Most Hated optional rules

[Viktor_Kormel_slith]

Inspired by another thread and just for discussion pleasure, which are the optional rules that you never play with?

mine:

1) art units, construction engineers, cruisers in flames...too much units, MWIF is an strategig game, aux and support units are tacticals things, too much complexity, little fun.
2)limited sea supply, too much unbalancing and too much complexity again
3)carpet bommbing, what? and entire corps destroyed by strategic bombers, it never happened, it is a madness.
4)HQ movement, slower advances, borer games.
5)in the presence of the enemy, sure the sea is not my basin, it´s ridiculous
6)bottomed ships, port attacks are enough bads to make them weaker

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: Viktor_Kormel

Inspired by another thread and just for discussion pleasure, which are the optional rules that you never play with?

mine:

1) art units, construction engineers, cruisers in flames...too much units, MWIF is an strategig game, aux and support units are tacticals things, too much complexity, little fun.
2)limited sea supply, too much unbalancing and too much complexity again
3)carpet bommbing, what? and entire corps destroyed by strategic bombers, it never happened, it is a madness.
4)HQ movement, slower advances, borer games.
5)in the presence of the enemy, sure the sea is not my basin, it´s ridiculous
6)bottomed ships, port attacks are enough bads to make them weaker

I was going to make a list but I like Viktor's

[paulderynck]

I agree with Viktor except on Arty units (always use), Limited Overseas Supply (always use) and In the Presence of the Enemy (always use but understand this one is really polarized in terms of different player's views).
Also would never want to use (some of these are in WiF but not MWiF):
- Railway Movement Bonus
- Hitler's War
- Food in Flames
- Japanese Command Conflict
- Convoys in Flames
- Surprised - No ZoC
- Rough Seas
- V-weapons and A-bombs
- Heavy Weapons Units
- Air Cav
- The Ukraine
- Flying Bombs
- En Route and Limited Aircraft Interception
- Intelligence
- Recruitment Limits

[Orm]

1) Construction Engineers
2) Guards Banner Armies
3) Intelligence
4) 2d10 Land CRT
5) Carpet Bombing

[Jagdtiger14]

1. Surprised ZOCs
2. Intelligence
3. HQ movement
4. Construction ENG
5. Cruisers in Flames
6. Additional Chinese Cities
7. Recruitment Limits
8. Air Cav
9. Rough Seas (although wouldn't mind)
10. Oil Tankers (although wouldn't mind)

I would put 1d10 as #1 above, but I consider 2d10 not optional.

[Centuur]

1. Limited overseas supply
2. Construction engineers
3. Intelligence

[Courtenay]

1) Construction engineers.

This rule is unbalancing. It is unbalanced against all human players [:)]. Ridiculously frustrating.

2) No ZOCs on surprise.

This rule really is unbalancing. Grossly in favor of the Axis.

3) Intelligence

I am not intelligent enough to play with the intelligence rule.

4) HQ movement

Designed to drive the Chinese player nuts, although the Japanese aren't to thrilled with it, either.

[AlbertN]

1- Food in Flames (Allies do not need more advantage)
2- Construction Engineers (Too few ENG units around, they're military assault troops specialized in urban combat or river crossing)

I dare say I've not experienced many Optionals as they're not about, I'd not play with an amount of them (the Japanese command issue, albeit realistic, is utter crap. Japan has already so few BPs last you need is that you get the LND instead of the NAV you need).

[warspite1]

1. Limited Overseas Supply
2. 2d10 Land CRT
3. Construction Engineers

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
6. Additional Chinese Cities

Why do you not like this rule? With the larger map size (i.e., smaller map scale) for Asia/China in MWiF versus WiF I would have thought that this rule is almost mandatory so I've never considered not playing without it. Wouldn't you have major supply issues without these additional cities?

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

1. Limited Overseas Supply
2. 2d10 Land CRT
3. Construction Engineers

I'm interested in why you don't like the 2D10 CRT. It gives a reasonable approximation of the Normal Distribution. I believe there's an optional 3D10 CRT in WiF somewhere and that's an even better approximation to the Normal.

In wargaming terms, this means a higher probability of average results and a lower probability of extreme results; which is how the real world works.

Cheers, Neilster

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: warspite1

1. Limited Overseas Supply
2. 2d10 Land CRT
3. Construction Engineers

I'm interested in why you don't like the 2D10 CRT. It gives a reasonable approximation of the Normal Distribution. I believe there's an optional 3D10 CRT in WiF somewhere and that's an even better approximation to the Normal.

In wargaming terms, this means a higher probability of average results and a lower probability of extreme results; which is how the real world works.

Cheers, Neilster

warspite1

To be fair I have only used it once. That said, I found it too 'brutal' when I did. Its all about fun - and I did not find it fun.

As a personal preference I like finding a rule set that works for me and then sticking with it. The reason being is that I get confused easily in my frail dotage and adding or removing rules from game to game just aids confusion.

Will I ever use it again? Probably, but that would only be if a potential opponent insisted on it (and I would insist on cruisers in return [:)]) and it would not be my preference.

[Jagdtiger14]

Why do you not like this rule? With the larger map size (i.e., smaller map scale) for Asia/China in MWiF versus WiF I would have thought that this rule is almost mandatory so I've never considered not playing without it. Wouldn't you have major supply issues without these additional cities?

I have to give credit to Brian for pointing this out to me. There are just way too many cities added, if it were just a few more, fine...but it gives the Chinese way too much of a supply/defensive advantage and also a lot of additional rolls for US entry. The Axis should get a big optional rule compensation if playing with this.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

1. Limited Overseas Supply
2. 2d10 Land CRT
3. Construction Engineers

warspite1

I was going to say China attack weakness but I have not played enough games - and certainly not when the USA enters the war - to know whether this is required or not. As above a few people have mentioned, the additional Chinese cities is a big bonus for China.

One to keep an eye on (as is Additional Chinese Cities).

[Centuur]

If one hasn't played the boardgame, I can understand that you don't want to play with the extra cities.

But the result of playing without them, means that the Japanese has it a lot easier to hammer the Chinese.

Both historically and in the board game, the Japanese-Chinese war was a stalemate, where one side or the other wasn't able to advance until late in the war. In the board game this is simulated by the map, where the Chinese are almost everywhere in supply. So therefore the extra cities...

[brian brian]

Both Japan and China are way over-powered in the game, in my opinion. China fought with the political calculus that the USA would crush Japan anyway and China's (both factions) true concern was the Civil War to follow. Japan's occupation was so brutal and their logistics so stretched that they had zero chance to ever conquer China. Quite simply, there just weren't enough Japanese to ever accomplish that.

The triumph of World in Flames is a single game system that well simulates the decision making of the leaders of WWII. Yet the theater-unified simple system comes at a cost of fantastical results in China.

The way forward, some day, would be to extend Attack Weakness to the ChiComms (check out the historical peak strength of the famous 8th Rte 'Army') and make it mandatory. The Partisan system should be much stronger to worry the Japanese far more. Ideally, some day the ChiComms could be played by an AI that might attack the Nationalists if they were to show signs of weakness. Historically, Chiang held Si-An for the entire war. Also if the Nationalists were subject to US activity limits this would simulate their historical hesitancy. Each Chinese side should threaten the objective hex of the other - there is only one winning player in the game, not a winning 'side'.

Giving the Chinese a horde of new supply bases and divisions to play cops and robbers with (while Japan has to fight the USN with their action limits) is going to lead to many more a-historical game results. Neither side had a lot of ability to operate smaller units - the Japanese still fielded 'square' units with four sub-units rather than three, for example. The Germans should have unlimited divisions, no question, but for some other powers I am skeptical.

Anyhow to defend China you have to play smart - retreat _before_ the Japanese get a good attack. Save the FTR for use againt strat bombing and force the Japanese to bring their Zeroes, every time. A force-in-being accomplishes more than a force that fights once. Preserve the Chinese HQ - simply never let the Japanese get adjacent. Plan ahead. Pick the Blitz table when you have a retreat path - and don't get into battle without one.

Instead gamers will stack the Chinese at the front and sit there while the IJA builds up a strong attack and then pick the Assault table.

If the Japanese marines go inland as they press the attack, Russia can consider a limited attack though they can quickly be ensnared in an over-committed position themselves.

[brian brian]

My most hated optional is the Railway Movement Bonus. The simple logistics system is already generous enough. Making the units faster yet is too much.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

1. Limited Overseas Supply
2. 2d10 Land CRT
3. Construction Engineers

warspite1

I was going to say China attack weakness but I have not played enough games - and certainly not when the USA enters the war - to know whether this is required or not. As above a few people have mentioned, the additional Chinese cities is a big bonus for China.

One to keep an eye on (as is Additional Chinese Cities).

I rather dislike Chinese attack weakness, but not enough to make my current 'top' list.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Why do you not like this rule? With the larger map size (i.e., smaller map scale) for Asia/China in MWiF versus WiF I would have thought that this rule is almost mandatory so I've never considered not playing without it. Wouldn't you have major supply issues without these additional cities?

I have to give credit to Brian for pointing this out to me. There are just way too many cities added, if it were just a few more, fine...but it gives the Chinese way too much of a supply/defensive advantage and also a lot of additional rolls for US entry. The Axis should get a big optional rule compensation if playing with this.

When playing with the additional Chinese cities the US entry value for capturing the cities are modified.


US Entry Action die rolls for capturing Chinese cities are also affected. Instead of the normal 1 to 4 (i.e., 40%) it is 1 to 2 + the number of factories in the hex. This means that a city without a factory has a 20% chance of causing a US Entry chit to be drawn, while Sian (with 1 factory) has a 30% chance and Chungking (with 2 factories) has a 40% chance.

[Jaimainsoyyo]

Oil rule is the most time-consuming optional rule so that is the reason because I hate it. Construction engineers and carpet bombing are in my list too.