Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets
In WiF FE, broken down Corps are put back into the force pool and can be rebuilt.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?
ORIGINAL: Froonp
I think he means that :ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeetsI was not aware of that. Could you give an example?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.
<snip>
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.
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
'Remembering' from which corps a division came when it was created by breaking down a corps, has a lot of problems. Say there are 3 corps broken down and each of them has lost one if the divisions. Then none of them can be reformed on the board, nor can the corps be reformed in the "destroyed broken down divisions pool" (so it would go back into the force pool to be available for being rebuilt). That interpretation makes logical sense but is stupid from the point of view of the player. It would also necessitate that the information concerning the divison's original corps be availabel to the player, since it would affect his ability to reform units - messy to do.
I intend to simply modify the reforming rule so that to reform a corps you need two divisions equal to those that were created when it was broken down. They do not have to be the same divisions, but they do have to be the correct size (strength factors). And they have to match in other particulars too (i.e., unit type).
Yes, a viable solution, but I am simply going to permit two 2 strength divisions to be reformed into a 9, if one is available in the broken down pool.ORIGINAL: amwildORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
'Remembering' from which corps a division came when it was created by breaking down a corps, has a lot of problems. Say there are 3 corps broken down and each of them has lost one if the divisions. Then none of them can be reformed on the board, nor can the corps be reformed in the "destroyed broken down divisions pool" (so it would go back into the force pool to be available for being rebuilt). That interpretation makes logical sense but is stupid from the point of view of the player. It would also necessitate that the information concerning the divison's original corps be availabel to the player, since it would affect his ability to reform units - messy to do.
I intend to simply modify the reforming rule so that to reform a corps you need two divisions equal to those that were created when it was broken down. They do not have to be the same divisions, but they do have to be the correct size (strength factors). And they have to match in other particulars too (i.e., unit type).
Here's a possible solution to missing factors, but it may cause a few problems with the internal datatypes:
When splitting a corps, keep track of fractional unit strength, but ignore the fractions for purposes of combat. Then, when recombining, add and double the fractional strengths and use an "Equal" rather than a "Largest But Less Than" policy.
E.g. splitting a 9-4 gets you a 2.5-4 and a 2.0-4. Splitting an 8-4 gets you two 2.0-4s. In terms of gameplay, fractions are rounded off (a 2.5-4 becoming a 3-4), so the 2.5-4 can be combined with any 2.0-4 to get a 9-4. A 3.0-4 and a 2.0-4 could combine to a 10-4, though the divisions could be apparently identical to the units that can combine to a 9-4.
I hope I had the breakdown and recombination rules straight to start with...
ORIGINAL: jcprom
I like this rule (first loss with corps in most situations).
The only important change between WIF FE and MWIF is scale: if any change is needed in the game system, it's probably related to divisions. Breakdown rules, combat rules with divisions are a key issue. Decisions made (or not made) will affect AI set-up, AI strategy, AI builds...
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: jcprom
I like this rule (first loss with corps in most situations).
The only important change between WIF FE and MWIF is scale: if any change is needed in the game system, it's probably related to divisions. Breakdown rules, combat rules with divisions are a key issue. Decisions made (or not made) will affect AI set-up, AI strategy, AI builds...
We made a lot of changes to the China map, you might want to check that out (if you haven't already). The number of hexes in China increased by times 6.
I believe that Hitokappu Bay is more a gathering point, some form of large sheltered anchorage where the fleet hide in late november 1941. There seem to be no trace of a large naval base here on Etorofu. I think that this place does not deserve being a port, neither minor nor major.I haven't seen a map of the Kuriles, but I presume you have included a port at Hitokappu (I think the island's name was Etorofu), from where the Pearl Harbor strike force set off.
ORIGINAL: Froonp
I believe that Hitokappu Bay is more a gathering point, some form of large sheltered anchorage where the fleet hide in late november 1941. There seem to be no trace of a large naval base here on Etorofu. I think that this place does not deserve being a port, neither minor nor major.
