Optional Rules Preference: LOS and Eng

[jboldt007]

Interesting note about bullding planes (lend lease) and artillery. Supply is bideviling in China of course- even though Japan has a good collection of HQs, their units will gradually get put out of supply. Air units and artillery are then the most effective means to disorganize OOS Japanese units so they can be attacked at 1 or 3. Japan will not be keen on pulling fighters out of the Pacific either. But I haven't even finished my first GW game yet - so really don't know...!

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: jboldt007

Great comments .. so I'm thinking: LOS (in MWIF), YES; Attack Weakness: a must (YES); Constuction Engineers: NO

I like unlimited breakdown - in the context and scale of the game it makes sense. Sometimes a corps just feels too big. The issue is how combat losses are taken. Randomly assigning a loss say would mean a division would only have a 1/3 chance of being taken as a loss. Using a division solely as "cannon fodder" doesn't always feel right (Artillery was usually the last thing to go in a set piece battle). In any event, breaking down too many units of course drastically weakens a player's forces (which may be worth it in the Pacific). As noted, playing without SCS transport could offset this, even though it is historically accurate that nations (especially Japan) used SCS transport extensively.

One dynamic of LOS I've learned is that in key sea areas one can use say a spare transport [because one purchased too many instead of AMPHs ...] in a high sea box with a patrolling force along with the convoys in the '0' box with their screening units. If the convoys get isolated and attacked you still have the transport bringing in the goods.

Well, it depends. It's true they are in a much better position in the sea to try to survive and supply... but in the other hand if the supply is important, the enemy will send a big fleet or carriers/navals, in the case of planes, they select their first victim, which will be the TRS, cutting supply anyway.

IN the case of a big fleet or planes as well, if you get enough surprise you may pay 3 points to select the first victim and it will be the TRs anyway.

Besides, TRSs are expensive (5-6 Bps?) and take 1 year to be built, while conv cost 1 and are built in 8 months.

Only if you have too many TRSs like it's your case, or some other special cases...

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf

So after receiving some 4-year beating from Japan, the Chinese (IF still alive) are not allowed a fair chance of revenge [X(]?
It's not that China can do anything early in the war, if Japan chooses to ignore China (mostly). Chinese chance comes only late in the war anyway -without Chinese Attack Weakness.

Also, it's not that China didn't have the means to attack Japan effectively, they didn't want to (always looking sideways to the commies). Big difference, because it kept Japan honest. Japanese still feared what Nat. Chinese could do. I think playing with Chinese Attack Weakness removes any sort of cautiousness towards Chinese from Japan. Leaving aside whether that is something good or bad for now.

But yeah, during a hexacon Some1 close to ADG once said to me WiF is too much favoring the axis lately (I'm not giving his name away or he might be assassinated [:D]), so maybe I am worrying too much about the allied chances. But I keep watching ADG. Standardizing Chinese Attack Weakness AND allied Combat Friction but removing Japanese Command Conflict makes me think [;)].

As I said before, the communist chinese, not only don't suffer that burden but they are also high quality units, you can always defend with the Nats and attack with the Coms.

About this, I am curious, I have checked several times this rule and I only found this

Option 40: (Chinese attack weakness) Halve the combat factors of nationalist Chinese land units that are attacking.

, but I was told when I still had a not so complete knowledge of the RAW, and had no time to check everything I was told by people who knew the game and were supposed to be reliable:

- This weakness only applies in the coastal hexes and the next ones, it means 2 hexes away from the sea.
- If this option was not selected it would be even worse, don't remember if it was that the nat. chinese would be weak everywhe instead of only in the areas close to the sea or the commies were weak as well.

So what I am curious is whether this could be honestly mistaken rules that no longer apply from rulesets earlier than 7.0, or were just home rules that he liked and passed me as optionals or even rules.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: jboldt007

Interesting note about bullding planes (lend lease) and artillery. Supply is bideviling in China of course- even though Japan has a good collection of HQs, their units will gradually get put out of supply. Air units and artillery are then the most effective means to disorganize OOS Japanese units so they can be attacked at 1 or 3. Japan will not be keen on pulling fighters out of the Pacific either. But I haven't even finished my first GW game yet - so really don't know...!

Didn't play China in MWIF yet, but did in WIF several times, and Japan too.

The best tactic IMO in WIF if you play Japan is to try to get a fast victory while you prepare or invade the islands (Borneo, Sumatra, ...) and/or Singapore...

...then, if you are lucky (very unusual), go for it and conquer china, in the WIF there is like a mountain chain enclosing the core of Central China with an opening to the south. If you can cross the mountains the Chinese are done, even with the only mech the Japs have or may build at the beginning they can the Chinese from one hex to another with usually very favorable odds.


If you are not lucky, just block them with some units and HQs and redirect 100% of the war effort to the Air force and Navy, don't spend units and impulses in a war you wont win and that, if you do win, will be at the cost of losing the game because of the weakly opposed American retaliation.

[jboldt007]

Re:: TRS
Yeah ... certainly ones opponent is going to hunt down that TRS. I was thinking in the context of the invasion in Bay of Biscay or North Sea. At that point (if playing with optional rule) AMPH are required and some TRS might be surplus. CW + US will probably dominate the sea areas but the axis can still make life precarious perhaps with subs and those nasty HE-177s and their ilk, so a little extra insurance in a high box might be warranted.

[Joseignacio]

In this case, yes. There is also another thing, to compensate a little what I said about costs... A convoy costs 1 bp, yes and a trs/amph 5-7 more or less, yes but an X or a D kills a convoy, while an X has a 50% of killing a TRS and a 50% of only damage it. Similarly a D is only a 50% of damaging a TRS and a 50% of abortion.

[jboldt007]

Right. Convoys tend to drop like flies- while cheaper to replace, if one actually loses supply at a critical point the real costs may be much higher on land...

[Courtenay]

I always build a supply unit for the CW, for Egypt, and one for the US, for the continent, just to guard against an accident. Not a guarantee (a ground strike could flip the supply unit), but it is nice to have the insurance against disaster.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

I always build a supply unit for the CW, for Egypt, and one for the US, for the continent, just to guard against an accident. Not a guarantee (a ground strike could flip the supply unit), but it is nice to have the insurance against disaster.

Yes. Yesterday while deciding the optionals of a new wif game to start next weekend, my mates said they are not really useful. [:D] No matter they have played they have not seen a real intelligent use of them.

Same as I was very surprised in a game with the optional "HQ emergency supply" when I had the Italians OOS in Africa but I couldn't simply attack an IT stack worth 2 (-4) OOS but 10 (-4) if the HQ "deleted" that impulse's OOS condition...

Cause then I could be flipped after the attack, and if he got supply and I did not in some later impulse, HE would have MY units at a value of 2 (-4) per stack, and I would have probably have used my HQ in the previous attack...

[jboldt007]

Building emergency supply units would be a good idea in connection with an invasion or where supply is tenuous - but have yet to use one. Interesting note about Emergency HQ.too.

[jboldt007]

So in light of this limited overseas supply discussion here's what happened last turn (I know - everyone likes to tell their "war" stories). Allies launching sizeable invasion of southern France after marine unit takes Marseille. All the Italians can put into the western med at that point is that ramshackle Z.501 "Gabbi" flying boat (air to air = 1, air to sea= 2) which had been flitting around the Mediterranean since game start. Plus a couple of escort fighters. Against all odds the crew grit their teeth and go for it. They roll a 1, the allies 9. The Gabbi aborts the allies supply convoys, unscathed despite the convoy escort, by reducing AA to nil. Next round they roll a 2 and the allies a 10. This time they take out the AMPH carrying the main allied HQ. Next round, they surprise the French group in the fleet, aborting the Jean Bart. Southern France is out of supply for the allies and the invasion is called off. I don't know what the highest award would have been in the royal Italian airforce, but that crazy crew certainly earned it!

[Dabrion]

All three are essential optionals for a balanced game. Cant really comment on Nasho AW on the MWiF maps. I would almost assume that China is not containable with the Japs forcepool on a euro scale. I find myself usually build out by PH time and think I should have move units to bring to India or wherever..

[Dabrion]

Courtney has it right. CW needs supply unit in Egypt and Italy, US needs Supply unit in either PH or Italy asap.