Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Patrice,

If we can do this without going back to Rob for more graphics, then fine. Perhaps we can reuse some of the existing air unit graphics for the new units?

There is a D.500 and an I-5 I believe in CS23, as well as a couple of new ships. They all would need new graphics.

ORIGINAL: Mziln

I would suggest that you check with Matrix Games first. Remember we are using RAW7 august 2004 while the 2007 constitutes new product.

Can product developed by ADG in 2007 be used by Matrix Games in MWiF [&:] 

Or did the aggrement between ADG and Matrix Games limit creation of MWiF using RAW7 the Final Edition august 2004 [&:]

 


Since you decided to ignore this post. Here are some new terms for you "Copyright Infringement" and "Theft of intellectual property". Now does Matrix Games have the legal rights to use property created by ADG for WiF in 2007?

Frankly, this is a rather disrespectul tone to be setting.

I can understand people who are impatient (goodness knows I am) and who would be willing to forgo certain features of MWiF (AI, NetPlay, whatever) to see it arrive sooner, and who are vocal in expressing their impatience.

This goes beyond that to insulting people's intelligence and their integrity. As such, I do not understand it, and I do not feel I should avoid posting a rebuke.

If you wanted an answer to your question, all you had to do was ask again.

I do apologize for being harsh if this comment was actually meant with some humour, but simply reading it as is, it felt like a sarcastic cheap shot to me.

ORIGINAL: Mziln

I would suggest that you check with Matrix Games first. Remember we are using RAW7 august 2004 while the 2007 constitutes new product.

Can product developed by ADG in 2007 be used by Matrix Games in MWiF [&:] 

Or did the aggrement between ADG and Matrix Games limit creation of MWiF using RAW7 the Final Edition august 2004 [&:]

 


Since you decided to ignore this post. Here are some new terms for you "Copyright Infringement" and "Theft of intellectual property". Now does Matrix Games have the legal rights to use property created by ADG for WiF in 2007?

The details of legal agreements between Matrix Games and ADG are not open to pubilc review.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The details of legal agreements between Matrix Games and ADG are not open to pubilc review.

Exactly. Before everyone starts screaming for the changes they may not be possiable due to the agreements between ADG and Matrix.

Will LOC Vichy be an option for MWIF?

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Will LOC Vichy be an option for MWIF?

This has been discussed previously. No, it is not part of RAW August 2004.

It is probably too late in the process and although I have read through all of the posts, I may repeat what has already been mentioned;

1.) Axis subs should not be permitted to leave the Med; they should be permitted to enter, but not leave. Because of the high evaporation rate in the Med vs the Atlantic, the German subs could cut their engines and let the current pull them into the Med without detection. However, the inverse was not possible, in fact the current worked against them.
2.) German Aux Cruisers should only be able to sink CPs. Once found, they should automatically be sunk or aborted, dertermined by die roll. The Merchant raiders were lightly gunned and lightly armoured ships. They would have had a tough time sinking a destroyer, let alone a cruiser.
3.) Random production of CVPs should be controlled so that CVPs are not produced with class ratings greater than available CVs. I have played several games where I have pulled class 4 and 5 CVPs when I have no class 4 or 5 CVs. This is particularly critical for the Japanese as the war wears on; the proportion of 4 and 5 class CVPs increase with each year, but the number of 4 or 5 class CVs do not, as the Japanese rarely have an opportunity to build them.
4.) When Italy is conquered / surrenders, the fleet should be disbanded. This is a better representation of what happened historically.
5.) US entry should be much less variable. I have played games where the US has entered the war in Jul/Aug 1941 (much too early) and as late as Mar/Apr 1943 (much too late). The US should not be able to voluntarily enter the war before Jan/Feb 1942, but should enter the war no later than Sep/Oct 1942. While the argument that the US might never have entered the war if the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbor has merit, the fact is the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor. The same arguement could be made that had Germany not invaded Poland, France and the UK would not have declared war on Germany. The Japanese certainly beleived that US entry into the war was imminent.
6.) Subs should be able to search for combat ships without having to get four or more suprise points. The surprise points should be used to determine who gets to fire first, the sub or the combat ship.

While WiF is the best strategic WWII wargame that I have played, there are many unhistorical elements of the game; the ones listed above are the ones I find most irksome. A few of the others that I find irksome are:
a.) With the possible exception of Militia and Garrison units, there should be no non-motorized units in the British or US force pools. The German and Japanese force pools have way too many motorized units.
b.) While changing it would have a dramatic effect upon game balance, the German production is too great in relation to UK production. At the height of the Stalingrad campaign, the Commonwealth was producing more planes and more tanks per month than the Germans. Throughout the war, in almost every production catagory, the Commonwealth production was equal to or greater than German production.
c.) The Germans should not start the game with any AMPHs or TRSs. At the time of the SeaLion Planning, the German's did not have sufficient sea transport capacity to ship two divisions accross the channel. The plan was to use river Rhine boats. Anyone that thinks that SeaLion was a realistic plan in 1940, I would encourage you to read the following two essays Sealion Essay and Iam Montgomerie's article
d.) There is absolutely no reason in the game for the German's to go to Norway or for the Italians to go to Greece. These were real historical events that had a significant impact upon the war. There should be penalties / rewards for going or not goint to these places. Similarly, there should be penaties against the Allies if they do not attempt to support these minor countries when they are invaded.

All of your comments have a lot of merit; but the object of MWiF is to use the rules for the board game, as far as that is possible. Changes to game structure/rules is not part of the mission objective for this project.

As for point number 6, you can already do this. You can just choose not to invoke Sub combat if you want to.

Raw7m 11.5.7 Choosing combat type
"3. If it is not a naval air combat, you can choose to make it a submarine combat (active side decides first) if you have a SUB included and your opponent has any convoy points included;"

Ie, if your subs are part of a combat with an enemy that has CONVs in the area, and no-one has chosen air combat, you can always call Sub-combat *if you want to*. If you don't want to, a surface combat will take place.

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

All of your comments have a lot of merit; but the object of MWiF is to use the rules for the board game, as far as that is possible. Changes to game structure/rules is not part of the mission objective for this project.

Yes.

ORIGINAL: Jaguar
2.) German Aux Cruisers should only be able to sink CPs. Once found, they should automatically be sunk or aborted, dertermined by die roll. The Merchant raiders were lightly gunned and lightly armoured ships. They would have had a tough time sinking a destroyer, let alone a cruiser.

Read this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aux ... r_Kormoran

4.) When Italy is conquered / surrenders, the fleet should be disbanded. This is a better representation of what happened historically.

German had to bomb the Roma IIRC, so that it didn't join the allies.
I think that WiF FE does a pretty good job at representing history, as you usually see a couple of BB join the Allied fleet when Italy surrenders.
http://www.bobhenneman.info/roma.htm

5.) US entry should be much less variable. I have played games where the US has entered the war in Jul/Aug 1941 (much too early) and as late as Mar/Apr 1943 (much too late).

There is a step in that direction with the new 2007 counters from CS24, who have half a dozen US Entry markers with their value changed in that direction. Hopefully, MWiF will integrate these new counters.

There is a reward for Germany to invade Norway - the SS MECH corps. It's usually not enough of a reward to hand over 1-2 TRS and 6-10 convoy points to the CW. The Germans also don't usually have the action limits (or the units, or the time) to go into Norway the way they did historically, and while historically they managed to evict the CW and France from Narvik, in the game that can be made impossible by starting the Norwegian ski div up there (that + a notional will surely be too strong for whatever forces the Germans can invade with) and then shuttling in a corps (or two).
 
However, the Axis often do invade Greece - just not in the way the Italians did in the war (it is asking too much of players to deliberately replicate the failures and incompetencies of the past, after all). Either they want the extra resource or they want to get Yugoslavia on side.
 
And while many of the lesser irksome things are indeed (very) ahistorical - they are probably critically important, game-balance wise. Without starting with as much sealift as it does, Germany could not hope to launch a Sealion in WiF, let alone a Norwegian campaign. Likewise, if Allied production were anywhere near historical levels, the Axis would almost certainly never make it to 1945.
 
There are many ways WiF could be improved, to be sure, and you have touched upon some of them. But that will be a decision for Harry & the folks at ADG to make, not us rubes here nor Steve & Matrix Games. [:)]

I realize that the scope of the project is to re-create the boardgame in a computer-based system. Over the past four years, I have read 90-95% of the posts in the forum. Perhaps I have misinterpretted or have experience perception of convenience, but it appeared that minor tweaks had already been decided.

While some may disagree, ADGs constant revisions and additions to the rules and game structure to improve play functionally or in an attempt to better represent the history is, I beleive, what has kept the game active for the past twenty years and is one of the game's strengths.

Yes the subs can attack SCSs in the manner you describe, but from my perspective, it is not a good representation and does not feel like sub combat. When I think of surface combat, I picture the sub on the surface firing their deck gun at CAs and BBs. I realize, of course, that that is not what is represented. My point was more that the subs should have an opportunity to fire first if they are not detected (found). There were several spectacular sinkings done by undetected subs; the Ark Royal and the Royal Oak come to mind immediately.

I think that those spectacular sinkings are supposed to be represented by the "use 3 surprise points to choose any target" of sub or surface combat. WiF really isn't granular enough, I think, to simulate "subs fire first" and stuff like that on a more tactical level.

I agree with you that those minor (and sometimes major) tweaks that are being done certainly keeps the game alive in a way that most other games aren't. I believe though, that most tweaks being done in MWiF represents the difficulty of stream lining the rules for another medium that for example allows for the same scale everywhere, and unlimited chits etc.

Yes the German Aux Cruiser Kormoran did sink the CL HMAS Sydney. However, this was an isolated and unusual case. The battle as at close range because the HMAS Sydney was completely fooled by the Kormoran. However, the HMAS Sydney landed four hits on the Kormoran which was subsequently scuttled.

The German Aux Cruiser Stier sank the US armed freighter Stephen Hopkins, but again was so badly damaged itself that she had to be abandoned and scuttled after the engagement. The German Aux Cruiser Thor managed to sink the Aux Cruiser HMS Voltaire and was able to continue on its voyage. So while the German Aux Cruisers were capable of giving equal battle with ships similarly armed and armoured, in every confict with allied cruisers (excepting the HMS Sydney), they lost the battle. The German Aux Cruisers best defense was disceipt and deception. When they were spotted by allied combat ships, their first defense was escape, not engagement.

ORIGINAL: Jaguar

Yes the German Aux Cruiser Kormoran did sink the CL HMAS Sydney. However, this was an isolated and unusual case. The battle as at close range because the HMAS Sydney was completely fooled by the Kormoran. However, the HMAS Sydney landed four hits on the Kormoran which was subsequently scuttled.

The German Aux Cruiser Stier sank the US armed freighter Stephen Hopkins, but again was so badly damaged itself that she had to be abandoned and scuttled after the engagement. The German Aux Cruiser Thor managed to sink the Aux Cruiser HMS Voltaire and was able to continue on its voyage. So while the German Aux Cruisers were capable of giving equal battle with ships similarly armed and armoured, in every confict with allied cruisers (excepting the HMS Sydney), they lost the battle. The German Aux Cruisers best defense was disceipt and deception. When they were spotted by allied combat ships, their first defense was escape, not engagement.

This is the same in WiF FE. They have 1 or 2 combat factor and 9 or 10 in defense, so they generaly get damaged or aborted if fighting something else than CP.
Have you played with these counters ? We did, thrice, and I feel they are doing a good job representing the actual Raiders. They get to sing 4-10 CP for all the game (they sank 6 historically), and generaly are not a match for real warships, except when achieving high surprise, such as the Kormoran achieved on the Sydney (we also had a case like this in one of our game).
But their best effect is the dispersal of the Royal Navy all around he world, to chase them, and the paranoia achieved amongst the allies. You just need to build 2-3 to see some effects.

Well, I must need to find a new group of competitors. In sixteen WiFFE games, I am yet to see an Axis invasion of Greece.

I prefer to use them, but not everyone in my group does.They do an outstanding job of dispersing the CW navy. However, they generally have little impact upon the CPs unless the CW foolishly does not escort the convoys. I generally build five or six early in the game.

My issue is that I rarely sink a CP, which I think I should be doing, but I damage a good number of British Cruisers (5 or 6 a game) which should not happen.

ORIGINAL: Jaguar
Well, I must need to find a new group of competitors. In sixteen WiFFE games, I am yet to see an Axis invasion of Greece.

I prefer to use them, but not everyone in my group does.They do an outstanding job of dispersing the CW navy. However, they generally have little impact upon the CPs unless the CW foolishly does not escort the convoys. I generally build five or six early in the game.

My issue is that I rarely sink a CP, which I think I should be doing, but I damage a good number of British Cruisers (5 or 6 a game) which should not happen.

Your comments made me think that one benefit of MWIF will be to enable players to play against a variety of opponents who make different choices about:
- which rules to use
- how to interpret rules
- strategies
- operational decisions (e.g., Greece and convoy protection)
- tactics.

For example, your experience with the auxiliary cruisers seems to be mainly due to how the Allied player(s) react(s) to their presence. Rather than attacking unprotected convoys, you end up engaging enemy cruisers.

As the CW, I'd gladly trade damaged CLs for damaged/sunk CXs if it saves convoys - chances are I might make good on repairing the CLs, but the Germans probably won't make good on their losses, at least not at the same rate.
 
Perhaps CXs need to be treated as subs for the sake of the combat they can call? That would guarantee they hit convoys first but get damaged/sunk if there are any convoy defences.
 
This would be something to take up with ADG rather than Matrix, of course.

In my group, it is rare that there is an opportunity to attack an unescorted CW convoy. Really, the few CPs sunk and CL/CAs damaged do not make the CXs worth their cost or make up for the opportunity cost lost by choosing a naval or combined acton. The real benefit is forcing the CW to spead out his cruiser forces and force him to take more naval or combined actions himself trying to hunt down the CXs. FtF wargames are as much about psycology as they are about sound strategy and tactics. Convice your opponent that he has a disadvantage, and he is much more likely to beat himself. Perception is frequently as dangerous as reality.

I know that the discussion concerning the AI is elsewhere in the forum, but if you have not considered having the AI escort the Australian to UK and India to UK convoys, I would suggest reconsidering, particularly if the AI is permitted to review the Axis production. Sending a pair of German CXs to the east African costal areas to attack the "Food in Flames" convoys from Austalia and India can be quite disruptive to the CW production for very little cost.

While MWiF presents an opportunity to widen my opponent list, my previous experiences with distance or online / PBEM wargaming has been disappointing. Several of the opponents have been lacking in courtesy, integrity, or reliability.