore bombardment im WIF that was a present danger and a deterrent during WWII.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

My main trouble with shore bombardment is with the sea box system. The ships are close to the shore bombarding enemy troops yet they are very hard to find for short range aircraft. No mines either. No torpedo boats.

There are no risk involved with shore bombardment im WIF that was a present danger and a deterrent during WWII.

warspite1

Good point.

[composer99]

Not only that, but the ships higher up in the box are more effective at shore bombardment.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Fire Control Officer: 'Captain, we have to crease firing at the enemy.'

Captain: 'Why? Are we out of shells?'

FCO: 'No. We have plenty of shells. But we have reached the maximum number of shells we are allowed to shoot.'

Captain: [&:]

Makes perfect sense to me [:'(] NOT.

Not exactly sure what you are saying?

The Ground combat force is the limiting factor in the game for both Air and naval combat factors.

This is not something that has changed with any edition of the game.
Maybe you can explain what you want? No matter how extreme it sounds.

I was referring to this post from above.

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

The change that has been made in v.8 of the rules, which is quite a good one IMHO, is that there can only be the same *number* of ships shore bombarding as there are corps-sized land units in the side of the combat. i.e. if you are attacking with 3 corps, then only 3 ships can shore bombard. It makes the big battleships a bit more useful, and combined with the "spotting bombarding fleets" rule really limits the amount of impact that shore bombarding ships can have in the combats occurring along the edge of their sea zone.

I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement.

But due to my lack of typing skills and other factors, my post did not appear right after this so so sowed confusion all around [:(]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Timian

Where can I get a copy (digits) of RAW 8.0? Thanks, Don.

It is still in playtest development and has not been officially released. It has been made available to players at the US, Europe and Australian WiFCons.

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: Orm

My main trouble with shore bombardment is with the sea box system. The ships are close to the shore bombarding enemy troops yet they are very hard to find for short range aircraft. No mines either. No torpedo boats.

There are no risk involved with shore bombardment im WIF that was a present danger and a deterrent during WWII.

This is a great point and it has been brought up many times over the years I think. For a good example of this, read up on what happened to the USS Savannah. In general though, the Allies operated with such air and naval superiority at any and all amphibious operations that the defenders rarely were able to hurt the supporting naval ships. But that was in history … the game is much different as humans commanding cardboard will take greater risks and operate on more of a shoe-string. The game can reward this at times in ways that reality would not.

The not-yet-public rules edition 8 attempts to address this but fails in my opinion. The ships that shore bombard have to drop to the 0 box after they do it .. in theory this makes them more vulnerable to enemy NAV units at sea, as the enemy NAV would get a surprise point bonus attacking the 0 box. But I disagree, as dropping to the 0 box just allows any short range FTR on the invading side to cover the ships, from any base touching the sea zone. Not realistic at all. And in terms of striking at an invasion ….. your infantry can see the enemy battleships bombarding them and the landing craft disgorging troops in their binoculars, but your bomber pilots have to roll a 3 or 4 to attack those same ships?

My suggestion to the Rules 8 process was to place shore bombarding ships and ships unloading invading troops (only invasions) on the adjacent sea-dot during the enemy impulse (one impulse only), where they could be subject to a Port Strike mission (still subject to search dice and the random chaos of war, but hex-dot considered to be 0 box instead of a 3 or 5 as in port). And the invading side would have to figure out how to get fighter cover over that sea-dot. This was rejected in favor of the now many years old proposal of moving them to the 0 box instead.

Invading an enemy shore outside of the range of your own land-based air would be a serious thing. Carriers could cover things to a degree of course. But WiF has this problem everywhere due to the sea box system. The best US strategy in the Pacific, in my opinion, is to use Wake and the Marshalls for an airbase for fighters to cover the invasion of the Bonin Islands (Iwo Jima). Which would be completely impossible in the real Pacific.

It is my sincere hope that the MWiF project will be finished, then WiF8 and Days of Decision can be put on a computer, and some day after that the power of computer technology can be put to use to solve some of the realism problems that creep in to the otherwise highly playable sea-box system. And Fog-of-War in production too, and other things that get lost in realism in the interest of playability in person. Computers can help improve that trade-off. But I'm not holding my breath that any of that will ever happen.

[paulderynck]

Another problem with dropping them to the zero box is that at the end of the turn, they can return to bases much further away than if they were in the 3 or 4 box. Combined with the ease with which so many short range fighters (which by '44 the Allies have a surfiet of) can cover them (leaving the better, longer range fighters to cover the troops inland, and allowing them a no-action-cost rebase to the continent) makes it a very poor rule change IMO.

...but it is a separate option, and players can and should choose not to use it.

Seems to me that because of the longer range rebase factor, the final wording was that if you use the rule, the defender decides if the invading/shore bombarding ships go down to the zero box or not, then the attacker has the option to move any others (CVs anyone?) from the same box along with them.

Sounds like a real fun coding challenge if it ever were to be added to MWiF.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Timian

Where can I get a copy (digits) of RAW 8.0? Thanks, Don.

I believe this is WiF 8

2008 WiF Annual (incl Factories in Flames) Price: $60.00 US, $60.00 AU

[Timian]

Thanks / Pretty sure I have the 2008 WiF Annual / Will look when I get Home. Don.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: Timian

Where can I get a copy (digits) of RAW 8.0? Thanks, Don.

I believe this is WiF 8

2008 WiF Annual (incl Factories in Flames) Price: $60.00 US, $60.00 AU

RAW 8 is not yet available anywhere.
It is still under developpement.

Bits of the 2008 Annual are included in RAW8, but RAW8 is not in the 2008 Annual.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

ORIGINAL: Orm

My main trouble with shore bombardment is with the sea box system. The ships are close to the shore bombarding enemy troops yet they are very hard to find for short range aircraft. No mines either. No torpedo boats.

There are no risk involved with shore bombardment im WIF that was a present danger and a deterrent during WWII.

This is a great point and it has been brought up many times over the years I think. For a good example of this, read up on what happened to the USS Savannah. In general though, the Allies operated with such air and naval superiority at any and all amphibious operations that the defenders rarely were able to hurt the supporting naval ships. But that was in history … the game is much different as humans commanding cardboard will take greater risks and operate on more of a shoe-string. The game can reward this at times in ways that reality would not.

The not-yet-public rules edition 8 attempts to address this but fails in my opinion. The ships that shore bombard have to drop to the 0 box after they do it .. in theory this makes them more vulnerable to enemy NAV units at sea, as the enemy NAV would get a surprise point bonus attacking the 0 box. But I disagree, as dropping to the 0 box just allows any short range FTR on the invading side to cover the ships, from any base touching the sea zone. Not realistic at all. And in terms of striking at an invasion ….. your infantry can see the enemy battleships bombarding them and the landing craft disgorging troops in their binoculars, but your bomber pilots have to roll a 3 or 4 to attack those same ships?

My suggestion to the Rules 8 process was to place shore bombarding ships and ships unloading invading troops (only invasions) on the adjacent sea-dot during the enemy impulse (one impulse only), where they could be subject to a Port Strike mission (still subject to search dice and the random chaos of war, but hex-dot considered to be 0 box instead of a 3 or 5 as in port). And the invading side would have to figure out how to get fighter cover over that sea-dot. This was rejected in favor of the now many years old proposal of moving them to the 0 box instead.

Invading an enemy shore outside of the range of your own land-based air would be a serious thing. Carriers could cover things to a degree of course. But WiF has this problem everywhere due to the sea box system. The best US strategy in the Pacific, in my opinion, is to use Wake and the Marshalls for an airbase for fighters to cover the invasion of the Bonin Islands (Iwo Jima). Which would be completely impossible in the real Pacific.

It is my sincere hope that the MWiF project will be finished, then WiF8 and Days of Decision can be put on a computer, and some day after that the power of computer technology can be put to use to solve some of the realism problems that creep in to the otherwise highly playable sea-box system. And Fog-of-War in production too, and other things that get lost in realism in the interest of playability in person. Computers can help improve that trade-off. But I'm not holding my breath that any of that will ever happen.

If you say that the naval bombardment rules have a problem in that it is too difficult to force a combat against bombarding ships, I agree completely.

However, this does not mean that one should limit shore bombardment to just a handful of ships. That fix does not address the problem, and prevents what was actually done from being done.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

RAW 8 is not yet available anywhere.
It is still under developpement.

Bits of the 2008 Annual are included in RAW8, but RAW8 is not in the 2008 Annual.

MWiF should have been stabilized before adding untested, undocumented, and preposed rules.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: Froonp

RAW 8 is not yet available anywhere.
It is still under developpement.

Bits of the 2008 Annual are included in RAW8, but RAW8 is not in the 2008 Annual.

MWiF should have been stabilized before adding untested, undocumented, and preposed rules.

warspite1

Which untested, undocumented and proposed rules have been added to MWIF?

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Which untested, undocumented and proposed rules have been added to MWIF?

When I was in the beta Steve asked Me look up all the options and their cross references in WiFFE-RAW-7.0 for which I complied.

Since MWiF was supposed to be based on WiFFE-RAW-7.0. And since bits of the 2008 Annual are included in RAW8, but RAW8 is not in the 2008 Annual.

You are still in the beta Warspite.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to supply us all with a list of all the rules and their cross references not found in WiFFE-RAW-7.0 that are now included in MWiF. As I did for the options in WiFFE-RAW-7.0.

Since these would be the untested, undocumented and proposed rules that were not included in CWiF (IE. WiFFE-RAW-7.0).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Which untested, undocumented and proposed rules have been added to MWIF?

When I was in the beta Steve asked Me look up all the options and their cross references in WiFFE-RAW-7.0 for which I complied.

Since MWiF was supposed to be based on WiFFE-RAW-7.0. And since bits of the 2008 Annual are included in RAW8, but RAW8 is not in the 2008 Annual.

You are still in the beta Warspite.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to supply us all with a list of all the rules and their cross references not found in WiFFE-RAW-7.0 that are now included in MWiF. As I did for the options in WiFFE-RAW-7.0.

Since these would be the untested, undocumented and proposed rules that were not included in CWiF (IE. WiFFE-RAW-7.0).

warspite1

Sorry if I am being a bit of a thicky but I have no idea what this post means [&:].

You stated that:

MWiF should have been stabilized before adding untested, undocumented, and preposed rules.

I was under the impression that MWIF was based on RAW 7 and that, although there are optionals not yet coded, there are no rules not in RAW 7 included in MWIF.

Your statement indicates otherwise and so I was just asking for clarification of which ones.

It was a simple question in response to your statement. Why have you mentioned CWIF? Why do you want me to provide a

list of all the rules and their cross references not found in WiFFE-RAW-7.0 that are now included in MWiF.

[paulderynck]

In this thread we are only discussing a difference between RAW7 and RAW8. The rule used in MWiF is the RAW7 one.

AFAICR the only rule that was adapted out of RAW8 for MWiF was the one about France controlling countries that were not French to begin with - when Vichy is declared. This was a change in RAW8 that was done due to all the game breaking difficulties that would arise in RAW7 if the NEI ends up controlled by Vichy France. Interestingly, the topic was first raised here in the MWiF public forum. From there it was taken to the RAW8 playtest forum, duly considered, and Harry made the change in RAW8.

There are a number of deviations from RAW7 in MWiF, but these were made by Steve because of extreme complexities in coding the original complete RAW7 rule. But these deviations would be deviations from RAW8 as well, they are not RAW8 rules.

[warspite1]

Thank-you that is clear.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
AFAICR the only rule that was adapted out of RAW8 for MWiF was the one about France controlling countries that were not French to begin with - when Vichy is declared.
This was a change in RAW8 that was done due to all the game breaking difficulties that would arise in RAW7 if the NEI ends up controlled by Vichy France.
Interestingly, the topic was first raised here in the MWiF public forum.
From there it was taken to the RAW8 playtest forum, duly considered, and Harry made the change in RAW8.

 
I believe minor power Militia becoming available the same way as major power Militia has been mentioned.
Am I incorrect on this being part of MWiF?
 
Are there other rules? What is with people having troubles getting used to new rules?
 
RAW 8 is:
1) Untested (it is still in development).
2) Undocumented (it is still subject to change while in development).
3) It is a proposed set of rules (it is still in development).
 
RAW 8 would have made a good update but should not have been included in MWiF.
 
 

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
AFAICR the only rule that was adapted out of RAW8 for MWiF was the one about France controlling countries that were not French to begin with - when Vichy is declared.
This was a change in RAW8 that was done due to all the game breaking difficulties that would arise in RAW7 if the NEI ends up controlled by Vichy France.
Interestingly, the topic was first raised here in the MWiF public forum.
From there it was taken to the RAW8 playtest forum, duly considered, and Harry made the change in RAW8.

I believe minor power Militia becoming available the same way as major power Militia has been mentioned.
Am I incorrect on this being part of MWiF?

Are there other rules? What is with people having troubles getting used to new rules?

RAW 8 is:
1) Untested (it is still in development).
2) Undocumented (it is still subject to change while in development).
3) It is a proposed set of rules (it is still in development).

RAW 8 would have made a good update but should not have been included in MWiF.

I agree, but, considering the amount of work that has and is been put on testing it, I would say it it is under test (because it is in development as you mentioned).

I, for one, have played several successive versions of RAW 8, and I think we are arriving to very nice balance of the game...

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

I believe minor power Militia becoming available the same way as major power Militia has been mentioned.
Am I incorrect on this being part of MWiF?

Yes.