Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

Intelligence (Let's enormously complicate the game AND make it more random and less balanced!)
Recruitment limits (I don't even remember what this one does, to be honest)
Food in Flames (Unbalancing, annoying to implement)
Hitler's War (another option I don't remember how it works; aside from something about added options if LL to the USSR is chosen while they're still neutral. Infleunces a stuffing strategy, I suppose, but since I don't like to stuff, it rarely actually comes into play. )
Limited Aircraft interception (Totally not worth the added headache to work through every time a mission flies)

And I'll toss in Ski units because I can't remember ever building one and wouldn't remember the rule about moving through ZOCs in snow or blizzard if I did. This one isn't "bad" like the others, it's just kind of pointless IMO.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

Intelligence (Let's enormously complicate the game AND make it more random and less balanced!)
Recruitment limits (I don't even remember what this one does, to be honest)
Food in Flames (Unbalancing, annoying to implement)
Hitler's War (another option I don't remember how it works; aside from something about added options if LL to the USSR is chosen while they're still neutral. Infleunces a stuffing strategy, I suppose, but since I don't like to stuff, it rarely actually comes into play. )
Limited Aircraft interception (Totally not worth the added headache to work through every time a mission flies)

And I'll toss in Ski units because I can't remember ever building one and wouldn't remember the rule about moving through ZOCs in snow or blizzard if I did. This one isn't "bad" like the others, it's just kind of pointless IMO.

Seconding all those. I've used Ski troops and like the rule and remember it, but it's not necessary nor would be missed on a "minimum" list.

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

List of options have been unanimously downvoted the last couple of games:
Recruitment Limits
HQ movement
Surprised ZOCs
CV Search
Defensive Shore Bombardment
Allied Combat Friction
Variable Organisation
AfA Oil
Hitler's War (which should be called "Hitler wins", because that was the dramatic effect it had in the one game we tried it)
Intelligence
Japanese Command Conflict
~~~~other stuff not in MWiF
Leaders
Chinese Friction
Randomised Losses
Enhanced Combat
Lend Leasing Unit
Manpower
FiF

Close calls, would sometimes be played due to bargaining:
ITPOTE
LOS
Global Economy/Food in Flames
Railway movement
Heavies/Air CAV/PatiF+AiF AC
CLiF
PoliF
Trade Agreements
3D10 (really funny! we got back to 2D10 after trying it, since it was a time sink)

Above is more observation than opinion.

Worth noting is that some of these option are actually ok in modern WiF, but not in MWiF (which is roughly comparable to WiF 2000+CLiF).
I think Intelligence and DSB would catch my veto all the time in MWiF, closely followed by CLiF (w/o CL damage). For the remainder, everything is negotiable..

There are several weird MWiF oddities, some not even optional, that I have to look into. Unlimited breakdown .. Unlimited Partisans .. Unlimited USE chits ..
Unlimited breakdown in particular seems to be problematic.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Apologies if I've missed it but what are peoples objections please to:

- defensive shore bombardment?
- variable re-organisation?

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Defensive shore bombardment is something I like to play with too.
However, I have a strange feeling when there is both offensive and defensive shore bombardment happening in the same combat hex... There should be a compulsory naval combat done (search rolls only to give surprise points, consider both sides to be found automatically) too determine which fleet may bombard, since if this would occur, wouldn't the BB's start killing eachother before bombarding the enemy troops? So there should be naval combat, until a side declines to use shore bombardment and aborts instead...
Only if there is a land mass between the two fleets (a combat hex bordering on two sea area's with other land hexes on both sides of the hex) than this combat shouldn't be done since the bombarding fleets than cannot engage one another (you can't sail through land, can you).

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Defensive shore bombardment is something I like to play with too.
However, I have a strange feeling when there is both offensive and defensive shore bombardment happening in the same combat hex... There should be a compulsory naval combat done (search rolls only to give surprise points, consider both sides to be found automatically) too determine which fleet may bombard, since if this would occur, wouldn't the BB's start killing eachother before bombarding the enemy troops? So there should be naval combat, until a side declines to use shore bombardment and aborts instead...
Only if there is a land mass between the two fleets (a combat hex bordering on two sea area's with other land hexes on both sides of the hex) than this combat shouldn't be done since the bombarding fleets than cannot engage one another (you can't sail through land, can you).

warspite1
Mmmm, what you say makes sense and I would agree here except for one thing. Because turns are two months and a battle for a hex is potentially taking place during all of that time, you could have a Guadalcanal type situation whereby:

- a land battle - or series of battles take place over a period of time, ebbing and flowing.
- who has control of the sea changes either overtime OR during the battle e.g. Japanese have control at night and the Allies by day.

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

The other "realism" point to make against DSB is that naval guns did not fire ~200km inland for fire support missions. Fire support was mostly conducted by 5" pieces and not the main batteries, afaik. So it applies to amphibious operations in support of landing beaches, rather than week long sustained defensive fire missions.

What you can do with RAW7 DSB is (w.l.o.g.), bunker 16 force factors in Amsterdam, give them some air support and the Home fleet on a regular basis. This is effectively a "pocket" OChit. I find that a bad reflection of what shore bombardment was in WW2. In RAW7 it is just an ace up the allies' sleeves.

A realatively new rule change limit you to one ship per unit, and has the SB ships go to the zero box after the SB. Havent played with it yet, but it sounds like a much better model on paper.

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Defensive shore bombardment is something I like to play with too.
However, I have a strange feeling when there is both offensive and defensive shore bombardment happening in the same combat hex... There should be a compulsory naval combat done (search rolls only to give surprise points, consider both sides to be found automatically) too determine which fleet may bombard, since if this would occur, wouldn't the BB's start killing eachother before bombarding the enemy troops? So there should be naval combat, until a side declines to use shore bombardment and aborts instead...
Only if there is a land mass between the two fleets (a combat hex bordering on two sea area's with other land hexes on both sides of the hex) than this combat shouldn't be done since the bombarding fleets than cannot engage one another (you can't sail through land, can you).

warspite1
Mmmm, what you say makes sense and I would agree here except for one thing. Because turns are two months and a battle for a hex is potentially taking place during all of that time, you could have a Guadalcanal type situation whereby:

- a land battle - or series of battles take place over a period of time, ebbing and flowing.
- who has control of the sea changes either overtime OR during the battle e.g. Japanese have control at night and the Allies by day.

warspite1, How did you get inside my head?
Can anyone think of a battle where 2 fleets attempted to support land forces on the same day? Cannot recall any.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

The other "realism" point to make against DSB is that naval guns did not fire ~200km inland for fire support missions. Fire support was mostly conducted by 5" pieces and not the main batteries, afaik. So it applies to amphibious operations in support of landing beaches, rather than week long sustained defensive fire missions.

What you can do with RAW7 DSB is (w.l.o.g.), bunker 16 force factors in Amsterdam, give them some air support and the Home fleet on a regular basis. This is effectively a "pocket" OChit. I find that a bad reflection of what shore bombardment was in WW2. In RAW7 it is just an ace up the allies' sleeves.

A realatively new rule change limit you to one ship per unit, and has the SB ships go to the zero box after the SB. Havent played with it yet, but it sounds like a much better model on paper.

warspite1

There were episodes of naval gunfire support though - not just in support of an amphibious landing - but for some time after such as at Anzio, and the British and French shelling Italian positions in North Africa where no amphibious landing was involved for example.