Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Centuur

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

Thanks. Shifting gears (i.e., another, unrelated question).

My question concerns the surprise German invasion of the Netherlands. From what I can tell most, many or all experienced WiF players stress that its key for both Rotterdam and Amsterdam to be captured on the 1st, or surprise, impulse of the invasion in order to keep CW troops from coming ashore in the Netherlands. Why would CW troops in the Netherlands in 1940 be more than just an inconvenience? Given CW transport and troop limitations in 1939, or early 1940, wouldn't these troops likely be the BEF anyway? What CW strategy am I missing here?

Because Rotterdam is behind rivers, and hinders access to Belgium and how many Axis units can attack Belgium itself in the surprise impulse in general.
Ontop that these UK units in Rotterdam can indeed be as well extra than the ones for the BEF as they'd not count against Gort limits in France.

So pratically the UK can easily have Rotterdam as a forward base from where to operate too their FTRs.

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Centuur

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

Thanks. Shifting gears (i.e., another, unrelated question).

My question concerns the surprise German invasion of the Netherlands. From what I can tell most, many or all experienced WiF players stress that its key for both Rotterdam and Amsterdam to be captured on the 1st, or surprise, impulse of the invasion in order to keep CW troops from coming ashore in the Netherlands. Why would CW troops in the Netherlands in 1940 be more than just an inconvenience? Given CW transport and troop limitations in 1939, or early 1940, wouldn't these troops likely be the BEF anyway? What CW strategy am I missing here?

If the BEF land in the Netherlands (Rotterdam usually), then one of the Belgian units should be able to survive. If the 3 Belgian land units are the only land units in Belgium, then the Germans should be able to take out all 3 of them in the surprise impulse of the DOW on Belgium. Thus, the Allies lose not only another useful corps, but also a couple of nice defensive hexes.


Usually the Belgians would set up in Liege, Antwerp, and Brussels. Then the Germans can get pretty good attacks from 6 hexes: 1, 2 and 3 hexes for each Belgian unit. Given their air units and maybe the Para unit, all those attacks should be able to destroy the 1 Belgian unit in each hex. The Allies would then only be able to occupy 4 hexes in Belgium - 3 of which are Clear terrain.

If you place a couple of Commonwealth corps in Rotterdam and then set up the Belgians, you can place 1 corps in Liege, another in Luxembourg, and have a third left over. Just don't place the third unit in Antwerp or Brussels or anywhere alone that can be attacked by the Germans. When the Allied impulse rolls around, the Allies can occupy both Antwerp and Brussels. Of course, you have to be careful to not reenact the historical disaster of letting the Germans blitz through from the Ardennes to Dunkirk.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Cohen

Because Rotterdam is behind rivers, and hinders access to Belgium and how many Axis units can attack Belgium itself in the surprise impulse in general.
Ontop that these UK units in Rotterdam can indeed be as well extra than the ones for the BEF as they'd not count against Gort limits in France.

So pratically the UK can easily have Rotterdam as a forward base from where to operate too their FTRs.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Centuur

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

Thanks. Shifting gears (i.e., another, unrelated question).

My question concerns the surprise German invasion of the Netherlands. From what I can tell most, many or all experienced WiF players stress that its key for both Rotterdam and Amsterdam to be captured on the 1st, or surprise, impulse of the invasion in order to keep CW troops from coming ashore in the Netherlands. Why would CW troops in the Netherlands in 1940 be more than just an inconvenience? Given CW transport and troop limitations in 1939, or early 1940, wouldn't these troops likely be the BEF anyway? What CW strategy am I missing here?

If the BEF land in the Netherlands (Rotterdam usually), then one of the Belgian units should be able to survive. If the 3 Belgian land units are the only land units in Belgium, then the Germans should be able to take out all 3 of them in the surprise impulse of the DOW on Belgium. Thus, the Allies lose not only another useful corps, but also a couple of nice defensive hexes.


Usually the Belgians would set up in Liege, Antwerp, and Brussels. Then the Germans can get pretty good attacks from 6 hexes: 1, 2 and 3 hexes for each Belgian unit. Given their air units and maybe the Para unit, all those attacks should be able to destroy the 1 Belgian unit in each hex. The Allies would then only be able to occupy 4 hexes in Belgium - 3 of which are Clear terrain.

If you place a couple of Commonwealth corps in Rotterdam and then set up the Belgians, you can place 1 corps in Liege, another in Luxembourg, and have a third left over. Just don't place the third unit in Antwerp or Brussels or anywhere alone that can be attacked by the Germans. When the Allied impulse rolls around, the Allies can occupy both Antwerp and Brussels. Of course, you have to be careful to not reenact the historical disaster of letting the Germans blitz through from the Ardennes to Dunkirk.[;)]

Appreciate the insights ... Thanks!

Situation: Italian subs and German u-boats in the same area. Italy just declared war on the CW, but Germany been at war with the CW for a while. Would the Italians still get the benefit of a surprise attack if the Italians and Germans combine to attack the CW in that sea area? If not, is there any way that only the Italians could attack?

The answer to both is No, unless the Germans are separate and in a lower box, and you are lucky enough to only roll the Italians into the combat.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The answer to both is No, unless the Germans are separate and in a lower box, and you are lucky enough to only roll the Italians into the combat.

OK, thanks. Then when surprising an enemy at sea you don't won't to mix with naval units of an ally that isn't surprising. Good to know.

ORIGINAL: 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?

It seems that depends on the player.

And the options selected because of spending petrol or not if you are using oil rules.

And the season.

In my case, I many times don't return them because even in a 1 or 2 they can dissuade transports from moving freely or at least unescorted (and depending which expansions you are playing with, the escorts come to shortage sooner or later...

Of course it would be nicer to move them anew from the ports and reach a higher level at sea, but in good weather turns, you usually are too busy fighting in the land or moving your units, so you need land movements or at least combined (only possible exception CW should try to get a naval each turn if possible).

However, even the CW needs land moves, be them for blocking the Burma border, redeploy units in Egypt, or for the BEF in France or expeditionary forces in Greece, Portugal, Morocco or Yugoslavia, for example.

And the Germans can't even dream of Navals most of the time, combined being scarce.

If you leave your units at sea, you can use them with an activation from a combined, but also be activated by your allies or by the pass of enemy units.

Plus, if you are trying to attack convoys in a further area, looking for weaker escorts, you'll most probably reach the 1 box maximum, leaving them at sea at 0 box next turn makes your subs get a 10% (at least) to chase convoys instead of a 20%, but that is for free, you don't need any naval moves. And it's still a 10%. The bad side is the worse position against the escorts but we are speaking of weaker escorts and sometimes escorting only in the 0 box as well.

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.

How do you understand the RAW re this?:

Garrison ratios
You may break a neutrality pact, any turn after the calendar year following its signing, provided you have at least a 2:1 garrison ratio on your common border.

It means 12 months afterwards or you could make the pact in December and break it in January beacause it's already a new (¿calendar?) year?

We always play with the first version, 12 months.

RAW7 is the next "calendar year" so yes, by the rules, a pact made in Nov/Dec could be broken in the following Jan/Feb. Your system would be a house rule.

Shifting gears (again). Even when playing with the optional rule that makes it easier to break the Nazi-Soviet pact, I have trouble getting the garrison ratios necessary for a Jul/Aug 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, much less a May/June 1941 one. I was wondering what strategies folks use, assuming this optional rule, in order to ensure a Jul/Aug 41 or even May/June 41 invasion?

Thx

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Shifting gears (again). Even when playing with the optional rule that makes it easier to break the Nazi-Soviet pact, I have trouble getting the garrison ratios necessary for a Jul/Aug 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, much less a May/June 1941 one. I was wondering what strategies folks use, assuming this optional rule, in order to ensure a Jul/Aug 41 or even May/June 41 invasion?

You have to have a build strategy with Germany that ramps up to MJ or JA. If you spend on ships, subs and lending to Italy then it is quite conceivable you won't be able to break the pact until 1942.

Great thread. Learned a lot about the game reading this.

One question?

What do the –1 and –2 under the ships mean? Thanks.

That number is the reduction which takes place for shore bombardment, due to the lower sea box number they are in. There are some other area's too, where that number is needed (invasion comes into mind).

F.e.: all French vessels have a -2, so only the Bretagne can shore bombard with only 1 combat factor.

The USA mandatory trade to Japan: I was trying to "replace" 1 non-oil RP being sent from the USA to Japan with the RP located in the Philippines but couldn't make that happen. I had a CP in the South China Sea and one in the China sea in place for this. Was I trying to do something that wasn't legal?

It is legal in the boardgame. Did you try using the CP routing overrides?

Another thought is to try without (and with if needed) the CP routing overrides but leave the 5 CPs out in the proscribed sea zones anyway (since the US can spare a few) and see if that may work. (When done in the boardgame you can RTB the excess CPs.)

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It is legal in the boardgame. Did you try using the CP routing overrides?

Another thought is to try without (and with if needed) the CP routing overrides but leave the 5 CPs out in the proscribed sea zones anyway (since the US can spare a few) and see if that may work. (When done in the boardgame you can RTB the excess CPs.)

The strategic materials embargo option had been selected so I only needed 3 CPs in prescribed sea areas. I went through manually trying to route the Philippine RP and disable the one non-oil RP still being routed from the USA. After 30-minutes of trying to do I gave up and eventually just routed the Philippine RP to the USA.

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

The USA mandatory trade to Japan: I was trying to "replace" 1 non-oil RP being sent from the USA to Japan with the RP located in the Philippines but couldn't make that happen. I had a CP in the South China Sea and one in the China sea in place for this. Was I trying to do something that wasn't legal?

This is not possible in MWIF. The resources have to come from the United States proper (48 states).

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

The USA mandatory trade to Japan: I was trying to "replace" 1 non-oil RP being sent from the USA to Japan with the RP located in the Philippines but couldn't make that happen. I had a CP in the South China Sea and one in the China sea in place for this. Was I trying to do something that wasn't legal?

This is not possible in MWIF. The resources have to come from the United States proper (48 states).

That's good to know. Thanks for the answer.