Matrix Games Forums

I had made a post reconsidering my position and accepting your comments, even using images of the rules, and it aint short... and I had to discard it

The Oil Rule is AfA Option 48.

The save oil and save BPs rules is AfA Option 31.

So if you do not use Option 48 but use Option 31 you cannot save oil, because oil is like any other resource. However, since Option 31 doesnt need option 48 to exist, you should be able to save BPs, IMO.

Confirmed.

It has allowed to save BPs today. Don't know why it didnt in the old times.

The bad thing is that either i messed up the resources of the JA, or more probably the game did, and saved the 2 NEI oil resources in Mukden. So I will have to take them to Japan with more convoys because these should not be there (and I didnt burn them the previous turn).

Well, yes, Option 31 is selected, so you could save OIL or BPs... if Option 48 had been selected as weel, which is not the case, and because it hasnt, then the Oil resources are like the other resources and cannot be saved.

Joseignacio wrote: Mon Feb 23, 2026 2:19 pm I had made a post reconsidering my position and accepting your comments, even using images of the rules, and it aint short... and I had to discard it

The Oil Rule is AfA Option 48.

The save oil and save BPs rules is AfA Option 31.

So if you do not use Option 48 but use Option 31 you cannot save oil, because oil is like any other resource. However, since Option 31 doesnt need option 48 to exist, you should be able to save BPs, IMO.

Good point.

I am sure it can be argued by lawyers.

are most people here is playing this game as solitaire?

If yes, can you talk me through how you do that and how you make it enjoyable?

For example, because you known what you did with side one, are you playing to beat what you did last term? and then repeat?

The game is so large in scope with so many decisions, it's really difficult to see all the possibilities when you make a move. Almost invariably, when you change sides and see the situation from the perspective of the other side, you'll spot an opportunity you missed. Add to that the lack of foreknowledge of weather and turn-ending makes a lot of challenges you end up creating for yourself.

The after action report section has both single and multi-player games to examine.

vinnland wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 12:03 pm are most people here is playing this game as solitaire?

No, quite the opposite, most people play multi-player games with 2,3,4 or 5 players. To do so, they may use the so called "solitaire mode" of the game by sending the game file back and forth though, in order to avoid additional syncronising bugs and to allow every player to play at his preferred tempo at his preferred times.

Ok (M)WiF vets, need help figuring out where I'm messing up on the following calculation(s).

(1) 4 CW units, with a total modified strength of 12.5 (due to river), attacking (2D10) a 0-1 Malayan partisan in jungle & rain.

(2) Because of the jungle the 0-1 partisan defends with a strength of 1.

(3) 2D10 modifiers are -2 for rain & -4 for jungle.

(4) CW total attack strength of 12.5 rounds to 13.

(5) Attack Odds = (13/1) x 2 - 2 (rain) - 4 (jungle) = 26 -2 - 4 = 20.

(6) However; MWIF calculates the odds as +21.

(7) Where am I going wrong?

You are missing that the game is made by an Australian; thus the Australian units are cool and gets a +1 modification-

Just kidding.

However, the truth is that the Australian MIL gives the bonus because of their jungle ability. See picture.

Orm wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2026 7:41 am You are missing that the game is made by an Australian; thus the Australian units are cool and gets a +1 modification-

Just kidding.

However, the truth is that the Australian MIL gives the bonus because of their jungle ability. See picture.
0000.jpg

I've read that line a 1000 times and each time just read over the AUS unit part! AUS units are indeed cool! Well at least the white print ones, which is in this case, are!

It was bothering me I couldn't resolve the calculation difference.

Thanks a bunch!

(1) Ok, another one for you rules experts.

(2) USMC I, V corps & 1st div invade Hanoi for South China Sea (3 & 4 boxes) in fine weather.

(3) Hanoi defended by a 3-2 FIC Terr.

(4) With 2 str notional MWIF gives the odds as +5.2 & without +7.667.

(5) First, WITHOUT the notional my calculate odds are = (13/3) x 2 + 2 (vs Terr only) - 1 (for city) = +9.667 (not +7.667)?

(6)) Next, with notional my question is does 2-str notional negates +2 for Terr only defending?

(7) Is so, the odds shown with notional would be correct, if not, then the odds should be +7.2 not +5.2?

I have a hazy recollection that the territorial bonus does not apply when they are in their own country.

So without the notional I get +8.667 - 1 for the city = 7.667

With the notional, I get +4.33 - 1 for the city +2 for the notional = 5.33.

paulderynck wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2026 6:01 pm I have a hazy recollection that the territorial bonus does not apply when they are in their own country.

So without the notional I get +8.667 - 1 for the city = 7.667

With the notional, I get +4.33 - 1 for the city +2 for the notional = 5.33.

(1) 2D10 Table in MWIF (2nd page, underlined in red by me) states +2 for non-Terr attacking a hex where all defending land units are Terr.
(2) If the 2-str notional is considered a land unit then that would negate the +2 I guess?
(3) In so, still doesn't explain the odds if the 2-str notional was not included.
(4) Now in CE, it's +1 for EVERY Terr defending OUTSIDE of its home country -- maybe that's what you're thinking?