Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Froonp

My current thinking is to only permit divisional breakdown for the major powers. This corresponds to the where divisions were provided in WiF. Using similar logic, garrisons and militia will not be available for divisional breakdown. The movement points for the garrisons is one good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to break down ("My chains have been broken and now I can run free!?"). Both garrisons and militia are poorer quality units, which is my uninformed and sleepy answer.

Some minor countries also have divisions :

- Finland (SKI, so irrelevant to this discussion)
- Poland (INF)
- Norway (SKI, so irrelevant to this discussion)
- Spain (INF)
- Sweden (SKI, so irrelevant to this discussion)
- Turkey (INF)

In my opinion, if you decide that the corps used for breakdown cannot be re-built (or re enters the force pool 1-2 years in the future to be able to be re-built), any country having suitable corps should be able to break down them.

Anyway, with the cooperation rules, minor countries divisions if they exist will also be a pain in the ass to stack & transport (I could experience this in CWiF).

For breakdown of MIL & GARR, why not, but they should not be allowed to be broken down into a MIL/GAR plus a MOT, they should only breakdown into 2 units of the same type (i.e a GARR breaks down, into 2 DIV GAR).

But this said, I think this is too much in the way of breaking down of corps into divisions. Abuses could be found here, because some GARR & MIL are not so valuable as corps, and a player might find them more useful in the way Panzerjaeger advocates.

Best Regards

Patrice

I just reviewd the counter sheets and it strikes me that this discussion is somewhat of a tempest in a teapot.

The major powers already have between 10 and 20 infantry/armor divisions each, which is quite a lot if you want to constantly build corps, break them down into divisions and use the divisions as cannon fodder. The major powers that have the most divisions are the ones most likely to do that (USSR and Germany). Providing the capability of breaking down corps into divisions so it is not limited by the counter mix, one might hypothesize that a player could create 30 or 40 inf/armor divisions, but that would mean he would have 10 to 15 fewer corps on the map. As a player I doubt I would ever want to do that. What I think is more likely is that removing the artificial limit on breaking down corps would mean I wouldn't have to constantly be checking on the availability of divisions when making decisions. Instead it would be dictated by the demands of the frontline. Poorer players are likely to get the balance wrong and be punished. Better players will get it right have reap the rewards of doing so. I am certain that everyone reading this thinks of himself as one of the better players.

In counting the divisions I included marine, para, mech, motorized divisions but did not include AA, AT, or artillery (since they are not part of the corps breakdown process).

What the unlimited breakdown provides to the players in China is the option of constructing a long, nearly-continuous line that is very weak. Whether that is a good idea or not remains for play testing to reveal.

I would limit the breakdown capability to the major powers and deny this ability to garrison, militia, and territorials. As for Spain, Poland, and Turkey. Each of them is provided a single divisional counter in WiF, which means they do not have the ability to break down a corps (you need at least 2 divisions). Therefore, I do not intend to provide them with the means to do that in MWIF.

How could 4 DIV of 1 strength change something to the German steamroller, other than making it easier ?
Breaking down corps makes you loose half the combat strength.
Minor countries units are that feeble that their divisions will nearly always be 1 strength.
In the case of Belgium, all Belgium would do is provide Germany with 3 easy assaults (Antwerp, Liege & Brussels) and either a free overrun, or a free Breakthrough.

See this setup playng with suprised Zoc's.
Germany have a very good chance of of taking three of the five hexes that borders Franceon the suprise impulse, as well as crossing the Dyle in Antwerp. There is even a chance to get Brussel as well if you have enough air or you can bring 3 stacks against the 5-3 where he needs a breaktrhough.

With this setup you will not get the important forest hex in the southwest. You also only have two stacks to bring aginst the 5-3 making a breakthrough less certain. and even if you get a breakthrough, your units are vulnerable against a counter attack SW of brussels with four stacks against you.

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
With this setup you will not get the important forest hex in the southwest. You also only have two stacks to bring aginst the 5-3 making a breakthrough less certain. and even if you get a breakthrough, your units are vulnerable against a counter attack SW of brussels with four stacks against you.

Good setup indeed. I've talked without looking at the map, and would not have thought of something so crafty.

But after the first thought, I think that even this interesting setup will be defeated quickly.

Antwerp falls in a split second, without needing ground strikes.
Brussels falls in a split second too, without needing ground strikes.
The DIV in the forest in SE Belgium is crushed, without needing ground strikes neither.
Now for the 5-3, it is ground struck with at least 2 stukas maybe 3, flipped, and blitzed with the 2 better German armored stacks. The better stacks achievable by Germany for the time is around 18 combat points to a stack, makin 36 points, with 5 armored units (4 corps and the div). 36 versus 5 means rougthly +14, plus the ARM bonus, this reach +19, plus the flipped bonus, this makes +21, so the Breakthrough is assured. A 18-strength German (all armored with the Panzerjaeger) breaktrough to the hex SW of Brussels. It is subject to counter attack, but if the French advance, and fail their attack (wich is the most likely against an all armored stack with plenty of ground support - roughly 4 x 15 attacking vs. 25-30 defending (counting GS), which translate to around +4/+6, minus 5 for the German ARMs & TD, + 2 for the French ARM.... well... a +3 assault at most), they risk being disrupted in an incomfortable situation (with a saliant W of Brussels). The German following impulse might really break the French.

Moreover, this oblige the French to align Belgium, otherwise they won't be able to stack with the Belgium DIV surviving in the forest. Which means that when Vichy is declared, Belgian Congo may become Vichy, denying the bit of inland route for the resources from South Africa which allow for a shorter sea route.

For me it is too much constraints for no or little gains.
I'd even say that the setup with corps only is better to defend, because Antwerp & Brussels are not sure to fall both on 1st Impulse, they will drain at least 1 Ground Strike each, leaving less for the rest. Next, if the Germans want to breakthrough to the forest SW hex, they will be flipped and will need an HQ nearby to reorganize them. So the "corps only setup" drains at least 3 GS, maybe 4, and 1 HQ from the Germans. The "DIV setup" drains 2-3 GS and no HQ for quite the same result because the forested SW hex will soon fall to the 3 Germans stacks around.

However Steve decided, with reasons, not to allow the Minor Countries to breakdown their corps. With reasons because it is right that with only 1 DIV in their WiF FE oob, they are not able to do a breakdown (Talking about Turkey, Poland & Spain).

I was just discussing the case, for the sake of discussing [:D]

The "DIV setup" drains 2-3 GS and no HQ for quite the same result because the forested SW hex will soon fall to the 3 Germans stacks around.

The forest hex will fall absolutely, but it will fall an impulse later meaning that the attack across the french border will come an impulse later. I could even align with the CW and get myself another impulse of where th germans has to attack the lonely div in the forest hex.
In my lat game I came up against exactly against the corps setup and it is not that difficult to get very good odds against all three belgium corps. On antwerp I had +19A (9-4 Inf, 7-3 inf, 4 ART & a doubled 5 stuka). On brussles I got +19A (24 land factors and 4 Groundsupport, -1 factory, -1 city, +1 HQ attacking) and the resource hex falled quite much as you described in your post.
It left me with a flipped HQ von Leeb, but made me able to launch two good blitz attack the next pulse taking both the resource hex next to Metz & Lille through a breakthrough on the hex west of Brussels, I dont know why my opponent left it empty.

Speed is of essence to the axis as the French are building and the BEF can bolster the line with Alexander if too much time passes.

Also arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm pleased with that there will be no div-breakdown for minors.

I might note here that divisional breakdown occurs at the start of the production phase. This means that a minor country that is setting up its units after a DOW (e.g., Poland) would not have had an opportunity to breakdown any corps. Of course, Poland won't be able to break down corps anyway as I intend to limit such activities to the major powers.

I raise the point to emphasize that any new reinforcements can not be converted to divisions until the next turn. They could be transferred from the home country to just behind the frontlines and broken down there at the end of the turn. But they would not be available for either attack or defense as divisions until the turn after they first appear on the map.

What exactly is the logic reasoning behind allowing unlimited corps breakdown, but not letting a player break up his corps during the setup?

Ask Harry.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

What exactly is the logic reasoning behind allowing unlimited corps breakdown, but not letting a player break up his corps during the setup?

What are you talking about? You can break down corps at setup. It's quite "standard" for Germany to split up one INF corps into two DIVs for a first turn run into Denmark.

ORIGINAL: doctormm

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

What exactly is the logic reasoning behind allowing unlimited corps breakdown, but not letting a player break up his corps during the setup?

What are you talking about? You can break down corps at setup. It's quite "standard" for Germany to split up one INF corps into two DIVs for a first turn run into Denmark.

Corps can be broken down during setup for a scenario, but not during setting up reserve units for a country that has just been declared war upon.

What are you talking about? You can break down corps at setup. It's quite "standard" for Germany to split up one INF corps into two DIVs for a first turn run into Denmark.

Just for the sake of discussion, I prefer to overrun Denmark using the (4-4) INF which is invariably in the German OOB. The (5-4) if it isn't.

Just for the sake of discussion, I prefer to overrun Denmark using the (4-4) INF which is invariably in the German OOB. The (5-4) if it isn't.

The engineer works as well as you would like to reach both copenhagen & fredrikshamn.

What are you talking about? You can break down corps at setup. It's quite "standard" for Germany to split up one INF corps into two DIVs

for a first turn run into Denmark.

Corps can be broken down during setup for a scenario, but not during setting up reserve units for a country that has just been declared war upon.

I'm inclined to agree with Steve on this one, but I think a re reading of the relevant RAW articles should give an answer. I've not the RAW here at work.

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Just for the sake of discussion, I prefer to overrun Denmark using the (4-4) INF which is invariably in the German OOB. The (5-4) if it isn't.

The engineer works as well as you would like to reach both copenhagen & fredrikshamn.

Wow wow, I would be too wary of seeing a CW expedition kill the lone ENG, now way for me to expose this precious unit by letting it run the country alone [:D]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ask Harry.

[&:]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ask Harry.

[&:]

My reply was in response to your question:

What exactly is the logic reasoning behind allowing unlimited corps breakdown, but not letting a player break up his corps during the setup?

I did not write the rule. I am merely programming it. Indeed, I have had absolutely no involvement in the development of any of the versions of WiF prior to working MWIF. I have never met any of the developers in person and have only the lightest of email communication with a few of them in the past 2 months. If you want to know the history of the development of and logic behind any of the WiF rules (i.e., RAW 7.0) a good place to start would be Harry Rowland.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: doctormm

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

What exactly is the logic reasoning behind allowing unlimited corps breakdown, but not letting a player break up his corps during the setup?

What are you talking about? You can break down corps at setup. It's quite "standard" for Germany to split up one INF corps into two DIVs for a first turn run into Denmark.

Corps can be broken down during setup for a scenario, but not during setting up reserve units for a country that has just been declared war upon.

Sure. I was merely answering Panzerjaeger's post, which I took to say that you couldn't break down during scenario setup.

Someone said that the problem will be the loss ratio. I tend to agree with this point. The CRT were design for corps level battle, if every loss can be taken as a division loss then the dynamics is change.

I suggest two solution :
_ forbid divisionnal breakdown during combat
_ Force at least a corps lost after the first divisionnal loss if there is a corps in the attacking force (that is 2 divisions loss if no corps)

Otherwise, I want to see unlimited divisionnal breakdown (may be as an option??) and the big asian map. All the other issue are not really problems but strategic option, that are sound. For example, War in the pacific is played at less than divisionnal level and Japan does not do the awfull breakthrough described in an earlier post.

Hi everyone.

I know this thread fell off the cart a long while back, but I'm particularly interested in the topic of corps/army sized units being present in MWiF that aren't in WiFFE.

Am I right in assuming that it's been decided that the chinese are going to have extra warlords and/or territorials? Only, I was thinking, if there's gonna be more chinese cities, why not introduce 'Garrison Militia' armies for the new cities instead?

They'd be Movement 1, so contributing to the historucal stalemate scenario, they'd have crap strengths being Militia units and would be cheap and quick for the chinese to churn out, without presenting much more than speed-bumps unless slowly dragged 'into line'.

Please shoot me if this sounds daft -

Oops- replied to the wrong topic...