Page 3 of 4
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:53 pm
by WarHunter
ORIGINAL: 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 trials of the distribution. Do not like the 10% gamble for Gibraltar? I don't! 2D10+FO also allows you project your DRM like this: 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). This would be true for the CRT in particular.
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)
I'm glad we have some agreement. [:)]
This way we can compromise options when we play head to head. (yep thinking ahead)
I'd even setup Zulu time to play with anyone in the ETO. Maybe even a 3rd clock for PTO players.
Was very tempted to add more air options. Felt like a butcher cutting onions.
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:54 pm
by paulderynck
ORIGINAL: WarHunter
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
At first glance I'd disagree with Warlords (played probably 15 WiF games in a row without them, and didn't feel like we missed anything) but considering the expansion of the map in China, every unit helps.
Another observation is that if you are using Saving Oil and BPs then you should have Oil on the list.
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:06 pm
by paulderynck
Also I'd add CVPs and Pilots to the list - no need to go with 2 CVPs per CV, but the mechanics of having the CVP intrinsic to the CV are just so awful...
Pilots - because I like the realism of the orange results wherein you are more likely to lose pilots over enemy territory than your own.
I would always out and out veto Railway Movement which gives the Germans a HUGE and very unhistorical advantage in Russia where there was maybe one road on the entire front that could be classed as providing the assistance that rule does. (Minsk to Moscow) Allows the German units to ignore Rain if they march along a railway line, so forget about their armor outpacing their infantry - won't happen. Allows armor to Blitz advance into forest along a RR and stay organized - overall really a game breaker IMO.
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:38 pm
by WarHunter
ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Also I'd add CVPs and Pilots to the list - no need to go with 2 CVPs per CV, but the mechanics of having the CVP intrinsic to the CV are just so awful...
Pilots - because I like the realism of the orange results wherein you are more likely to lose pilots over enemy territory than your own.
I would always out and out veto Railway Movement which gives the Germans a HUGE and very unhistorical advantage in Russia where there was maybe one road on the entire front that could be classed as providing the assistance that rule does. (Minsk to Moscow) Allows the German units to ignore Rain if they march along a railway line, so forget about their armor outpacing their infantry - won't happen. Allows armor to Blitz advance into forest along a RR and stay organized - overall really a game breaker IMO.
Another observation is that if you are using Saving Oil and BPs then you should have Oil on the list.
The oil rules currently are not stable enough for me to advocate inclusion at this time. I do not want anyone new or returning to get mired in the oil rules. Getting used to saving BP's as a mechanic is about the same as saving oil without the headaches. And you don't have to either lose a BP or build something you don't want not to waste 1 BP.
I love using the pilot rule and CVp's. The choice i made was to make a clean cut and give players a taste of the air system without the clutter. The inherent CV plane is not great. But you dont get a bug in the RTB phase as far as i can tell.
Currently that bug with CVp's is why i hate to advocate it as absolute minimum.
Railway Movement: You do not like this one i see. Your group must have some players that make great use of the rule. I have never seen huge 1 sided landslides with this option in play. But then we also use HQ Movement which tones down the supply advancement.
I'm open to use or not. Just like 1D10 vs 2D10 i have no problem playing with either option. Heck, as much as i dislike Limited Overseas Supply, i would never veto a game or throw a hissy fit about it. I'd just ask to be the Soviet player. Even with Railway Movement. Yes i think I'm that good.
paulderynck, i appreciate the feedback. If you get a chance to setup a game and maybe play just 1 turn with these options, tell us what you think. No rush [:D]
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:27 pm
by Centuur
If you use Railway Movement, you have to include HQ movement, otherwise Paulderynck is right with his remarks.
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:45 pm
by Mike Parker
Really enjoying this thread. One of the best in awhile.. and delightfully well mannered and I mean that sincerely.
I love the insight some of the real vets give about how optional rules combinations work together!
I would point out one thing said about Fractional Odds. That its something for the attacker. Well I think that is just a world view really. It doesn't really matter who rolls the die. Let the defender roll to try and keep the lower odds. In some sense its just "The Real Odds are 3.5 - 1 a high roll gives the defender a boost, a low roll the attacker"
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:53 pm
by Dabrion
ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Another observation is that if you are using Saving Oil and BPs then you should have Oil on the list.
Ah yes, this one is a bugger! If you play saved oil w/o oil, this only helps you to conserve your RP for later use with a better PM (which is an artifact of that rule). Saving BP is another story and should be used to achieve the same! Also allows IT to save up for that HQA or Eng without loosing its dignity over begging GE for LL.
ORIGINAL: WarHunter
Railway Movement: You do not like this one i see. Your group must have some players that make great use of the rule. I have never seen huge 1 sided landslides with this option in play. But then we also use HQ Movement which tones down the supply advancement.
Perhaps you have wrong/incomplete concept of HQ movement?
"Option 17: (HQ movement) An HQ-A and HQ-I spends one additional movement point for the first hexside it crosses that is not along a railway." RAW7aug04 (Checked it is the same in in MWiF (PM Vol. 2 ~ 9.3.3, p. 156)
Note a) only first hexside and b) only movement not along railways. This is NOT a counter for railway movement!
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:14 am
by WarHunter
First off, I would never advocate using Railway movement alone. As others have pointed out, its a very powerful option alone.
I do suggest using Railway movement with Motorized movement and HQ movement. Having never seen a blowout in Russia at the hands of this option, makes me skeptical its so OP. When Net play gets working. I look forward to being humbled with the use of these 3 movement options, together.
Could just play with Motorized movement only. What fun would that be? [:D]
<Looks at list of Absolute Minimum> [8|]
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:38 pm
by brian brian
Railway Movement just makes the units move too fast. Using the HQ Movement optional is a way to slow down armies in general … Railway Movement speeds them back up.
I like HQ Movement but understand to be in a minority on that.
I've never even thought about the idea that Motorized Movement is an optional rule, so I guess it should be part of an absolute minimum.
I would never play with Railway Movement.
I do like the +1 movement point for non-winterized units to start moving in Snow weather from the last Annual as well (not in MWiF). I don't think it will make it into future editions of the game though.
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:52 pm
by WarHunter
ORIGINAL: Mike Parker
Really enjoying this thread. One of the best in awhile.. and delightfully well mannered and I mean that sincerely.
I love the insight some of the real vets give about how optional rules combinations work together!
I would point out one thing said about Fractional Odds. That its something for the attacker. Well I think that is just a world view really. It doesn't really matter who rolls the die. Let the defender roll to try and keep the lower odds. In some sense its just "The Real Odds are 3.5 - 1 a high roll gives the defender a boost, a low roll the attacker"
I'm happy to contribute some little bit of understanding of the game as i see it. I try not to lose sight of the fact there are others with different understanding. Exchanging views about options in the game gives me clues to what options i need to brush up on.
No matter how hard i want an option to be viewed as a possible source of challenge or balance. There is the possibility it will get vetoed. I don't take it personally. Better to adapt and hope in the future an option discarded is reviewed and brought back into favor. The only way that happens is to get people to check it out in a solo game. Create a game and explore possible combinations, not normally looked at in a months long "real" practice game with friends.
As this is our only way to play at the moment. Yeah. We know. [;)]
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:18 pm
by WarHunter
Looking to add an Option to Absolute Minimum. Extended Game Option.
The title is a little misleading. It not only allows players to extend the game to Nov/DEC 1952. It allows players to end the game early.
Anyone have some thoughts about this option? Is it acceptable to you?
Screenshot and the rule as written in game.
Extended Game [CWIF addition]
This optional rule extends the game to July/August of 1948 (3 years, 18 turns). Of course the game could always end sooner by mutual agreement of the players or by one side achieving an automatic victory.
This is the only optional rule that can be modified during the game. That is, once you have selected this optional rule, you can reset when the end of the game occurs as often as you like.
There is an absolute upper limit on the US production multiple: 2.25.

RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:41 pm
by Ur_Vile_WEdge
My biggest use for Extended play is that I want to see if I can conquer America when the AI finally rolls around.
But in human vs human games? I don't see it being that useful. Usually, if the Allies aren't going to get their necessary VP by J/A 45, what have you added by dragging the war on another 3 years? We all know what's going to happen; unless the Axis have done something to drastically even the odds (most likely conquered the USSR), U.S. production is going to keep increasing, the atlantic convoy route is going to get more secure, and the Axis are going to get pounded flatter and flatter.
I once talked about with my Dad, although never got around to actualy implementing it, a "supergame" where each one of us took a side, we'd play until complete Axis conquest, and then switch sides, see who could last longer. But even that's enormously variable and takes a tremendous amount of time and energy. I don't see it really being used all that often.
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:47 pm
by paulderynck
For a "maximum" list - why not? In the vast majority of games, the Allies will eventually totally crush the Axis so I can see people playing it out if they miss the artificial game end deadline - just to see how much longer it might take. It appears the option can be invoked any time and if both sides agree, then why not?
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:49 pm
by Centuur
ORIGINAL: paulderynck
For a "maximum" list - why not? In the vast majority of games, the Allies will eventually totally crush the Axis so I can see people playing it out if they miss the artificial game end deadline - just to see how much longer it might take. It appears the option can be invoked any time and if both sides agree, then why not?
I agree. Why stop if both sides are having fun at that time?
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:55 pm
by pzgndr
I have enjoyed these discussions and rationalizations. I am taking a slightly different approach because my main interest is eventually playing the Fascist Tide ETO scenario versus AI when those become available. And I'm not particularly interested in the additional complexity provided by divisions, CiF/pilots, and oil optional rules. So I'm choosing to focus on the following options in a customized rule set:
Flying Boats
Limited Overseas Supply
Limited Supply Across Straits
HQ Support
Emergency HQ Supply
Off City ReinforcementV Weapons
Frogmen
Saving Resources
Carpet Bombing
Tank Busters
Motorized Movement Rates
Blitz Bonus (with the 1D10 variability)
Bomber ATR
Large ATR
Fractional Odds
Extended Aircraft Rebasing
Partisans
Night Missions
Twin Engined Fighters
Fighter Bombers
Offensive Chits
Queens
City Based Volunteers
Siberians
Naval Supply Units
Guards Banner Armies
Scrap Units
I will probably also include Territorials, Bottomed Ships, Atomic Bombs, Kamikazes, Chinese Warlords and Additional Chineses Cities; these don't seem particularly relevant to the ETO scenario but they're consistent witht the type of rule set I'm looking for. And I figure a couple of additional options such as Allied Combat Friction and Food in Flames may be helpful for handicapping the AI if necessary.
My only point sharing these thoughts is there may be other players with a similar (narrow?) interest. I want to start getting used to "my" rule set as I learn the game solo while waiting for "my" scenario and AI. For now. Later on I may start to add more complexity but I'm in no rush. So far, so good.
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:36 pm
by WarHunter
ORIGINAL: pzgndr
I have enjoyed these discussions and rationalizations. I am taking a slightly different approach because my main interest is eventually playing the Fascist Tide ETO scenario versus AI when those become available. And I'm not particularly interested in the additional complexity provided by divisions, CiF/pilots, and oil optional rules. So I'm choosing to focus on the following options in a customized rule set:
Flying Boats
Limited Overseas Supply
Limited Supply Across Straits
HQ Support
Emergency HQ Supply
Off City ReinforcementV Weapons
Frogmen
Saving Resources
Carpet Bombing
Tank Busters
Motorized Movement Rates
Blitz Bonus (with the 1D10 variability)
Bomber ATR
Large ATR
Fractional Odds
Extended Aircraft Rebasing
Partisans
Night Missions
Twin Engined Fighters
Fighter Bombers
Offensive Chits
Queens
City Based Volunteers
Siberians
Naval Supply Units
Guards Banner Armies
Scrap Units
I will probably also include Territorials, Bottomed Ships, Atomic Bombs, Kamikazes, Chinese Warlords and Additional Chineses Cities; these don't seem particularly relevant to the ETO scenario but they're consistent witht the type of rule set I'm looking for. And I figure a couple of additional options such as Allied Combat Friction and Food in Flames may be helpful for handicapping the AI if necessary.
My only point sharing these thoughts is there may be other players with a similar (narrow?) interest. I want to start getting used to "my" rule set as I learn the game solo while waiting for "my" scenario and AI. For now. Later on I may start to add more complexity but I'm in no rush. So far, so good.
pzgndr,
Setting up a list of options to use with Half the world scenarios is a splendid idea.
Quick comment about additional divisions. The option doesn't really add much in the way of complexity. You get flexibility in assigning losses for the CRT being used. The main thing to remember is that divisions have no ZOC and you are ready to add them. Learning to breakdown and reform is not all that hard. I would vote to add it as an option to learn.
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:44 pm
by MikeRaymond
I'm not sure I understand the optional 'pilots'. Would not you need pilots?
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:52 pm
by Centuur
ORIGINAL: r6751
I'm not sure I understand the optional 'pilots'. Would not you need pilots?
If you don't play with it, you buy a plane with the pilot in one go. If you play with the optional rule, you buy a plane without a pilot (and that's cheaper) and have to buy a pilot to fly it (or not, if the plane build is a lousy one or if there is a pilot available who survived a crash...).
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:06 pm
by paulderynck
The pilot rule includes simulation of the fact that you lose more pilots over enemy territory than over your own. It's one more level of "chrome" in the rules.
RE: Absolute Minimum
Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:47 pm
by jhdeerslayer
Speaking of pilots, what is the "retrain pilot" category that sometimes pops up in the Production Queue to purchase? Is this a downed pilot that survived maybe?