Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Submarines with Missiles

Maybe you should also note in your writeup that those subs only appear in 1945.

Maybe you should also add that all sub subtypes are mixed in the SUB force pool and that the owner cannot choose which sub he builts, at least for 1st cycle.

Maybe you can add how many of each are in game :
Flying : 1 (JAP, 1941).
Milchcow : 4 (GER). All are for 1943 or before.
Missile : 12 (7 GER from which 5 are Walther SUBs, 2 USA from which 1 is Schnorkel and 1 is Walther and 1st is in 1947, 3 USSR from which 2 are Schnorkel and 1 is Walther and 1st is in 1947). Only 2 are for 1945 or before.
Schnorkel : 21 (1 CAN, 1 FR, 8 GER, 3 IT, 2 JA, 1 UK, 3 USA, 2 USSR). Plus the Schnorkel Missile ones. 15 are for 1945 or before, mostly GER.
Walther : 8 (4 GER, 1 IT, 1 USA, 2 USSR). Plus the Walther Missile ones. Only 2 are for 1945 or before, GER.
Supply : 2 (1 GER, 2 JA). All from 1941 or before.

Out of a grand total of 156 SUB in the game (1 AUS, 2 CAN, 8 FR, 50 GER, 17 IT, 18 JA, 3 CH, 1 NETH, 14 UK, 23 USA, 19 USSR) (133 are from 1945 or before).

I'll put in something about this, without as many details (I usually avoid giving the # of units in the counter mix).

I assumed the flying sub was a reference to the 50's-era Convair Cormonant prototype here.

Actualy, I belive it references a Soviet flying sub that was in developennt (but dropped late in the war). But the link was at www.airforce.ru and has been removed.

[font="times new roman"]The History Channels Secret Russian Aircraft of World War II - VHS Video[/font]
[font="times new roman"]See how, despite ever-present danger from Stalin's purges, Soviet designers mastered astonishing technical hurdles. Rare footage, photos and plans show their creations: a swept-wing delta design, a rocket-powered fighter, a flying tank prototype, a submarine-bomber combination, a canard-wing aircraft, and others. Learn which of their designs made it into production and which inspired their successors to greater heights. 50 minutes.[/font]

By the way, Aircraft Carrying Submarines causes me to picture a plane with a submarine strapped under each wing.

Well, we're clearly talking about submarines...so maybe if you've been smoking some of that potent, local, Maui Wowie, man. [:D]

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I'll stay with ADG's terminology here, though it is not perfect.

By the way, Aircraft Carrying Submarines causes me to picture a plane with a submarine strapped under each wing.

A picture is worth a thousand words: Japanese Aircraft Carrier Submarines

I-Go 14 Type (Type "Ko-Kai 2" : Modified A Type2) I-Go 14 Aircraft Submarine
I-Go 15 Type (Type "Otsu" : Type B) I-Go 26 Aircraft Submarine
I-Go 54 Type (Type "Otsu-Kai 2" : Modified B Type2) I-Go 54 Aircraft Submarine
I-Go 400 Type (Special Submarine) I-Go 402 Aircraft Submarine

ORIGINAL: Mziln

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I'll stay with ADG's terminology here, though it is not perfect.

By the way, Aircraft Carrying Submarines causes me to picture a plane with a submarine strapped under each wing.

A picture is worth a thousand words: Japanese Aircraft Carrier Submarines

I-Go 14 Type (Type "Ko-Kai 2" : Modified A Type2) I-Go 14 Aircraft Submarine
I-Go 15 Type (Type "Otsu" : Type B) I-Go 26 Aircraft Submarine
I-Go 54 Type (Type "Otsu-Kai 2" : Modified B Type2) I-Go 54 Aircraft Submarine
I-Go 400 Type (Special Submarine) I-Go 402 Aircraft Submarine

Thanks for the reference. We'll call them "Aircraft Carrier Submarines" then.

The reason I suggested "Aircraft Carrying Submarines" rather than "Aircraft Carrier Submarines" is that the latter implies that aircraft can take off in much the same manner as an aircraft carrier, whereas in this case the aircraft had to be unpacked and assembled before flight.

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The reason I suggested "Aircraft Carrying Submarines" rather than "Aircraft Carrier Submarines" is that the latter implies that aircraft can take off in much the same manner as an aircraft carrier, whereas in this case the aircraft had to be unpacked and assembled before flight.

Cheers, Neilster

This distinction could be made in the unit descriptions.

They could also be called "seaplane carrier submarines", since the aircraft they carried were not both launched and retrieved from the deck.

ORIGINAL: amwild

This distinction could be made in the unit descriptions.

They could also be called "seaplane carrier submarines", since the aircraft they carried were not both launched and retrieved from the deck.

I like it. Aircraft Carrier Submarines did sound too grandiose.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Last, but not least, the final optional rule writeup.

At several places in this thread forum members have mentioned than the player should have the ability to select some parts of an optional rule and not other parts. This possibility is most apparent for the Convoy in Flames optional rule below, which introduces many different unit types. How do you feel about this? Should there be a sub-selection process for some optional rules? I am opposed to adding sub-choices simply for the sake of adding sub-choices. Afterall, the 80 or so separate optional rules seems like a lot to me - "Jeez Louise, enough already!". However, fighting to keep an open mind on this, I ask for your opinion, and will cut them into separate pieces when a good reason for doing so is put forth. For example, I already have split the engineer optional rule into 2: combat and construction.

I rather like the notion explored in posts after this one of splitting CoiF into 2 subrules (one adding the tankers and minor-power nationality convoys/tankers and the other adding speciality subs and cruisers and the asw ships and aircraft designed to fight them).

Thinking of other optional rules, I really hope you also make (or have made) the rough seas rule a subrule (or separate rule) from the Light Cruisers rule.

ORIGINAL: composer99

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
At several places in this thread forum members have mentioned than the player should have the ability to select some parts of an optional rule and not other parts. This possibility is most apparent for the Convoy in Flames optional rule below, which introduces many different unit types. How do you feel about this? Should there be a sub-selection process for some optional rules? I am opposed to adding sub-choices simply for the sake of adding sub-choices. Afterall, the 80 or so separate optional rules seems like a lot to me - "Jeez Louise, enough already!". However, fighting to keep an open mind on this, I ask for your opinion, and will cut them into separate pieces when a good reason for doing so is put forth. For example, I already have split the engineer optional rule into 2: combat and construction.

I rather like the notion explored in posts after this one of splitting CoiF into 2 subrules (one adding the tankers and minor-power nationality convoys/tankers and the other adding speciality subs and cruisers and the asw ships and aircraft designed to fight them).

Thinking of other optional rules, I really hope you also make (or have made) the rough seas rule a subrule (or separate rule) from the Light Cruisers rule.

That was my question (though perhaps buried in the other text).

One of the advantages of splitting the Convoys in Flames optional rules into 2 pieces, and making Rough Seas a optional sub-rule from Cruisers in Flames, is that CWIF did not contain either of those addons, so there is no existing code to modify. Just new code to write.

Are there other optional rules that should be split (or merged)?

Are there other optional rules that should be split (or merged)?

Wow...
Each time I thought an optional rule should be splitted, I mentionned it in my comments. Now I do not remember all my comments, but they are all here inthis thread, somewhere.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Are there other optional rules that should be split (or merged)?

The only two I can think of for splitting are, to my knowledge, already split; namely (a) the Planes & Flames units and pilots being split, and (b) Ships in Flames units and carrier planes also being split.

The only thing I can think of for merging would be to merge all the division-size units, which represents three optional rules (divisions, artillery, and supply units) into a single rule. Seems to me that if one is to play with one of those, it makes sense to play with all of them. However, I would also say that it would not do much to subtract from the complexity of the game, so I don't really think it's necessary to merge the rules.

ORIGINAL: composer99

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Are there other optional rules that should be split (or merged)?

The only two I can think of for splitting are, to my knowledge, already split; namely (a) the Planes & Flames units and pilots being split, and (b) Ships in Flames units and carrier planes also being split.

The only thing I can think of for merging would be to merge all the division-size units, which represents three optional rules (divisions, artillery, and supply units) into a single rule. Seems to me that if one is to play with one of those, it makes sense to play with all of them. However, I would also say that it would not do much to subtract from the complexity of the game, so I don't really think it's necessary to merge the rules.

Yes. I posed the question just in case someone could see something that I was missing. For optional rules that are already split (e.g., all the different air combat changes due to aircraft type), leaving them as is seems ok. It's no big deal to click on 3 or 4 optional rules rather than just one button, and there might be some player out there who really detests one optional rule in a group, but likes the others.

So for now I have the following changes:

1 - Split Rough Seas out from Cruisers in Flames, with the former a subrule of the latter. That is, the latter is a prerequisite for the former.

2 - Split Oil tankers out from Convoys in Flames. There would be no interdependency between these two rules. Choose either, neither, or both.

3 - Split Construction Engineers out from Combat Engineers. No interdependency.

4 - Intergrate Carrier Planes CV Only into Carrier Planes. The former is simply part of the latter.

Unresolved issues:

5 - Determining the maximum limit on partisans.

6 - Mechanics of selecting Corps/Armies units from the BrokenDown Pool for transfer to the Force Pool when 2 or more divisions have been lost.

7 - Offensive Chit effects when played during a Naval Action.

I'll review what has already been posted on #5 and #7 and try to reach a decision today or tomorrow on them. For #6, I'll handle that when I write the code for it. [It has to be rigorous and cover all possible situations that might arise.]

Here are the two optional rules I have split out from Cruisers in Flames and Convoys in Flames respectively.

I also decided that MWIF Product 1 would contain both versions of the Effects of Offensive Chits during Naval Actions. The players can choose whichever they like for a game (but not both simultaneously).

[I am still looking nito the maximum # of partisan units per country.]
=============================================================
[54][Rough Seas][Cruisers in Flames, RAW 75 s. 22.4.6]
Within Cruisers and Flames there is an optional rule for Rough Seas which makes it more difficult for the lighter ships to move during bad weather. That rule is included here separate from the Cruisers in Flames optional rule so the players can choose whether to add it or not. Note that Rough Seas is only available if and only if you have already selected Cruisers in Flames.

Rough weather slows down smaller ships. This is implemented during the naval movement step only, and each light cruiser, destroyer flotilla, naval transport, and convoy that moves into 1 or more sea areas in blizzard or storm has its movement allowance and range reduced by 1 for that step (note that this may prevent the unit from entering its final sea area).
=============================================================
[73][Oil Tankers][Convoys in Flames - RAW 76 s. 11.11.2, 19.4, and 22.4.19]
Convoys in Flames contains an optional rule that separates convoys into two types: oil tanker convoys and regular convoys. That rule is included here as a separate optional rule so players can decide whether to use it or not, regardless of whether they want to play with the Convoys in Flames optional rule.

Minor Convoys
When using this optional rule, the number of convoys with which minor countries start is different from the number they normally receive. Some of the convoys are oil tankers.

Oil Tankers
Oil-carrying tankers are a special kind of convoy. They are treated as convoy points for all purposes unless otherwise indicated below. Only tankers can transport oil resources overseas and only convoys may transport non-oil resources or build points overseas.

Each tanker costs 1 build point and takes 5 turns to build.

At the start of any friendly impulse, a player may freely convert any of their organized convoy points in port into tanker points, or vice versa. When doing so, it takes 2 convoy points to convert into 1 tanker point, or 2 tanker points to convert into 1 convoy point.

For example, desperate for more tankers, Kasigi converts 4 convoys in Tokyo into 2 tanker points at the beginning of his impulse, and then sails them immediately.

If you are not playing with this option, tanker units are considered just more convoy points.
=============================================================
[80][Naval Offensive Chit][RAW 61 s. 16]
This optional rule replaces the effects of using an Offensive Chit during a Naval Action as described in the optional rule Offensive Chits. The purpose of this replacement rule is to bring the MWIF optional rule set into agreement with RAW, August 2004. However, the author strongly prefers the older definition of the effects of playing an Offensive Chit (OC) during a Naval Action, so both rules are provided. If you select this optional rule, then you are playing according to the August 2004 version of RAW.

A second reason for providing both versions (the old and the new) is that when playing by email (PBEM) the newer version of the effects of an OC during a Naval Action could require additional emails. Therefore, only the older version is available for PBEM. Specifically, this optional rule can not be used for PBEM games.

If you play an offensive chit at the start of a naval action, specify one of your face up HQs that is in a port hex. Any naval or aircraft units stacked in that hex that initiates a naval combat may demand a re-roll of the search dice by both sides, in any round of combat this impulse.
Re-rolling of naval search dice may be demanded any number of times this impulse provided that the total number demanded does not exceed the HQ's reorganization value.

For example, Nimitz is in Pearl Harbor stacked with 3 SCS and a P-38G fighter. The USA player plays a naval offensive chit on Nimitz at the start of his naval action. The Lighting flies into the 4 box of the Hawaiian Islands and the 3 SCSs into the 4 box of the Marshalls sea area, both of which contain Japanese and US units. During the naval combat step the US picks the Marshall Sea area and they both roll search die. The Japanese roll a 2 to a US roll of 10.
The US demands a re-roll. This time he rolls a 5 while the Japanese player rolls a 3. This commits the entire Japanese navy but only the US carrier fleet in the 4 box is included. The US player could take a risk and use up Nimitz's third and last re-roll on another roll, but decides to save this for later rounds (or even to help the Lightning in the Hawaiian Islands) on the (wise) assumption that the search re-roll might end up worse rather than better.

Here is what I have come up with for calculating the maximum # of partisans in a country.

Partisans are drawn randomly from the partisan force pool. There is a maximum # of partisan units per country (described in the next paragraph), and since they are corps sized units, the maximum number of partisan units in a hex is 2. The composition of the partisan force pool changes year to year which changes the probability of drawing weak, weaker, or very weak partisan units. The strength of the units you have drawn previously has no effect on the probability of what you will draw next. In particular, there is a limitless pool of partisans to draw from - subject to the partisan maximum per country. [This section of the partisan rule is quite different from WIF FE because there is no longer any restriction due to the counter mix.]

The maximum number of partisans permitted in a country is a function of the country’s partisan number and the probability of the country checking for partisans. The second factor is the number of times the country appears on the partisan table (13.1).

The maximum = (Partisan #) * (table occurrences) / 5, with a minimum of 2 if the partisan # is 4 or more.

Some examples are:
France: 15 * 4 / 5 = 12
USSR: 25 * 4 /5 = 20
Siberia: 5 * 2 / 5 = 2
United Kingdom: 15 * 2 /5 = 6
Ireland: 5 * 1 /5 = 2 (Partisan # > 3)
Norway: 4 * 4 /5 = 3
China: 10 * 3 /5 = 6
Yugoslavia: 9 * 5 /5 = 9
Greece: 6 * 3 /5 = 4

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are the two optional rules I have split out from Cruisers in Flames and Convoys in Flames respectively.

I also decided that MWIF Product 1 would contain both versions of the Effects of Offensive Chits during Naval Actions. The players can choose whichever they like for a game (but not both simultaneously).

This IS a GREAT thing I think, really.

[I am still looking nito the maximum # of partisan units per country.]
=============================================================
[54][Rough Seas][Cruisers in Flames, RAW 75 s. 22.4.6]
Within Cruisers and Flames there is an optional rule for Rough Seas which makes it more difficult for the lighter ships to move during bad weather. That rule is included here separate from the Cruisers in Flames optional rule so the players can choose whether to add it or not. Note that Rough Seas is only available if and only if you have already selected Cruisers in Flames.

Rough weather slows down smaller ships. This is implemented during the naval movement step only, and each light cruiser, destroyer flotilla, naval transport, and convoy that moves into 1 or more sea areas in blizzard or storm has its movement allowance and range reduced by 1 for that step (note that this may prevent the unit from entering its final sea area).
=============================================================

Don't forget AMPH, who are treated as TRS, except for their special invading feature and INF only feature.

[73][Oil Tankers][Convoys in Flames - RAW 76 s. 11.11.2, 19.4, and 22.4.19]
Convoys in Flames contains an optional rule that separates convoys into two types: oil tanker convoys and regular convoys. That rule is included here as a separate optional rule so players can decide whether to use it or not, regardless of whether they want to play with the Convoys in Flames optional rule.

(...)
=============================================================

Good thing. Having played 2 campaigns with Tankers (I was very excited with this at start), I was disapointed, and found out that they added little to the game, for a too big overhead. Personal opinion.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

[...]

The maximum number of partisans permitted in a country is a function of the country’s partisan number and the probability of the country checking for partisans. The second factor is the number of times the country appears on the partisan table (13.1).

The maximum = (Partisan #) * (table occurrences) / 5, with a minimum of 2 if the partisan # is 4 or more.

[...]

I rather like this solution - it is simple and elegant. I might add that you will need to double the limit for China that you originally listed, because their partisan number is 20.

The maximum = (Partisan #) * (table occurrences) / 5, with a minimum of 2 if the partisan # is 4 or more.

You can feel the mathematician here, who tried to convert into equations what he felt would be right for the max number of partisans [:D].

Some examples are:
France: 15 * 4 / 5 = 12
USSR: 25 * 4 /5 = 20
Siberia: 5 * 2 / 5 = 2
United Kingdom: 15 * 2 /5 = 6
Ireland: 5 * 1 /5 = 2 (Partisan # > 3)
Norway: 4 * 4 /5 = 3
China: 10 * 3 /5 = 6
Yugoslavia: 9 * 5 /5 = 9
Greece: 6 * 3 /5 = 4

From these examples, I think it is the good path, if the number of partisans should be maximized (which I am against, just wanted to express it again).
There are errors in the Partisan numbers you used. Those are the one from the 1996 maps. The latest maps have other Partisans numbers.
I'll send you an Excel file listing those, or you can look at the 2004 maps you have.