New to the game - Basic Questions

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Another question. This one concerning US entry action. The d10 for US reaction to a Japanese capture of a Chinese city is listed as 2 to 4. How specifically is that calculated?

It is always 4 on the d10 if you play without the option of extra Chinese cities.

xxxx

With the option extra Chinese cities on the value varies between 2 and 4, and the formula is as follows.

2 +1 per 'printed' factory in the hex.

So all factory cities except one is 3, and all cities without factory is 2. And only one city of them all is a 4.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: craigbear

Any advice on when to collapse Vichy. In my solo game, Axis never got any traction in N. Africa, so almost all those territories have been lost. Basically, just Vichy itself is left. At what point should it be done with, after all, it still has a small navy and land/air forces to protect from south Med invasion.

I suggest it heavily depends on whether Vichy has any saved build points that can be used by Germany after the collapse. When no more build points can be saved by Vichy it might be time to collect all that production and put it to use.

[craigbear]

Thanks. I was kind of thinking that way. Still a few more to save, and perhaps, some more ships to get destroyed before I take over then.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: craigbear

Thanks. I was kind of thinking that way. Still a few more to save, and perhaps, some more ships to get destroyed before I take over then.

That's one way to look at it. But: a hostile and active Vichy can send all saved build points to Germany in a trade agreement. And: what's worth more: a nice army sitting on the south coast of France or those build points? Don't forget: you need to garrison the southern coast of France against Allied invasion and it takes time to build units using those build points.

[Joseignacio]

Well thought indeed, hadn't thought about the Trade Agreement...

However I wouldnt buy much, these guys have a percentage to surrender to USA or FF units.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: craigbear

Thanks. I was kind of thinking that way. Still a few more to save, and perhaps, some more ships to get destroyed before I take over then.

That's one way to look at it. But: a hostile and active Vichy can send all saved build points to Germany in a trade agreement. And: what's worth more: a nice army sitting on the south coast of France or those build points? Don't forget: you need to garrison the southern coast of France against Allied invasion and it takes time to build units using those build points.

Vichy France doesn't get hostile until Allies invade, and Vichy isn't allowed to trade their saved BPs away until then. Trading the BPs from Vichy to Germany demands the BPs to be held for almost two complete turns before they can be used by Germany. Also, I do not think that they all can be traded in one single turn. And I seriously doubt that an invading Allied force are going to ignore the huge stacks of BPs in Vichy France that they voluntary invaded. It is not like they didn't see the Vichy defences before making Vichy hostile.

In short: When Allies invade mainland Vichy, they will be going for the saved BPs.

[craigbear]

Allies are not set up to invade very soon, so Vichy is safe for the nonce from invasion. Meanwhile, the occasional naval by Germany allows the fleet to sorte and lose some potential FF shipping (or Italian/German depending on the overrun when Vichy is eventually collapsed). I think that Vichy is a little too strong to the south due to five or six units on the shore for an easy invasion and steal of BPs, esp given the map with Allied involvement in Sicily and tussling with a still powerful Italian navy.

By the way, love this game even playing solo. Having sooo much fun.

[rkr1958]

I was looking at the allocation of major powers for a 6-player global war scenario. Interestingly, to me at least, I see a discrepancy between WiF CE and MWiF for the recommended allocation.

For WiF CE the MP allocation is: (1) Germany, (2) Italy, (3) Japan, (4) China & USSR, (5) France & USA and (6) CW.

For MWiF it's: (1) Germany, (2) Italy, (3) Japan, (4) CW, (5) France & USSR [& communist China] and (6) USA & [Nationalist] China.

Was there a change from WiF FE to CE or is it a MWiF deviation from FE in the recommended allocation?

FYI: I do know in the grand scheme of things players are free to play the powers as they wish but I do personally find this "difference" interesting so I thought I'd ask. [:)]

[Courtenay]

MWiF precisely duplicates WiFFE's order of set up. This is shown in the scenario booklet; a pdf file of the scenario booklet comes with MWiF. MIiF does not really allocate players, since it really only uses two players. However, the recommended allocation of countries to players is that of WiFFE.

There are rules in the scenario booklet that are not duplicated in the rest of the rules.

As far as I know, MWiF precisely duplicates the WiFFE set up rules, with one exception -- CAs and CLs should be in different force pools, and they aren't.

[rkr1958]

Just picked and starting reading a newly released book by Daniel Jackson, "Fallen Tigers". This book focuses on the US air war in China and Burma during WW2 and the large number of US pilots who went down deep in occupied China, were helped and rescued by the Chinese. This book also contrasts the size of large raids late in the war between the China-Burma-India (CBI) theater and European Theater of Operations (ETO). A large CBI raid might have been a dozen or two bombers escorted by a half-dozen to dozen fighters. In contrast, a large ETO raid was composed of 1000's of planes.

Also, covered was the Japanese push into and conquest of Burma. I believe originally 3 regiments crossed the border into Burma and captured Lashio, which was the western terminus of the Burma road. In all I believe it was 3 IJA divisions, equivalent to a crops that conquered Burma and threaten India.

Of course as I reading these types of books, I'm always thinking of how it relates to MWiF. Or actually how MWiF relates to actual WW2 history. In this particular case I was thinking about unit scale. Section 1.2 of the "Rules as Coded" states that a land unit represents an army or corps and optional division units represent smaller units. An aircraft unit represents 250 aircraft in 1939 which gradually increases to 500 aircraft by 1945.

It feels to me that these number are more applicable to the Western and Eastern Fronts. For North Africa, the Arctic (e.g., Norway & Finland) and especially CBI I think MWiF ground and air units really represent significantly smaller numbers. For me that's one of the beauties of MWiF is how a the size of a given unit counter represents is a function of theater. Now, one might ask how do you reconcile that the unit counter costs the same regardless of theater? For me the answer is logistics. That is, it costs more and takes more effort to get and keep that unit supplied, not to mention it's support logistics, in the more remote theaters where unit size is smaller.

Anyway, not really a question but something I thought was interesting and wish to share.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Just picked and starting reading a newly released book by Daniel Jackson, "Fallen Tigers". This book focuses on the US air war in China and Burma during WW2 and the large number of US pilots who went down deep in occupied China, were helped and rescued by the Chinese. This book also contrasts the size of large raids late in the war between the China-Burma-India (CBI) theater and European Theater of Operations (ETO). A large CBI raid might have been a dozen or two bombers escorted by a half-dozen to dozen fighters. In contrast, a large ETO raid was composed of 1000's of planes.

Also, covered was the Japanese push into and conquest of Burma. I believe originally 3 regiments crossed the border into Burma and captured Lashio, which was the western terminus of the Burma road. In all I believe it was 3 IJA divisions, equivalent to a crops that conquered Burma and threaten India.

Of course as I reading these types of books, I'm always thinking of how it relates to MWiF. Or actually how MWiF relates to actual WW2 history. In this particular case I was thinking about unit scale. Section 1.2 of the "Rules as Coded" states that a land unit represents an army or corps and optional division units represent smaller units. An aircraft unit represents 250 aircraft in 1939 which gradually increases to 500 aircraft by 1945.

It feels to me that these number are more applicable to the Western and Eastern Fronts. For North Africa, the Arctic (e.g., Norway & Finland) and especially CBI I think MWiF ground and air units really represent significantly smaller numbers. For me that's one of the beauties of MWiF is how a the size of a given unit counter represents is a function of theater. Now, one might ask how do you reconcile that the unit counter costs the same regardless of theater? For me the answer is logistics. That is, it costs more and takes more effort to get and keep that unit supplied, not to mention it's support logistics, in the more remote theaters where unit size is smaller.

Anyway, not really a question but something I thought was interesting and wish to share.

Always seemed to me the count of WiF "corps" for many of the Wallies actually aligns better with the number of divisions that they fielded. Then when you add WiF "divisions", in many cases you get more total divisions then they had.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Just picked and starting reading a newly released book by Daniel Jackson, "Fallen Tigers". This book focuses on the US air war in China and Burma during WW2 and the large number of US pilots who went down deep in occupied China, were helped and rescued by the Chinese. This book also contrasts the size of large raids late in the war between the China-Burma-India (CBI) theater and European Theater of Operations (ETO). A large CBI raid might have been a dozen or two bombers escorted by a half-dozen to dozen fighters. In contrast, a large ETO raid was composed of 1000's of planes.

Also, covered was the Japanese push into and conquest of Burma. I believe originally 3 regiments crossed the border into Burma and captured Lashio, which was the western terminus of the Burma road. In all I believe it was 3 IJA divisions, equivalent to a crops that conquered Burma and threaten India.

Of course as I reading these types of books, I'm always thinking of how it relates to MWiF. Or actually how MWiF relates to actual WW2 history. In this particular case I was thinking about unit scale. Section 1.2 of the "Rules as Coded" states that a land unit represents an army or corps and optional division units represent smaller units. An aircraft unit represents 250 aircraft in 1939 which gradually increases to 500 aircraft by 1945.

It feels to me that these number are more applicable to the Western and Eastern Fronts. For North Africa, the Arctic (e.g., Norway & Finland) and especially CBI I think MWiF ground and air units really represent significantly smaller numbers. For me that's one of the beauties of MWiF is how a the size of a given unit counter represents is a function of theater. Now, one might ask how do you reconcile that the unit counter costs the same regardless of theater? For me the answer is logistics. That is, it costs more and takes more effort to get and keep that unit supplied, not to mention it's support logistics, in the more remote theaters where unit size is smaller.

Anyway, not really a question but something I thought was interesting and wish to share.

Always seemed to me the count of WiF "corps" for many of the Wallies actually aligns better with the number of divisions that they fielded. Then when you add WiF "divisions", in many cases you get more total divisions then they had.

So maybe one way to look at these divisions are as smaller units.

[paulderynck]

Just drop an 'X' from all of them.

[rkr1958]

Though I've been playing MWiF since 2014 (7+ years) there's still a few things I'm a bit fuzzy on wrt/rules since I haven't had to enforce them myself. One specific area is in air-to-air combat when you take a result "one lower" than rolled due to, for example, twin engine fighter or night combat (non night-fighter).

I understand the 7 possible results, which are: AX, DX, AA, DA, AC, DC and NE.

So if I take a result 1 less are the following correct?
(1) AX becomes DX?
(2) DX becomes AA?
(3) AA becomes DA?
(4) AC becomes DC?
(5) What about DC and NE?

Also, what about PX results? I see in the 0; +2,3; +6,7 columns that there are a mixture of DX results when the PIL dies and the PIL (could) live. How is that handled when having to take a result 1 less? For example, if your were fighting in the 0 column and your opponent rolled a 20 (AX/PX) would the next lower result be an 18 (DX/PX)? Or would it be a 16/17 (DX/PIL survives)?

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Though I've been playing MWiF since 2014 (7+ years) there's still a few things I'm a bit fuzzy on wrt/rules since I haven't had to enforce them myself. One specific area is in air-to-air combat when you take a result "one lower" than rolled due to, for example, twin engine fighter or night combat (non night-fighter).

I understand the 7 possible results, which are: AX, DX, AA, DA, AC, DC and NE.

So if I take a result 1 less are the following correct?
(1) AX becomes DX?
(2) DX becomes AA?
(3) AA becomes DA?
(4) AC becomes DC?
(5) What about DC and NE?

Also, what about PX results? I see in the 0; +2,3; +6,7 columns that there are a mixture of DX results when the PIL dies and the PIL (could) live. How is that handled when having to take a result 1 less? For example, if your were fighting in the 0 column and your opponent rolled a 20 (AX/PX) would the next lower result be an 18 (DX/PX)? Or would it be a 16/17 (DX/PIL survives)?

RAW:

Option 53: (Twin-engined fighters) In air-to-air combat during the
day, all front fighters with an orange air-to-air rating achieve one
result less than normal when the front enemy fighter in the combat
does not have an orange air-to-air rating. In these cases an AX result
becomes a DX, a DX becomes an AA, an AA becomes a DA and so
on. A DC result is unaffected.

The pilot will only survive if the aircraft isn't destroyed. So if the result is AX PX, that result will become a DX PX. If the result was a DX PX, it becomes an AA and the pilot doesn't die. The die roll itself doesn't matter, it's the result of the die roll which gets changed.

DC doesn't change (the result is unaffected) and NE of course stays to be a NE result.

[Orm]

NE becomes AC. Attacker clears is one result less than no effect.

[Joseignacio]

Yes, like Orm says:

(1) AX becomes DX
(2) DX becomes AA
(3) AA becomes DA
DA becomes NE
NE becomes AC
AC becomes DC

And remember this does not affect CVPs (or at least most so believe) because they are not FTRs but CVPs and that malus is only against FTRs. This is subject to some debate but is mostly understood this way because of the letter of the rule (even though I bleieve, like many others it's just poorly phrased and should refer to any plane in a FTR role).

[Courtenay]

I think that the twin engine penalty applies whether you are fighting a FTR or a CVP. Look at the rule: It does not say that rule applies when fighting a FTR, but a fighter. When one assigns CVPs to combat, one must choose whether it is a fighter or a bomber, just as one must choose whether a FTR is flying as a fighter or a bomber. A fighter is any plane in the fighter line up of an air-to-air combat, just as a bomber is any plane in the bomber line up.

[Joseignacio]

FTR stands for Fighter, it's its abbreviation.

What you say is my initial view, however I have found that in my circles the pure letter of the rule is most commonly accepted. As it happens with so many other WIF rules.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

I think that the twin engine penalty applies whether you are fighting a FTR or a CVP. Look at the rule: It does not say that rule applies when fighting a FTR, but a fighter. When one assigns CVPs to combat, one must choose whether it is a fighter or a bomber, just as one must choose whether a FTR is flying as a fighter or a bomber. A fighter is any plane in the fighter line up of an air-to-air combat, just as a bomber is any plane in the bomber line up.

Correct.