Opinions on optional rules

[juntoalmar]

Hi,

I have been playing in solitary and I’m trying to find the perfect mix of optionals for me. Can you give me your opinion regarding balance, fun, etc...?

I have tried these 4 optionals, but I find they add a bit of complexity to the game, but they don’t actually make it more fun:
- Pilots
- Amphibious rules
- Construction engineers
- Partisans

I haven’t tried “Factory construction and destruction” but seems interesting.

Then, I haven’t use any of these but I have limited interest in them, are they worth using?
- Cruisers in flames
- Synthetic oil plants.
- Supply units
- Unlimited breakdown
- Night air missions
- Twin-engined fighters
- Backup fighters
- Tank busters
- SCS transport

Thanks in advance!


PS: The reason for this post is because I'm going to suggest some optional rules for the next game with a friend and I realised that if I tried to explain why should we add "Pilots" or "Amphibious rules" (for example), I realised I wasn't able to explain to him why they make the game more fun to justify the small added complexity.

[Centuur]

Most of those optional rule you have listed here, give the game a more historical approach.

For example: the AMPH rule forces you to build the specialized ships you need to have for invading beaches when not using marines, as was historically correct.

Twin engine fighters were less effective against single engine fighters. Historically correct.

But I agree, they make the game more difficult.

Personally, I don't like to play with light cruisers (except when there is another rule in place which favours the Axis a lot).

Construction engineers is a no go for me. That's because historically speaking engineers were used in different roles in different countries. For example: Germany had almost unarmed "Bautruppen" for construction work and heavily armed "Sturmpioniere" for combat engineers. However: there are no "Bautruppen" available in the game for Germany at start. Now: if the developer would have added ENG divisions with no combat factors for Germany (and France, Italy, USSR and Japan) in the force pool and at start, that would be better. But they are not in the game, and therefore this rule is somewhat incomplete.

Also: never use unlimited breakdown together with SCS transport. That's to powerful, since it allows f.e. Japan to break down a whole lot of INF corps and use the divisions on their cruisers to invade half the world in the surprise impulse.

And I don't like Night Missions. But others like them a lot.
Carpet bombing is something I also advise not to use. It makes the Allies in late game far too powerfull. No Axis HQ is save from destruction anymore and there is no way the Axis can handle those losses. And historically speaking it was used only a few times during the war. With the result that advancing troops got into a lot of problems due to the destruction on the ground.

And partisans. What a nuisance they are. But hey: that's history for you. No garrison means you might get into problems in captured countries...

[juntoalmar]

And partisans. What a nuisance they are. But hey: that's history for you. No garrison means you might get into problems in captured countries...

I have already decided that I won't play with partisans. Those buggers just make me miserable and they are a pain in the a$$. An extra layer of complexity but no fun at all.

I have been playing with pilots and amphibious solitary and they are ok. But I realised I had no way to explain my friend why the game would be better with them so I think we make skip them unless they change the game balance a lot. I'm not even sure if they benefit one side or the other (I guess pilots benefits the allies and amphibious none)

[rkr1958]

Before I give my opinion/thoughts on optional I wanted to post this survey I put together of the optional rules sets I've used over the years compared to the MWIF default Advance, Standard and Novice recommended sets.

Note that optional rules that are lined through are uncoded.

[rkr1958]

If/when negotiating with a prospective opponent the following optional rules (in no particular order) are must for me (i.e., if we can't agree then likely no game):

(1) 2D10 CRT & factional odds - to me the 2D10 CRT just gives me a better feel, a more historical feel, on how combined land & air combat plays out at this (i.e., strategic) level. Also, at poor to good odds extreme results still happen (e.g., 2D10=2 or 2D10=20) but I feel are properly rare versus on the 1D10 where results are uniform. Fractional odds just make things easier and the game go faster. Also you don't worry about missing a given odds by 1 factor or 1 factor of defensive ground support causing an entire odds shift.
(3) Divisions & Artillery - I feel these go hand and in with the 2D10 CRT and add to my gaming realism.
(4) Pilots - Allows you flexibility in the quality of the air fleet you put on the board. The cost of getting a junk plane is reduced by 2 BPs and don't ever have to see the light of day (i.e., remain in the reinforcement pool). Also, the cost of air combat is better reflected I feel in that you lose fewer pilots fighting over your own territory versus that of the enemy's.
(5) Carrier Planes - I feel this adds more realism to the naval part of the game. You have to make the decision of the mix of fighters and bombers across your carriers and task forces.
(6) Offensive Chits - Big deal for Germany to get through France in 1940 and for the USA in 1943 and on to be able to take super combines in order to fight a war on all fronts (i.e., Europe, Pacific, Med).
(7) Partisans - I know they're a pain in the butt but you're giving the axis player(s) a big advantage if you don't use this mechanism to dilute their forces available for front line duties.
(8) Additional Chinese Cities - I consider this a must for China given that MWiF uses the European hex scale for the entire map versus the large hex scales for Asia and the Pacific maps in the board game. Otherwise; dealing with supply in China is going to be a major headache in MWiF without these additional cities.
(9) Oil rules - One thing that gives me a historical feel during the game in when the axis aren't able to reorg a significant portion of their mobile ground, air and/or naval forces because of oil shortages. Also, axis oil issues incentive allied strategic bombing of axis oil.
(10) Amphibious rules & SCS transport - forces one to do the necessary builds and planning for amphibious invasions. Again, for me a required realism of play.
(11) HQ Support - adds a level of realism to land combat that I like.
(12) Limited overseas supply - adds more realism in the naval battle for keeping troops in supply over oceans ans seas.

[rkr1958]

This next list are optional rules I prefer to play with but won't fall on my sword if my opponent is "deathly" opposed to using.

(1) Chinese attack weakness - without it the Japanese player against an equal or better opponent is at a serious disadvantage in China. One that isn't historical I feel.
(2) Allied combat friction - never been an issues with anyone I've played and always been included. Just feels more historical.
(3) Extended aircraft rebasing - never been an issues with anyone I've played and always been included.
(4) Night air missions - I like this rule if it's limited to strategic bombing, airborne drops & fighter escorts & intercepts for these missions only. Within those limitations I feel gives a more historical feel to the air war.
(5) Twin-engined bombers - their range and capabilities are need for strategic bombing & naval air missions I feel.
(6) Fighter-bombers - not in my must category but can't imagine playing the game with this. RAF Typhoons & USAAF Hellcats not being able to attack ground troops. Hersey I say!
(7) Backup fighters - I feel adds more realism to the air-to-air component and ground strikes & ground support missions.
(8) Ski troops - I just like them. Gives the Finns and Soviets a slight advantage when fighting in the arctic.
(9) The Queens - Gives the CW a sea lift that has the range to quickly go around the world picking up CW troops and moving them to other areas in a turn or two. I feel really need in the early game.
(10) Siberians - they were present in the real war why not the game?
(11) Chinese warlords - China needs all the help they can get especially if I'm in control of them.
(12) Scrap units - since there's no research this is really the only mechanism of not drawing outdate units/equipment.
(13) In the presence of the enemy - prevents outrageous sorties through one or more enemy occupied sea area(s) to raid another sea area. This also allows the RN & USN and the IJN to some extend to set up blockades in critical sea areas.
(14) Saving oil resources and build points - I have never played without this rules. Without I think you'd put the axis a serious disadvantage with oil. Though, I've seen experienced German and Japanese players amass very large stockpiles or oil where oil is really no issue to them. Also, I've seen experienced CW players amass significant oil in the UK which allows them to effectively negate the axis sub threat. That is, even if axis subs totally disrupt their convoy lines and the turn ends before the CW/USA player(s) can fix/mitigate that then a large stockpile of oil in the UK will allow full or near full production for the CW that turn. Would be interesting to play with oil but without being able to save oil and see what kind of game it was. Haven't tried it yet, but may in the future.
(15) Emergency HQ supply - adds a level of realism I like to the play. Can be a big deal/surprise if you can catch your opponent at the right time.
(16) Territorials - this is almost in my must category. Big deal especially for the CW, Italy and Japan I feel.
(17) Tank busters - where would play be without these devastating planes against armor in the open!

[rkr1958]

Here is a list of optional rules I prefer NOT to play with and will fight tooth and nail not to use.

(1) Isolated reorganization limits - it's not that I'm so opposed to using this rule. It's just how much slower the game runs. In fact, my experience is that at some stage, which can be as earlier as mid game, the game with this optional rule enabled because unplayable.
(2) Construction engineers - absolutely hate this rule and consider it anti-player.
(3) Carpet bombing - absolutely hate this rule and consider its (potential) effects unrealistic.

[rkr1958]

Sorry if I went overboard on all this and not sure it's all that helpful but was fun.

[juntoalmar]

Sorry if I went overboard on all this and not sure it's all that helpful but was fun.

Wow! Thanks a lot for your opinion. Don’t be sorry, this is exactly what I wanted to read.

Let me give you my opinion. Please read in the context that I have just played with my friend his first match. So, I’ve been trying to avoid extra rules to avoid overwhelming him. I just wanted to make sure he enjoyed the game, understood the basics, and didn’t quit. Succeed, btw.

So we are going into our second game with the extra rules. From your first post I agree with all with just a couple differences:
- Pilots, Amphibious: I play with them when solitary, but we skipped for this first game (for simplicity). They add realism, but if he feels it adds just complexity I can survive without them.
- Partisans: they are just boring to play for me. If removing them helps the Axis… I’m ok with that. I think that a game is healthy if the Axis’ side is healthy (otherwise the game can end on 1941). We are by no means good players, so I think the partisans won’t decide the result of the game.

Second post:
- From the air rules, we have only played with fighter-bombers. I feel we will forget what the others mean if we add them, but we can try.

I agree with the NO rules, but it’s nice to confirm that they don’t “unbalance” the game if disabled.


What about the rule that allows you to transport divisions with airplanes with a white circle?

[rkr1958]

What about the rule that allows you to transport divisions with airplanes with a white circle?

That optional is on my second list, which are the rules I like to include but won't fall on my sword if a potential opponent objects to using it. For me personally I might see it used less than a half of dozen of times in a game. But can be critical to get troops over water or low density areas such as to and from North Africa, Malta, remote China.

Another optional on this "second list" is supply units. I generally don't build them. Only use the ones at setup. However I could see the potential for supply units in Africa or even China. I'm not experienced enough with these units (that is supply) to employ them to their full potential.

[rkr1958]

My experience with the optional rules that I tend to play with is that MWiF really does capture the combined arms effects of air, ground and sea at the strategic/corps level very well. In my opinion better than any other game I've player or even aware of at this same level. For example, and unlike other games at the level,

(1) You don't send fleets into sea areas without adequate air cover if facing an enemy who does posses air with air to sea capability not matter how "weak" that air appears.
(2) Air parity is a must and air superiority, even supremacy, is preferred for offensive operations; especially invasions.

I do enjoy the naval history of WW2 and feel that MWiF captures it pretty well at it's level of abstraction. As such, I like to play with the following optional rules wrt/naval play when I can:
(1) Flying boats
(2) Limited overseas supply
(3) In the presence of the enemy
(4) SCS transport
(5) Amphibious rules
(6) Variable carrier plane searching
(7) Pilots
(8) Food in flames
(9) Twin-engined fighters
(10) Carrier planes
(11) Kamikazes
(12) The Queens
(13) Cruisers in Flames
(14) Unlimited breakdown

I know that may feel that the last two, Cruisers in Flames and Unlimited breakdown, and Food in flames may/are too unbalancing. My experience is that they really aren't with the caveat that neither I or the group(s) I play with are experts at exploiting such rules.

I like Food in Flames because it gives the CW (potential for) additional income. I like it because "it forces" the CW player to get in place and protect convoy chains from India, Australia and South Africa to the UK if they wish to take advantage of this extra income.

I do feel that MWiF gets the results and feel of the Battle of the Atlantic pretty much right though how it goes about isn't how it was. For example, the CW player will send out CA/CLs w/CVs, and w/o CLIFs even BBs, to hunt down subs and escort CPs. In reality, it's the DDs implicit with named ships that are really doing the hunting and escorting. Capital ships (i.e., CVs, BBs, CAs, CLs) without escorting destroyers were sitting ducks for enemy subs. However; in MWiF it's these ships that directly take on enemy subs. However; I do think this system can amazing produce results that mirror history. That is, shipping tonnage sunk, capital ships sunk/damaged and subs lost/damaged. Another gaming artifact is that all this damage, including production lost, occurs at a point. That is, nothing may have happened for a turn or two and then suddenly all heck breaks lose in the Atlantic. While this may/can produce historical results the mechanics isn't how it happened. The Battle of the Atlantic tended to be dip, dip affair with a more continuous attrition versus the big event type losses then tend to happen in MWiF. Three things I like about CLIF, in addition to playing with more named/individual ships, are: (1) BBs now longer have any ASW so you don't sent them of sub hunting or convoy escort duties except when surface raiders are threat, (2) added AA especially in the Pacific, where USN AA was devastating and (3) the potential more small numbers surface actions both in the Pacific and the Med.

Finally, wrt/Unlimited breakdown I understand the potential for it being exploited to no good. But, I like how I, we, use it and feel it's a positive impact on the game.

In summary, I tend to favor optional rules that add to the "historical" feel of the game, which I place above how it might balance/unbalance the game.

[Courtenay]

Construction engineers is the worst optional rule in the game. It just adds aggravation to the players. All players.

Conversely, saving build points, fractional odds and off-city reinforcement are rules that make things easier for the players.

The Surprised ZOC rule is absurdly unbalancing. If would not play with it if I were the Allies. (I wouldn't be happy with it as the Axis, either.)

Variable reorganization limits is also bad, in my opinion. The Oil rules are good, but this just adds problems.

There is a very unfortunate interaction between Limited Overseas Supply and Limited Supply across Straits. I would use one or the other (preferably Limited Overseas Supply) but not both.

I do not like the variable carrier searching rule. It is completely ahistorical. It helps the Japanese a lot. The Japanese did not use carrier planes for search (they used cruiser float planes, not all that well.)

I do not like the backup fighter rule.

I feel that the partisan rules are necessary.

I like any rule that adds units to the game; feels more fun.

In the Presence of the Enemy is a good rule. Both the US and Japan want this rule; it stops ridiculous deep cruiser raids on CPs.

I do not like either Railway Movement Bonus (gives too much mobility) or HQ movement (designed to drive Chinese player insane.)

I like the AMPH rule; if you use it, you have to use the SCS transport rule, or the Japanese player will go insane.

[michaelbaldur]

I like most of the options

just hate the oil rule

Im not playing the game to do math, and it mean less production. less units and less fun.

also the oil rule is Totally unbalanced. the major allies have alot of onmap oil. the Axis have none

[juntoalmar]

also the oil rule is Totally unbalanced. the major allies have alot of onmap oil. the Axis have none

Well, that's one of the reasons why they went to war, actually (at least, Japan).

[Joseignacio]

I like most of the options

just hate the oil rule

Im not playing the game to do math, and it mean less production. less units and less fun.

also the oil rule is Totally unbalanced. the major allies have alot of onmap oil. the Axis have none

I feel the same, exactly

[Joseignacio]

also the oil rule is Totally unbalanced. the major allies have alot of onmap oil. the Axis have none

Well, that's one of the reasons why they went to war, actually (at least, Japan).

Yes, but as a cut in their resources (even not being different from non-oil) Japan is strained enough to go to war sometime, and with or without OIL rule, Japan tends not to start a war in most games. Just saves more oil earlier which just decreases production, which IMO decreases fun.

[Joseignacio]

BTW, I have never played or seen anybody play without PART, they add flavour and ramdomness to the game.

WOuld accept to play without them anyway but wouldnt like the lack .

I am not commenting all but I would say in my opinion most optionals are liked by all players, like in the 75% of the cases , about a 15% are negotiated and 10% never used.

Construction engineers comes in that last group.

Here are the optionals as voted in my group (note it's a WIF CE game), in red the unselected, green approved, the first column is the result of the votation and then comes the vote of the five players SI/NO (YES/NO)

Captura de pantalla 2022-04-30 133606.jpg (158.71 KiB) Viewed 1479 times

Captura de pantalla 2022-04-30 133658.jpg (128.75 KiB) Viewed 1479 times

[Orm]

(2) Allied combat friction - never been an issues with anyone I've played and always been included. Just feels more historical.
(5) Twin-engined bombers - their range and capabilities are need for strategic bombing & naval air missions I feel.
(6) Fighter-bombers - not in my must category but can't imagine playing the game with this. RAF Typhoons & USAAF Hellcats not being able to attack ground troops. Hersey I say!
(10) Siberians - they were present in the real war why not the game?

A few comments about the comments.

5) Might be a misunderstanding here. Twin-engine bombers are not added. the option, when added, just makes some of them, or rather most, perform worse in air to air combat versus single engine fighters. The FTR3 are always included.

6) Might be a misunderstanding here as well. Fighters can always fly bomb missions if they have bomb factors (regardless of option). Playing with the option just reduces the fighters air to air value when it flies a bombing mission.

2) Allied combat friction is only relevant when playing with the 1d10 LCT. When playing with the 2d10 table it is automatically included.

10) One could make the argument that the Siberians are already included in the regular Soviet force pool.

[rkr1958]

(2) Allied combat friction - never been an issues with anyone I've played and always been included. Just feels more historical.
(5) Twin-engined bombers - their range and capabilities are need for strategic bombing & naval air missions I feel.
(6) Fighter-bombers - not in my must category but can't imagine playing the game with this. RAF Typhoons & USAAF Hellcats not being able to attack ground troops. Hersey I say!
(10) Siberians - they were present in the real war why not the game?

A few comments about the comments.

5) Might be a misunderstanding here. Twin-engine bombers are not added. the option, when added, just makes some of them, or rather most, perform worse in air to air combat versus single engine fighters. The FTR3 are always included.

6) Might be a misunderstanding here as well. Fighters can always fly bomb missions if they have bomb factors (regardless of option). Playing with the option just reduces the fighters air to air value when it flies a bombing mission.

2) Allied combat friction is only relevant when playing with the 1d10 LCT. When playing with the 2d10 table it is automatically included.

10) One could make the argument that the Siberians are already included in the regular Soviet force pool.

Thanks! Appreciate the clarification. I was definitely confused, which is probably more the rule than the exception.