Potential House Rules for More Historical Play

[ashkpa]

Ronnie, at least on my screen, many of your images in this topic have been replaced by images from another game (probably and artifact from the conversion to the new forum).

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: JagWars

There are few house rules we use when playing the board game:
1.) Subs cannot leave the Mediterranean unless Gibraltar is neutral or friendly controlled. Enemy subs did not leave the Med during WWII. If anyone has reference that refutes this, I should be very interested in learning of it. Enemy subs entered the Med by cutting their engines and allowing the current to pull them through.However, this was not entirely successful either as many were detected during the attempt.

Since a lot of Italian submarines left the Mediterranean for the Atlantic without any losses, I suggest that the German U-boats could have left as well. At least 28 Italian submarines were deployed into the Atlantic theatre after Italy had entered WWII.



Picture from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BETASOM

Your reference is for Italian Subs that left the Mediterranean in June 1940 before Italy declared war upon the UK.
https://comandosupremo.com/betasom-ital ... arine-base
So perhaps I should have been more specific; only subs from neutral countries are permitted to leave the Mediterranean unless they control Gibraltar or the Suez canal.

76 German subs attempted to sailed from the Atlantic into the Mediterranean: only 62 made it safely through, none escaped back into the Atlantic.

Again, if you can find a reference that enemy subs left the Med during WWII, I should be quite interested.

Yet most of the Italian subs sent to the Atlantic did so after the war began.

The first sub that reached Bordeaux sailed through the straits in August. So I suspect they all did so after the war began.
Alessandro Malaspina (pennant number MP) was launched 18 February 1940[1] and completed on 20 June 1940. Its first patrol was through the Strait of Gibraltar on 3 August for an Atlantic patrol.

And Ammiraglio Cagni​ passed the straits as late as Autumn 1942
Atlantic 1st mission:
On 5 or 6 October 1942, she sailed from La Maddalena to the South-Atlantic for her 1st Atlantic mission, against the convoy "TS 23". She crossed the Strait of Gibraltar on 12 October without any contact.

Therefore Í wonder how many of the submarines that the Italians sent out into the Atlantic were sunk when passing Gibraltar straits? To me it seems that if they tried, they succeeded in doing so.

[Orm]

Your reference is for Italian Subs that left the Mediterranean in June 1940 before Italy declared war upon the UK.
https://comandosupremo.com/betasom-ital ... arine-base
So perhaps I should have been more specific; only subs from neutral countries are permitted to leave the Mediterranean unless they control Gibraltar or the Suez canal.

76 German subs attempted to sailed from the Atlantic into the Mediterranean: only 62 made it safely through, none escaped back into the Atlantic.

Again, if you can find a reference that enemy subs left the Med during WWII, I should be quite interested.

The site you link above say that most of the Italians submarines left after the war began. All that were based in Bordeaux did so. The ones sent out just as the war began, or even before, all returned to Italy. The Italian Bordeaux base was not yet conceived when the war began. At least according to the site you linked.

[Orm]

It appears that the Leonardo Di Vinci deployed to Bordeaux in October 1940 and not only operated in the Atlantic, but in the Indian Ocean as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_s ... nci_(1939). Perhaps the outright ban should only apply in later years (1942 onwards) or there should be a die roll for success?

Any reason to suspect that the Allies made it more difficult for submarines through the Straits later in the war? That the German subs didn't try was purely political, in my humble opinion. And Italy had other concerns in 1942 (or so I suspect). Yet they slipped past at least one submarine in 1942. And Italy surrendered in 1943 so there was no more attempts by the Italians so no test if it was possible, or not, in the late war.

Once again I am wondering how many submarines were sunk while trying to leave the Med? Should be a substantial number to merit a die roll for trying to do so.

[Orm]

The problem is that because of the sub counter sizes it is difficult to reflect losses. The option is binary. The counter survives or gets sunk - both are unsatisfactory. A compromise could be that any counter would have to be holed up in port for x number of turns. Its not ideal but at least gives some pain for those attempting to pass the Straits.

Maybe the house rule could be that a SUB sailing through the Gibraltar Straits becomes disorganized?

[rkr1958]

Ronnie, at least on my screen, many of your images in this topic have been replaced by images from another game (probably and artifact from the conversion to the new forum).

Pat, I just saw this. Went back through all the posts the images look correct to me? Would about now for you?

[Orm]

Ronnie, at least on my screen, many of your images in this topic have been replaced by images from another game (probably and artifact from the conversion to the new forum).

Pat, I just saw this. Went back through all the posts the images look correct to me? Would about now for you?

When the forum got transferred all, or almost all, pictures were messed up. They fixed this a few days later. So now all, or almost all, pictures seems correct.

[ashkpa]

Ronnie, at least on my screen, many of your images in this topic have been replaced by images from another game (probably and artifact from the conversion to the new forum).

Pat, I just saw this. Went back through all the posts the images look correct to me? Would about now for you?

Yes, all looks good now.

[rkr1958]

My impression (experience) is that allied production, especially US is less than historical. One glaring example I believe is that US naval builds are no where near historical in most/all games. I understand that this is likely a design decision to prevent the US and to some extent the CW players from reallocating a significant part of the historical naval budget to land and air units; greatly unbalancing the game.

I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on what US and CW income should be if they both had to build their historical naval forces with the given that several US Essex and light carriers would be under construction when the game ended.

[Courtenay]

I have thought of increasing US production. Change "Gear up" to a .5 increase in production, but .25 of that can only be used for SCS construction until 1943; in 1943 in addition you can use it to start CVs, and in 1944+ you can use it to start and finish CVs as well as SCSs.

This is for construction only, not repair.

Also, the build points can be saved, but if they are saved, they still can only be used for their original purpose.

[craigbear]

It has bothered me that shore bombardment on defense is so strong. I do not think it is realistic that an unplanned defensive naval operation is as effective as naval support of a planned attack. I usually do not take the option.

However, a house rule could be made that in defense, a player might use ships to bombard up to only 1/2 of those factors usable under the optional rule.

[Centuur]

It has bothered me that shore bombardment on defense is so strong. I do not think it is realistic that an unplanned defensive naval operation is as effective as naval support of a planned attack. I usually do not take the option.

However, a house rule could be made that in defense, a player might use ships to bombard up to only 1/2 of those factors usable under the optional rule.

I have always found it strange, that defensive shore bombardment can be used together with offensive shore bombardment in the same attack. That's crazy, because you would first get a naval battle between the two fleets, until one or the other side decides to abort the fighting (resulting in no shore bombardment from that side).

[rkr1958]

After the completion of our 6-Player Friendly PBEM Global War game and AAR, which took place of the last 16 months, I've decided to take a break from both competitive play and AARs. However; that doesn't mean I'm taking a break from MWIF. I wanted to get back to seeing how close I can use MWIF to simulated WW2 at the strategic level. My goal is to achieve an accurate simulation of ww2 at that level using MWIF 3.2.0 (beta) with a minimum of house rules/scripting. To be truthful, I don't know what a simulation accuracy "at this level" evens mean much less the metrics I would use to quantify such accuracy if it even exists. Playing solo allows me to tinker with, outright modify or even add or delete house rules as my game progresses. Also, it allows me to flat out stop a game if it happens to go off the rails at some point.

I welcome any and all discussions on my initial cut of house rules, which have evolved for me over many years of play and discussion on this forum including this thread. Also, I'm happy to share my rationale of any or all house rules and would be happy to discuss adding, deleting or modifying such rules.

[ashkpa]

Interesting rules around Norweign and Italy. For Italy, there may need to be some restrictions on what they can do. Without the threat of a DOW, they can build up large forces in Albania or Libya in preparations for a war on Greece or Eygpt/Tunisia. Perhaps they should be limited in what they can send overseas.

[rkr1958]

I revised HR8 (Winter War) & added HR15.

[rkr1958]

Interesting rules around Norweign and Italy. For Italy, there may need to be some restrictions on what they can do. Without the threat of a DOW, they can build up large forces in Albania or Libya in preparations for a war on Greece or Eygpt/Tunisia. Perhaps they should be limited in what they can send overseas.

Good point. What about having to maintain a garrison ratio greater than or equal to that of the French wrt/French-Italian border? Other?

[Falken]

Thank you rkr1958 for your notes above. As you may know, big fan of yours on MWIF, and have followed all of your AARs. I'm currently in a new game trying to follow your previous "Simulated WWII War" AAR, and these new notes really help finalizing my possible future "historical" rules.

I know you are taking a break on AARs, but please continue, if able, to provide any updates to the House Rules, as there are some folks, like myself , that really follow them and use your ideas.

Your notes help players like myself understand this complicated game. I use the physical game, as well as MWIF, when playing. Although it takes a lot of room, the physical game really helps me "visualize" next steps. Just takes twice as long to play as I have to replicate the moves on both mediums ...

Anyway,, enough babbling this whole note was about saying "Thank You".

[rkr1958]

Thank you rkr1958 for your notes above. As you may know, big fan of yours on MWIF, and have followed all of your AARs. I'm currently in a new game trying to follow your previous "Simulated WWII War" AAR, and these new notes really help finalizing my possible future "historical" rules.

I know you are taking a break on AARs, but please continue, if able, to provide any updates to the House Rules, as there are some folks, like myself , that really follow them and use your ideas.

Your notes help players like myself understand this complicated game. I use the physical game, as well as MWIF, when playing. Although it takes a lot of room, the physical game really helps me "visualize" next steps. Just takes twice as long to play as I have to replicate the moves on both mediums ...

Anyway,, enough babbling this whole note was about saying "Thank You".

Appreciate all this. Very kind of you.

[rkr1958]

Interesting rules around Norweign and Italy. For Italy, there may need to be some restrictions on what they can do. Without the threat of a DOW, they can build up large forces in Albania or Libya in preparations for a war on Greece or Eygpt/Tunisia. Perhaps they should be limited in what they can send overseas.

Revised HR12. How about this?

[rkr1958]

Interesting rules around Norweign and Italy. For Italy, there may need to be some restrictions on what they can do. Without the threat of a DOW, they can build up large forces in Albania or Libya in preparations for a war on Greece or Eygpt/Tunisia. Perhaps they should be limited in what they can send overseas.

Revised HR12. How about this?

Well, I'm ok with Libya. However; Italy could setup a formable force in Albania and have a field day at the start of the game taking out Greece. So I definitely need another iteration on HR12.