Absolute Minimum

[Mike Parker]

I am going to throw in my thoughts on fractional odds option. I think it is a must.

I think it does alot to streamline the game. Perhaps I am just way too quirky, but without fractional odds I go to great lengths to make sure I am not wasting factors. This doesn't just impact attacks but I have to plan my moves with much greater precision, and that means often painstakingly going over each units options and seeing which combinations lead to the most perfect attacks. Without fractional odds, I feel each side really needs to invest the time in doing this each time they move land units. I would guess it easily triples the time I need to move land units, although it does reduce some the time I take doing attacks since I plan just about every attack ahead of time as in knowing exactly which units will participate, whereqas with fractional odds I know in general what I will use then when I get to the actual decision I sometimes add in units to help the fraction.

I think playing with Fractional Odds firstly makes the play of the game simpler. It also for me seems to make things seem a little more natural. For example with fractional odds I am very unlikely to find myself moving a 7 factor unit to area one while simultaneoously moving a 6 factor unit from area one to area two JUST because one or the other attack is made "better" by addition or subtraction of a factor. I do such odd thngs without fractional odds and they just seem a bit unnature, especially when its moving a lower strength unit just because I do not waste a factor.

If you really do like all the extra planning then no fractional odds is I am sure just fine, just to my minf with Fractional Odds one can live with not being as exacting, and I think in a very reasonable and realistic manner.

[WarHunter]

Woo Hoo! More participation. Lots to read and think about. Be back later to continue our trimming of the fatty options. If only it was so easy to shed real pounds. [;)]

[alexvand]

I would also like to chime in to say that fractional odds are a must.

You end up spending so much time hunting up exactly the right numbers and when you are one short you keep looking. It takes too much time.

Instead you throw the best you've got into the fight and roll with it. It speeds up play and reduces how much time I spend agonizing over already complex manuevers of units.

Take into account how difficult it is currently in MWiF to switch two units from one stack to another. Move one unit you don't actually want to move, then move the two units you want to move, then undo the first unit. Multiply that by a lot.

Fractional odds speeds up play in an already long game.

[alexvand]

I'm curious, why are so many people insistent on the motorized movement rules. I've never played with them nor even felt the need to. Heck, I don't think I have even read the rules!

So what's the big deal?

[warspite1]

I knew you liked the game, just not happy with the money spent. Same way i felt about my last trip to the strip club. Over priced drinks, Cheap no skillz dancers and only 1 person in the joint, me. At least the DJ played my requests.

That's a quality opening to a post. [:D]

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: alex_van_d

I'm curious, why are so many people insistent on the motorized movement rules. I've never played with them nor even felt the need to. Heck, I don't think I have even read the rules!

So what's the big deal?

Terrain is very important for fast movement of motorised columns. In rugged terrain (mountains, wooded hills and so on) motorised columns often can't use any other parts of the country than the roads they are on. Therefore, units on foot were often faster, because they could move around obstacles...

I've read once a book in which the problems of a Soviet armoured division were stated while crossing the Karpathians... The column was repeatedly stopped by road blocks which than needed to be cleared, while three division were waiting to continue on that road later...

Motorized movement rules simulates this...

[paulderynck]

Another observation on fractional odds. Playing without, when your opponent clears a 1 factor bomber through at -7 odds, and changes your 3-1 attack to a 2-1, then next time you'll vote to play with fractional odds where the same occurrence changes it to a 2.9 to 1.

[MatJack]

Just wanted to say great thread idea and great input with back and forth by the more experienced to allow noobs like me to soak up and later try and apply with better understanding.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: alex_van_d

I'm curious, why are so many people insistent on the motorized movement rules. I've never played with them nor even felt the need to. Heck, I don't think I have even read the rules!

So what's the big deal?

Several reasons:

Without motorized movement costs, motorized units are just too good in bad terrain, for example the Pripyat marshes. The game plays completely differently with and without motorized movement costs, and the "with" strikes me as far more historical.

Also, several rules trace distances to HQ using motorized movement costs. (HQ reorganization and O-chit distance.) Again, I feel that this is not a decision the designers of the game made lightly.

To reiterate an earlier post, this rule is the only rule that I feel is fundamental to the design of the game. There are other rules that have a huge impact. For example, WiF with and without divisions is almost two different games, but both those games do feel like the game is reflecting WWII. To have armored formations running through the Pripyat is just wrong.

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Another observation on fractional odds. Playing without, when your opponent clears a 1 factor bomber through at -7 odds, and changes your 3-1 attack to a 2-1, then next time you'll vote to play with fractional odds where the same occurrence changes it to a 2.9 to 1.

paulderynck and Mike Parker and alex_van_d,
Thanks for the insights about Fractional Odds. Its been a while since playing the boardgame. We loved playing with the rule. Seems like ages ago.

Decided unless there is major push back, to include Fractional odds as an option for Absolute Minimum. I did not want to elaborate to much against it. But now that i am at peace with the decision. Let me add full disclosure about how i really feel about this option. [X(]


Why i dont like playing with Fractional odds.

Lets pretend we are playing MWiF in a perfect world. The time it takes to move counters is time we enjoy. We share the bliss of counting movement points. The exhilaration of shifting combat factors around 1 hex.
I'm sitting here in rap anticipation of your last and final land move. You have squeezed out every last combat factor to get your 3-1 on the hex NE to Paris. Its 46 to 15. Now its Ground support. All i have is 1 french twin engine bomber. Its got alot going against it flying as a bomber. But if it makes it in its a 2-1. If not it is 3-1.

You the German player know the score. You have to stop that damn french bomber. You knew it as you were setting up the attack. Everyone knows it. But you have the fighters waiting to pounce.

They shoot that little bastard bomber down.

Time for the main event. 3-1 with 1 extra factor over. OMG the fractional odds works and now its a 4-1. Roll for the 4-1. end of story.

So the Defender has a fighting chance to stop a 3-1 and fails in a test of wills through the RNG. Both sides put up a unit. Both sides roll a die. One side wins.

Fractional odds has none of the fairness of shared risk. One player, the Attacker gets what he pays for, or gets an advantage. The defender waits to be the attacker to visit upon his opponent the same measure of inequality.

This over time creates a monster.

There is probably an overall time savings. That time savings is shared. Either waiting to move or actually moving. The loss is actual combat. The meat of any wargame.

It is the nature of the CRT that forces our hand eye brain to concede fractional odds is superior. We attempt to get the best odds possible. This is divided among possible candidates along a front. As the game drags on, we fatigue, we tire, our hands twitch, eyes loose focus, brain gets mushy. We grasp at fractional odds to help ease the pain. It helps. Its why i both love it and hate it. I don't like to be sloppy but i like to save time.

I no longer know exactly where that cannon fodder is. Nor do i care really. Only the biggest numbers matter. Its close enough, fractional odds will save the day. I dont have to plan for the worst possible roll. I plan for 2 die rolls in combat. the first one either helps me gain another odds level or not. The next roll vindicates my easy and sloppy choices.

My opponent does the same thing i do. I hate him for it. I hate myself for what i have become. Even if i could make the odds exact, I can't stop. I always add a little more. Always looking for the edge that my opponent cannot completely eliminate without dropping the odds. Even then i have a chance to get back to the original odds.

Fractional odds is a whore for combat factors, no matter the size you can contribute. There is a slice of heaven waiting for success.

There would be balance, if the defender had a chance to roll.
Instead the defender shrugs his shoulders. Furrows his brow. Beginning another time-saving sloppy ground offensive.

When the game is stable for net play. Anyone who wants to play with or without the option is ok with me. I just wonder if anyone will want to look me up for a game after reading this. [&:]


Back to the sifting of options [:D]

[paulderynck]

Edit: One day I'll notice when the post number is divisible by 30 and I need to quote for context. 30 to 1, 60 to 2, 90 to 3... yeah got it maybe. [&:]

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

Why i dont like playing with Fractional odds.

Lets pretend we are playing MWiF in a perfect world. The time it takes to move counters is time we enjoy. We share the bliss of counting movement points. The exhilaration of shifting combat factors around 1 hex.
I'm sitting here in rap anticipation of your last and final land move. You have squeezed out every last combat factor to get your 3-1 on the hex NE to Paris. Its 46 to 15. Now its Ground support. All i have is 1 french twin engine bomber. Its got alot going against it flying as a bomber. But if it makes it in its a 2-1. If not it is 3-1.

You the German player know the score. You have to stop that damn french bomber. You knew it as you were setting up the attack. Everyone knows it. But you have the fighters waiting to pounce.

They shoot that little bastard bomber down.

Time for the main event. 3-1 with 1 extra factor over. OMG the fractional odds works and now its a 4-1. Roll for the 4-1. end of story.

So the Defender has a fighting chance to stop a 3-1 and fails in a test of wills through the RNG. Both sides put up a unit. Both sides roll a die. One side wins.

Fractional odds has none of the fairness of shared risk. One player, the Attacker gets what he pays for, or gets an advantage. The defender waits to be the attacker to visit upon his opponent the same measure of inequality.

You make a good point although your example over the board is incorrect because over the board you need 47 to 15. (Fractionals are by tenths - round down). When you compare the two extremes for 1D10, they only balance when the odds of an attack are 1 to 1. Above that every extra defensive factor is "worth" one multiplied by the odds.

I can honestly say I've never thought of fractional odds as lazy - I'd term them "equitable". If you can guarantee a battle (with or without Fractional odds) you do so - because the most important thing about any battle is to not get disorganized. But a lot of battles are fought at odds between 3-1 and 5-1 and in those battles there are no guarantees, so every factor you put in for a lucky fractional roll is one more that a) is unavailable to help the odds in a different battle it may be in range of, and b) is one more factor that will be disorganized if the roll for the battle itself is a poor one.

Another thing - Fractional odds are actually less of an impact in 2D10 because you are rolling to increase the die roll by one pip whereas every odds shift in a combat equals 2 pips. For your example in 2D10 you'd have a one tenth chance to go up half an odds column.

As far as options go though you really need to choose between 1D10 and 2D10 first and then you get interplay between that choice and playing with guns and divisions.

You should not play 2D10 without playing with guns and divisions and if instead you want to play 1D10 then if you do use guns and divisions as well, you definitely need to also play 1D10 with Blitz Bonus.

[brian brian]

some thoughts on some of these

Fractional Odds - yes, essential. Yes, it is pro-attacker. But when you play this game against another person, in person, the time savings is huge. Also, do you really want an air battle over every single land combat? Be careful what you wish for….

Offensive Chits - just part of the game at this point. They represent pouring your military resources into existing units and logistics pathways, vs. building new ones all the time. (Hitler v. Manstein)

Partisans - I don't see where that is very complicated or time consuming. I don't know why they are optional either. Let's just pretend the Axis weren't some of the most evil regimes to appear on Earth in the 20th century. Nope, just a bunch of misunderstood professional militaries, let's not bother them with Partisans and muck up their exciting military machines…. No.

Oil - With the difficulties reported in MWiF on using it, I could understand skipping it. Otherwise, skipping it is just more Axis fantasy role-playing.



Gamers don't like limits on what they can do. Neither did historical military leaders. Unfortunately, war always has limits. World in Flames already has an incredibly simplified logistics system that gives the Axis far more than their historical capabilities in many ways, in the interests of making more of a 'game' of it. Even in 1941, the Germans couldn't have reached their historical front line in December without capturing large fuel stocks from the Russians. Later in the war on the Eastern Front, I have to wonder how many Germans were captured/killed simply because they had to march back out of Russia without fuel.

You can play the game as a game, and skip over all historical constraints the rules allow you to skip, or you can add more and more things in the interests of truly simulating the things the historical decision makers had to consider.

I think there are no absolute minimum options at all, beyond the four I listed. World in Flames works pretty good as a corps/army level game of WWII.

[brian brian]

And I would say as far as how I prefer to play the game, with all of the realism options turned on, I would say that one that is an absolute minimum is Guards Banner Armies, which the Russians need to generate combat power in their units to be able to come back from what the overly supplied Germans can accomplish in Russia in 1941. So I hope that one is coded first from among the ones not done yet.

I would also say that if you like realism, and don't think the Russian front should be a game of Berlin > Urals > Back to Berlin, HQ Movement helps tone down the speed of advances at least a little. It is hard to remember when you start playing it, sure…..the computer will help in that regard. In the real war, the Japanese in China could barely operate as their logistics were so stretched by what they did do, which was to just sit on the historical start line WiF players start at in a game of Global War.

Before the new counter set in Final Edition, there were no HQ-A counters with 5 movement factors. HQs moved 2 or 3 hexes per impulse and logistics were quite a bit more realistic in my opinion.

[WarHunter]

After spending yesterday setting up various games using various combinations of options. The following list is Absolute Minimum Options for a game. This list should appeal to new and returning wargamers. Old hands might find the lack of options refreshing.

Some options could have been left off. Some could have been added. The only way to know if this even works for a game, is to try it. If something surfaces among the options that is important to you. Let us know. This list is not written in stone. Just a framework really. When you feel ready to add more. Feel free as you would when adding salt and pepper to your meal. Come and ask for recommendations if you don't know.

So next time you decide to play. Consider trying out these options and post a few words how it went.

If anyone has questions, comments, stories to share feel free to come here and post them. We can continue to discuss various options and the ramifications to the game and players.

The only credit i take is the credit to be a sounding board for discussion.
Good Luck in your gaming.

Divisions
Artillery
Ski Troops
Engineers - Combat
Chinese Warlords
Siberians
Queens
Offensive Chits
Fortifications
Motorized Movement Rates
Blitz Bonus for 1D10
Amphibious Rules
SCS Transport
Emergency HQ Supply
Fighter Bombers
Tank Busters
Flying Boats
Extended Aircraft Rebasing
Saving Oil Resources and Build Points
Off City Reinforcement
Scrap Units
Fractional Odds

I'll edit the 1st post with the options as they change.

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
You make a good point although your example over the board is incorrect because over the board you need 47 to 15. (Fractionals are by tenths - round down). When you compare the two extremes for 1D10, they only balance when the odds of an attack are 1 to 1. Above that every extra defensive factor is "worth" one multiplied by the odds.

Another thing - Fractional odds are actually less of an impact in 2D10 because you are rolling to increase the die roll by one pip whereas every odds shift in a combat equals 2 pips. For your example in 2D10 you'd have a one tenth chance to go up half an odds column.

Thanks for the info about minimum number of combat factors that are needed to activate fractional odds. Its good to know.

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I would also say that if you like realism, and don't think the Russian front should be a game of Berlin > Urals > Back to Berlin, HQ Movement helps tone down the speed of advances at least a little. It is hard to remember when you start playing it, sure…..the computer will help in that regard. In the real war, the Japanese in China could barely operate as their logistics were so stretched by what they did do, which was to just sit on the historical start line WiF players start at in a game of Global War.

HQ movement is a very good optional rule. Its a staple of my games. As is Railway Movement and Motorized Movement Rates. All 3 together create a challenging environment for the land movement phase.

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: AxelNL

Partisans adds complexity. It is stated it affects both sides in a balanced game (e.g. india), than taking it away would not hinder the game balance too much. In my current game it adds time and dilutes focus. For a minimum set I would vote to keep them out. I will certainly leave them out in my next game.

I went with your recommendation about leaving out partisans.

Even though i would not normally exclude partisans. The exclusion of territorials made me rethink the addition of partisans. That and the impact on the Asian map. Which i still consider the Wild East.

Why some kind of passive partisan rule was not created for MWiF is beyond my understanding. Maybe someone can shed some light on that?

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

The absolute minimum for me:

Motorised movement rates
HQ support
Emergency HQ supply
Pilots
USSR-Japanese compulsory Peace
Carrier planes
Additional Chinese cities
Offensive chits
No ZOC on surprise impulse (since it is historically correct to play with this rule, which does favour the Axis). I would have liked to see this rule in the rulebook itself and not having it as an optional one...

Optional rules which I don't want to play with are:

Construction Engineers. There aren't enough engineer units for this rule to be valid. It tends to balance game towards the allied side a lot, since to use factories, the Axis need to repair them and build points gone in 1939 take a huge toll on the Axis economy...

Convoys in Flames. Adds to many units and make the game too complex. But perhaps this will be better in MWIF...
Oil tankers. Adds to the complexity of the game and makes convoy routing even harder than it is now...

In the presence of the enemy. I just don't like this rule.

Limited overseas supply. I simply cannot understand why this optional rule is so popular. Now, I can understand that merchantmen have to be used to supply units overseas, but to use a whole convoy point to supply only one division? That's ridiculous and completely a-historical. There should come a better rule to simulate this. You should be able to break down convoy points into supply ships and than use those for supply. A convoy point simply is to much shipping to keep certain area's in supply. Roughly speaking, a German soldier needed about 400 kg. a month to be fully supplied. So to keep 10.000 men in supply for two months you would need one ship capable of cargoing 8.000 tons, not a convoy point which simulates far more shipping. This rule is too much and a-historical...

Night air missions: too much for a strategic game...
Japanese command conflict: historically correct? I don't know if the producing of planes was really the point where the generals and admirals were bickering about. Anyway, I don't like the way this is done in WiF.

Intelligence: this rule favours the allies too much, since they have far to many build points in late game to spare for intelligence. Also, the US gets far to many for their build points spend. Apart from this I don't like the opportunity to roll for the next impulses weather. The weather comes as it is and there wasn't any country in the world which could make a good forecast during WW II for more than a couple of days...

Centuur,
Thanks for your post.

You brought up some interesting topics.

Of the rules you don't like much. Pretty much agree with all of them. Except i've never played with Convoy's in Flames so i dont have an opinion.
Construction Engineers, Why is this even a thing? Does anyone play with this option.

No ZOC on surprise impulse. I agree it has historical flavor. But, Do we need to give the axis another tool to hammer the Russian player with? If it only affected minor powers, i'd be all over it. Verses a major power, it can be a game breaker. Especially an old player vs a new player.

Carrier planes, Until i see a patch that eliminates some bugs with CVP's my gut is to stay away from them. But i do love the rule when it works.

USSR-Japanese compulsory Peace, another one i want to see coded.

[WarHunter]

ORIGINAL: Mat_Jack

Just wanted to say great thread idea and great input with back and forth by the more experienced to allow noobs like me to soak up and later try and apply with better understanding.

Thanks for reading. If anything comes up in your game. We are here to help ya.

[Dabrion]

I agree with your list, mostly. Still advocate:

* Air Rules.
Reasoning: The Air Rules came with PiF and are basically needed to meet that kits' design goals. W/o them you just have convoluted air force pools (more than double available, remember PiF is integral part of MWiF). You will see over time, that there are MANY planes on the table. Vanilla A2A rules are not designed to deplete the amount of planes you suddenly can allocate to a single A2A combat. By that reasoning, any rule that leads to more deadly A2A combat (w/o being ridiculous) is a good one! Most of the air rules do just that.
I recommend in order: <Bounce Combat> (converts AC/DC into something meaningful), <Backup FTR> (let quality matters more that quantity), <Fighter Bombers> (else FRT cannot use their TAC values), <Twin Engine FTR>. Rest is not as crucial, I would still play them any time!

* 2D10 LCRT + fractional odds
This was introduced MiF (Divisions) and is pretty much a stable ever since. In fact I hope RAW8 will purge 1D10 for good, so we don't have to spend time contemplating it existence anymore (just a wet dream sadly). I think the reasons for and against FO have been presented. 2D10 has an emphasis on combined arms and eliminates the gambling on the tails of the distribution. Do not like the 10% gamble for Gibraltar? I don't! 2D10+FO also allows you to project DRM like: ratio*2, roll for fraction. Simple isn't it?

For someone getting into the game fresh, it would also be somewhat unrewarding to learn that the "easy" ruleset is in fact the "obsolete" ruleset (only partially of course).



A word on the map rules: a) mot. mv., b) railway mv., b) HQ mv. and c) winterised mv.:
a) [on] has been argued for already, I agree it is a realism option
b) [off] is an artifact of the AiF america maps. They are pacific map scale and you cannot really move about without that option, somewhat true for AS and PC maps in WiF, but you don't really move about much on these. I never liked the implications of this on the European maps (effectively negating weather!). I certainly don't like it on an all-european-scale map.
c) [off] no clue who came up with this and for what reason. it somewhat addresses the GE advance outpacing RU retreat kinda-issue. But that is actually all right, you should be punished if you gamble by stuffing.
d) new option from the 2008 annual, we like it so far! (is it in MWiF?)

But I already see we disagree on that one. In any case, they are probably not part of the "absolute minimum"(tm)