Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

bo and others above have given a reasonably good summary of the optional rules and what their impact on the game is.

The most useful feature of the optional rules is that they do tend to change the balance of the game one way or the other, very slightly. What that means for example is that if you have an experienced player playing axis, and an inexperienced player playing allies, you can add in some of the pro-allied optional rules to help rebalance the game, or vice-versa.

examples -- Cruisers in Flames and the divisions rule helps the axis slightly. The Oil rule hurts the axis slightly. Territorials are a bit pro-allied, etc. Play with the mix of optional rules that suits your style of play and the relative levels of the players involved.

You said that better than I had, well said

Bo

ORIGINAL: konevau

I don't like pilots, for precisely the reasons you say, and I've been searching in vain for another player who shares this opinion. Oil though is indispensable as far as I'm concerned, as it introduces a strategic dimension that makes the game immensely more realistic.

The oil rule does not make the game more realistic in the same way that Call of Duty is not AT ALL a realistic portrayal of combat even though a player's mind may feel it is more realistic than Doom.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I'm still reading through the rules, but so far most of the optional rules sound like things that I'd want to use. I know there are default sets of optional rules, but I'll probably want to create my own tailored set very quickly. Therefore I'd be interested in hearing from experienced players which rules they especially like/dislike.

The main two rules that don't appeal to me so are are:
1) Pilots: ugh, I really have to create planes and pilots separately?? Smacks of micromanagement--why?

2) Oil: Sounds "realistic" enough but seems like it would really hurt the Axis, and again more micro-management. Worth it?

Please keep this thread about optional rules CURRENTLY IN THE GAME, not ones you want to see implemented, etc.

In my opinion, there are only two considerations when choosing optional rules. WiF is not a simulation of reality any more than chess is a simulation of two warring kingdoms.

1. Will those playing have more fun with the rule?

2. How will the rule effect the "play balance" between the players? Does the Axis or Allied side need handicapping to create the most enjoyable game? (See rule 1) For example, the oil rule tips the balance towards the Allies. Is the axis player much more experienced? Does the group of players have a history of seeing the Axis win game after game because of how that group plays? If yes to either, the oil rule might be a "must have".

ORIGINAL: Lingering Frey
In my opinion, there are only two considerations when choosing optional rules. WiF is not a simulation of reality any more than chess is a simulation of two warring kingdoms.

Of course you are right, and yet...

If I play solely based on the considerations that you mention, I might as well play some fantasy game, because the game could generally become a rather generic "strategy game" with pretty counters in the form of said panzers and aircraft carriers and a map of planet earth instead of orcs & dragons and a map of middle-earth.

But if I specifically want to play a WWII game, as I do, I'd like to be subject to something like the strategic imperatives/constraints as the actual participants.

As previously mentioned, I'm somewhat conflicted on this whole WWII grand-strategy thing.

ORIGINAL: Lingering Frey

How will the rule effect the "play balance" between the players? Does the Axis or Allied side need handicapping

That's what I was getting at. I understand it's all nuanced and subjective, but at the end of the day clearly there are some options that favor Axis or favor Allies. Players should have a good idea what they're getting into. Also, looking ahead, it's a means of handicapping the AI depending on which side you play. So some simple categorization of the optional rules would be helpful; e.g., a table listing Favor Axis, Neutral, Favor Allies. Something. I'm sure I'm not the only newbie wondering, so this is something useful that some of the vets could put together based on their experience.

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Except that Baku and the whole of the Caucasus were a chimera ... a nonsense ... the Germans simply didn't have the ability to get any oil from those locations except through the Russo-German Pact ... all they will get by invasion is scorched earth that will take far longer to repair and rehabilitate than before the end of the game.

Theoretically, the best reason for taking Baku and the Caucasus is that it takes oil from the USSR ... the only problem with that is that the Russians destroyed most of the wells themselves, then redrilled them when the threat was over, and they never had a problem with oil supplies, especially as the US and Western Allies shipped them a lot of POL (presumably a chunk that was no longer being shipped, first, to Germany and Italy [and conquered Europe] and, then, to Japan) ... US and Allied controlled New World and/or African/Middle Eastern sources were more than enough to even make up for the loss of the DEI/Borneo.

So, realistically, the only reason you'd want to attack the Caucasus as the Germans is if the USSR has pissed off the Commonwealth and the USA in a multiplayer game OR if you wish to reproduce some of the more idiotic Hitlerian decisions. How this plays in actual RAW or RAC for CWiF I have no idea, but that's a real life take on it.

Phil

en, of course, there was the problem that they had no actual capacity to ship it back to Germany as the Soviets had destroyed all the relevant rail lines and ports ... and, even if they hadn't, the Germans found during the war that they could never produce enough railway POL tanker cars to do more than barely meet shipping needs for their own homegrown and Western European production, so there weren't spare POL tankers to move it anyway. Much the same issues apply to the Iraqi and other Middle Eastern oil fields. Which is not to say they could never have gotten any oil from them - just they couldn't do it in the timeframe of the game. Insofar as the Oil rule makes this sort of situation probable, it is realistic).

Just noting, if you're playing with factory destruction and synth oil (more optional rules, but ones most people play with, I think) you can mimic this exactly. The Soviets can destroy their oilfields as they retreat at the end of the turn, although if the Germans advance swiftly enough, the Soviets might not have time to. At that point, it'll cost a pretty penny (4 BP per oil resource) to fix up.


While it introduces a bit of an unrealistic element (it is just as easy for the Germans to repair a smashed oil resource as the Soviets)it does allow for the very real possibility that you put a big stack to try to grab the Caucasus oil, and have it gone by the time your panzers get there.

I am sort of with you on this: is it fun? and how does it affect balance? But realism is also a factor. Is oil realistic? Depends what you mean. It makes you focus on oil as the axis. This is realistic. And if you take oil in the wider sense to mean strategically critical resources, then read Speer 'Inside the 3rd Reich' to understand the Leadership's focus on this. The oil rule makes you prioritise its USE as well. Also realistic. The actual mechanisms may or may not be realistic. My group (we play once a year for 9-10 days) adopted oil late, but now always use it. Provides texture and the extra admin is worth it for the fun. Easier, I hope, when the computer takes the strain.
We also use Pilots (though not CVPs). The admin is minimal and it adds texture. I actually have philosophical reservations on this, though. Though the logic of higher pilot losses over seas / enemy territory makes sense, the air-to-air rules (elegant though they are) have the feel of single aircraft rather than (proportions of) 250-500 airframes. The Pilots rule emphasises this. Still worthwhile though.
ACMW

ORIGINAL: ACMW

I am sort of with you on this: is it fun? and how does it affect balance? But realism is also a factor. Is oil realistic? Depends what you mean. It makes you focus on oil as the axis. This is realistic. And if you take oil in the wider sense to mean strategically critical resources, then read Speer 'Inside the 3rd Reich' to understand the Leadership's focus on this. The oil rule makes you prioritise its USE as well. Also realistic. The actual mechanisms may or may not be realistic. My group (we play once a year for 9-10 days) adopted oil late, but now always use it. Provides texture and the extra admin is worth it for the fun. Easier, I hope, when the computer takes the strain.
We also use Pilots (though not CVPs). The admin is minimal and it adds texture. I actually have philosophical reservations on this, though. Though the logic of higher pilot losses over seas / enemy territory makes sense, the air-to-air rules (elegant though they are) have the feel of single aircraft rather than (proportions of) 250-500 airframes. The Pilots rule emphasises this. Still worthwhile though.
ACMW

You are a board game player and I bow to your expertise in this area. I think the oil rule is so realistic in this game but I also think newbies should stay away from it until they [cough] master this game or at least know how to invade [:(] I feel just as you do about a single plane on the map, I have been testing the game for over a year and that feeling of 200 to 250 planes in one plane is kind of daunting but you get used to it.

Bo

I would say that it is wise for new players to play with the novice selection of the optional rules. New players in MWIF have a lot to understand and will not want all that chrome attached to the game, because it makes decision making a lot more difficult.

Start simple (because that's difficult enough)...

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I would say that it is wise for new players to play with the novice selection of the optional rules. New players in MWIF have a lot to understand and will not want all that chrome attached to the game, because it makes decision making a lot more difficult.

Start simple (because that's difficult enough)...

Now why didn't I say that, hmm, oh well I bow to my peers.

Bo

OK, here ya go:


I'll give it a try. I won't have the rule # correct, so I'll skip the #. I'm still preparing my laptop for a major Windows update and backup before I download the game pretty soon now.

I'll just work through the list posted in the Optional Rules thread which is a few pages back.

These are one player's opinions only and as I went along more and more opinion crept in.

Divisions - pro-Axis in that it allows for lesser casualties on the attack, and makes it easier to launch overseas adventures.

Artillery - neutral - both sides have them

Ski Troops - neutral - " "

Engineers, Combat - neutral - " "

Engineers, Construction - pro-Allied. If the Axis engineers have to run around fixing all the broken things they conquer, they can use them in combat less. Not usually played as we didn't sign up for Quartermasters in Flames.

Territorials - slightly pro-Allied. Another 'both sides have them'. The Allies have more of them, but they are very weak combat units and generally a poor investment of BPs. They help the Japanese vs Partisans, but then they help the CW in India on that too.

Partisans - very, very pro-Allied. I would note that this rule is considered so essential to the game that it is required to be included at USA WiFCon tournaments. Letting an Axis player command WWII without suffering at least a little from Axis ideology really would make this game into a generic "game" not far removed from Axis & Allies. I feel the same about playing without any Oil rule.

Chinese Warlords - pro-Allied. China can use all the troops it can get. Japan gets a few as well though, again useful for a rear area garrison.

Siberians - pro-Allied. The Russians can also use all the troops they can get. With the Guards Banner Armies optional rule not coded yet, the Russians really really need these few extra units, which are quite good.

Pilots - neutral or a bit pro-Axis. More planes on the board when using the Pilots rule, as total aircraft costs are slightly cheaper. The Axis air forces are generally better than the Allies at the start of the game though.

Carrier Planes - not using this one is pro-Allied. Making a CV unit have a single basic factor for all roles makes CVs very powerful. And the Allies have far more carriers. I would comment that the sub-optional allowing a CV unit to have 2 plane counters on-board somewhat makes a mockery of land-based air in the game on one hand - but the necessary abstraction of placing land-based air into a sea box allowing them to then influence things far beyond their range (see: US air assets in the Marshalls covering landing forces assaulting the Bonins) is also quite strange. I usually play without the 2 CV planes per CV possibility. The biggest carriers held up towards 75 combat planes each...a land-based air counter represents hundreds of combat aircraft. I digress, sorry.

Cruisers - not sure. The CL units make the Axis navies much larger. But the Allies also have an easier time of their world-wide escort duties. I would not suggest playing with this rule in MWiF. Naval unit density goes way, way up. One thing I don't like about MWiF is that all naval units are stacked in a port. On paper, you can make little stacks of units around a major port. Spain holds all of the Royal Navy in Gibraltar, Sweden serves as Kiel, Turkey can be La Spezia for Italy, etc. This makes it quite a bit easier to manage fleets I think. There was a lot of work put into helping with this unavoidable problem in the coding of MWiF, but there is a lot going on in World in Flames already without adding scores of Light Cruisers. On paper I like the CL units most when using the German Commerce Raider units (CX), which aren't ready for MWiF. I enjoy a detailed naval game and look forward to it's further development in future editions, as there are still some major playability fudges I hope to see removed some day.

The Queens - pro-Allied obviously.

Carpet Bombing - pro-Allied as in all but fantastical games only the Allies can realistically do this. A controversial rule easily skipped.

Night Missions - pro-Allied, as they have the bombers and ATRs to take advantage of it. When playing without fractional odds, the Russians can really abuse this rule.

Fighter Bombers - I would say pro-Axis actually, as the Allies have excellent Fighter-Bombers later in the war, and this at least reduces their air combat effectiveness.

Twin-Engined Fighters - neutral. Some of these on each side.

Backup Fighters - probably also neutral, not positive, don't care. I always use it, but I would caution against thinking about World in Flames too much as some sort of tactical air combat game, though some players do get hung up on such things. The air units are still somewhat abstract, despite the pretty plane pictures on the counters.

Tank Busters - pro-Allied. The Germans can only wish they could pull more of these for themselves.

Flying Boats - neutral. Possibly a tiny bit pro-Axis; not significant.

Large ATR - neutral or pro-Allied a little. The Axis can rarely afford these though the USA can. I see no reason to not ever use it.

Bomber ATR - neutral. Italy and Russia mostly get to enjoy these, with a rare CW bomber as well.

Extended Aircraft Rebasing - hmmm. Keeps the focus on playing the game rather than administering the game. pro-Axis I guess as it helps them expand into Russia and move aircraft into the South Pacific.

Amphibious Rules - pro-Allied, as the Allies can afford AMPH units better.

Defensive Shore Bombardment - a controversial rule sometimes considered pro-Allied, as the Royal Navy generally rules the seas. But a rule that can really help the Japanese and even Italians with smart Axis play.

Extended Game - not applicable. If you can still move all the pieces on the board in 1945 around some more, go for it, have fun.

Breaking the Nazi-Soviet Neutrality Pact - A rule for experienced players really. A lot of World in Flames games are played with an honorable agreement about this rule made in advance. Always lots of discussion about this one; it will change some more as game development moves along.

Add Chinese Cities - pro-Allied. I argued for this being optional during MWiF development. Some say the Chinese are doomed on the new Matrix map, and even in all games of World in Flames. I say it is the action-limited Japanese who are doomed but then most players are terrible at playing the quite fantastical WiF Chinese. A city is an incredible, powerful construct in World in Flames and I don't think any more should be given to the Chinese, who were a 19th century army fighting in a 20th century war. Both sides should be forced to use their HQ units to deliver logistics to their armies, not just be given them free on the map via additional cities and ports. Nor should new ones be placed in Siberia for that matter.

Scrap Units - not applicable. Only a brand new player would want to skip scrapping units.

Unlimited Breakdown - probably pro-Allied. What!?!?!? Yes, pro-Allied. The Russians could use this to launch even more 1:1 attacks on the Panzers, for example, as MWiF lacks a common first-loss-must-be-Corps House Rule. Russian cavalry divisions could likely make any Japanese adventure into non-coastal Siberia rather pointless. Fortunately for the Japanese, the Chinese can only increase their cavalry division total by a little bit. Sure, the Japanese can invade more places on their super-combined to launch the Pacific War……big deal. They won't be able to hold them all, and they really need all the Army sized units their force pool gives them, more than a bunch of weak divisions all over the place. The regular Japanese force pool gives them a good amount of divisions already.

Fortifications - probably pro-Allied. It's not easy for any power to afford these, or deploy them well, and they can generally be broken by an Offensive Chit anyway. Nice to see your enemy use an O-Chit, yes, but you just lost your key hex anyway. A well placed Fort can really snag your enemy though.

Offensive Chits - neutral. Hard to afford early in the game, but can really help the Axis achieve their desired strategy. Indispensable for the Allies in the 2nd half of the game. Another rule considered so core to the game that use of it is mandatory at WiFCon USA.

Supply Units - superfluous generally, as the supply rules are already very loose. Pro-Axis IF they try a Sea Lion.

Synthetic Oil Plants - pro-Axis, but historical. The Axis should build them just before the middle of the game, in my opinion. Too early reduces your combat power to expand. Too late and, well, it's too late.

Motorized Movement Rates - pro-Allied. Helps keep the Panzers from running around too much. Can't imagine playing without it actually; don't expect it to remain an optional in future editions.

Railway Movement Bonus - pro-Axis. Really helps the Axis expand, comically so at times. Fuel? We don't need no stinking fuel, we're driving this Panther to the Pacific! On the train tracks! Horses? Infantry? Don't need them either! We're playing a game here!

HQ Movement - pro-Allied. Keeps the Axis a little more grounded in reality, also in China, not just Russia. The historical Japanese couldn't advance into China because they couldn't even feed their own soldiers very well.

HQ Support - with 1d10, neutral, as it only works sometimes. With 2d10, pro-Axis as it is pro-attacker, which helps the Axis expand. The Allies need this less on the attack as they have excellent air forces, support units (ART), and Offensive Chits when they are on the offensive.

2d10 Land Combat - probably pro-Axis as it is attacker friendly. With divisions in play the game is a fair amount less bloody as units stay on the board.

Blitz Bonus - not using this with 1d10 (it's built into 2d10 already) would have to be considered pro-Allied, as the Panzers get less benefits when they are the best tank force on the board in the first half.

Internment - pro-Allied in a tiny degree. I would like to someday see this happen somewhere besides Poland, but I'm never that creative to figure it out. Occasionally Belgium too I guess. I like messing around with the Belgian Congo Air Force though, I'm a sucker for micro wars in Africa.

In The Presence Of The Enemy - considered pro-Allied at times as it slows down Kriegsmarine surface raids into the Atlantic (which historically sank about 1 or 2 Convoy Points though these raids loom large in western histories of the war). But it is also very helpful to the Japanese. Generally controversial rule. I hope to see it improved in the future, to reflect In The Presence Of Enemy Submarines, but that's just me.

Variable CV Plane Searching - neutral to slightly pro-Axis as the Japanese have an excellent CV plane force pool, but the CW can put this to use with smart force pool management.

SCS Transport - pro-Axis as without it their overseas adventures are very curtailed. A little silly at times when an infantry division can only be "sunk" if you can manage to crack the armor on the Bismarck or the Yamamoto. But a good rule to represent smaller scale naval transport assets.

Bottomed Ships - pro-Allied as only Uncle Sugar can ever afford to re-float a bottomed ship.

Food in Flames - pro-Allied in the MWiF version. Very much so.

Saving Oil Resources and Build Points - I would say not using it would be a bit pro-Axis actually. Neither side would enjoy using an Oil rule without it and I have a hard time deciding which it would impact more. Probably the biggest impact would be on the Russians I think, which is a strange result.

Factory Destruction and Construction - neutral? Only the USA can generally invest in brand-new factories in all but fantasy games. Helpful to the Axis on the defense at times (factory repair).

Oil - pro-Allied. However without it, you might want to just go back to Axis & Allies.

Allied Combat Friction - pro-Axis, though the name does not apply only to the capitalized Allies. Smart Axis players only combine German and Italian air OR ground assets anyway. The Western Allies do the same with the Free French all manning transports and aircraft, without usually many boots on the ground. Mean Allies. It does help keep the seam between the British and American armies a little safer for the western front Germans. Unless the Allies are being extra mean and flying a super-RAF over an exclusively olive drab army invading France, and then this rule doesn't matter at all, which is too bad.

Chinese Attack Weakness - pro-Axis, but pro-reality in my opinion, and we usually extend it to the ChiComms too, though you can't do that in MWiF. Both Chinese factions just sat around in WWII waiting for the USA to beat the Japanese so the real war in China could begin. Sometimes paired with Japanese Command Conflict, though I could see that never being implemented on the computer. Which is OK, as hardly anyone ever plays it, even with Attack Weakness in play. Command Conflict actually perversely helps the Japanese player by putting all MAR units on the board and their seemingly weak LND bombers actually turn out to be quite useful. Perhaps the MWiF:2025 edition will finally allow Japan to be played simultaneously by an IJN commander and an IJA commander. That would be a hoot.

Fractional Odds - pro-sanity. Can't imagine playing without this one. If your OCD won't allow you to break from old-time, perfect 3-1 war-game attacks, I don't want to play against you anyway.

Limited Overseas Supply - pro-Allied. Axis merchant shipping necessarily runs scared in WiF, as it should.

Limited Supply Across Straits - who knows? Who cares? There aren't all that many straits in the game to start with. Sicily has built-in supply (even for German artillery shells and wienerschnitzel) and reinforcement centers anyway.

Variable Re-Org Costs - another who knows, who cares? Although I have been slightly mocking the highly playable logistics rules in WiF, this one is too much fine detail for most people anyway. And we still don't have Air or Naval HQs anyway, yet.


Of the Optional Rules not implemented yet, I would say that the Guards Banner Armies rule is the most important to game balance and I hope that is at the top of the list to add to the game, as those really give the Russians the combat power to drive back west.

I am also having a hard time imagining life without the USSR-Japan Compulsory Peace rule, but then I can't determine how that works in a 2 player game anyway. In a multi-player game, USSR<>Japanese relations, which can include actual diplomacy, trade agreements, and neutrality Pacts, are one of the more fascinating angles to the game of WWII as a whole. I have never agreed with the WiFCon USA rule that disallows these interactions and I really look forward to all of that being part of a computerized edition of WiF. I know it will be challenging to include but I hope it is not deemed impossible.

The Surprised ZoC rule is a controversial one. Newer players can conclude that the historical Axis gains aren't possible without it, though I would disagree. It can be a useful balancing mechanism for a less-experienced Axis player, though most people won't use it in any case.

Most of the rest are fun chrome that will be fun eventually but not all that essential to the World in Flames experience.

Fractional Odds - pro-sanity.

LOL

ORIGINAL: brian brian

OK, here ya go:


I'll give it a try. I won't have the rule # correct, so I'll skip the #. I'm still preparing my laptop for a major Windows update and backup before I download the game pretty soon now.

I'll just work through the list posted in the Optional Rules thread which is a few pages back.

Good summary BB

I'd differ on a couple of items but not much.

Cruisers I think are very pro allied. Apart from enabling the allies to patrol every possible convoy sea area several times over, it also unbalances fleet actions imho. As Italy you maybe get a couple of opportunities early game to bloody the Royal Navy's nose in the Med, and with cruisers, you see all those juicy hits get soaked up by ablative light cruiser armour.

The benefit is in theory both ways but the Euro axis dont have as many CLs, can't spare the oil to use them all, and have fewer naval actions to use them all as they are busy marching on land and in the air.

Add Chinese Cities - pro-Allied. I argued for this being optional during MWiF development. Some say the Chinese are doomed on the new Matrix map, and even in all games of World in Flames. I say it is the action-limited Japanese who are doomed but then most players are terrible at playing the quite fantastical WiF Chinese. A city is an incredible, powerful construct in World in Flames and I don't think any more should be given to the Chinese, who were a 19th century army fighting in a 20th century war. Both sides should be forced to use their HQ units to deliver logistics to their armies, not just be given them free on the map via additional cities and ports. Nor should new ones be placed in Siberia for that matter.

+1

Its always hard to guesstimate what would happen in 'what if' scenarios, but there's been a *lot* of oil and blood spilled (metaphorically speaking) on 'soc.history.what-if' and 'soc.history.war.world-war-ii' (Usenet groups) about this issue and, apart from Nazi fantasists and the completely clewless and unread, the general consensus is that the Germans simply couldn't have gotten anything significant out of the Caucasus ... even if the oilfields themselves had been captured largely intact, the transport problems would have then been decisive - the aforementioned issue of rail Tanker Car shortages, for example, but also the problems the Axis had in converting 5'3" Russian Gauge rail to Western European 4'8.5" gauge (moving the rails 6.5" closer was easy - the real problem was that the Germans couldn't produce enough locomotives and rolling stock to replace the now useless, and mostly destroyed anyway, Russian ones, and, even more so, that the maintenance and refuelling facilities were (since the Russian Locos were twice as big) twice as far apart ... even if they weren't destroyed by the Russians (and they mostly were ... the Russians prioritized moving RR personnel out of the line of advance even over moving military personnel historically) ... and these had to be provided by the Germans.

All this was special order, long lead time stuff ... and the Germans had, surprisingly to us in hindsight, made absolutely no plans at all for it ... of course, Barbarossa was going to be over in 6 months, so they presumably didn't see the need [;)]

This gives rise to something else that really doesn't get a look in in any game on WW2, except, maybe, very indirectly - the Germans suffered from a severe shortage of iron and steel, and this was at least as limiting as the shortage of oil. It's also why Swedish and Norwegian iron ore was so important (and still not enough). What this shortage boils down to is that the Germans can produce about as many tanks, trucks, artillery, planes and naval vessels as they did historically or they can swap tanks for planes, or tanks for subs, or subs for tanks ... or build more RR units, or repair more oilfields ... they can't build the historical limits *and* build more RR tankers and locos, repair more Russian rail lines, or repair any oilfields.

It is all very much an either/or proposition for the Axis ... or was, historically.

I do not know if RAW or RAC represent this limitation, either, but, really, if the Germans want to repair those oilfields or more Russian RR lines, then they need to build fewer planes, subs and tanks ...

The larger problem is that, yes, there were lots of resources in Russia and some of the other places that the Germans attacked, but the shape they were in when the Germans 'took' them was usually so poor that the required repairs to make them fully productive either never happened or happened slowly enough that they had little impact in the real world. The rate of repair that the Germans could realistically have managed, with real world constraints, was such that they could only have been back on line by the time the war was well and truly over ...

The Japanese were, of course, in much the same pickle, especially with oil. The Dutch damaged much of their wells and refineries and the Japanese, who were slightly more prepared for this than the Germans were, were only ever able to get them back to 70% of peacetime production, and that by 1944, when they needed about twice peacetime production from them to replace what they lost with the US and Allied embargo. Then there was the problem of shipping it home ... ever wonder why a large chunk of the IJN and the KB mostly hung around the DEI? It was because they couldn't transport the fuel back to Truck or the Home Islands.

Again, this aspect of the Japanese logistics problem is not, in real world terms, solvable ...

The reason both Japan and Germany did so well was a combination of early preparation that the Allies took time to catch up with and surprise. It wasn't better weapons, wasn't necessarily better tactics, and certainly wasn't because of superior weapons and organisation ... just surprise and early prep.

Again, in both cases, the assumption was that the 'war' would be over quickly - the Germans knew, for example, that they couldn't fight and win a long war. In fact, a number of senior German army planners committed suicide over the Barbarossa plans (!) because they were based on so much wishful thinking and they realised that Hitler and his clique were going to ignore their advice and go through with it anyway.

AIUI WiF (and, presumably, CWiF) does and overall acceptable job of representing this (which is what I remember from 1st Edition, lo these many years ago!).

Phil

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

I do not know if RAW or RAC represent this limitation, either, but, really, if the Germans want to repair those oilfields or more Russian RR lines, then they need to build fewer planes, subs and tanks ...

warspite1

The day WIF gets into that level of complexity and micro management is the day I stop playing.....

Reality doesn't necessarily equal complexity. I would suspect that the counter mix and force pools partly represent the problems the Germans had in respect of steel ... but I also suspect that their evident ability to repair oil fields is way way too cheap and easy. It really should be a case of a choice between foregoing multiple Panzers (or Subs or Planes) OR having the resources to repair oilfields ... I am waiting for the printed rulebooks to arrive before I delve into the complexities of the rules, however, so I don't know how much reality is reflected.

On reading the suggestions for a German strategy in the excellent WiF 98 Annual, however, what can evidently be attempted and with some expectation of success is purely ludicrous fantasy on the order of Hearts of Iron, which is one of the reasons why I gave up on 1st Edition WiF way back. Since the article was written 15 years ago, I suspect that changes between then and now have made some difference, and I am anticipating seeing how much.

I don't mind a game with 'what if' elements, don't get me wrong ... I've had a lot of fun playing HoI I and 2 (3, not so much), despite it being a fantasy game set on a map vaguely resembling the earth a la 1939 or so ... but I've really been looking for a grand strategy game covering WW2 globally that at least gives some semblance of real world constraints. WiF 1st Edition didn't (though, as I said, there have been developments since then that seem to have changed some things that should make a difference - the 'Days of Decision' pre-game political game, for example). I am reserving my opinion about CWiF until I can read through the RAW and RAC.

It would be nice if it somewhat resembles reality without going to the level of WitE or WitP:AE (which, of course, have their own reality problems).

Even if it doesn't, I still expect to have a lot of fun playing it ...

Any comments I make are purely about the real world, and about how it should impact on the game if the intent was for the game to resemble the real world very closely. I recognise, however, that this is not necessarily the case.

Phil

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

I do not know if RAW or RAC represent this limitation, either, but, really, if the Germans want to repair those oilfields or more Russian RR lines, then they need to build fewer planes, subs and tanks ...

warspite1

The day WIF gets into that level of complexity and micro management is the day I stop playing.....

It's not really micro-managing to spend 4 BPs during production to repair an oil well and living with the fact you have 4 less to spend on something else.

Thanks for the analysis. Just a small point. I'm not sure planes should be included in an discussion about iron and steel shortages. Apart from the engines, which are a pretty small proportion of their mass and volume, they're made from aluminium (or wood...thankyou de Havilland Mosquito).

Cheers, Neilster

Ah, aeroplanes.

Which need, strangely enough, Aero Engines.

Which, unfortunately for the Axis, were made from steel, and not aluminium, as you so rightly note. Unfortunately, that was exactly where the shortcomings were ... read on ...

Goering et al had seen (or seen reports by trusted observers) of the US aircraft industry and it is fairly accurate to say they were terrified . They knew that they could not match the potential output - they knew it - the best they could do was to plan a massive aero engine complex to try and let them achieve initial superiority for a short war ... and Fat Herman was the Nazi resources Supremo, in charge of allocation, so the Luftwaffe got first choice, the Heer most of the rest and the Kriegsmarine got the scraps. Yet, despite the massive effort, the plan ... failed ... and failed miserably. It didn’t even match Commonwealth production levels!

US Production: 300000+ aircraft
UK Production: 131000+ aircraft
USSR Production: 158000+ aircraft
German Production: 119,000+ aircraft

Note that the above figures are misleadingly weighted towards the Soviets and Germans. The vast majority of German and Russian aircraft produced were single engine models, and the majority of the rest were twin engined types. The UK and USA produced many tens of thousands of four engine aircraft ... so, in terms of the number of engines produced, the US (and even the UK) far far outproduced Germany.

And that was with the Luftwaffe getting all the resources it wanted out of what was available ... which is sorta what I’ve been saying ... Herman and Hitler et al wished really really hard, but couldn’t overcome the objective fact that they didn’t have the resources.

(Why? You ask - fair enough. The problem was that Germany was desperately short of good quality iron ore - the vast majority of what the military required for their buildup and, later on, to expand further and, of course, to replace losses, was sourced overseas. The outbreak of war meant that all those sources were lost, except for Norway and Sweden. And don't let modern mining production figures fool you, the majority of German iron ore is 'sour' ... has excessive amounts of sulphates and other nasties in it ... and the technology of the time couldn't turn it into anything usable. The Germans even tried. Hard. Really really hard. They built another massive complex to process it, based on the assumption that they'd be able to develop a way of cleaning it up and, guess what? They failed ... miserably ... again. They never did have enough steel for all their needs ...)

So, yes, aircraft *should* be included.

Phil

Did you actually read my post? I already stated that engines made up a small proportion of a WW2 aircraft's mass and volume. WW2 piston aeroengines look reasonably big but they are mostly empty space. I know a bit about this as I am an aerospace maintenance engineer and have worked on them.

Compared to a tank or even a truck, the amout of steel in an aircraft is trivial. It's all about aluminium, which is another problem entirely.

Cheers, Neilster