Matrix Games Forums

It does not defend the country, it concedes it. All you are trying to do is aid the Allies and slow the German Blitz from penetrating France.

ORIGINAL: Yohan

It does not defend the country, it concedes it. All you are trying to do is aid the Allies and slow the German Blitz from penetrating France.

In that case, it is ahistorical (as all "minor concedes entire country to help controlling player" strategies are...) and should be only one of several valid options.

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

* Rear Defence

Ok, I'm a newbie. Explain it to me. How does leaving the capital city ungarrisoned help defend the country? ...

Fred

The idea of this rear defence is that the German units get "stuck" by the ZOC from the Liege unit and from a French unit in Metz. Since Antwerpen/Brussels has no unit Germany can't attack into those cities. On the Allied impulse CW/French/Belgian units advance to Antwerpen/Brussels and defend the Dyle line.

Germany can try to drop a paratrop into Antwerpen/Brussel and support it with land units but if the defending side decides that the notional unit is ignored Germany lands there with just a para and may then be open to counterattack.

This defence relies on that there are no German units in Rotterdam.

-Orm

ORIGINAL: brian brian

In my opinion, the only good one is the "Rear Defence". The rest of those, a good German player would just drool over, I would. Remember that even with a one-hex attack, such as on Antwerp, the Germans can easily generate a 20 factor attack easily increased if not doubled with surprise-impulse Stukas (2 5 factors is all it takes), throw in HQ support from Rundstedt and you are looking at a +10 to +14 (depending on Ground Strikes, quite likely to be successful) attack on Antwerp and there goes the Dyle River line. And that is from only one German hex, without Rotterdam.

I disagree.
The Antwerp defense is good too, as are most of the defenses that were presented here.
If we are to remember things to people, I'd remember you that all the HQ support and air support used up against Liege (or elswhere in Belgium), is wasted as for breaking France, so I would leave the German drooling over my Antwerp defense to see him stopped at the French border or in front of the Dyle, with his powerful assets expended and the powerful French units left to break.
It is my experience that the assault on Antwerp can be costly to Germany, especially from 1 hex. I'm not drooling as Germany when I have to assault Antwerp from 1 hex. A +10 is easily turned into a costly failure.

ORIGINAL: Orm


This defence relies on that there are no German units in Rotterdam.

excellent point. If the bad guys are in Rotterdam, you might as well put both Belgian INF in Brussels and hope for a German roll less than 5. In Brussels you get the extra -1 for the factory, which just might pull in the German Engineer on the attack.

So for me IF Rotterdam = Axis THEN Capital Defense
ELSE Rear Defense

ORIGINAL: Orm

Ok, I'm a newbie. Explain it to me. How does leaving the capital city ungarrisoned help defend the country? ...

Fred

The idea of this rear defence is that the German units get "stuck" by the ZOC from the Liege unit and from a French unit in Metz. Since Antwerpen/Brussels has no unit Germany can't attack into those cities. On the Allied impulse CW/French/Belgian units advance to Antwerpen/Brussels and defend the Dyle line.

Germany can try to drop a paratrop into Antwerpen/Brussel and support it with land units but if the defending side decides that the notional unit is ignored Germany lands there with just a para and may then be open to counterattack.

This defence relies on that there are no German units in Rotterdam.

-Orm

Ok, I get it. this is a "run away and hide" defense for the 5-3 and 4-3! or, if you will, strategic reserve.

If the Germans are in Rotterdam and Aachen, then there is no hope for the Belgians no matter what defence they put up.

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

* Rear Defence

Ok, I'm a newbie. Explain it to me. How does leaving the capital city ungarrisoned help defend the country? ...

Fred

The idea of this rear defence is that the German units get "stuck" by the ZOC from the Liege unit and from a French unit in Metz. Since Antwerpen/Brussels has no unit Germany can't attack into those cities. On the Allied impulse CW/French/Belgian units advance to Antwerpen/Brussels and defend the Dyle line.

Germany can try to drop a paratrop into Antwerpen/Brussel and support it with land units but if the defending side decides that the notional unit is ignored Germany lands there with just a para and may then be open to counterattack.

This defence relies on that there are no German units in Rotterdam.

-Orm

ORIGINAL: RAW
ZOCs don’t extend: into a hex controlled by a major power or minor country, on
the other side that the unit is not at war with;

Maybe my english is failing me here, but the way we have read this is that French Units have no ZOC into Belgium, while Belgium is neutral and in effect also in the surprise impulse.

ORIGINAL: morgil
Maybe my english is failing me here, but the way we have read this is that French Units have no ZOC into Belgium, while Belgium is neutral and in effect also in the surprise impulse.

No, French units exert a ZOC on any hex containing an enemy major power, regardless of surprise.

Well, yes, but do a unit exert ZOC into a hex before it contains the enemy major power unit, is the question in play, since leaving an enemy ZOC has no limitations.
 
Before Germany declares that it is attacking Belgium, allied Units do not have a ZOC into its territory, and logically, (yes i know, its bad when you have to resort to logic,) this should last throughout the surprise impulse. Not because its the surprise impulse, but because its not clear that they are allowed to do that. Or maybe it is very clear, and they get the ZOC the instant Germany declares war, since Belgium then joins theire side, like instantly.
 
Its a bit of a trick question i know, and probably goes to intent on the rule, or how one understands the words.
I would have no preference one way or the other, aslong as its clarified.

My understanding is that the French unit is at war and their ZOC indeed crosses the border when an at war German unit tries to move.

ORIGINAL: morgil

Well, yes, but do a unit exert ZOC into a hex before it contains the enemy major power unit, is the question in play, since leaving an enemy ZOC has no limitations.

Before Germany declares that it is attacking Belgium, allied Units do not have a ZOC into its territory, and logically, (yes i know, its bad when you have to resort to logic,) this should last throughout the surprise impulse. Not because its the surprise impulse, but because its not clear that they are allowed to do that. Or maybe it is very clear, and they get the ZOC the instant Germany declares war, since Belgium then joins theire side, like instantly.

Its a bit of a trick question i know, and probably goes to intent on the rule, or how one understands the words.
I would have no preference one way or the other, aslong as its clarified.

ORIGINAL: Yohan

My understanding is that the French unit is at war and their ZOC indeed crosses the border when an at war German unit tries to move.

ORIGINAL: morgil

Well, yes, but do a unit exert ZOC into a hex before it contains the enemy major power unit, is the question in play, since leaving an enemy ZOC has no limitations.

Before Germany declares that it is attacking Belgium, allied Units do not have a ZOC into its territory, and logically, (yes i know, its bad when you have to resort to logic,) this should last throughout the surprise impulse. Not because its the surprise impulse, but because its not clear that they are allowed to do that. Or maybe it is very clear, and they get the ZOC the instant Germany declares war, since Belgium then joins theire side, like instantly.

Its a bit of a trick question i know, and probably goes to intent on the rule, or how one understands the words.
I would have no preference one way or the other, aslong as its clarified.

The ZOC is exerted the instant the German unit moves adjacent to the French (non-divisional) unit.

ORIGINAL: morgil

Well, yes, but do a unit exert ZOC into a hex before it contains the enemy major power unit, is the question in play, since leaving an enemy ZOC has no limitations.

Before Germany declares that it is attacking Belgium, allied Units do not have a ZOC into its territory, and logically, (yes i know, its bad when you have to resort to logic,) this should last throughout the surprise impulse. Not because its the surprise impulse, but because its not clear that they are allowed to do that. Or maybe it is very clear, and they get the ZOC the instant Germany declares war, since Belgium then joins theire side, like instantly.

Its a bit of a trick question i know, and probably goes to intent on the rule, or how one understands the words.
I would have no preference one way or the other, aslong as its clarified.

The desiners intent is that World In Flames would be a game without memory. For example. If you get asked to take over a game you never seen before you should be able to get all the information you need to take over playing by just looking at the counters on the maps and without knowing anyting about what happened earlier in the game.

Since the games past history is irrelevant it matter not if the country was neutral or not at the start of the impulse. You just look at the units and at what the rules says applies to every situation.

Regarding to ZOC into minor countries the relevant parts of the rule says:
2.2 Zones of control
ZOCs don’t extend into a hex controlled by a major power or minor country, on the other side that the unit is not at war with;

11.11.1 How to move land units
A unit must always end its move when it enters an enemy ZOC

In your example Belgium is not a minor country on the other side since it is on the same side as France and therefore France has ZOC into Belgium.

With this wording about ZOC into minor countries you could even argue that France has ZOC into Belgium when Belgium is neutral since Belgium as a neutral country is not on the other side either.

-Orm

With this wording about ZOC into minor countries you could even argue that France has ZOC into Belgium when Belgium is neutral since Belgium as a neutral country is not on the other side either.

I don't think it should be applied like that though. ZOCs represent stuff like reconnaissance units, patrolling, the diffuse nature of military dispositions and long range artillery fire. None of these are really possible across borders with a neutral country.

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: Neilster

With this wording about ZOC into minor countries you could even argue that France has ZOC into Belgium when Belgium is neutral since Belgium as a neutral country is not on the other side either.

I don't think it should be applied like that though. ZOCs represent stuff like reconnaissance units, patrolling, the diffuse nature of military dispositions and long range artillery fire. None of these are really possible across borders with a neutral country.

Cheers, Neilster

So true. I just put it in to make a point. And it would have no practical impact what so ever even if it would be true.

-Orm

ORIGINAL: Orm


The desiners intent is that World In Flames would be a game without memory.
-Orm

Then there is no problem, nor any arguement.

Beware the skiunits I allways say.

morgil, here is the same with the rounded corners better appearing.
(save as GIF, to keep the transparency)

ORIGINAL: Orm
The desiners intent is that World In Flames would be a game without memory. For example. If you get asked to take over a game you never seen before you should be able to get all the information you need to take over playing by just looking at the counters on the maps and without knowing anyting about what happened earlier in the game.

There are instances where the game and thus the players need "memory" between different phases. For example, if a player spends an Offensive Chit in a land action, the HQ on the receiving end gets a fixed number of unit "doublings" to perform during the whole impulse. These unit doublings can occur whenever applicable, (during overruns in the movement phase and during land combats), and you have to remember how many doublings you have used between the phases as they are not represented on the board in any way.

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

ORIGINAL: Orm
The desiners intent is that World In Flames would be a game without memory. For example. If you get asked to take over a game you never seen before you should be able to get all the information you need to take over playing by just looking at the counters on the maps and without knowing anyting about what happened earlier in the game.

There are instances where the game and thus the players need "memory" between different phases. For example, if a player spends an Offensive Chit in a land action, the HQ on the receiving end gets a fixed number of unit "doublings" to perform during the whole impulse. These unit doublings can occur whenever applicable, (during overruns in the movement phase and during land combats), and you have to remember how many doublings you have used between the phases as they are not represented on the board in any way.

You can place a numbered marker on the HQ that marks the number of "dubblings" left for the HQ in the impulse.

There are places that the game needs a memory like, for example, who controls a hex and so on (there are simply not enough markers to mark control of every empty hex in the game). That does not change the fact that the intent of the designer was that WIF would be a game without memory.

-Orm

ORIGINAL: Orm
You can place a numbered marker on the HQ that marks the number of "dubblings" left for the HQ in the impulse.

Of course. I didn't say that there were no solutions. I merely pointed out that the rules aren't stringent in regards to memory.

ORIGINAL: Orm
There are places that the game needs a memory like, for example, who controls a hex and so on (there are simply not enough markers to mark control of every empty hex in the game). That does not change the fact that the intent of the designer was that WIF would be a game without memory.
-Orm

Exactly. But as you've shown with yet another example, the intent isn't applied to 100% of the rules. Thus, we can't use that intent as a *definite* proof of how a specific rule is supposed to be played.