MWIF Expansions

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jaguar

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.

Aren't you making my point saying that ?
Or is rolling 8s & 10s for one side and 1s and 2s for the other side a strategy that your group uses that I don't ?

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Jaguar

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.

Aren't you making my point saying that ?
Or is rolling 8s & 10s for one side and 1s and 2s for the other side a strategy that your group uses that I don't ?

Obviously it is not a preferred stategy to roll high during the search rolls, but in almost evey game I have played, it has happened at least once where the luck of the dice will help the Axis player denude a key convoy area of CPs. This usually happens during the winter turns which will typically have fewer impulses and thus limit the Allies ability to replace the eliminated/aborted CPs assuming that there are any in reserve. Regardless of whether there are reserves to replace the lost CPs, it is still a poor representation. I typically run 40 CPs from North America to the UK (4 Carribbean, 9 East Coast, 9 North Atlantic, 9 Bay of Biscay). If all 9 in the North Atlantic are eliminated, instead of all nine resources being lost, only 23% should be lost (9/40). If the 9 CPs are replaced, the UK should still loose 18% of the resources being shipped through that pipeline (9/49).

Also, a player should be able to save unused resources. The game permits the saving of oil and build points, why not other resources. It was the resource reserves in the UK that permitted them to suffer through the high tide of the Sub war in the North Atlantic.

[Froonp]

Well, I say :

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

And you say :

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.

or

but in almost evey game I have played, it has happened at least once where the luck of the dice will help the Axis player denude a key convoy area of CPs. This usually happens during the winter turns which will typically have fewer impulses and thus limit the Allies ability to replace the eliminated/aborted CPs assuming that there are any in reserve.

Isn't it the same ?

There are 125 impulses per side per game, on 36 turns.
Having the sea area emptied a "few times", or "at least once where the luck of the dice" amongst those 125 impulses, isn't that "a very rare occurence" ?

I think we say the same.

Now, you say that you should only loose 1/3 of what is sunk overall the entire Atlantic Ocean, and not 100%. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe this sinking / aborting of all CPs in 1 Sea Area (out of the 3 of the Atlantic) at the end of a turn also simply means that most of the freighters of this 2-months period did not arrive to the UK in time for eficient production.

However, I think this is a decent system, that merge the strategic & tactical war at sea not too bad, without going into an excessive level of detail that would kill the system.

[composer99]

Such a proportional approach to production losses due to convoy losses is also something that is a pain in the neck to implement in table-top play but is quite easily handled by the computer.

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, I say :

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

And you say :

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.

or

but in almost evey game I have played, it has happened at least once where the luck of the dice will help the Axis player denude a key convoy area of CPs. This usually happens during the winter turns which will typically have fewer impulses and thus limit the Allies ability to replace the eliminated/aborted CPs assuming that there are any in reserve.

Isn't it the same ?

There are 125 impulses per side per game, on 36 turns.
Having the sea area emptied a "few times", or "at least once where the luck of the dice" amongst those 125 impulses, isn't that "a very rare occurence" ?

I think we say the same.

Now, you say that you should only loose 1/3 of what is sunk overall the entire Atlantic Ocean, and not 100%. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe this sinking / aborting of all CPs in 1 Sea Area (out of the 3 of the Atlantic) at the end of a turn also simply means that most of the freighters of this 2-months period did not arrive to the UK in time for eficient production.

However, I think this is a decent system, that merge the strategic & tactical war at sea not too bad, without going into an excessive level of detail that would kill the system.

To me, it is an invalid rationale that no convoys would have reached the UK from North America during any given eight week period. Also, high levels of sub war activity generally only lasts about 12 turns (not the entire 36), from the fall of France (May/Jun 1940) to about Jul/Aug 1942. Th USA is usually in the war by then and the Brits have built enough resources so that in concert with the US, the shipping lanes are protected / patrolled as to make it unattractive for the Germans to continue the sub war in earnest. The sub war becomes more about insuring that the Allies keep their Naval resources spread out than about sinking CPs. There will still me an occasional surprise here an there, but generlly nothing spectacular. It is within that 12 turn period that ususally one of the major shipping lanes are decimated. Once in 12 turns is 8% and to me, 8% is a great distance away from rare.

Anyway as composer99 points out, in a computer game, proportion losses are easily handled, and I beleive, a better representation of the tactical situation.

Despite what the movies might tell us and despite popular concensus, the U-boat war had little impact upon UK production of war materials. The fear was , left unchecked it would have developed into a major problem. Shortages were generally due to limitations in UK production of various iron, steel and other metals. After the fall of France the UK had approximatley 30MM tonnes of merchant shipping at their disposal. From June 1940 through Decembre 1940, the Axis sunk approximately 1.5MM tonnes of merchant shipping or about 5% of the total merchant shipping. However, war production was not effected; there was no shortage of raw materials. Even at the height of the U-boat war, actual effect upon UK war production was minimal. Total imports were actually increased during 1941. However, imports declined after 1942, not because of the U-boat war but because imports had shifted to more finished goods metals, there had been a build up in reserves of raw materials, and because of increases in local raw material and agricultural production. After 1942, labour supply became a bigger limitation to production than raw materials availability.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jaguar
To me, it is an invalid rationale that no convoys would have reached the UK from North America during any given eight week period. Also, high levels of sub war activity generally only lasts about 12 turns (not the entire 36), from the fall of France (May/Jun 1940) to about Jul/Aug 1942. Th USA is usually in the war by then and the Brits have built enough resources so that in concert with the US, the shipping lanes are protected / patrolled as to make it unattractive for the Germans to continue the sub war in earnest. The sub war becomes more about insuring that the Allies keep their Naval resources spread out than about sinking CPs. There will still me an occasional surprise here an there, but generlly nothing spectacular. It is within that 12 turn period that ususally one of the major shipping lanes are decimated. Once in 12 turns is 8% and to me, 8% is a great distance away from rare.

Jaguar, you must know that you don't just search once per turn, so your 12 turns of BoA can translate in 60 initial searches (Italians seaches each impulses, plus interceptions searches), plus a lot of second round searches, and once out of 60+ searches is quite rare to me. Anyway, we are speaking of hard numbers, and a 1-2 / 8-10 split search rolls is not common. You can calculate it if you want (9% for 1-3 / 8-10 split, 4% for 1-2 / 9-10 split unless I'm mistaken), and give it the adjective you prefer. Mine is "rare".

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Jaguar, you must know that you don't just search once per turn, so your 12 turns of BoA can translate in 60 initial searches (Italians seaches each impulses, plus interceptions searches), plus a lot of second round searches, and once out of 60+ searches is quite rare to me. Anyway, we are speaking of hard numbers, and a 1-2 / 8-10 split search rolls is not common. You can calculate it if you want (9% for 1-3 / 8-10 split, 4% for 1-2 / 9-10 split unless I'm mistaken), and give it the adjective you prefer. Mine is "rare".

Well, we are obvioiusly not going to agree on this. I cannot consider anything that happens once a game (my experience is actually about 1½ times per game) as rare or unusual.

I really enjoy playing WiF; the play permutations are greater than any other WWII game I have seen or played. However, there are still aspects of the game that do not seem to be grounded in the historical / political / tactical environment of the period. I find the naval mechanism particulary annoying. I donot like the entire search / surprize mechanism nor the sea area boxes. I cannot see any correlation between these mechanism and WWII naval operations and tactics. They are game mechanisms that do a poor job of simulationg naval operations or naval tactics.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Jaguar

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Jaguar, you must know that you don't just search once per turn, so your 12 turns of BoA can translate in 60 initial searches (Italians seaches each impulses, plus interceptions searches), plus a lot of second round searches, and once out of 60+ searches is quite rare to me. Anyway, we are speaking of hard numbers, and a 1-2 / 8-10 split search rolls is not common. You can calculate it if you want (9% for 1-3 / 8-10 split, 4% for 1-2 / 9-10 split unless I'm mistaken), and give it the adjective you prefer. Mine is "rare".

Well, we are obvioiusly not going to agree on this. I cannot consider anything that happens once a game (my experience is actually about 1½ times per game) as rare or unusual.

I really enjoy playing WiF; the play permutations are greater than any other WWII game I have seen or played. However, there are still aspects of the game that do not seem to be grounded in the historical / political / tactical environment of the period. I find the naval mechanism particulary annoying. I donot like the entire search / surprize mechanism nor the sea area boxes. I cannot see any correlation between these mechanism and WWII naval operations and tactics. They are game mechanisms that do a poor job of simulationg naval operations or naval tactics.

The difficulty with simulating naval combat is the small percentage of time ships historically spent in the presence of the enemy - then the combat is over in a flash (relatively). Land combat, for the most part, was on-going, day after day. Air combat was fairly frequent too. But naval combat would see months past by without enemy contact - then whammo! Naval combat could be quite decisive too - to the best of my knowledge stalemates at sea were rare. From a game designer's point of view, this is very difficult to simulate.

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


The difficulty with simulating naval combat is the small percentage of time ships historically spent in the presence of the enemy - then the combat is over in a flash (relatively). Land combat, for the most part, was on-going, day after day. Air combat was fairly frequent too. But naval combat would see months past by without enemy contact - then whammo! Naval combat could be quite decisive too - to the best of my knowledge stalemates at sea were rare. From a game designer's point of view, this is very difficult to simulate.

Yes, large scale naval actions between combatants were infrequent when compared to ground or air actions. Since I am yet to see a good representation of operational or strategic WWII naval actions any any of the 100+ games that I have played, I would have to agree that it is difficult to model naval operations to funtion within the same contraints as ground and air actions. The old SPI Pacific War game had a reasonably good naval system. However, the game was more focused upon naval actions and consequently, the ground war suffered. Additionally, the system could bog down into tedium unless you could draft an half dozen or two of your mates to be willing to commit twelve to fifteen hours in plotting moves and resolving movement once a week or so.

However, I beleive the old computer Pac War (SSI & Matrix) does a respectable job of proving adequate air, ground and naval systems that works well at least within the Pacific theatre. I might take umbridge with some of the values assigned to some of the ships / aircraft / ground units, but the system itself works well, I believe. I also like the aircraft factory production system (although it is still a little too liberal) of paying a penalty for swithching production from plane A to plane B. It has been a while since I played, but as I recall, some factories cannot be changed at all.

If there is an opportunity to make changes to the system for MWiF2, then I believe that there as some relatively minor changes that can be made without substantially changing the overall system (although, I really dislike the whole sea box concept; I have heard several rationales, they are all contrived). Additionally, there is no need to exclude a mechanism that was not used for the board game (proportional losses) due to complex math calculations.

[composer99]

Incidentally, it's "umbrage" for take umbrage. [:'(]    "Umbridge" is from the Harry Potter books. [:)]
 
Other than that, I agree that some mechanism for re-working the naval sea box system for future MWiF products can be explored, though probably in partnership with ADG.

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Incidentally, it's "umbrage" for take umbrage. [:'(]    "Umbridge" is from the Harry Potter books. [:)]

Other than that, I agree that some mechanism for re-working the naval sea box system for future MWiF products can be explored, though probably in partnership with ADG.

Thank you.

I normally type my posts in AmiPro (an old Lotus wordprocessing program) and paste it into the forum post, however, I was in an hurry this afternoon. Despite owning and working with personal computers for over twenty years, I am a poor typist and am also poor at editing my own work. I read what I intended to type instead of what I actually typed, so I really need a spell checker. Of couse, sometimes that does not save me either because spell checkers will accept no for on and form for from and gril for girl, etc.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Incidentally, it's "umbrage" for take umbrage. [:'(]    "Umbridge" is from the Harry Potter books. [:)]

Other than that, I agree that some mechanism for re-working the naval sea box system for future MWiF products can be explored, though probably in partnership with ADG.

Maybe, but I do NOT think that the MWiF project objective is to rewrite the rules. This project is just an implementation of WiF for PCs no? Maybe it would be best to bring this to ADG directly. Just implementing MWiF with the current rules is enough already. Well, that's my personal opinion, it's worth what it's worth.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

...the MWiF project objective is to rewrite the rules.

I for one am not in favor of reworking the rules too much, and I am thankful to Steve for staying as faithful to WiFFE as the project allows. I understand the unified scale decision, but I'm hoping for a split-scale option as in the boardgame to be included in a future product, to make it easier for players to utilize the computer as an aid in their over-the-board play. Moving counters around on a map is what got many wargamers interested in WiF, and full compatibility would promote synergy between the two product lines.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Maybe, but I do think that the MWiF project objective is to rewrite the rules.

I believe the objective is to stay as faithful to the original boardgame as possible. Rule changes are only being implemented when they are unavoidable because of the conversion to the new computer medium. The idea of reinventing a game mechanism simply because it could be done "better" is not on Steve's agenda.

Of course, "better" is a relative term ...

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Maybe, but I do think that the MWiF project objective is to rewrite the rules.

I believe the objective is to stay as faithful to the original boardgame as possible. Rule changes are only being implemented when they are unavoidable because of the conversion to the new computer medium. The idea of reinventing a game mechanism simply because it could be done "better" is not on Steve's agenda.

Of course, "better" is a relative term ...

Hi Greyshaft !
And, well said !

[brian brian]

but we've wandered the thread back into talking about the first version of MWiF. this was a thread to daydream about the future of the whole system, after the first release.


I think even more than attritional losses, hex-based naval air, or a new and improved Sub vs Convoy system, I would like to see computerized WiF implement some Fog of War, and you too could be totally shocked when the entire USMC shows up in Friesland in the summer of 1943 rather than being out in the Pacific somewhere. That or the surprise when you discover Japan secretly built a stash of tanks ready and able to blitz the USMC back off of their new beachhead on Honshu...

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Maybe, but I DO NOT think that the MWiF project objective is to rewrite the rules. This project is just an implementation of WiF for PCs no? Maybe it would be best to bring this to ADG directly. Just implementing MWiF with the current rules is enough already. Well, that's my personal opinion, it's worth what it's worth.

Pfff... i am such a jerk, bad phrasing, here is what i meant. Makes more sense when you read with the rest no?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Maybe, but I DO NOT think that the MWiF project objective is to rewrite the rules. This project is just an implementation of WiF for PCs no? Maybe it would be best to bring this to ADG directly. Just implementing MWiF with the current rules is enough already. Well, that's my personal opinion, it's worth what it's worth.

Pfff... i am such a jerk, bad phrasing, here is what i meant. Makes more sense when you read with the rest no?

I have noticed that a common mistake for me to make when typing is to leave out the NOT in a sentence. Very embarrassing - and annoying.