optional rules

[Ullern]

{7;3;2,4;8;9,7} _ and in my head that is a Microsoft's invention. Don't think I have seen any other standard for it.[8D]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I have not seen any restrictions in the number of partisans in a country in the rules, you limit them to 3.

The likelyhood of a partisan in a country that was neutral in any part of the current year is halved.

There is also the 22.4.16 Partisan HQ's as an availablt option - will you include that one separately ?

Lars

I missed this post earlier. Sorry.

For the writeup, I am leaving out the mechanics of determining which countries, the probability of partisans, and the # of partisans. I'll cover those details somewhere else since the player doesn't have to perform the calculations (as when playing over the board). The writeup on partisans is pretty long already. All those calculations are the same as in WIF FE.

The partisan HQs are a separate optional rule.

===============
In response to this post and others:

I'll prepare a list of countries that can have partisans and propose a maximum # for each of them. And I'll post that for everyone to review. Right now I am thinking of 1 partisan for countries that only have one infantry unit in the counter mix (or none) and 5 for each major power.

There are very few partisan units in the WIF FE counter mix: only 7 to start (pre-1940) and the # grows by 2 for the next 4 years to a maximum of 15. Given partisans in China and the USSR, plus other occupied territories (France, Greece, etc.) 5 per major power seems like a lot to me. When playing WIF FE over the board the upper limit is the counter mix. And remember, these are corps sized units. We aren't talking about each unit being a dozen guys with a couple sticks of dynamite and a old rifle from WW I.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

[29][Carpet Bombing][RAW 32 s. 11.8]
This optional rule simulates the use of heavy bombers in the role of close air support for front line troops. It is famous for being used to help the Allies break out from the Normandy bridgehead. In WIF, carpet bombing means using your strategic bombing factors to attack land and air units, with the prospect of eliminating them entirely.

I also like the definition of Carpet Bombing found at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing) :
*********************************************
The phrases area bombing and carpet bombing refer to the use of large numbers of unguided gravity bombs, often with a high proportion of incendiary bombs, to attempt the complete destruction of a target region, either to destroy personnel and materiel, or as a means to demoralize the enemy (see terror bombing). The phrase probably is intended to invoke the image of bombs completely covering an area, like a carpet.

Initially, carpet bombing was effected by multiple aircraft, often returning to the target in waves. Nowadays, a large bomber or missile can be used to create the same effect on a small area (an airfield, for example) by releasing a relatively large number of smaller bombs.
*********************************************

The first paragraph could be used in your writeup, removing the link to terror bombing, and the evokation of unguided gravity bombs as 99,99999% of WWII bombs were unguided gravity bombs. I like the way it convey the idea of the deadly carpet.

Also, even if not taking it, please remove the "close air support" notion from your sentence, as carpet bombing is more than that. It is more "high density area bombing".

Here is my rewrite:

This optional rule simulates the use of heavy bombers in the role of high density area bombing of enemy units in the front line.

I want to keep it short. As I understand it, carpet bombing was quite controversial when it was first used and posed a major danger to friendly troops because the heavy bombers did not have as much precision as the tactical bombers.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

As for including recent changes to the rules - No. They are always changing. Writing code for a moving target is more trouble than benefit. Have you met this girl named Pandora?

You can't say that they are always changing.
They were always changing between 1996 and about 2000, but since then, there wasnearly no change, and RAW7 was not modified since august 2004.
Now we are 2 years more of experience in the gaming of this great game after this date, and I think that if some fiddling of the rule was happening on the ADG side, the MWiF game would be much more value added if it was in line with these.

It would be awkward to have a game sold in (say) 2007 with a 2004 set of rules, if a 2006 set of rules existed, wouldn't it ? But I an NOT saying that ADG will issue a new RAW, this I do absolutely not know.

How many addons are there to WIF? How many optional rules? How many rules errata sheets? Wasn't an earlier version of RAW numbered 7m - what about 7a, 7b, 7c, ...? Compare this to Risk which was published in the 1960's and has had no revisions to the rules (for those of you counting, that number is zero). Or to Diplomacy. Sure WIF is a much more sophisticated war simulation but rules changes have been numerous and frequent.

One of Chris's problems was trying to keep up with all the new stuff released while he was writing code. In this list of optional rule writeups there have been several places where forum members have said that the writeup I posted was based on an obsolete version of the rules. I can see in the CWIF code several places where the code is irrelevant because the rules no longer exist. Chris (wisely) simply commented it out in case the powers that be changed their minds and wanted to restore it someday. There are a long list of "simple little things" that could be done. I do not argue that they are bad changes. My view is that they are changes - period.

[Froonp]

There are very few partisan units in the WIF FE counter mix: only 7 to start (pre-1940) and the # grows by 2 for the next 4 years to a maximum of 15. Given partisans in China and the USSR, plus other occupied territories (France, Greece, etc.) 5 per major power seems like a lot to me. When playing WIF FE over the board the upper limit is the counter mix. And remember, these are corps sized units. We aren't talking about each unit being a dozen guys with a couple sticks of dynamite and a old rifle from WW I.

I still prefer RAW partisans.
Russia and France can't have the same limit.

You could calculate the limit from the Partisan Number.

For example, it could be the thirded partisan number. France Partisan number is 15, so this would limit France to 5 Partisans. Russian Partisan number is 30, this would limit Russia to 10 Partisans. China number is 20, the limit would then be 6 partisans. I already had 6 partisans counters in China in games where I was in, this not extraordinary. I also had sufficient Partisans counters in Russia to pocket Army Group South between the Dniepr, the Pripets, the Black Sea, and the Partisans behind. This latter occurence is more rare however, I only saw it once. But 5 Partisans for Russia is much too low.

Or you could limit the total number of partisans present in all countries to the number of counters of the WiF FE countermix.
1939 : 7 Total Partisans.
1940 : 9 Total Partisans.
1941 : 11 Total Partisans.
1942 : 13 Total Partisans.
1943+ : 15 Total Partisans.

Or you could use as a limit the total number of partisans counters in game when playing WiF FE with all the chrome, that is with AiF & PatiF (As many many player are doing).
The numbers then become :
1939 : 8 Total Partisans.
1940 : 10 Total Partisans.
1941 : 14 Total Partisans.
1942 : 18 Total Partisans.
1943 : 23 Total Partisans.
1944 : 25 Total Partisans.
1945 : 28 Total Partisans.
1946 : 31 Total Partisans.
1947 : 33 Total Partisans.
1948 : 34 Total Partisans.
1949 : 35 Total Partisans.
1950 : 35 Total Partisans.
1951 : 36 Total Partisans.

About the strength and move allowance of those Partisans counters :
Here are the average strength & move values of partisans, playing with WiF FE partisans counters only :
1939-
Average Strengh 0,29
Average Move 2,00
1940
Average Strengh 1,00
Average Move 2,50
1941
Average Strengh 2,00
Average Move 1,50
1942
Average Strengh 2,50
Average Move 2,50
1943
Average Strengh 3,50
Average Move 2,50

Here are the average strength & move values of partisans, playing with WiF FE, AiF and PatiF partisans counters :
1939-
Average Strengh 0,25
Average Move 2,25
1940
Average Strengh 1,00
Average Move 2,50
1941
Average Strengh 1,50
Average Move 2,25
1942
Average Strengh 2,00
Average Move 2,75
1943
Average Strengh 2,80
Average Move 2,60
1944
Average Strengh 3,00
Average Move 2,50
1945
Average Strengh 3,67
Average Move 2,67
1946
Average Strengh 3,67
Average Move 2,67
1947
Average Strengh 3,50
Average Move 3,50
1948
Average Strengh 5,00
Average Move 2,00
1949
Average Strengh 5,00
Average Move 3,00
1951
Average Strengh 6,00
Average Move 3,00

I think the latest option is the best. This allow for a comfortable number of partisans appearing anywhere, and using all the Partisans counters even their combat value of 1943 on 1943-1945, which is better.

[Froonp]

How many addons are there to WIF? How many optional rules? How many rules errata sheets? Wasn't an earlier version of RAW numbered 7m - what about 7a, 7b, 7c, ...?

Harry has an odd way of numbering the rule sets, and there never were RAW7b, 7c, 7d, etc...

The previous rulesets were :
(the bold one are the milestones, the ones the most used by players, the one who were diffused the most) :

RAW7 August 04 (the latest one, available at ADG website).
RAW7m (8 May 2003)
RAW7a (1 May 2003) (Fourth printed rulebook)
RAW7 (17 January 2003)
RAW6.01 (16 July 2000) (Third printed rulebook)
RAW6 (June 2000)
RAW5 (November 1999) (never available as download, only available on WiF Companion CD from 1999)
RAW4d (15 February 1999)
RAW4c (15 December 1998)
RAW4b (2 November 1998)
RAW4a (30 October 1998)
RAW3 (14 January 1998)
RAW2 (1 September 1997) (Second printed rulebook)
RAW1 is the first original printed version (1996) (First printed rulebook)

There are none errata sheets for WiF FE RaW7 august 2004.

Compare this to Risk which was published in the 1960's and has had no revisions to the rules (for those of you counting, that number is zero). Or to Diplomacy. Sure WIF is a much more sophisticated war simulation but rules changes have been numerous and frequent.

Yes, Risk is much more simple. A hundred or so of areas (hexes, and 1 type of unit [:D].

One of Chris's problems was trying to keep up with all the new stuff released while he was writing code. In this list of optional rule writeups there have been several places where forum members have said that the writeup I posted was based on an obsolete version of the rules. I can see in the CWIF code several places where the code is irrelevant because the rules no longer exist. Chris (wisely) simply commented it out in case the powers that be changed their minds and wanted to restore it someday. There are a long list of "simple little things" that could be done. I do not argue that they are bad changes. My view is that they are changes - period.

You're the boss, you decide.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I can do much better than average strength et al for generating counters. I haven't looked at the code recently but as I recall, it simply randomly selects one of the units from the counter mix.

For a simplified example, if there is one 0-1, two 0-2s, and two 0-3s in the counter mix for the given year, then there is a 20% chance you will get a 0-1 and a 40% chance you'll get a 0-2 or a 0-3. Neither what you have drawn previously nor what is currently on the map have any effect on those probabilites. Indeed, you could have a whole lot of 0-1s or a whole lot of 0-3s, depending on your luck.

What really bothers me about the WIF FE rules is taking units off the board and placing them somewhere else on the map - "Look the Greek partisan is now in China! I wonder how he learned the language so quickly!"

1/3 the partisan number for a country as the maximum for that country sounds good to me. It would be trivial to code too.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I can do much better than average strength et al for generating counters. I haven't looked at the code recently but as I recall, it simply randomly selects one of the units from the counter mix.

This is very good !!! Better than I expected.

What really bothers me about the WIF FE rules is taking units off the board and placing them somewhere else on the map - "Look the Greek partisan is now in China! I wonder how he learned the language so quickly!"

Yes, but maybe limiting each country to a given number is worse.
Also, remember that this (taking units off the board ) only occurs if there are not enough Partisans in the cup to be drawn.
This problem can be solved by adding the AiF & PatiF Partisans to the countermix. As you saw from the averages I posted they are not stronger, there are just more counters.

1/3 the partisan number for a country as the maximum for that country sounds good to me. It would be trivial to code too.

Even this is not perfect, because you will then know you have reached the max number of partisans for a given country, and you may then choose to not garrison it more to prevent more partisans to come.
For example, in Greece there are 2 Partisans maximum with this rule. I often saw 4 Partisans in Greece in our games. Same for Poland, limited to 2 Partisans units, the German could simply garrison / ZoC the red factory and the 2 resources, and allow the 2 partisans appearing, it won't bother him anymore. 2 Partisans in Poland are not enough to threaten the German supply lines. In a normal game, 2 Partisans in Poland is a red alert for the German, as he must move the garrisoning units to kill the partisans, or he risk facing more, and too much Partisans in Poland sounds unhealthy for the German's supply lines.

I really think that the best is either to add the PaitF & AiF partisans units to the game (as this is done in regular WiF FE games at people who own the 3 games), or putting a maximum to the TOTAL number of partisans in game at the same time, using the number I listed for the Number of Partisans counters if there are those from AiF & PatiF added.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I can do much better than average strength et al for generating counters. I haven't looked at the code recently but as I recall, it simply randomly selects one of the units from the counter mix.

This is very good !!! Better than I expected.

What really bothers me about the WIF FE rules is taking units off the board and placing them somewhere else on the map - "Look the Greek partisan is now in China! I wonder how he learned the language so quickly!"

Yes, but maybe limiting each country to a given number is worse.
Also, remember that this (taking units off the board ) only occurs if there are not enough Partisans in the cup to be drawn.
This problem can be solved by adding the AiF & PatiF Partisans to the countermix. As you saw from the averages I posted they are not stronger, there are just more counters.

1/3 the partisan number for a country as the maximum for that country sounds good to me. It would be trivial to code too.

Even this is not perfect, because you will then know you have reached the max number of partisans for a given country, and you may then choose to not garrison it more to prevent more partisans to come.
For example, in Greece there are 2 Partisans maximum with this rule. I often saw 4 Partisans in Greece in our games. Same for Poland, limited to 2 Partisans units, the German could simply garrison / ZoC the red factory and the 2 resources, and allow the 2 partisans appearing, it won't bother him anymore. 2 Partisans in Poland are not enough to threaten the German supply lines. In a normal game, 2 Partisans in Poland is a red alert for the German, as he must move the garrisoning units to kill the partisans, or he risk facing more, and too much Partisans in Poland sounds unhealthy for the German's supply lines.

I really think that the best is either to add the PaitF & AiF partisans units to the game (as this is done in regular WiF FE games at people who own the 3 games), or putting a maximum to the TOTAL number of partisans in game at the same time, using the number I listed for the Number of Partisans counters if there are those from AiF & PatiF added.

2 possibilities.

- Select the 'perfect' maximum # for each country that can possibily get partisans, or
- Devise some way to adjust the maximum if the occupying forces do nothing about existing partisans (if they are ignored too long).

The simplest solution is the best. I am open to ideas here.

I do not like involving units from America in Flames or Patton in Flames. Thiose addons are not part of MWIF product 1.

A maximum for the total # of partisans on the map doesn't make sense to me, since partisans are so country specific. This was clearly a counter mix limit for WIF FE, since it was increased when more counters were available in AmerIF and PatIF.

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Build points and Production points mean the same thing and are used interchangably in WiF Final Edition.

I copyed the exact options and their references in other rules (with no changes) in the file I sent to Steve.

Last I checked, they most definitely were not. Very second paragraph of 13.6, the section on production:

"Each factory that receives a resource makes one production point.[Emphasis mine.] You multiply this by your production multiple to give you build points. Build points are what you spend to buy new units."

It seems pretty clear to me - a production point is a separate entity from a build point. They are not interchangeable in any way, shape, or form. [:-] All production points eventually become build points, but they are not the same - you do not directly destroy build points with strategic bombardment (but you wish you did if you are Germany in the late war with your multiple of 1.5), nor do you directly trade production points via Lend-Lease (but you wish you did when you are USSR in the late war with your production multiple of 2).

ORIGINAL: Mziln

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Production points are multiplied by the production multiple to arrive at buildpoints.

In 1939 with a multiple of .5, the CW's gain from the Food in Flames rule is a maximum of 1.5 build points.

In 1941 with a multiple of 1, the CW's gain is a maximum of 3 build points.

Lars

Since production points only exist when calculating production and cannot be traded or shipped. Production points are just build points prior to applying the production multiple.

Build Points = BP

Production multiple = M (The Major powers production multiple for the current production step).

Production points = P (The total number of un-destroyed factorys that had scheduled resources reach them).

Strategic bombardment destroys the factorys (if not using 22.2 Factory destruction & construction (option 30) the factorys are unuasable for the current production step).

Production is therefore calculated as:

BP = PM.

Or

Build Points = The total number of un-destroyed factorys that had scheduled resources reach them. Multiplied by the Major powers Production multiplier for the current production step.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22.2 Factory destruction & construction (option 30)

You can build a maximum of 1 new factory a turn for each major power. They cost 8 build points each and take 4 turns to arrive. When a new factory arrives, you must put a marker onto a city hex in your home country to refl ect its construction (only in Britain for the Commonwealth until conquered). You can never have more than 2 blue factories in a hex. New factories are always blue factories.

If a printed factory is destroyed, you don’t have to rebuild it from scratch; you can repair it. This is cheaper and faster (4 build points and 2 turns). You can only repair printed factories, not factories you constructed.

Strategic bombardment does not destroy factories except when the player making the bombardment rolls well and you are playing with the create/destroy factories optional rule. According to 11.7 Strategic bombardment:

RAW 11.7
"Locate the total on the strategic bombardment table and roll a die. The result is the number of points lost by the target hex. Add 1 to the die roll if the bombers did not fight any air-to-air combat this impulse (i.e. were not interecepted).

If the target is an oil hex, that number of oil resources is lost from the hex for the turn.

If the target is a factory hex, that number of production points will be lost from the factory owner’s production point total for the turn (see 13.6.3)."

The factory is not, strictly speaking, being "rendered unusable", although I agree that it is a valid way of interpreting the rules. But strictly speaking, you are losing production (or oil resource) points. RAW is pretty unambiguous on this, it seems to me.

[composer99]

By the way, Steve, is there any chance a change in terminology could be managed for active/passive standing in for face-up/face-down?

I kind of think active/passive as a combination doesn't work very well when describing units' status in WiF. I wholeheartedly agree that face-up/face-down is anachronistic and has to go, but if I might point out that (1) WiF also uses the term "active" to describe a major power who is at war with another major power (with all the in-game effects that go with it) and (2) active/passive strikes me as rather fuzzy. For example, if I have a unit garrisoning Gibraltar for pretty much the whole game, it strikes me that that's been a pretty "passive" unit, even if in tabletop terms it was face-up ("active" in current terminology) the whole time. Whereas a unit that's been to the front, the force pool and back a few times (the Moscow militia comes to mind) or at least is seeing lots of use (HQs) would be a pretty "active" unit, even if often as not it spends most of its time bieng "passive" (face-down).

I'm really not certain right now what would be a better choice of words for active, but either disorganized or disrupted seem to me to be better than passive, since they also describe what has happened to the corps after being shuffled in toto across Siberia on the railway (a rail move) or being subjected to two weeks' worth of tactical air strikes (a ground strike mission). Maybe for active we could use "ready for action" (or even just "ready") or maybe "in good order"?

Of course, when it comes down to implementation, if making such a change would by this point in time involve too much work (or time, or both), you won't hear any bellyaching from me about it when my MWiF game comes out from under the tree. [:D]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: composer99

By the way, Steve, is there any chance a change in terminology could be managed for active/passive standing in for face-up/face-down?

(...)

I'm really not certain right now what would be a better choice of words for active, but either disorganized or disrupted seem to me to be better than passive, since they also describe what has happened to the corps after being shuffled in toto across Siberia on the railway (a rail move) or being subjected to two weeks' worth of tactical air strikes (a ground strike mission). Maybe for active we could use "ready for action" (or even just "ready") or maybe "in good order"?

I like Ready / Disorganized, and I prefer it to Active / Passive too.
Can also be Ready / Not Ready or Ready / Used-up.
Used-Up would fit better to face-down naval & aircraft units, while Disorganized would fit better to face-down land units.

[Froonp]

2 possibilities.

- Select the 'perfect' maximum # for each country that can possibily get partisans, or
- Devise some way to adjust the maximum if the occupying forces do nothing about existing partisans (if they are ignored too long).

The simplest solution is the best. I am open to ideas here.

The best would be to have an unfixed maximum number of Partisans. The maximum number of partisans in a country can't be limited to a fixed number, this would lead to gamey tactics.
Maybe it can be that the maximum number is 1/3 the Partisan number rounded up, but also that the already present PART in the country modify the partisan number (for maximum number of PART purposes only). That way, the Partisan number of Poland would become 8 if there are already 2 PART in the country, and being 8 it would allow for a third PART. But, with a 3rd PART, the Partisan number would go to 9, and the limit would stay 3 PART in the country, and it becomes kind of a fixed limit.
The bottom line, is that there should always be the threat of a new PART appearing.

I do not like involving units from America in Flames or Patton in Flames. Thiose addons are not part of MWIF product 1.

I was sure you would say that.
But I would answer that adding the AiF & PatiF Partisans counter is not like adding the PatiF & AiF other units. It is kind of using the AiF & PatiF maps, and it is already what we are doing in MWiF, we are already using the PatiF map.
Frankly, it is the simplest solution, and the most WiF FE like solution. Having a maximum number pf PART in a country is not WiF FE like.

[wfzimmerman]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: composer99

By the way, Steve, is there any chance a change in terminology could be managed for active/passive standing in for face-up/face-down?

(...)

I'm really not certain right now what would be a better choice of words for active, but either disorganized or disrupted seem to me to be better than passive, since they also describe what has happened to the corps after being shuffled in toto across Siberia on the railway (a rail move) or being subjected to two weeks' worth of tactical air strikes (a ground strike mission). Maybe for active we could use "ready for action" (or even just "ready") or maybe "in good order"?

I like Ready / Disorganized, and I prefer it to Active / Passive too.
Can also be Ready / Not Ready or Ready / Used-up.
Used-Up would fit better to face-down naval & aircraft units, while Disorganized would fit better to face-down land units.

I like Ready/Disorganized. This seems to convey the spirit of "flipping" better than "passive." Passive conveys that something (activeness) has ebbed away, as it were, while "disorganized" is closer to the Cardboardistan action of taking the beautiful counter and flipping it over.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: composer99
By the way, Steve, is there any chance a change in terminology could be managed for active/passive standing in for face-up/face-down?

(...)

I'm really not certain right now what would be a better choice of words for active, but either disorganized or disrupted seem to me to be better than passive, since they also describe what has happened to the corps after being shuffled in toto across Siberia on the railway (a rail move) or being subjected to two weeks' worth of tactical air strikes (a ground strike mission). Maybe for active we could use "ready for action" (or even just "ready") or maybe "in good order"?

I like Ready / Disorganized, and I prefer it to Active / Passive too.
Can also be Ready / Not Ready or Ready / Used-up.
Used-Up would fit better to face-down naval & aircraft units, while Disorganized would fit better to face-down land units.

I like Ready/Disorganized. This seems to convey the spirit of "flipping" better than "passive." Passive conveys that something (activeness) has ebbed away, as it were, while "disorganized" is closer to the Cardboardistan action of taking the beautiful counter and flipping it over.

I have no emotional attachment to active/passive. Their primary attraction is that they are short (2 syllables) and complement each other nicely.

I do not like Ready, mainly because there isn't an easy reverse - Unready seems weird.

We could go with Prepared/Unprepared but that introduces a whole new phrase set - though maybe that's a benefit.

Right now I am leaning towards Organized/Disorganized because they fit in so nicely with Reorganized. A little long to say (4 & 5 syllables) but quite clear.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

2 possibilities.

- Select the 'perfect' maximum # for each country that can possibily get partisans, or
- Devise some way to adjust the maximum if the occupying forces do nothing about existing partisans (if they are ignored too long).

The simplest solution is the best. I am open to ideas here.

The best would be to have an unfixed maximum number of Partisans. The maximum number of partisans in a country can't be limited to a fixed number, this would lead to gamey tactics.
Maybe it can be that the maximum number is 1/3 the Partisan number rounded up, but also that the already present PART in the country modify the partisan number (for maximum number of PART purposes only). That way, the Partisan number of Poland would become 8 if there are already 2 PART in the country, and being 8 it would allow for a third PART. But, with a 3rd PART, the Partisan number would go to 9, and the limit would stay 3 PART in the country, and it becomes kind of a fixed limit.
The bottom line, is that there should always be the threat of a new PART appearing.

I do not like involving units from America in Flames or Patton in Flames. Thiose addons are not part of MWIF product 1.

I was sure you would say that.
But I would answer that adding the AiF & PatiF Partisans counter is not like adding the PatiF & AiF other units. It is kind of using the AiF & PatiF maps, and it is already what we are doing in MWiF, we are already using the PatiF map.
Frankly, it is the simplest solution, and the most WiF FE like solution. Having a maximum number pf PART in a country is not WiF FE like.

I tried to post this response last night but the server was having troubles.
------------
Ah, but WIF FE does have a maximum # of partisans in a country - the maximum # in the game, less any I take away from you when I get partisans to place and there aren't any more in the counter mix.

I do not see a need for a limitless # of partisans. Say 200 in France should suffice. [:D] New partisans as an ever present threat doesn't convince me either. At some point adding more partisans unbalances the game. There were a fixed # of possible soldiers who could join partisan units. Given that they needed weapons, officers, and other logistic elements to be effective, an upper bound is logical.

Here is my key point: if after getting 10 partisan units in Russia, you haven't been able to get the attention of the forces that are occupying the country, then adding even more shouldn't make much of a difference. The partisans did not win the war for any country, they were merely annoying to the occupying forces.

Another possibility [which I do not like] is to permit the player to reposition existing partisans once he has reached the maximum. If you are suppose to get 2 partisans and you already have your maximum 5 on the map, then you can pick up any two of the 5 and place them somewhere else (within the same country). This is more in keeping with how WIF FE handles partisans with them maybe popping up and maybe disappearing.

[lomyrin]

Of course the partisan HQ option would remove 2 Russian partisans when it was formed since it takes 2 partisans to call it out.
 
Lars  

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Of course the partisan HQ option would remove 2 Russian partisans when it was formed since it takes 2 partisans to call it out.

Lars  

I guess I didn't say what I intended to do with the partisan HQs. When a partisan HQ is formed, 2 partisans are removed from the map. However, the HQ would not count against the maximum # of partisans, so Russia could have 10 regular partisan units plus the HQ (given the current discussion about a maximum of 10 for Russia).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Continuing my progress through writing up all the optional rules, ...
=============================================================
[45][Oil Rules][RAW 48 s. 13.5.1]
This optional rule simulates the important role that oil played during WW II. Be warned that adding this optional rule increases the complexity of the game quite a bit. The mechanics are much easier with the program doing the record keeping (than doing them by hand playing over the board) but the more dramatic increase in complexity is created by the impact the oil rules have on tactical, operational, and even strategic planning, and execution of those plans. In practical terms, the oil rules change how units are reorganized, from passive to active, with some unit types requiring oil resources.

Passive units that are not oil dependent are reorganized to active as normal during the final reorganization step. Those that are oil dependent have additional restrictions placed upon whether they can be reorganized at that time. Specifically, during the final reorganization step oil resources must be spent to reorganize oil dependent units.

All naval and air units are oil dependent and it costs 0.2 or 0.1 oil points to reorganize each unit, depending on unit type and which optional rules are in effect. Land based units are only oil dependent if they are motorized, mechanized, or armor. In general, corps/army sized units cost 0.2 oil points to reorganize and divisions cost 0.1. Notable exceptions are HQ units with HQ-I costing 0.4 and HQ-A costing 0.6 oil points. If you have a question about any specific unit, the oil point cost to reorganize it is part of the general information about the unit, along with the build points needed for building it and the time it takes for the unit to be built.

For a unit to use oil for reorganizing, the oil must belong to the unit’s controlling major power. Even oil controlled by co-operating major powers can't help. However, Communist and Nationalist Chinese can use each other's oil. Chinese controlled oil resources may reorganize passive US units in China if they can trace a supply path (of unlimited length) back to Stilwell. You do not have to transport the oil anywhere. But you must be able to trace a path from the unit to the oil resource. This path is exactly like a basic supply path (including via overseas) except that it can be of any length.

The total oil needed for all the units you choose to reorganize, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the minimum amount of oil resources (whether from the current turn or saved) that you must spend. This means that you can reorganize 2 units that cost 0.2 oil points each for free (because 0.4 rounds to zero). However, if units costing a total of 0.5 or more oil points to reorganize trace a path to the same oil resource, you must spend that resource. This may mean that you will have to spend more oil resources than the minimum amount.

For example, assume you have only 2 oil resources and 6 oil dependent unit to reorganize (at 0.2 oil points per unit). You will have to spend at least a minimum of 1 oil resource because 6 * 0.2 = 1.2, which rounds to 1. And you will only have to spend that minimum if 4 or 5 of the units can trace a path to the same resource. But suppose that 3 units can only trace to 1 of the resources and the other 3 can only trace to the second resource. In that case, you would have to spend both resources to reorganize all 6 units.

If a supply unit was expended to make an HQ a primary supply source during the turn, then during final reorganization, that HQ may reorganize oil dependent units (even itself) as if it were 1 oil resource.

When sending resources to another player, you must also commit how many of the resources are oil.
=============================================================
[46][Hitler’s War][RAW 49 s. 13.3.2]
This optional rule enhances the effect of lend lease to the USSR and changes how the USSR production multiple is calculated. It increases the benefit the USSR gets from lend lease while removing any special benefit for holding onto certain major cities in the USSR.

Once the USA chooses US Entry Option #30, Lend Lease to the USSR, and until Germany and the Soviet Union are at war, the Soviets pick an extra marker during the entry marker step of each turn. After looking at the marker, they can treat it as a normal marker (offensively or defensively) or stack it face down on any of their useable factory stacks. Once placed the marker may never be moved even if the hex becomes controlled by another major power.

During their first production step the USSR is at war with Germany, all entry markers so placed are converted into saved build points, immediately available for production or to be saved for future turns. If not playing with the optional rule for Saving Build Points, then these extra build points must be spent immediately and any excess after production are lost.

Instead of gaining an increase in their production multiple for holding Kiev, Minsk, Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, the USSR gains +0.25 while Germany and the USSR are at war with each other. The production multiple increase for other major powers when an enemy units is in their home country also disappears completely, except for China, which receives a permanent +0.25 increase.

To be very clear on this, when using this option, major powers no longer receive a bonus for an in supply enemy unit in their home country, and the USSR no longer receives any bonuses based on the cities they control.
=============================================================
[47][USSR Japan Compulsory Peace][RAW 50 s. 13.7.3]
This optional rule reflects the willingness both the USSR and Japan had for remaining at peace with each other during WW II. Though they had been fighting a mostly unreported little war along the Manchurian border for some time prior to Germany’s invasion of Poland, they both felt a lot of pressure on other fronts: Germany for the USSR and the USA for Japan. Agreeing to peace with each other was in both of their self-interests.

If Japan controls Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the Japanese player must agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one. Similarly, if the USSR controls 3 or more resources that were Japanese controlled at the start of the war, the Soviet player must agree to a peace if the Japanese player wants one.

In either case, the new Russo-Japanese border is established by the hexes each controls at the time of the compulsory peace. Any pocket of non-coastal hexes wholly surrounded by hexes controlled by the other major power becomes controlled by the major power whose hexes surround them.

[Froonp]

47][USSR Japan Compulsory Peace][RAW 50 s. 13.7.3]
(...)

You may also add that agreeing to a peace between them and thus signing a peace treaty, has a slight US Entry Effect (US Entry Action #2).