Japan Map

[composer99]

While I agree with pauldernyck (nice user logo, by the way! Go Canucks! [:D]) that some of the map changes alter things for Japan and not always for the better, the altered map scale helps them out in a big way too when fighting the USSR because of the increased mobility. Sure you have to take Vlad to get the resource, but you should be able, in a single summer turn, if you're set up right, to grab Vlad and two or three resources so if the Soviets sue for peace you come out of the war fatter and happier.

[paulderynck]

I might mention here that the position of the resource can be changed rather easily by editing the data files (CSVs), should a player so desire.

If you can make such a thing user configurable and make the railroad move with it so if nothing else changes, Russia can still rail the resource to a factory - then my hats off to you! That's awesome!

Question - do resources that managed to stay on the coast with the new scale require transport to a port before they can be picked up? Or can they always be transported by a convoy as long as they are in a coastal hex (like in WIFFE)? BTW, if yes to that one, it may impact configurability as well.

...the geography satisfied -- as I don't think that Suchan was a port nor that there was a port available to ship the coal out of Russia without going through Vlad).

For Patrice - the question above is why the existence of ports should not matter if the game is true to WIFFE.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I might mention here that the position of the resource can be changed rather easily by editing the data files (CSVs), should a player so desire.

If you can make such a thing user configurable and make the railroad move with it so if nothing else changes, Russia can still rail the resource to a factory - then my hats off to you! That's awesome!

There are 2 files to modify for this, the TER file for moving the resource, and the HST file for drawing the railway.

Question - do resources that managed to stay on the coast with the new scale require transport to a port before they can be picked up? Or can they always be transported by a convoy as long as they are in a coastal hex (like in WIFFE)? BTW, if yes to that one, it may impact configurability as well.

Sure. A CP can always pick a resource on a coast.

...the geography satisfied -- as I don't think that Suchan was a port nor that there was a port available to ship the coal out of Russia without going through Vlad).

For Patrice - the question above is why the existence of ports should not matter if the game is true to WIFFE.

It is if the RP stays where it is.
To try go in "your" way, I considered making Suchan a port, and placing it on the coast, and leaving the RP where it was and linking both by a railway, but Suchan was not a port in the 40s, and it seems that there were no other port that could have extracted the coal from here except Vlad.


As a side note, Paul, I would like to let you know that your remarks were not useless, because I reviewed the resources that were no longer on coasts in the Pacific in MWiF, and changed the Palembang ones to put them back on the coast (it wasn't anymore), because I read that Palembang was a port (on a river) from which the oil was shipped, and also because its real geographical position is less than 100 km from the coast so it is better depicted in a coastal place.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
As a side note, Paul, I would like to let you know that your remarks were not useless, because I reviewed the resources that were no longer on coasts in the Pacific in MWiF, and changed the Palembang ones to put them back on the coast (it wasn't anymore), because I read that Palembang was a port (on a river) from which the oil was shipped, and also because its real geographical position is less than 100 km from the coast so it is better depicted in a coastal place.

Here is what decided me in the end. An interesting reading on Palembang, and a 1935 map (here only a bit of it scaled down to fit the post).
http://www.leidenuniv.nl/fsw/nas/pub_palembang.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palembang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musi_River_%28Indonesia%29

[jcprom]

I suppose this was discussed earlier but it seems to me the at start number of weak defensive units ("ants" like divisions, small garrisons, small territorials...) should be slightly increased for all nations, especially those on the Pacific map, to adequately man the extended fronts and defend the additional ports.

Those units are already available on WIF FE counter sheets, though more 1 or 2 strength points divisions would be useful. They usually existed but rarely appear in WWII simulations due to already crowded maps in Western Europe. For example, the British, NEI and French start most 1936/1939 scenarios with virtually no units on the Pacific map. Actually, they had some weak or very weak units to defend Batavia, Singapore, Hong-Kong, Bombay, Hanoi, Saigon and other important locations.

If the unit density is too scarce, set-up and strategy options will be limited (less interesting). Too often, notional defenses will be the only choice (with naval/air defenses when available). Chinese intial set up in 1936 and 1939 also comes to mind.

Why not allow some breakdowns for strong garrisons/ territorials?

Keep up the good work.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Welcome to the forum. I always like to hear what players have to say about MWIF, both pluses and minuses. Without me receiving feedback from forum members, MWIF would have been radically different, and vastly inferior.

A new optional rule permits unlimited break down of corps/amry units into divisions - not restricted by the WIFFE counter mix. However, ...

1 - the only division sized units that can be built directly are those in the WIFFE counter mix (very few INF types),
2 - only units from major powers can be broken down into divisions (which is also true in WIFFE), and
3 - the corps/army units which are broken down to create the divisions are set aside in a Broken-Down Pool and cannot be rebuilt.

The are other rules about reforming units, which I won't list again here.

Does this address your concern?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
A new optional rule permits unlimited break down of corps/amry units into divisions - not restricted by the WIFFE counter mix. However, ...

1 - the only division sized units that can be built directly are those in the WIFFE counter mix (very few INF types),
2 - only units from major powers can be broken down into divisions (which is also true in WIFFE), and
3 - the corps/army units which are broken down to create the divisions are set aside in a Broken-Down Pool and cannot be rebuilt.

The are other rules about reforming units, which I won't list again here.

Does this address your concern?

Hey, after all, why limit Corps Break down to Major Power units ?
If rule 1 & 3 above are in play, this limit any abuse one could make with breaking down minor country units.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
A new optional rule permits unlimited break down of corps/amry units into divisions - not restricted by the WIFFE counter mix. However, ...

1 - the only division sized units that can be built directly are those in the WIFFE counter mix (very few INF types),
2 - only units from major powers can be broken down into divisions (which is also true in WIFFE), and
3 - the corps/army units which are broken down to create the divisions are set aside in a Broken-Down Pool and cannot be rebuilt.

The are other rules about reforming units, which I won't list again here.

Does this address your concern?

Hey, after all, why limit Corps Break down to Major Power units ?
If rule 1 & 3 above are in play, this limit any abuse one could make with breaking down minor country units.

Well, for one reason, I dislike giving the Germans the ability to break down Hungarian and Rumanian units into divisions that serve as cannon fodder. I am sure there are other examples too.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Hey, after all, why limit Corps Break down to Major Power units ?
If rule 1 & 3 above are in play, this limit any abuse one could make with breaking down minor country units.

Well, for one reason, I dislike giving the Germans the ability to break down Hungarian and Rumanian units into divisions that serve as cannon fodder. I am sure there are other examples too.

I agree but if they do that, that will be one less corps each time that they will be able to use as a garrison somewhere else. With rule #3, breaking down units gives you more weak divs at the expense of something.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Hey, after all, why limit Corps Break down to Major Power units ?
If rule 1 & 3 above are in play, this limit any abuse one could make with breaking down minor country units.

Well, for one reason, I dislike giving the Germans the ability to break down Hungarian and Rumanian units into divisions that serve as cannon fodder. I am sure there are other examples too.

I agree but if they do that, that will be one less corps each time that they will be able to use as a garrison somewhere else. With rule #3, breaking down units gives you more weak divs at the expense of something.

I guess a fuller explanation is that the optional rule for unlimited break down of corps into divisions has great potential for player exploitation in ways that I may not be currently able to anticipate. By imposing an extra restriction on its use, so it is more in keeping with the intention of the rule, I eliminate some potential abuses.

[composer99]

Extra divisions from unlimited breakdowns come in handy for:
 
(1) division invasions (mostly in the Asia-Pacific theatres)
(2) flanking and supply cutting manouevres (mostly useful in the lower-density.... you guessed it, Asia-Pacific theatres).
 
On the European map, there's nowhere where I'd be prepared to sacrifice corps-scale units on a regular basis for divisions, not even on the Russian front.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Extra divisions from unlimited breakdowns come in handy for:

(1) division invasions (mostly in the Asia-Pacific theatres)
(2) flanking and supply cutting manouevres (mostly useful in the lower-density.... you guessed it, Asia-Pacific theatres).

On the European map, there's nowhere where I'd be prepared to sacrifice corps-scale units on a regular basis for divisions, not even on the Russian front.

I, on the other hand, would expect to have as many of my casualities as possible taken by divisions instead of corps during the German-USSR conflict. And that would be with me playing either the Germans or the Russians.

[jcprom]

(Reply to post 165)

Yes, if it's possible to break down units before set up.

To solve the "cannon fodder" issue with divs, I would suggest the following procedure for land combat.

If the defender has no divisions (nor notional unit), the first loss for the attacker must be a unit with at least 3 strength points.

The effect of this rule would be similar to WIF FE: only a limited number of divs (i.e. those with 3 strength points) can be used freely as "cannonn fodder".

The intent of MWIF is preserved: divs are available to help defend/threaten large or remote territories (Asia, Africa, islands, Scandinavia...).

Then, breakdown rules could be extended to minors and garrisons (since their minor and garr divs would never exceed 2 strength points).

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I, on the other hand, would expect to have as many of my casualities as possible taken by divisions instead of corps during the German-USSR conflict. And that would be with me playing either the Germans or the Russians.

And that's about what they're good for - but on defence they're absolutely useless unless backed up by corps: easy to overrun, don't project ZOCs, not enough combat power to present a potent threat.

[npilgaard]

ORIGINAL: jcprom
To solve the "cannon fodder" issue with divs, I would suggest the following procedure for land combat.

In the last couple of games I have played we play with a house rule to adress this issue. It simply states that first loss (for both defender and attacker) must be a corps (if available) (except if special divs were used to provide a bonus, eg. ENG). It works very well, and we have now adopted it as a 'regular' house rule.
Of course, since this is a house rule, it won't be implemented i MWiF, but I thought I would just mentioned it anyway, in case it could be useful for anyone. [:)]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

ORIGINAL: jcprom
To solve the "cannon fodder" issue with divs, I would suggest the following procedure for land combat.

In the last couple of games I have played we play with a house rule to adress this issue. It simply states that first loss (for both defender and attacker) must be a corps (if available) (except if special divs were used to provide a bonus, eg. ENG). It works very well, and we have now adopted it as a 'regular' house rule.
Of course, since this is a house rule, it won't be implemented i MWiF, but I thought I would just mentioned it anyway, in case it could be useful for anyone. [:)]

This is a popular house rule.
Maybe, when MWiF 1 will be out, will there be a possibility of making an add-on with all the most famous house rules. [:D]

[doctormm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

3 - the corps/army units which are broken down to create the divisions are set aside in a Broken-Down Pool and cannot be rebuilt.

Doesn't that effectively remove the strongest broken down units from the game? Given the way that the break down/recombine rules work, some corps can never be re-created from divisions.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: doctormm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

3 - the corps/army units which are broken down to create the divisions are set aside in a Broken-Down Pool and cannot be rebuilt.

Doesn't that effectively remove the strongest broken down units from the game? Given the way that the break down/recombine rules work, some corps can never be re-created from divisions.

I was not aware of that. Could you give an example?

[Mziln]

The RaW doesn't say what happens to the corps when it breaks down into divisions.
 
When it breaks down does the corps go back into the force pool like the divisions?
 
 
Breaking down
 
You build divisions in the usual way (see 13.6.5). Alternatively, you can break down a face-up corps or army that isn’t in an enemy ZOC into divisions at the start of the production step. Each corps or army breaks down into 1 division of the same type and 1 INF or MOT division (your choice). SS corps break down into 1 equivalent SS division and 1 SS or normal INF or MOT division.
 
When you break down a corps or army, you can select any divisions from your force pools but their total combat factors can’t exceed half (rounding up) those of the corps or army you break down.
 
If there aren’t enough divisions in your force pools to break down a corps or army, you can remove them from anywhere on the maps to make up the shortfall.
 
Reforming
 
Divisions can reform into a corps or army. If 2 face-up divisions are stacked together outside of enemy ZoCs at the end of the production step, and 1 of them is a MOT division, you can reform a corps or army of the same type as the other division. If there are no corps or armies of that type available, you can reform them as an INF corps or army instead. Choose the corps or army randomly from the force pools. Keep picking until you find one that has combat factors less than twice those of the 2 divisions.
 
Put the divisions back into the force pools and replace them on the map with the reformed corps or army.
 
Example: The Germans have a 2 factor MOT division and a 4 factor SS ARM division stacked together at the start of the production step. You can replace them with any SS ARM or INF Corps that has 11 or less combat factors.
 
 

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: doctormm
Doesn't that effectively remove the strongest broken down units from the game? Given the way that the break down/recombine rules work, some corps can never be re-created from divisions.

I was not aware of that. Could you give an example?

I think he means that :

A 9-4 Corps is broken down into what ?
Half its CF is 5.
Sum of the 2 broken down DIVs cannot exceed 5, so it will be 5.
So a 9-4 Corps is broken down into a 3-4 and a 2-4 DIV.

A 3-4 and a 2-4 DIV are reformed into what Corps ?
Twice the CF of both DIV is 10.
The Corps reformed into must have less than 10 CF.
So the 3-4 and 2-4 DIV can reform into the 9-4 Corps.


A 8-4 Corps is broken down into what ?
Half its CF is 4.
Sum of the 2 broken down DIVs cannot exceed 4, so it will be 4.
So a 8-4 Corps is broken down into a 2-4 and a 2-4 DIV.

A 2-4 and a 2-4 DIV are reformed into what Corps ?
Twice the CF of both DIV is 8.
The Corps reformed into must have less than 8 CF.
So the 2-4 and 2-4 DIV cannot reform into the 8-4 Corps.

But I think that MWiF will work differently than RAW here, in that peculiar thing that (from what I think I understood) the broken down DIV will "remember" from which Corps they were created, and so that the corps will be able to be reformed from these DIVs.