New to the game - Basic Questions

[Joseignacio]

[:D][:D][:D]

[rkr1958]

Would you ever let subs/u-boats drop to the 0-box or would you return them to port? Can subs/u-boats in the 0-box do any good? Well, any good, except as a waypoint to other ports /sea areas.

[paulderynck]

If enemy convoys are there, you still have a one in 10 chance to find them next turn if the weather is fine, but I would never leave them out in the zero box.

Generally the only time to leave them out is if they are not disorganized and there's a very good chance enemy units will RTB through their sea zone, especially if they are in the 3-box and even more especially if enemy convoys are also present, since if there's an RTB interception battle, they'll get another chance to search for the convoys if the subs are still around, unless the enemy aborts all his forces which is also a good outcome so close to the production phase.

Otherwise all that leaving them out does is subtract one tenth from their chances to find in the next turn, albeit you'll need to take an action choice that will get them out to sea again. Thus it's a bigger consideration for Germany as opposed to the other powers.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If enemy convoys are there, you still have a one in 10 chance to find them next turn if the weather is fine, but I would never leave them out in the zero box.

Generally the only time to leave them out is if they are not disorganized and there's a very good chance enemy units will RTB through their sea zone, especially if they are in the 3-box and even more especially if enemy convoys are also present, since if there's an RTB interception battle, they'll get another chance to search for the convoys if the subs are still around, unless the enemy aborts all his forces which is also a good outcome so close to the production phase.

Otherwise all that leaving them out does is subtract one tenth from their chances to find in the next turn, albeit you'll need to take an action choice that will get them out to sea again. Thus it's a bigger consideration for Germany as opposed to the other powers.

So if I understand correctly, in general you return all subs/u-boats during the RTB unless they're in a high sea box (3 or 4) and are in position to intercept allied RTB's?

[AlbertN]

If you can afford to re-oil them; sure.

The only exception usually is Germany, because they struggle to take a Combined / Naval action -- especially after Barbarossa. (Maybe in some Winter turns - but in most cases an Air is much better than Naval to let the Luftwaffe catch up with the front)

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Cohen

If you can afford to re-oil them; sure.

The only exception usually is Germany, because they struggle to take a Combined / Naval action -- especially after Barbarossa. (Maybe in some Winter turns - but in most cases an Air is much better than Naval to let the Luftwaffe catch up with the front)

O.K. thanks.

Now another question. As I believe is the case, "USSR Japan Compulsory Peace" optional rule isn't programmed yet?

After my last game I feel this rule might be an important one to enforce in MWiF. Does anyone else enforce this rule? And if so, how? By the way, I notice the wording in the RAW (see below), "... during the first war between ..." is used twice. This implies that there could be a second war between Japan and the USSR and if so that this rule no longer applies. My question is if I were to enforce a compulsory peace then under what conditions could either Japan or the Soviet Union start a second war?

From the MWiF help form under optional rules -

"USSR Japan Compulsory Peace [RAW option 50 section 13.7.3]

This optional rule reflects the willingness of both the USSR and Japan to remain at peace with each other
during WW II. Though they had been fighting a mostly unreported little war along the Manchurian border for
some time prior to Germany's invasion of Poland, they both felt a lot of pressure on other fronts: from Germany
for the USSR and from the USA and the Commonwealth for Japan. Agreeing to peace with each other was in
both of their self-interests.

If Japan controls Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the Japanese player must
agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one. Similarly, if the USSR controls 3 or more resources that were
Japanese controlled at the start of the war, the Soviet player must agree to a peace if the Japanese player
wants one.

In either case, the new Russo-Japanese border is established by the hexes each controls at the time of the
compulsory peace. Any pocket of non-coastal hexes wholly surrounded by hexes controlled by the other major
power becomes controlled by the major power whose hexes surround them."

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


Now another question. As I believe is the case, "USSR Japan Compulsory Peace" optional rule isn't programmed yet?

After my last game I feel this rule might be an important one to enforce in MWiF. Does anyone else enforce this rule? And if so, how? By the way, I notice the wording in the RAW (see below), "... during the first war between ..." is used twice. This implies that there could be a second war between Japan and the USSR and if so that this rule no longer applies. My question is if I were to enforce a compulsory peace then under what conditions could either Japan or the Soviet Union start a second war?

From the MWiF help form under optional rules -

"USSR Japan Compulsory Peace [RAW option 50 section 13.7.3]

This optional rule reflects the willingness of both the USSR and Japan to remain at peace with each other
during WW II. Though they had been fighting a mostly unreported little war along the Manchurian border for
some time prior to Germany's invasion of Poland, they both felt a lot of pressure on other fronts: from Germany
for the USSR and from the USA and the Commonwealth for Japan. Agreeing to peace with each other was in
both of their self-interests.

If Japan controls Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the Japanese player must
agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one. Similarly, if the USSR controls 3 or more resources that were
Japanese controlled at the start of the war, the Soviet player must agree to a peace if the Japanese player
wants one.

In either case, the new Russo-Japanese border is established by the hexes each controls at the time of the
compulsory peace. Any pocket of non-coastal hexes wholly surrounded by hexes controlled by the other major
power becomes controlled by the major power whose hexes surround them."

One can impose the rule as written by hand, except for the enclosed territory changing hands. The two countries will remain at war, but just don't have each other attack each other. Also, if the USSR is at war with no other major power, only let it take combineds, and do not let it build any more militia.

This is not totally correct, but I believe that this is a such an important rule, and one I always use, that I enforce it as best I can.

There is a "Clarification", to the rule, actually a change, that makes the enforced peace harsher, especially against the Russians. I do not like it at all.

[AlbertN]

There would be also the matter of the Reserves which would disappear in case of Russia not being at war with Major powers.

But by how MWiF is shaped I tend to warmly suggest to house rule that Soviet Russia cannot DoW Japan. (At least in the early game)

[paulderynck]

Another problem ties into Ronnie's question about how a second war starts. In the boardgame, upon Peace, a Neutrality pact is established with Japan drawing a chit every second turn and Russia still drawing one, whether or not it still has a pact with Germany. To start a second war, one side or the other has to be in a position to break the others garrison similar to how the N-S Pact is broken. This is probably one of (if not the most) complicated parts to program in order to add this rule to MWiF. If the N-S Pact still exists, it is also very hard for players trying to make the rule work in a workaround fashion because chits can move from one Pact to the other, and when drawn can be placed on one border or the other.

If Russia is trying a Stuff strategy, she won't place any chits against Japan, but if Russia is defending further inside its borders - or decides it will drop back because it does not expect to be able to hold garrison - then Russia will put new chits on the Japanese border and start transferring high value ones to that border.

[Centuur]

Which brings us to two other standard rules which are not coded at the moment. I've seen games where in the first turn, the Japanese and the USSR voluntarily agree to a neutrality pact from the start. Also, if they start a war, both sides may conclude that it isn't in their mutual interest to continue the fighting. The voluntary peace rule should be possible to apply to such situation, as can be done in the board game.

I don't know if the switching of chits between neutrality pacts would be that difficult to code. I'm not a programmer, but what really happens is a "cut and paste" action of a value. That seems pretty straight forward to me. Personally I believe that the exchange of territory and possible trade agreements between sides are much more difficult to code when talking about voluntary peace or voluntary neutrality pacts. One can come to all kind of agreements when discussing voluntary peace or a neutrality pact where that's concerned...

For a multiplayer game, these rules are necessary...

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Cohen

There would be also the matter of the Reserves which would disappear in case of Russia not being at war with Major powers.

But by how MWiF is shaped I tend to warmly suggest to house rule that Soviet Russia cannot DoW Japan. (At least in the early game)

The problem I see with that is that it would leave Japan free to strip all their forces from Manchuria and Korea and use them elsewhere. I did that as the Japanese player in my just completed AAR. However, this left Japan so weak in those two countries that the Soviets invaded and easily took both from Japan. To me some implementation of this rule that allows for both Japan to attack the USSR or the USSR to attack Japan is very necessary. Hence my thinking for applying this optional rule as a house rule. I guess the only sticking point is once a "peace" is enforced how and when could that be broken?

[paulderynck]

You could just negotiate (or specify if Solitaire) a time limit after which all bets are off, like countries did in treaties back in the 16 and 17 hundreds.

It's usually 2 years at least before a garrison value with chits can be broken.

Alternatively, use the garrison value rules and forget the chits. Even with the chits, players can usually spot the war clouds forming on the horizon.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Cohen

There would be also the matter of the Reserves which would disappear in case of Russia not being at war with Major powers.

But by how MWiF is shaped I tend to warmly suggest to house rule that Soviet Russia cannot DoW Japan. (At least in the early game)

The problem I see with that is that it would leave Japan free to strip all their forces from Manchuria and Korea and use them elsewhere. I did that as the Japanese player in my just completed AAR. However, this left Japan so weak in those two countries that the Soviets invaded and easily took both from Japan. To me some implementation of this rule that allows for both Japan to attack the USSR or the USSR to attack Japan is very necessary. Hence my thinking for applying this optional rule as a house rule. I guess the only sticking point is once a "peace" is enforced how and when could that be broken?

Use the rule as written. MWiF does not currently implement peace treaties other than the Nazi-Soviet Pact, but the rules are there. No attack first year, have to break garrison values after that. The players would have to keep track of garrison values and garrison chits, but that can certainly be done.

[paulderynck]

Keeping track of garrison chits, unless the NS Pact does not exist, would be quite problematical - for the reasons cited above. How could the Russians move chits between the two garrisons when one is in MWiF and one is being tracked external to the game? How would the Russians transfer a picked NS Pact chit to the Japanese border? How would "external chits" be verified by the opponent?

We used to play it that Russia drew a chit for each pact (if they both existed) but that is incorrect; the rules specify only Germany draws two and other majors draw one, no matter how many pacts they manage to enter into.

[rkr1958]

Thanks! Until the program handles the enforced peace I personally would like to keep things simple. So, I like the idea of a fixed time for the enforced peace, say two years after which either side is free to attack the other.

[paulderynck]

Personally I think garrison ratio without chits is better. Otherwise Russia has a big advantage because she can often bring on a lot of reinforcements close to the border, whereas Japan's must appear in Japan unless they are Manchurians. Japan could try and anticipate what can appear out of the blue and maintain a minimum garrison. Also in years one and two, defensive garrisons are much harder to break, without a large commitment of units, so thus the other power should rightly see that something is brewing.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Personally I think garrison ratio without chits is better. Otherwise Russia has a big advantage because she can often bring on a lot of reinforcements close to the border, whereas Japan's must appear in Japan unless they are Manchurians. Japan could try and anticipate what can appear out of the blue and maintain a minimum garrison. Also in years one and two, defensive garrisons are much harder to break, without a large commitment of units, so thus the other power should rightly see that something is brewing.

Ok then, garrison ratios without chits. What ratios would you use?

1st year: No break or would allow if given certain ratio?

2nd year: ratio?

3rd year: ratio?

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Personally I think garrison ratio without chits is better. Otherwise Russia has a big advantage because she can often bring on a lot of reinforcements close to the border, whereas Japan's must appear in Japan unless they are Manchurians. Japan could try and anticipate what can appear out of the blue and maintain a minimum garrison. Also in years one and two, defensive garrisons are much harder to break, without a large commitment of units, so thus the other power should rightly see that something is brewing.

Ok then, garrison ratios without chits. What ratios would you use?

1st year: No break or would allow if given certain ratio?

2nd year: ratio?

3rd year: ratio?

Use the rules as written: No break the first year; 2:1 ratio after that, with defender doubled the first year, times one the second, times one half the third, one third the fourth, etc.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Personally I think garrison ratio without chits is better. Otherwise Russia has a big advantage because she can often bring on a lot of reinforcements close to the border, whereas Japan's must appear in Japan unless they are Manchurians. Japan could try and anticipate what can appear out of the blue and maintain a minimum garrison. Also in years one and two, defensive garrisons are much harder to break, without a large commitment of units, so thus the other power should rightly see that something is brewing.

Ok then, garrison ratios without chits. What ratios would you use?

1st year: No break or would allow if given certain ratio?

2nd year: ratio?

3rd year: ratio?

Use the rules as written: No break the first year; 2:1 ratio after that, with defender doubled the first year, times one the second, times one half the third, one third the fourth, etc.

O.K., I assume you count all units within 3 hexes of the new border?

[Centuur]

Yes, it's the same as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact...