Matrix Games Forums

I dont know if the optional rule manpower is included in MWIF btw... Do you know if its in?

The so-called manpower rule from RAW7 will be included, as far as I read here, but in my opinion, MWiF could do a much better job regarding the manpower issue during WWII than WiF.

WiF is just bad at this, because of the limited aspect of the physical counters provided with the game, and the so-called rule does not help WiF to be better.

The best would be to have far more land units present in the game, each with a build date that would allow it to enter the force pool, but who could not be able to be rebuilt. That way it would prevent the usual "abuse" of seeing the 1st SS Panzer Korps being built and rebuilt each year, still as strong as the first time.

But I fear that Steve won't try to add anything about Manpower that is already in the rulebook.

Moreover, your argument that with unlimited breakdown 2 corps will always be accompanied by a DIV (to take the losse) is moot because it is already the case in WiF FE, using DIVs and ARTs.

Below are the figures of the land unit losses in our last game (called Partie XV), which went to its rightful end in JA45 with an Axis (German) Victory.

ARM are both ARM, MECH and HQ-ARM losses
INF and all the rest (INF, CAV, MOT, MTN, GARR, MILL, PARA, MAR, etc...)
DIV are all small sized units, DIV properly and ART.
These are the MAjor Power losses, and they include the losses of units from Minor countries who were aligned by this major Power, thus the big number of CW losses.

I wanted to show this to you to show you how much small sized units are lost by the big division users, I mean the USA and Japan. There is a big number of DIV sized unit lost compared to the normal corps sized losses.

And for Germany who was almost all the game on the offensive, look at the looses of the small sized units, it is enormous compared to the corps sized units.

This is to show you that even if you play with normal WiF limited divisions, you still see them take the cheap losses.

CW
ARM 1
INF 30
DIV 7

US
ARM -
INF 10
DIV 8

France
ARM -
INF 18
DIV 3

USSR
ARM 4
INF 69
DIV 17

China
ARM 1
INF 15
DIV 5

Germany
ARM 1
INF 22
DIV 17

Italy
ARM -
INF 18
DIV 3

Japan
ARM -
INF 12
DIV 10

ORIGINAL: Froonp

You're right, I did not provide whys for the unlimited division breakdown (which is not unlimited if it is limited by the corps oob). I did not because it seemed evident for me that MWiF intended to be what paper WiF never could be because of room's contraints, and number of counters limits. These are the words of the designer himself, I'm not inventing them.
The division breakdown is not limited in WiF neither, but the div counters are. In MWIF why keep limitations of the paper game ???

Well, this is still not an answer to the why question.

The "limitations of the paper game" as you call it has led to a number of rules and tables that are designed with the limitations of the paper game in mind. That means that if you go wild on division breakdown for example, you will get effects in other parts of the game that was never considered during the design of the game. Surely you agree that there is a reason why there are not more division-counters added for each nation in the paper game, and surely you have been confronted with situations where a player is forced to choose where to use his divisions, even disbanding a division in a remote front in order to split a corps somewhere else.

But we keep getting back to the why question here. Why add unlimited corps breakdown? I can easily show how such a breakdown rule will influence the game-balance, and I dont think anyone has argued that it will not have an effect...so why do it? Why?

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Below are the figures of the land unit losses in our last game (called Partie XV), which went to its rightful end in JA45 with an Axis (German) Victory.

You do realize that you are making my case for me here, dont you? Look at the number of division losses for Germany and Russia. One can be pretty sure that the vast majority of those divisions were lost as cannon-fodder to save more valuable corps. Now double the number of divisions you use in the game, and tell me if that will have a change on the division/corps loss ratio?

You do realize that you are making my case for me here, dont you? Look at the number of division losses for Germany and Russia. One can be pretty sure that the vast majority of those divisions were lost as cannon-fodder to save more valuable corps. Now double the number of divisions you use in the game, and tell me if that will have a change on the division/corps loss ratio?

I don't think I'm making your case here, but I think that a good advocate can make his case with anything.

My point is : Divisions taken as looses is already the case, and triple stacking are already used and spread everywhere in normal WiF. Making available more divisions does not change this, definitely not. If you've ever played the German in a regular WiF play, you know that every single corps is valuable and important to be used as a corps, and not to be spoiled to be broken down in 2 more feeble divisions that you do not need. And do not talk to me about worthless crappy 4-3 or 3-3 corps, there aren't in the German army, or so few (2 x 4-3 in 1945 iirc).

Now, for the whys : why don't you want to simply test this to see how it can work out ? You seem to never have playtested this rule with the european scaled china map, so why are you so definitive with your criticisms ?

I can easily show how such a breakdown rule will influence the game-balance, and I dont think anyone has argued that it will not have an effect...so why do it? Why?

Well... playtest will tell... and if you're right, the whole idea will be dumped.

As to having anyone arguing that it won't have the drastic effects you mention, I wonder if you read what I wrote 2 months ago, and am still writing, so I think I'd better stop.

Cheers !

Patrice

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I can easily show how such a breakdown rule will influence the game-balance, and I dont think anyone has argued that it will not have an effect...so why do it? Why?

Well... playtest will tell... and if you're right, the whole idea will be dumped.

As to having anyone arguing that it won't have the drastic effects you mention, I wonder if you read what I wrote 2 months ago, and am still writing, so I think I'd better stop.

Cheers !

Patrice

Gee, I think you guys disagree on this.

Some observations. WIF was originally designed as a corps/army level game. The scales for the map and turns/impulses are intrinsically linked to that decision. So is the land combat results table. As the game was played over the years, ADG introduced special divisonal sized units and incorporated the previously separate HQ units into corps sized units. It use to be that crappy HQs were used to get three units in a hex and they often took the hit. The introduction of breaking corps down into divisions clearly was done with eyes wide open by ADG as to how the players would use that capability.

The answer to "Why Divisional Breakdown?" is pretty easy. In a corps level game, the loss of a corps is a heavy defeat. Losing two in one combat is even worse. This is especially true for an HQ corps or armor corps. Players will always complain about the randomness of the dice rolls ruining their perfectly good plans and in this situation, they will want losses to be more gradual. Many other games with a corps scale are designed with step level losses. For example, a single corps might be able to take three hits before it disappears entirely. That wasn't a viable option for WiF because it directly affects the counter mix and the information displayed on the counters. A lot of games with step losses use separate markers for the number of steps remaining. Doubling the number of counters on the board would have been a disaster for WiF. So, I assume that the divisional breakdown accommodates at least three elements of the war that ADG wanted WiF to simulate better than it had without divisions: (1) special smaller units - Eng, AT, AA, ..., (2) the capability to perform operations that historically were not done by a corps - invasions of small islands, defending the odd isolated hex, and (3) a more graduated system for taking losses during land combat.

ADG reworked the land CRT a couple of times and I have to believe that it reflects their current thinking on what is an accurate number of losses for the various odds ratios for both assault and blitzkrieg. The 2 Die 10 land CRT has the attacker taking 3, 4, and 5 losses rather commonly (it was quite a shock to me the first time I saw it). If the players are not using divisions to take those number of losses, the game will be very fast, because they won't have any units left to move.

The controls on the use of divisions are subtle (aside from the limited number in the WiF counter mix). (1) Divisions do not have ZOCs and are easily overrun if left alone in a hex. They pretty much have to be stacked with a corps to have any combat value. Even two or three divisions stacked together in a hex are very close to worthless. (2) Breaking down a corps needs to be done behind the lines and the divisions then moved into place. (3) In terms of action limits, moving a division is the same as moving a corps. (4) The number of corps available is unaffected by the divisional breakdown rule. If a player breaks down 6 corps into divisions, then that is 6 fewer corps that he has available. (5) The logisitcs of breaking down a lot of corps into divisions, moving them around to perform some function and them reassembling them to reform into corps requires a lot of moves (land, sea, and possibly air) and takes most of a year to accomplish. Working with corps units to perform the same tasks is faster and is less stressful on the action limits.

I actually view the divisions as sort of quasi-replacement units. Most front line corps were never completely destroyed in combat even though they took heavy losses. Reinforcements/replacements were brought in from the homeland and the corps was returned to close to its original strength. At least, that is what the commanders hoped to achieve. It was a constant struggle for them and the quality of the unit's performance could be severely changed. Rather than removing corps units that have taken step losses from the front lines and then restoring them to full strength with reinforcements, WiF uses divisions to achieve almost the same effect. I even suspect that a unit being disrupted is a partial cover for units casualties with reorganization modelling replacements arriving.

The introduction of an optional rule permitting unlimited break down of corps into divisions was originally proposed for MWIF to help China and Japan fill the increase in frontline hexes that the unified scale map creates in China. Whether this rule hurts more than it helps remains to be seen. As Patrice pointed out, the limits imposed by the counter mix were regretted by Harry, and in that sense were an acknowledgement of a constraint that lay outside of Harry's desired WiF simulation of WW II.

As you probably knew from the start of this post, I agree with Patrice that play testing is the best place to resolve this discussion. I still have to write up the actual rule on unlimited divisonal breakdown; though by now, it is pretty well formulated in my head.

Gee, I think you guys disagree on this.

Damn it, it shows that well ?

Sorry for the bickering, we may both be equally passionnate [;)]

I even suspect that a unit being disrupted is a partial cover for units casualties with reorganization modelling replacements arriving.

I suspect the same. I even thought it was more than suspicion, and I'd swear to have read this somewhere in something from ADG, but I read so many things from ADG...

The introduction of an optional rule permitting unlimited break down of corps into divisions was originally proposed for MWIF to help China and Japan fill the increase in frontline hexes that the unified scale map creates in China.

Just a little chronological correction : "It was first proposed in CWiF to help...."

I still have to write up the actual rule on unlimited divisonal breakdown; though by now, it is pretty well formulated in my head.

Why not having Harry himself writing this paragraph ? After all, he's be best choice to write rules for WiF, isn't he ???? He's got documentation, he's got knowledge, and when he does not knows, he knows a lot of buddies who help him knowing.

Regards

Patrice

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
ADG reworked the land CRT a couple of times and I have to believe that it reflects their current thinking on what is an accurate number of losses for the various odds ratios for both assault and blitzkrieg. The 2 Die 10 land CRT has the attacker taking 3, 4, and 5 losses rather commonly (it was quite a shock to me the first time I saw it). If the players are not using divisions to take those number of losses, the game will be very fast, because they won't have any units left to move.

Fair enough. We shall have unlimited breakdowns. I would like to raise the question however, if the CRT should not be looked at because of this, since I am still of the opinion that it will affect gamebalance.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
ADG reworked the land CRT a couple of times and I have to believe that it reflects their current thinking on what is an accurate number of losses for the various odds ratios for both assault and blitzkrieg. The 2 Die 10 land CRT has the attacker taking 3, 4, and 5 losses rather commonly (it was quite a shock to me the first time I saw it). If the players are not using divisions to take those number of losses, the game will be very fast, because they won't have any units left to move.

Fair enough. We shall have unlimited breakdowns. I would like to raise the question however, if the CRT should not be looked at because of this, since I am still of the opinion that it will affect gamebalance.

I am not changing any of the CRTs. My job is to program this game, not rewrite it. I am only making changes where overwhelming evidence dictates that it should be done. Previous play testing of CWIF brought up the China changes, and even there, I am striving for minimal changes.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Why not having Harry himself writing this paragraph ? After all, he's be best choice to write rules for WiF, isn't he ???? He's got documentation, he's got knowledge, and when he does not knows, he knows a lot of buddies who help him knowing.

Regards

Patrice

Harry doesn't work for me. Neither does Harry work for Matrix.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Unlimited divisions will also mean that the japanese player can conquer pretty much the entire pacific on turn 1 of his suprise-war-impluse.

Where exactly will Japan get all these extra DIVs? They have to break down corps to get them. Those corps have to come from someplace which will now be less well defended.

Not to mention that unlimited breakdowns mean that I don't have to use a corps to hold an obscure hex as the CW or US, I can use 2 DIVs to hold 2 obscure hexes and make them both surprise-impulse-Div-invasion-proof.

And the "reason" to include them is exactly what Patrice said - the paper game SHOULD have unlimited DIVs, but production/price/countermix limitations prevented it from having them.

*sigh* I just typed a very long reply, and then accidentally hit "esc" and my entire post vanished before my eyes [:(]

Anyway, what I wrote in that post was mainly two things.

If you look at the casualty report froonp posted, you will notice that if the USSR player had roughly the same corps/divison-loss ratio as the Germans (something that would be expected with unlimited breakdown) it would give 15-20 additional Soviet corps alive and well. Clearly the dynamics of land combat will change when people can take division losses instead of corps losses.

I understand that you dont want to change too much of the game, and I undertand that you dont want to poke around in the CRTs, but then I dont understand why you insist on allowing unlimited breakdown, because I do believe that will change land combat. The game is very well balanced as it is now, and Im just afraid that such a change will disrupt that balance.

At the end of the day, the choise is yours, and it is not as if the unlimited breakdown will destroy the game or whatever, Im just afraid it will lead to gameyness and unbalance the land combat-aspect = more work in the long run.

One question. Are you going to allow breakdown of garrison corps and militia corps too? If not, why not?

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

*sigh* I just typed a very long reply, and then accidentally hit "esc" and my entire post vanished before my eyes [:(]

Anyway, what I wrote in that post was mainly two things.

If you look at the casualty report froonp posted, you will notice that if the USSR player had roughly the same corps/divison-loss ratio as the Germans (something that would be expected with unlimited breakdown) it would give 15-20 additional Soviet corps alive and well. Clearly the dynamics of land combat will change when people can take division losses instead of corps losses.

I understand that you dont want to change too much of the game, and I undertand that you dont want to poke around in the CRTs, but then I dont understand why you insist on allowing unlimited breakdown, because I do believe that will change land combat. The game is very well balanced as it is now, and Im just afraid that such a change will disrupt that balance.

At the end of the day, the choise is yours, and it is not as if the unlimited breakdown will destroy the game or whatever, Im just afraid it will lead to gameyness and unbalance the land combat-aspect = more work in the long run.

One question. Are you going to allow breakdown of garrison corps and militia corps too? If not, why not?

My current thinking is to only permit divisional breakdown for the major powers. This corresponds to the where divisions were provided in WiF. Using similar logic, garrisons and militia will not be available for divisional breakdown. The movement points for the garrisons is one good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to break down ("My chains have been broken and now I can run free!?"). Both garrisons and militia are poorer quality units, which is my uninformed and sleepy answer.

I have just been reading through the rules on offensive and defensive markers for neutrality pacts. There is a long paragraph about what to do when you run out of markers. In MWIF, this issue won't come up. The game will just add more markers in the same proportion as the originals. My point being, that I will make some changes to MWIF that are not in WiF, especially when the rules clearly relate to counter mix limitations.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
*sigh* I just typed a very long reply, and then accidentally hit "esc" and my entire post vanished before my eyes [:(]

Been there done that. YOu have my sympathy. I suggest periodically highlighting the entire post and copying it to memory so you can always restore that amount. Its also worth doing just before you actually post the sucker just in case Matrix has logged you out or your ISP has a hiccup or any other reason your paranoia can suggest.

Works for me

My current thinking is to only permit divisional breakdown for the major powers. This corresponds to the where divisions were provided in WiF. Using similar logic, garrisons and militia will not be available for divisional breakdown. The movement points for the garrisons is one good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to break down ("My chains have been broken and now I can run free!?"). Both garrisons and militia are poorer quality units, which is my uninformed and sleepy answer.

Some minor countries also have divisions :

- Finland (SKI, so irrelevant to this discussion)
- Poland (INF)
- Norway (SKI, so irrelevant to this discussion)
- Spain (INF)
- Sweden (SKI, so irrelevant to this discussion)
- Turkey (INF)

In my opinion, if you decide that the corps used for breakdown cannot be re-built (or re enters the force pool 1-2 years in the future to be able to be re-built), any country having suitable corps should be able to break down them.

Anyway, with the cooperation rules, minor countries divisions if they exist will also be a pain in the ass to stack & transport (I could experience this in CWiF).

For breakdown of MIL & GARR, why not, but they should not be allowed to be broken down into a MIL/GAR plus a MOT, they should only breakdown into 2 units of the same type (i.e a GARR breaks down, into 2 DIV GAR).

But this said, I think this is too much in the way of breaking down of corps into divisions. Abuses could be found here, because some GARR & MIL are not so valuable as corps, and a player might find them more useful in the way Panzerjaeger advocates.

Best Regards

Patrice

In my opinion, if you decide that the corps used for breakdown cannot be re-built (or re enters the force pool 1-2 years in the future to be able to be re-built), any country having suitable corps should be able to break down them.

Wait a moment here...
This could have big implications. Allowing for example belgium to setup one corps and four Divs instead of 3 Corps allows them to cover 5 hexes instead of three, which would dramaticvally change how the western front plays out and the advance against France.
Also More Divs in Poland could slow down the German progress.
And similiar effect might happen with the countries on the balkan and the middle east.

Please let us keep WIF as a corps/army level game, Master edition WIF are making an attempt to introduce divisional sizes of the armies but that invloves a whole lot of playtesting.

The problem we are trying to fix, the increased size of the asian map might be solved with the other suggestions made, additional Chineese cities, free warlords for China and Japan.

Wait a moment here...
This could have big implications. Allowing for example belgium to setup one corps and four Divs instead of 3 Corps allows them to cover 5 hexes instead of three, which would dramaticvally change how the western front plays out and the advance against France.

How could 4 DIV of 1 strength change something to the German steamroller, other than making it easier ?
Breaking down corps makes you loose half the combat strength.
Minor countries units are that feeble that their divisions will nearly always be 1 strength.
In the case of Belgium, all Belgium would do is provide Germany with 3 easy assaults (Antwerp, Liege & Brussels) and either a free overrun, or a free Breakthrough.

Also More Divs in Poland could slow down the German progress.

Pole units are so poor in 1939 that all the Polish would gain would be speedying even more his downfall, as for the Belgians.

And similiar effect might happen with the countries on the balkan and the middle east.

Anyway, I'm not advocating in favor of Minor Countries Divisions (you're right that they are not particulary needed), nor am I advocating against, we'll see how it play.

I just like things (i.e. Rules) to be consistent, and I hate special cases (from a game learning point of view), as they make the game harder to learn and understand. So when having a new rule for example for a specific country, I always prefer when this rule is available for all countries. Example : Offensive Chits were a feature only reserved to Germany in the WiF before the Final Edition. Factory railing was reserved to Russia. MIL were reserved to the CW and Germany. Now those features are streamlined in the rules and available to all countries (even if only some countries will use them), and I always prefer when it is like this. that's why I'm voicing in favor of at least, trying it.

Cheers !

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

If you look at the casualty report froonp posted, you will notice that if the USSR player had roughly the same corps/divison-loss ratio as the Germans (something that would be expected with unlimited breakdown) it would give 15-20 additional Soviet corps alive and well.

That's a big stretch there. You're assuming that the Soviets would lose those corps on the attack. If they lose them while defending, they can do all the DIV breakdowns they want, and it only weakens them dramatically.