Disabling Lille

[alexvand]

So the CW is pounding Lille with strat bombers. Given that they can place short legged fighters in easy range it's just not worth it for the Germans to contest it in my current game.

I'm not playing with factory destruction so I can't just wait for them to rubble it and then never fix it.

How, in the interface, do I shut off the Lille factory so that I don't keep losing BPs? I'd rather send the resource to Italy where it has a chance of not getting blown up.

[AlbertN]

That's not possible.
You need to defend Lille with airplanes and / or AA.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: alex_van_d

So the CW is pounding Lille with strat bombers. Given that they can place short legged fighters in easy range it's just not worth it for the Germans to contest it in my current game.

I'm not playing with factory destruction so I can't just wait for them to rubble it and then never fix it.

How, in the interface, do I shut off the Lille factory so that I don't keep losing BPs? I'd rather send the resource to Italy where it has a chance of not getting blown up.

a factory that could produce, can also be bombed.

there is no way to shut off factories

[Courtenay]

All the above statements are correct, but I just want to emphasize that this is according to the rules as written; it is not a bug.

[Joseignacio]

Everything above is correct, although IMO it's a nonsense in the board game rules. One flaw. If you have more resources than factories you should be able to decide which don't produce, and those will obviously be those more in risk.

I can only think they did it for game balance reasons, for otherwise it doesn't make sense.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Everything above is correct, although IMO it's a nonsense in the board game rules. One flaw. If you have more resources than factories you should be able to decide which don't produce, and those will obviously be those more in risk.

I can only think they did it for game balance reasons, for otherwise it doesn't make sense.

dont you mean the other way, more factories, then ressources

[Joseignacio]

Oops, my bad. Yes. You are right.

[Centuur]

It sounds logically that you would be able to not us a factory, but the rules state otherwise. So you can't disable a factory to prevent the loss of a production point.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Everything above is correct, although IMO it's a nonsense in the board game rules. One flaw. If you have more resources than factories you should be able to decide which don't produce, and those will obviously be those more in risk.

I can only think they did it for game balance reasons, for otherwise it doesn't make sense.

To me it does. Let's say you have 20 factories and 19 resources. In game terms that means you have 19 of 20, or 95% of your factories producing. I feel having the 1 idle factory is the abstraction and that it's more realistic to say that your 20 factories are operating at 95% capacity. So I feel that successfully having any factory in your industry bombed should reduce production.

[brian brian]

you have to remember that WiF abstracts things. Resources and factories and economic activity are in reality all over the map, somewhat in every hex. They are not exclusively single point facilities - we mine the coal in hex A, we build the tank in hex B.

the red factories in particular represent "accumulated" industrial capacity. so as a conquering power gains territory, it gains economic activity in the whole region (and of course, takes all the surplus for itself). so the French factories stay in production, but the Germans get the goods. (trucks, in particular, came from France for German use, I believe).

an enemy power can then choose to attack that economic activity. not by bombing a single factory site in Lille, but by bombing whatever it wishes - canal locks 100km away, railroad junctions, factories of various types and locations.

World in Flames is not a tactical game. A bombing "mission" in game terms does not represent a single flight of aircraft over a single target, it is a variety of missions over time in a localized area.

[Joseignacio]

I believe it's more like, giving the Brits the possibility to strat bomb something. If Lille (early) and Paris, and others (later) can be left without production in case there are more resources than factories, the Brits cannot strat bomb.

Of course with time thet will be able to bomb even Berlin but:

1 - Most of the times in extended, so 1/2 power.

2 - The GE player can concentrate his fighters in less objectives if he doesn't need to cover some.

I wouldn't agree much with rkr's interpretation because if the same factories in Lille would be consistently bombed by the brits, I being GE would produce 100% in all and 0 there. Can't find the rational to keep on working at 95% and having my production (trucks then?) bombed once and again.

But, hey! Some of all of this must be, I have complained about this rule from day 1 that I learnt it but it's supposed to have a rationale.

[warspite1]

I think those saying the rule is wrong and ‘nonsense’ miss a rather fundamental point, although brian brian and rkr1958 seem to have grasped it.

In WIF/MWIF we are talking about factories that turn ‘resources’ into the ‘things’ we want built. We don’t have to worry about what resources are where or what factories are capable of producing what. That is a game abstraction that keeps the game playable.

But in real life, those resources and those factories are not interchangeable. E.g. if that prize buffoon Goering had done his homework he could have caused untold damage to the RAF’s fighter command by bombing the right places. Had his bombers destroyed the factories at Southampton and/or Castle Bromwich the British would have had to stop – or drastically reduce – Spitfire production, at least temporarily. It would not have been the case that Spitfires could simply switch to another ‘spare’ factory elsewhere because of course that ‘spare’ factory was not tooled up for the job – not to mention there could be an element of skilled labour that wouldn’t necessarily be found elsewhere. Production would be lost either repairing the existing damaged factory or getting a replacement up and running elsewhere.

Furthermore in the total war that WWII was, even if resources and factories were as abstract as they are in the game, there simply wasn’t acres of factory space going spare to pick up slack – the main protagonists were operating at the maximum.

This is a strategic game. It means there are compromises to stop this being an unplayable, logistical monster. I cannot see anything wrong with the rule on that basis.

[brian brian]

conversely, Speer quite effectively de-centralized German production in the second half of the war to minimize the impact of strategic bombing

World in Flames IS NOT a single-point tactical game. the Red factories and the way the resources, etc., work will not be changed, and don't need to be

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

conversely, Speer quite effectively de-centralized German production in the second half of the war to minimize the impact of strategic bombing

warspite1

Well yes, he tried to minimize the effects, but none of us here, I suggest, truly know to what effect that was successful and at what cost.

Yes we know he achieved a rapid increase in output (through simply rectifying previous inefficiencies) but how much greater would that increase have been without the continued bombing AND without the time, expense and wastefulness in terms of resource, in having to go through the de-centralisation process?

[alexvand]

That all makes perfect sense.

I guess I was just thinking about those games with factory destruction when a player would happily cheer the destruction of Lille because it would make his defense problems simpler. (Unless I've got those rules wrong too!)

I always love how MWiF corrects my misinterpretation of RAW! One of the great benefits of playing this game on the computer!

[paulderynck]

Playing with factory destruction, shouldn't the Allies only ever bomb Lille with a 4 factor Strat?

[AlbertN]

The only way to get around that - is not an option in MWiF - and that would be to play with Factory in Flames, where troops are produced in specific factories. (On the other hand that allows to bomb specifically factories producing planes, tanks, etc).

The main problem of strategic bombing is that later on it is pratically unstoppable. Germans cannot cover all their factories and Allies once having 4-5 bombers, simply swarm the spot covered by 1 FTR that can only intercept 1 of them. And if they are taking an Air Impulse ... well.
Germany once Barbarossa kicks in will have massive problems operating with planes due to their air limits per land action.

I and my friend ended up to agree on a home-baked En Route Interception rule.
But bombing Lille is more than fine. Just defend it. The problem rise when you have all of Germany to protect and Allied bombers can sweep from Berlin to Lyon (or even Barcelona if you went for a "close the med" strategy"); and you need FTRs on the East Front and to cover the beaches. You just do not have enough pieces no matter what.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: Cohen

The only way to get around that - is not an option in MWiF - and that would be to play with Factory in Flames, where troops are produced in specific factories. (On the other hand that allows to bomb specifically factories producing planes, tanks, etc).

The main problem of strategic bombing is that later on it is pratically unstoppable. Germans cannot cover all their factories and Allies once having 4-5 bombers, simply swarm the spot covered by 1 FTR that can only intercept 1 of them. And if they are taking an Air Impulse ... well.
Germany once Barbarossa kicks in will have massive problems operating with planes due to their air limits per land action.

I and my friend ended up to agree on a home-baked En Route Interception rule.
But bombing Lille is more than fine. Just defend it. The problem rise when you have all of Germany to protect and Allied bombers can sweep from Berlin to Lyon (or even Barcelona if you went for a "close the med" strategy"); and you need FTRs on the East Front and to cover the beaches. You just do not have enough pieces no matter what.

It does exist in WIF RAW7 as an optional

Option 51: (En-route aircraft interception) Instead of only being able to intercept a bomber at its target hex, this option lets you intercept it along the way. Announce your target hex. If your opponent wants to intercept you en-route, move your bomber up to 4 movement points (i.e. 1, 2, 3 or 4). Then move it up to another 4 points. Keep repeating this until you reach the target hex.
After you reach one of these way stations, you can fly escorting fighters there. Your opponent can then fly interceptors. You can then fly interceptors to the way station. Then you fight a normal air-to-air combat.
After the air-to-air combat, surviving bombers can continue on to the next station. Surviving escorting fighters can continue on with them but only if their range is sufficient to reach that station. Escorting fighters that don’t continue, and all intercepting fighters, must return to base. Bombers don’t need to continue - they can choose to return to base after each combat.
After the mission is over you return to base normally, there are no way stations on the way back.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Cohen

The main problem of strategic bombing is that later on it is pratically unstoppable. Germans cannot cover all their factories and Allies once having 4-5 bombers, simply swarm the spot covered by 1 FTR that can only intercept 1 of them. And if they are taking an Air Impulse ... well.
Germany once Barbarossa kicks in will have massive problems operating with planes due to their air limits per land action.

warspite1

Nice to know WIF is realistic [;)]

Of course that is a bit of a sweeping statement as it does depend to a large extent on what has happened in the early part of the game.