MWIF Expansions

[Froonp]

1 Carrier plane is 21 planes per Class.

. CVP Class 1 : 21 planes
. CVP Class 2 : 42 planes
. CVP Class 3 : 63 planes
. CVP Class 4 : 84 planes
. CVP Class 5 : 105 planes
. CVP Class 6 : 126 planes
. CVP Class 7 : 147 planes
This is from the 1995 SiF rule booklet, page 34 (as the figures about SUBs and convoys).

The figures for CoiF are from Dave Le Lacheur are acurate as Dave Le Lacheur is the designer of ASW counters and the CoiF expansion Kit.
The rest of the figures were gathered asking Harry Rowland, World in Flames designer, during the design of CLiF.

The scale about capital ships, with SiF and without CLiF / CoiF is :
1 SCS or CV (SiF) = 1 capital ship plus 1 CL plus 4 to 6 DD (SiF rule booklet, page 34).
The scale with SiF & CLiF / CoiF is the same with the CL removed, and the DD spread out a little more. Harry told me 4-6 but it may be 2-3 for some ships and 4-5 for others. And as brian brian said, 3 SCS does not necesseraly mean that there are 18 DD, it might be only 10. The BB & CV have no ASW anymore, but in the original version of CLiF they had (1 point), this is why it is assumed they still have DD. Just WiFZen that this couple of DD are not making active ASW defense, as other DD are.

JGN, I'm just sharing what I know of the game, I'm not assuming nor calculating anything.

What is ludicrous is having to hide behind terje to post here.

[iamspamus]

I thought that the sub numbers were higher, as you pointed out Froonp. If a sub counter in WIF = 30 subs, that is several wolf pack equivalents and they are understrength in their ability to cause damage. I know that nothing will change for this. Just pointing it out. Still a great game.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
Oh, heck, one other issue for me is the issue of subs. Aren't the counters supposed to represent "wolf packs"? That would mean that one sub unit (ie. wolfpack), should be pretty dangerous. You shouldn't NEED to have a few of them together to do damage, right? If this is not the case, and one unit = 1 sub, then the cost is too high.

The scales, for naval units, are :

· 1 TRS, 1 AMPH or 6 CP = 1 million tons of merchant shipping (100 to 300 ships - 180 average) (180-210 x 5,000 ton freighters).
· 1 CP = 150 000 – 170 000 tons of merchant shipping (15 to 55 ships - 30 average) (30-35 x 5,000 ton freighters).
· 1 SCS or CV (SiF & CLiF) = 1 capital ship plus 4 to 6 DD.
· 1 SUB = 30 first line submarines (plus many more obsolete).
. 1 ASW = around 5 to 20 DD/DE/corvette type units, depending on which class & the unit's factors, etc., etc. (D. LeLacheur)
. 1 ASW-CV units = around 6 CVEs (D. LeLacheur)

See here http://pagesperso-orange.fr/froon/WiF/Scales.txt for more.

[brian brian]

the whole ASW factors of the capital ships is just a silly playability fudge during a convoy/U-Boat battle. when surface ships went out on convoy lanes at times (only occasional and depending on where the German surface ships were), the Royal Navy would keep the escorting BB or group of CA a few miles from the convoy, and the DDs would stay with the surface ships for protection from the U-Boats. Those DD would NOT become the convoy escorts, which were separate dedicated forces.

so that is something I would like to see MWiF expansions work on. Convoys in Flames gets you half the way there with the ASW units, but in my opinion the ASW units should be the only units that can protect CPs from SUBs and Cruisers should no longer be counted, nor should the Allies get inherent points in all CPs later in the war. If you want ASW, build them. If the Germans aren't building any SUBs, then don't build ASW. I put together a system using two sets of the CoiF countersheet and mandatory use of Food in Flames (to help the CW pay for the needed ASW) so only the ASW units would do that work. I've tested it some, not sure what it does to balance to give the CW so many build points. But sometimes I think that since I sent it to the guy who wrote the CoiF rules after they came out, I don't think that really went anywhere.

I still think that most players focus on the land game and are unlikely to use CoiF in most games, accepting more abstraction at sea in return for a faster game.

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

That idea that each capital ship includes 5 DD is not quite accurate in my opinion. The Royal Navy, for example starts with 45 'capital' ships of class CA, BB, CV, or CVL. But I don't think they started the war with 220 DD by any means, but I can't find a quick stat on it. DD's were an important part of a task force, but they didn't scale up linearly. 2 CA might have a squadron of 5 DD with them, but a task force of 3 CA and a BB might also have only that same one squadron of DD, or perhaps a couple more, but not 20 DD sailing with them. I think it would be the same in the other navies - German starts with 8 CA or better (only 6 if you don't count the Schlesien and it's sister ship) but I am somewhat sure that they deployed about 20 DD in the whole war, losing 10 of them in Norway alone. The capital ship / 5 DD idea traces back to the way ASW factors are generated by capital ships in the '0' box with convoys, a huge playability fudge.

In Septermber 1939 the Royal Navy had 184 Destroyers active, Australia had 4 Destroyers and Canada had six Destroyers. The Royal Navy had a further 52 Destroyers under construction. They also had another 45 escort and patrol vessels of various sorts and 56 Flower class corvettes in construction. In addition to the destroyers, th Royal Navy had 15 Battleships with 5 in construction, 66 Cruisers with 23 under construction, 7 aircraft carriers with 6 under construction. So if each counter represents one capital ship, the Brits should start the game with 88 capital ship counters in September 1939.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jaguar
In Septermber 1939 the Royal Navy had 184 Destroyers active, Australia had 4 Destroyers and Canada had six Destroyers. The Royal Navy had a further 52 Destroyers under construction. They also had another 45 escort and patrol vessels of various sorts and 56 Flower class corvettes in construction. In addition to the destroyers, th Royal Navy had 15 Battleships with 5 in construction, 66 Cruisers with 23 under construction, 7 aircraft carriers with 6 under construction. So if each counter represents one capital ship, the Brits should start the game with 88 capital ship counters in September 1939.

The CW starts the global campaign (39-45) with :


ON MAP :

Europe :
CV~Ark Royal, Courageous, Furious
CVL~Argus, Hermes
BB~Hood, Nelson, Resolution, Revenge, Royal Oak, Warspite, Barham, Ramillies, Renown, Repulse, Rodney, Royal Sovereign
CA~Edinburgh, Hawkins, Norfolk, Southampton, Belfast, Effingham, Exeter, Glasgow, Newcastle, Sheffield, York
CL~Arethusa, Carlisle, Ceres, Emerald, Aurora, Cairo, Calcutta, Caledon, Calypso, Capetown, Caradoc, Cardiff, Colombo, Curlew, Delhi, Diomede, Dragon, Dunedin, Enterprise, Galatea, Penelope
Monitors~Terror, Erebus

Asia / Pacific :
CV~Glorious
CVL~Eagle
BB~Malaya
CA~Australia, Kent, Manchester, Birmingham, Canberra, Cornwall, Devonshire, Dorsetshire, Gloucester, Liverpool, Shropshire, Sussex
CL~Sydney, Adelaide, Coventry, Hobart, Leander

America :
CA~Berwick, Cumberland
CL~Ajax, Danae, Durban, Achilles, Despatch, Dauntless, Neptune, Orion, Perth

Repair pool :
BB~Queen Elizabeth
CA~London, Frobisher, Suffolk
CL~Curacoa

That's :
CV : 7
BB : 14
Cruisers : 64

That's 85 capital ships. To which one could add the Iron Duke, for which the presence in the Construction Pool rather means heavy refitting rather than finished hull waiting for completion of equippements. That's 86 capital ships.

With 196 destroyers that you counted, that's 2,26 DD per capital ship, if one assumes that all capital ships that the same number of DD.
So for the CW the scale rather is 1 capital ship + 2-4 DD.

What are the 2 capital ships that the setup miss (you say there are 88, I find 86) ?


IN CONSTRUCTION :

Reinforcing face-up (go soon on the map) :
CV~Illustrious
BB~Valiant
CA~Fiji
CL~Bonaventure

Reinforcing face-down (go soon in the construction pool) :
CV~Indomitable
BB~Anson, Duke of York, Howe
CA~Trinidad
CL~Cleopatra

Construction pool (completed hulls, need to be schedulled for final equippement) :
CV~ Formidable, Victorious
BB~ King George V, P of Wales, Iron Duke
CA~Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria
CL~Dido, Euryalus, Hermione, Naiad, Phoebe
Monitor~Roberts II, Abercrombie


That's :
CV : 4
BB : 6
Cruisers : 14

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

the whole ASW factors of the capital ships is just a silly playability fudge during a convoy/U-Boat battle. when surface ships went out on convoy lanes at times (only occasional and depending on where the German surface ships were), the Royal Navy would keep the escorting BB or group of CA a few miles from the convoy, and the DDs would stay with the surface ships for protection from the U-Boats. Those DD would NOT become the convoy escorts, which were separate dedicated forces.

so that is something I would like to see MWiF expansions work on. Convoys in Flames gets you half the way there with the ASW units, but in my opinion the ASW units should be the only units that can protect CPs from SUBs and Cruisers should no longer be counted, nor should the Allies get inherent points in all CPs later in the war. If you want ASW, build them. If the Germans aren't building any SUBs, then don't build ASW. I put together a system using two sets of the CoiF countersheet and mandatory use of Food in Flames (to help the CW pay for the needed ASW) so only the ASW units would do that work. I've tested it some, not sure what it does to balance to give the CW so many build points. But sometimes I think that since I sent it to the guy who wrote the CoiF rules after they came out, I don't think that really went anywhere.

I still think that most players focus on the land game and are unlikely to use CoiF in most games, accepting more abstraction at sea in return for a faster game.

Warspite1

The distant cover was not a million miles away from the convoy and given WIF uses large sea zones, why would a cruiser`s "destroyer escort" not necessarily help protect a convoy? In addition, cruisers were not always part of the distant cover but could be part of the Ocean escort and were therefore close to the convoy along with their "destroyer escort".

[brian brian]

my quick stats on the Royal Navy were from counting Heavy Cruisers only, not the CLs. Thanks for finding the DD stats, I've long wondered.

I base my comments on Surface Ships and DD squadrons on the Arctic convoy battles, where at least 2 Heavy Cruisers were sunk. The Royal Navy really did keep the DDs with the surface ships, to help protect the capital ships from the U-boats. Protecting the convoy was of secondary importance, but I'm sure that did happen some. An actual German surface threat only existed occasionally during the war, so capital ship escorts were not routine, from what I can tell from several Battle-of-the-Atlantic titles.

And there were hundreds of convoy/U-Boat battles with no capital ships anywhere close. The WiF system of using the SCS counters to generate ASW points is quick and easy, but nowhere near realistic. A MWiF expansion would be the perfect place to dial that in a lot more.

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: Froonp


That's :
CV : 7
BB : 14
Cruisers : 64

That's 85 capital ships. To which one could add the Iron Duke, for which the presence in the Construction Pool rather means heavy refitting rather than finished hull waiting for completion of equippements. That's 86 capital ships.

With 196 destroyers that you counted, that's 2,26 DD per capital ship, if one assumes that all capital ships that the same number of DD.
So for the CW the scale rather is 1 capital ship + 2-4 DD.

What are the 2 capital ships that the setup miss (you say there are 88, I find 86) ?


IN CONSTRUCTION :

Reinforcing face-up (go soon on the map) :
CV~Illustrious
BB~Valiant
CA~Fiji
CL~Bonaventure

Reinforcing face-down (go soon in the construction pool) :
CV~Indomitable
BB~Anson, Duke of York, Howe
CA~Trinidad
CL~Cleopatra

Construction pool (completed hulls, need to be schedulled for final equippement) :
CV~ Formidable, Victorious
BB~ King George V, P of Wales, Iron Duke
CA~Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria
CL~Dido, Euryalus, Hermione, Naiad, Phoebe
Monitor~Roberts II, Abercrombie


That's :
CV : 4
BB : 6
Cruisers : 14

The numbers are from a book entitled ROYAL, DOMINION & ALLIED NAVIES in WORLD WAR 2 by Gordon Smith; not the best resource I have, but one that was close at hand. He includes two Cruiser-Minelayers which would be outside the scope of the game, so 86 is a correct number. (About eight years ago I moved from an house with a nice library to one without and while I had every intention of building a new library in the new house, when I had the time I do not have the funds and when I had the funds, I did not have the time. Consequently the bulk of my books / resources are still unpacked in wooden crates.)

The Valiant and the Queen Elizabeth were both actually in refit, therefore they should both be in Naval Construction or Naval repair and not one in each.
The Iron Duke should not be included at all. It was a depot ship at Scapa Flow. Its armaments had been stipped in 1937. New 14", 15" or 16" guns would have to have been fitted. The UK struggled thoughout the war to find sufficient labor pools and materials to manufacture gun barrels. Several of the Cruisers were initially launched with reduced secondary armament due to the shortages and due to Battleship priority.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

the whole ASW factors of the capital ships is just a silly playability fudge during a convoy/U-Boat battle. when surface ships went out on convoy lanes at times (only occasional and depending on where the German surface ships were), the Royal Navy would keep the escorting BB or group of CA a few miles from the convoy, and the DDs would stay with the surface ships for protection from the U-Boats. Those DD would NOT become the convoy escorts, which were separate dedicated forces.

That would be reptesented with that the capital ships is in a higher box and not with the convoys. Their ASW factors do not then contribute to the convoys defence unless the capital ships is also included for some reason.

However, since this is a game of what-if and the player is the commander-in-chief he should have the option of sending capital ships for close convoy escort (into the zero box). The BBs destroyer escort should then indeed help defend the convoy as well.

I think WiFFE simulates this well enough.

-Orm

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Convoys in Flames gets you half the way there with the ASW units, but in my opinion the ASW units should be the only units that can protect CPs from SUBs and Cruisers should no longer be counted, nor should the Allies get inherent points in all CPs later in the war.

If you are playing with Convoys in Flames, convoy points don't get intrinsic ASW points.

[brian brian]

Ahh, I was thinking of the way SCS still contribute ASW even with CoiF in play, thanks. I think that should go away, and more Sub-Chaser counters should be available. Roosevelt and Churchill both made top-level decisions to use 4-engine bombers at sea, over the objections of their air force commanders. Capital ships simply had little to do with the U-Boat/Convoy struggle from what I've read. Putting them in high boxes or the '0' box; both tactics are irrelevant to how the convoys were defended. Land-Based air, CVE's, and ever improving technology on the convoy escorts were the important factors, not battleship and cruiser deployments. WiF is leading players astray in teaching history if you think the convoy battle was fought with capital ships as it is in the game. A pile of BBs in the 3 box blowing away SUBs with their surface factors is just silly. If you as the C-in-C want to strip your BBs of their destroyers to defend convoys, the BBs should pay the price, and it would be a steep one.

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Ahh, I was thinking of the way SCS still contribute ASW even with CoiF in play, thanks. I think that should go away, and more Sub-Chaser counters should be available. Roosevelt and Churchill both made top-level decisions to use 4-engine bombers at sea, over the objections of their air force commanders. Capital ships simply had little to do with the U-Boat/Convoy struggle from what I've read. Putting them in high boxes or the '0' box; both tactics are irrelevant to how the convoys were defended. Land-Based air, CVE's, and ever improving technology on the convoy escorts were the important factors, not battleship and cruiser deployments. WiF is leading players astray in teaching history if you think the convoy battle was fought with capital ships as it is in the game. A pile of BBs in the 3 box blowing away SUBs with their surface factors is just silly. If you as the C-in-C want to strip your BBs of their destroyers to defend convoys, the BBs should pay the price, and it would be a steep one.

I agree with your assement and statements of how ASW was fought in WWII and I hope in product 2 that it might be dealt with. However WiF is not a history lesson. It is a game.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Ahh, I was thinking of the way SCS still contribute ASW even with CoiF in play, thanks. I think that should go away, and more Sub-Chaser counters should be available. Roosevelt and Churchill both made top-level decisions to use 4-engine bombers at sea, over the objections of their air force commanders. Capital ships simply had little to do with the U-Boat/Convoy struggle from what I've read. Putting them in high boxes or the '0' box; both tactics are irrelevant to how the convoys were defended. Land-Based air, CVE's, and ever improving technology on the convoy escorts were the important factors, not battleship and cruiser deployments. WiF is leading players astray in teaching history if you think the convoy battle was fought with capital ships as it is in the game. A pile of BBs in the 3 box blowing away SUBs with their surface factors is just silly. If you as the C-in-C want to strip your BBs of their destroyers to defend convoys, the BBs should pay the price, and it would be a steep one.

I'm sorry but when playing CoiF / CLiF, BB contribute nothing to ASW.
Cruisers still contribute, but that's their associated DD that are assumed to contribute. As WiF does not depict DDs, there must be a way so that DDs can escort convoys, and this is this way.

About Sea box sections, I think you're wrong too. Ships in section 0 represent ships that were escorting the convoys closely, there were, and ships that are in section 4 represent ships that are patrolling the Sea area away from the convoys, seeking for the enemy raiders & subs, and there were too.

[brian brian]

You can WiFZen it any ole way you want, but Battleships and even CLs had nothing to do with the Sub War. It is a quick simple playability fudge that distorts the history amongst the players while unifying naval combat and the impulse system into a single whole. Convoy escorts were completely separate forces from the heavy capital ships. The ASW counters are the way to go, but the naval combat system rewarding patrolling in higher boxes distorts Submarine combat to a great degree. The Norfolk and the Suffolk out on the patrol line were looking for the Bismarck, not enemy U-Boats (the last thing they would want to find). True, WiF is just a game, but so is Axis & Allies; and WIF is so great because it has continually improved from a realism point of view. I really hope the Sub system is developed further.

I really like playing with CLiF, but now I look forward to a new game using it with the new optional of doubling naval combat results so more naval attrition is seen when using them. That plus completely randomised target selection will be a great way to play the game I think.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I really like playing with CLiF, but now I look forward to a new game using it with the new optional of doubling naval combat results so more naval attrition is seen when using them. That plus completely randomised target selection will be a great way to play the game I think.

I agree, both are good additions to the game IMO.

[brian brian]

We had been doing randomised-within-class naval air results already, but adding surface targets to that idea was a smart move. Over time playing WiF I've grown to love the ebb-and-flow of the worldwide naval struggle more than the campaigns on land. I hope as the game develops some of the battle system stays the same, rather than go to more generic attritional Strategic Warfare systems like the old Third Reich game had.

I think we had a small conversation in the Days of Decision thread that would work better here. The ideal way to expand MWiF would be to add Days of Decision. But the ideal way to expand that game is to make minor country political affairs dynamic throughout the whole period 1936-1945 or 1950, rather than only before General War with DoD, or only as an intro to a game.

[Anendrue]

The idea of DoD as an addon  is a very good one. However as wesorted oput on the other thread it is probably best to wait until all the addons are completed and stabilized. Additionally, until Harry resolve the issues with DoDIII it is probably best to wait awhile for those reasons too.

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

You can WiFZen it any ole way you want, but Battleships and even CLs had nothing to do with the Sub War. It is a quick simple playability fudge that distorts the history amongst the players while unifying naval combat and the impulse system into a single whole. Convoy escorts were completely separate forces from the heavy capital ships. The ASW counters are the way to go, but the naval combat system rewarding patrolling in higher boxes distorts Submarine combat to a great degree. The Norfolk and the Suffolk out on the patrol line were looking for the Bismarck, not enemy U-Boats (the last thing they would want to find). True, WiF is just a game, but so is Axis & Allies; and WIF is so great because it has continually improved from a realism point of view. I really hope the Sub system is developed further.

I really like playing with CLiF, but now I look forward to a new game using it with the new optional of doubling naval combat results so more naval attrition is seen when using them. That plus completely randomised target selection will be a great way to play the game I think.

I agree. With all of the modification, changes, counter additions, etc. throughout the years, I would have thought that destroyrer escort counters would have been added. As I have already stated, the naval rules, in general, are the weakest part of the game. The old V.5 rules better represented naval combat in MHO. While the additon of ASW counters has helped, it was not enough because use of crusiers for convoy escort is still permitted and still neccessary for an adaquate defense.

Plus I have never liked the idea that if the subs eliminate all of the convoy points in a given area, all of the resources shipped through that convoy route are lost. If all of the CPs in the North Atlantic are eliminated, but those in the East Coast Sea area and the Bay of Biscay area are sill intact, then only 1/3rd of the resource should be lost.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jaguar
Plus I have never liked the idea that if the subs eliminate all of the convoy points in a given area, all of the resources shipped through that convoy route are lost. If all of the CPs in the North Atlantic are eliminated, but those in the East Coast Sea area and the Bay of Biscay area are sill intact, then only 1/3rd of the resource should be lost.

This is a such very rare occurence that all CPs are sunk, and the other side did not reinforce.

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

This is a such very rare occurence that all CPs are sunk, and the other side did not reinforce.

Well, you obviously play with individuals who utilize different stategies than those in my playing circle. All of the CPs may not be killed, but between kills and aborts, it is not uncommon for the sea area to be emptied or nearly emptied, 7 or 8 CPs. I have had 19 CPS eliminated / aborted in the Bay of Biscay sea are a few times. As the UK player, I kept rolling 8s, 9s and 10s while the German player kept rolling 1s and 2s. The weather was Storm, so I could not use the planes or the CVs. The German player had 7 to 9 subs totaling about 30 to 35 sub points. Within two rounds, all or nearly all of the CPs would be killed or aborted.