House Rules

[brian brian]

Orm does raise an interesting point about a game mechanic players dislike - the "teleportation" of units in certain instances. But it is not easy to overcome the simplicity of that via rules. I would disagree with limiting the TRS counters in any way. Again, you can not force the players to acknowledge defeat in advance.




Also the raid-the-Baltic idea is something from history. Churchill greatly wanted to do it. His naval commanders persuaded him to give up on the suicidal idea.

I do like a House Rule allowing the Germans to move a few ships as if they had moved them on the Jul/Aug 39 turn and left them at sea, to simulate the historical raid of the Deutschland and the Graf Spee, and allowing some basic patrolling in the Baltic Sea. But there is also a simple way for the Germans to avoid an Allied raid on the surprise impulse - simply don't set up Convoy Points in the Baltic Sea, and move them out later in the turn when the only thing left to do is attack Warsaw.

[Orm]

My suggestion allows for CW to stay in France as long as they like. But they can not just abandon the troops in France either. If they stay, after France have surrendered, they must try to have the resources available to evacuate if needed.

That idea that the CW would have fought to the bitter end on the mainland feels strange to me. They evacuated from France, Norway, Greece and Crete. They did not leave the troops there to fight to the bitter end in order to delay the German plans.

[brian brian]

You can always take the Wif-Zen approach - they fought, the battle was lost (perhaps a counter is removed from the map), and the survivors were evacuated. But the point is - make the Axis fight first, don't just retreat first. Did they evacuate fully intact full strength units from any of those places? No. The real British made contact with the enemy and planned to win the battle, not deploy just to evacuate later; nor did they fight to the last man as too many people are imagining in this thread now. WiF players that just withdraw all the time because they might lose their counters usually lose the game, though first they declare it hopelessly rigged for the Axis. You have to make the other player roll the dice, not just build and hoard the pretty counters and wait for automatic victories.

You have to remember that the combat system is an abstract one, and precise attrition isn't measured as it is in some other games.

The point of deploying units in a delaying tactic is to cost the enemy time ... time which might save other units, elsewhere. It is a standard part of war going back to the 300 Spartans. Once the Allies in WiF figure this out, they do much better. Do you leave a single British Infantry on a clear coastal hex surrounded by three Panzer corps with nothing else to do? No, that would be dumb. Do you leave a strong garrison in Rouen when the Germans have Paris surrounded and the Panzer spearheads are crossing the Garonde river to deploy for an advance into the Pyrenees? Yes, a lot of the time. The Germans want you to give them Rouen for free in that case. You can't do what the enemy wants you to all the time in war.

The game absolutely does not need any special rule forcing the British to run away from anything.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
The game absolutely does not need any special rule forcing the British to run away from anything.

I just love this thread and these discussions. After hearing the arguments pro and con for some sort of house rule along the lines of what I proposed to force the Brits to evacuate the BEF after the loss of France, I'm now swayed to the side that such a rule is not necessary. With such a rule the German player is rewarded by avoiding the BEF and focusing on the French. Where historically, the Germans decided in late May to drive north towards the coast to trap the BEF and divide the French army. In effect they devoted an impulse and stopped their drive towards Paris to target the BEF. With such a rule as I was proposing what is the motivation for the German player to do this if they know the BEF will be withdrawn as soon as Paris falls and Vichy is created?

[rkr1958]

And by the way while I'm at it, I think my proposed house rule linking the Soviet borderlands to Norway bites too ...

"Soviet Claim on the Finnish Borderlands and the Germany Invasion of Norway. If the Soviets claim the Finnish borderlands then the Germans must invade Norway within a year. If the Germans deny the claim then both the CW and France can send land and air units to Norway assuming Norway is aligned to one of the allied powers. If the Germans allow the claim by the Soviets, then the CW or France may still align Norway, but neither can send land or air units to Norway. Failure by the Germans to invade Norway within one year of the Soviets claim, allows the CW, or French, player to DOW Norway without Norway aligning to any power and resulting in the immediate conquest of Norway by the allies. "

I just played that rule in a solo game that I have going. The Soviets claimed the Finnish borderlands, the Germans allowed the claim meaning that they had a free go at Norway. In fact they had to invade Norway within a year but were guaranteed no interference from the allies. The Germans, who had already conquered Belgium and Holland got fine weather on the last impulse of March / April 1940. They played an o-chit and blew threw the French lines. Germany also invaded Norway and captured Kirstiansand. The turn ended, the axis won the initiative for the next turn (May/June) and the weather was fine. Going for it all the Germans played another o-chit and blasted a clear path to Paris. They also took Oslo on an attack that was far for sure (50/50 at best). But they took it. Also, Italy DOW France and CW. The French at the end of last turn were forced to return the majority of their navy back to base leaving the Eastern, Western Med and Cape St. Vincent to the RN. The Italians managed to destroy 12 allied CPs and force another 6 to abort in those three areas. The Italians sunk 2 RN CL, 2 CAs and 1 BB and damaged 3 other CLs. All in all a great back to back for the axis, which in effect repeated the stunning success the Germans actually had and gave the Italians a great victory over the RN that they never had.

However, even unopposed the Norway invasion wasn't worth it in my opinion. The attack on Oslo was at best 50/50 and even though that went the German's way, the CW who aligned Norway were the beneficiary of 13 CPs, 2 TRS and 3 CAs from Norway. Honestly, as the CW player I'd happily given Norway to the Germans for that any day! So even under the best of circumstances, I don't see (right now) that Norway is ever worth it for the Germans.

[Courtenay]

Someone commented on a house rule about the French attacking the German convoys in the Baltic during the surprise impulse.

I have a lot a of trouble with the initial Allied surprise impulse. Does anyone remember the great Allied offensives at the start of WW II? Me neither.

The Allied declaration of war was a surprise, but it was not a tactical surprise, it was a strategic surprise -- no one expected it, and no one was prepared to deal with it. My suggestion is that a much better modeling of the Allied surprise is that the Allies do not get a surprise impulse, but that no one (on either side) may make any declarations of war S/O 39. This would reproduce the start or WW II much more accurately than the current rules.

[Orm]

but that no one (on either side) may make any declarations of war S/O 39

Then USSR can not demand Bessarabia or the Finnish borderlands during the first turn.

And Japan know that USSR can not declare war during the first turn as well and then the winter is coming. Plenty of time for Japan to focus on China without concern for Soviet interference.

This also removes the German threat of a France first campaign. I suspect that this knowledge may affect the French and CW set up. CW need not be ready to ship BEF for the first turn.

[paulderynck]

It's funny how often you see new players in WiF come up with "large effect" house rules, only to discover a more egregious flaw with them than the one they thought existed and could be remedied.

The rules platform has been largely unchanged in 15 years and from numerous games I would claim these kind of "fixes" are simply not needed. You have to accept you are playing a history-based simulation game not an historical re-creation. (Although playing is recreation. [:)])

Besides why repeat a story that you know the ending to?

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It's funny how often you see new players in WiF come up with "large effect" house rules, only to discover a more egregious flaw with them than the one they thought existed and could be remedied.

The rules platform has been largely unchanged in 15 years and from numerous games I would claim these kind of "fixes" are simply not needed. You have to accept you are playing a history-based simulation game not an historical re-creation. (Although playing is recreation. [:)])

Besides why repeat a story that you know the ending to?

+1

[AllenK]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It's funny how often you see new players in WiF come up with "large effect" house rules, only to discover a more egregious flaw with them than the one they thought existed and could be remedied.

The rules platform has been largely unchanged in 15 years and from numerous games I would claim these kind of "fixes" are simply not needed. You have to accept you are playing a history-based simulation game not an historical re-creation. (Although playing is recreation. [:)])

Besides why repeat a story that you know the ending to?

+1

As said new player to WiF but who played several of the AH classics in my 'teans, I wish this had been around then. Best game system I've come across. I like the lack of rule enforced limitations to choices. The freedom of choice of what to do but with never quite enough to do it with and each choice having both a counter and long term consequences is what makes this stand out. So a definite +1.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It's funny how often you see new players in WiF come up with "large effect" house rules, only to discover a more egregious flaw with them than the one they thought existed and could be remedied.

The rules platform has been largely unchanged in 15 years and from numerous games I would claim these kind of "fixes" are simply not needed. You have to accept you are playing a history-based simulation game not an historical re-creation. (Although playing is recreation. [:)])

Besides why repeat a story that you know the ending to?

I thought this was the house rule thread? I wasn't proposing any changes to the (M)WiF rules but looking for something through a house rule to give the Germans incentive to invade Norway. As I understand it now, I see negative incentive for Germany to invade Norway. It's all risk. Without invading; i.e., a netural Norway, they get the victory point for Oslo and the iron ore through the Baltic from Sweden. If they invade there's a significant chance that they will get bogged down and have to devote scare resources for a sideshow. Even if successful they gain, what? 1 additional resource and an arctic base for their subs if they're willing to allocate a HQ there.

Far from trying to recreate a replay of history, as I see it there's very little incentive for "veteran" players to even attempt a historical campaign (i.e., Wesenbung) in (M)WiF. Am I off base here?

[AlbertN]

By "Incentive" though I assume it should be an added benefit, not a penalty if you do not invade.
Presently it has more negative sides than positive ones for Germany to invade Norway. Force Germany hand and you make it even worse in the department.

House rules usually - at least in my eyes - should avoid relatively fishy situations (French Fleet in Baltic is a good example), or enforced "Player Awareness" situation that the game allows. (Like the Belgian Plane and Infantry in Belgian Congo to save them from the onslaught coming.).

The case of the French Fleet is pretty simple, a suicidal mission that would never happen.
Same goes for any Minor deploying "oddly" their forces, in colonies. Their main forces and airforce would be defending their homeland (Fleets would be naturally scattered and divided) - especially in a game which envision already specific colonial forces (Territorials can be seen as a mix of recruited native troops and home country smaller units sent as a core / training asset to the colonials).
I do not remember if Internment is an optional rule right now but the Poland planes flying off to a neutral country to give free pilots to the UK is a bit over the top for me too.

Usually House Rules come up to situations which are unveiled via the gameplay, and when it comes up it smells! That's where the feel of a House Rule come in my books.

[Orm]

and an arctic base for their subs if they're willing to allocate a HQ there

The U-boats based there would be a nice target for Allied port strikes. It is doubtful that any U-boats based in the Artic part of Norway would survive long. Unless, of course, an effort is made to rebase fighters as well, so that the U-boats gets some protection. A lot of effort just to raid a the Arctic convoy rout that might never be used anyway.

Besides, it would be easier to use Petsamo instead as U-boat base and Finland provide HQ and fighter cover.

[Orm]

I thought this was the house rule thread?

It is and I am glad that you, and others, discuss their ideas here. [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I thought this was the house rule thread?

It is and I am glad that you, and others, discuss their ideas here. [:)]

warspite1

Me too - it's good to get a sharing of ideas.

I think what this thread had highlighted to me though is that I am unlikely to want to employ many (if any) house rules - but I'm sure there are some good ideas out there.

The reason is that I love the game for what it is. If I want to be pinned down to historical happenings there are plenty of games out there that will do that.

However, I think I liked Orm's Baltic suggestion because the French Fleet is often a problem in WWII strategic games; France WILL fall, the fleet may/may not end up allied to the CW, so why not sacrifice them early doors to assist the Allied cause? That is extreme gamey to me because they can just be sent on suicide missions - against the Germans or Italians for little (if any) downside (but plenty for the Axis).

I have less of a problem with the Belgian or Polish aircraft because that is a real choice for the Allies. Is it better to use the Belgian aircraft in defence of the country or guarantee the pilot by setting up in Africa? Is it better to try and fight with the Polish air force (could be the difference in an attack and/or could cause destruction of a German air unit) or guarantee the pilots to the UK?

As for the free pilots and the historical aspect - well two fighter squadrons of Poles took part in the Battle of Britain, along with a squadron of Czech's + a number of Belgian pilots (among other nationals). Poles also formed two bomber squadrons in the UK early in the war. Many thousands of Poles ultimately served with the RAF in WWII so I have no problem with the internment rule (which has a historical basis).

There was also a plan for the Polish navy to sail to the UK (and most of the destroyers and some subs made it too). You could argue the WIF treatment of the Polish fleet is ahistorical, but in game, if the Polish navy is left alone on the first turn, the Poles could try and sail for the UK or remain in the Baltic to harass the German CP - again, its players choice. A more historical approach means that they would not have that choice.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It's funny how often you see new players in WiF come up with "large effect" house rules, only to discover a more egregious flaw with them than the one they thought existed and could be remedied.

The rules platform has been largely unchanged in 15 years and from numerous games I would claim these kind of "fixes" are simply not needed. You have to accept you are playing a history-based simulation game not an historical re-creation. (Although playing is recreation. [:)])

Besides why repeat a story that you know the ending to?

I thought this was the house rule thread? I wasn't proposing any changes to the (M)WiF rules but looking for something through a house rule to give the Germans incentive to invade Norway. As I understand it now, I see negative incentive for Germany to invade Norway. It's all risk. Without invading; i.e., a netural Norway, they get the victory point for Oslo and the iron ore through the Baltic from Sweden. If they invade there's a significant chance that they will get bogged down and have to devote scare resources for a sideshow. Even if successful they gain, what? 1 additional resource and an arctic base for their subs if they're willing to allocate a HQ there.

Far from trying to recreate a replay of history, as I see it there's very little incentive for "veteran" players to even attempt a historical campaign (i.e., Wesenbung) in (M)WiF. Am I off base here?

Not at all. I only make the observation that it is a complex game with complex rules that interact a lot. So you may think a house rule is good when played within the narrow parameters of the situation it was designed for, but later on discover the cure is worse than the disease because WiF permits so many "alternate" ploys and strategies.

As Germany you can attempt an operation Wesenbung in WiF and MWiF if you use up an O-chit.

But the macro effects of attacking Norway were not to Germany's advantage historically either.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It's funny how often you see new players in WiF come up with "large effect" house rules, only to discover a more egregious flaw with them than the one they thought existed and could be remedied.

The rules platform has been largely unchanged in 15 years and from numerous games I would claim these kind of "fixes" are simply not needed. You have to accept you are playing a history-based simulation game not an historical re-creation. (Although playing is recreation. [:)])

Besides why repeat a story that you know the ending to?

I thought this was the house rule thread? I wasn't proposing any changes to the (M)WiF rules but looking for something through a house rule to give the Germans incentive to invade Norway. As I understand it now, I see negative incentive for Germany to invade Norway. It's all risk. Without invading; i.e., a netural Norway, they get the victory point for Oslo and the iron ore through the Baltic from Sweden. If they invade there's a significant chance that they will get bogged down and have to devote scare resources for a sideshow. Even if successful they gain, what? 1 additional resource and an arctic base for their subs if they're willing to allocate a HQ there.

Far from trying to recreate a replay of history, as I see it there's very little incentive for "veteran" players to even attempt a historical campaign (i.e., Wesenbung) in (M)WiF. Am I off base here?

There was an intermediate version of the rules that allowed Germany 2 naval moves during a combined. The rule did not last, as I noticed when I picked up the next boxed version, mainly for the counters. Every box I bought except the first was advertised as "The Final Edition", and I would bring it home and find major rules changes. I chewed through about 8 boxes until about 2005. The last time I ordered, I was promised LOC Vichy annual, but only got the countersheets, and rules. Based on what I've learned of the 3d10 chart and the new rules, I doubt I'll ever play it. I remember one old version allowed you to Air Tranport HQ's which were *prohibited* from moving in mud at the time.

[dhucul2011]

MWIF definately needs house rules for historical realism. There are too many ridiculous possibilities.

We have revised ours for simplicity:

1. If Narvik is Allied controlled then Germany loses the Swedish resources in Nov-Dec and Jan-Feb.
2. If Germany DOWs Denmark and not Norway then Germany loses one Swedish resource in Nov-Dec and Jan-Feb from Norwegian economic sanctions.
3. Germany must DOW Belgium the same impulse that it DOWs the Netherlands. (but not vice versa) Belgium would not have sat passively by if Germany only DOWd the Netherlands.
4. The land and air units of all neutral minors can only operate in their own or adjacent countries. For example, Bulgarian units can only operate in Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece, Yugoslavia and Romania. Finnish units can only operate in Finland, USSR and Sweden etc. The only exemption is that Hungarian and Spanish units can also operate in the USSR.
5. Vichy cannot DOW the Western Allies even if they are hostile.
6. All minor country (non-territorial) land and air units must start in their home country.
7. USSR must claim the Borderlands by end of 1939 and must claim Bessarabia by end of 1940.
8. No peacekeepers. Stupid rule as it is set out now.
9. All minor country air units must fight to defend their country until the capital is taken before they can flee and be interned.

[paulderynck]

I don't agree on 3, 5 and 8 as to being required or historical but that is a separate debate.

What I really like about your suggestions is that they can ALL be implemented in MWiF by the players doing or refraining from certain actions, or idling resources in final production planning, etc.

Unlike other house rules issues (minor country convoys comes to mind for some strange reason) - where MWiF enforcing RAC prevents a player-driven accommodation.

[Centuur]

3 is really stupid. In the 1920's the Netherlands and Belgium almost got into an armed conflict. The Dutch and the Belgians didn't like eachother at all in the interbellum. The Belgians were of the opinion that the Dutch did support the Huns in WW I too much with the trade continuing. Personally, I would think that if Hitler had been really smart, he could have promised the Belgians a nice part of the Netherlands and the Belgians than could be persuaded to join the Axis, even with the WW I history between Germany and Belgium...

They hated the Dutch in those years. The Germans were not liked also, but the hatred against the neutral and cowardice Dutch was far, far greater in Belgium during the interbellum.