AllenK vs Mayhemizer Episode IV: A New Heap

[AllenK]

Welcome to our fourth AAR. This time with Mayhemizer as Allies and myself playing the evil empire.

Optional rules as below. Basically all available except Construction Engineers, Carpet Bombing, Cruisers in Flames and HQ Movement.

House Rules: We are playing with the en-route interception as described by Cohen. In this game, the Nazi-Soviet Pact is a tripartite one involving Japan, such that USSR cannot attack Japan until either Germany or Russia break the pact.

[Jagdtiger14]

Good to see you dropped light cruisers!

I see you didn't go with the board game rule concerning USSR or Japan surrender? Maybe the hex control change makes it unworkable?

[AlbertN]

I see you didn't go with the board game rule concerning USSR or Japan surrender? Maybe the hex control change makes it unworkable?

It's not the "Hex Control", or the Action Limits in general. Besides "Reserves" remaining in play for Soviets.
It's the fact the map is so large that Japan cannot sensibly defend anyhow from Russia and is fated to get the beating anyhow.

On the other hand I am glad the "En Route House-Interception" has been taken on as well.
I'll see how it goes without the CLs - which I usually do not mind but I am neither a grand believer of the Battle of Atlantic person. Way too much luck reliant.

I would suggest on the other hand to not use the "Unlimited" Breakdown. It's too cheap to have pratically countless small invading forces that can be shipped around with cruisers (maybe with the CL less though things are different); it easens a lot the shipping oversea for Allies. (Split 2 corps in 2 INF-Div and 2 MOT-Div - ship them oversea with 1 TRS and 2 SCS; and save a more precious TRS); or ultimately these 3-4 strong corps that some nations have can cheaply turn into countless of "3rd" Unit filler in stacks to soak up damage; whereas to have a 3rd unit should be an extra to be situationally chosen.
IF you need some more divisions, without breaking the game, add the ones from Khaki in Flames.
Just my suggestion.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

The idea of USSR-Japan pact was to prevent USSR for spoiling Axis game.

If Japan wants to attack, it is their own choice [:)]

[AlbertN]

The idea of USSR-Japan pact was to prevent USSR for spoiling Axis game.

If Japan wants to attack, it is their own choice

That's how it works for us.
Japan can go all out of China though - but China has much more grounds to defend in; and to retreat too compared to the WiF original map where it's very packed. (And at the same time Japan later is much in trouble if China is alive and strong, since China has much more maneuvering space).

I hope it works well for you two too!

[AllenK]

Unlimited breakdowns is an interesting option.

On the one hand, any corps is 2 or 3 divisions and theoretically could always be broken down into its constituent parts (and brigades, battalions etc but Wif stops at divisions). So, why shouldn't a player be able to do the same. The game has penalties for doing so in the form of reduced combat power and loss of zone of control.

I don't know what the Pacific looked like on the board game but with the force pools being what they are and the MWiF map scale, unlimited breakdowns are almost a necessity to allow the Japanese player (and to an extent the US) to garrison the islands. I've no problems with SCS transporting them as the Pacific campaign certainly had warships used as fast transports into contested areas. Playing without CL's will help put limits on this.

However, the WiF board game doesn't have unlimited breakdowns and the combat system is based upon the board game. This possibly hasn't been reconsidered to take account of the option. In the board game I suspect it would be unusual (although not impossible) for there to be more than one non-specialist division unit involved in any combat (specialist being Eng and Art). In light of this, a solution might be a HR that only one loss can be taken by a non specialist divisional unit. Further losses have to be either corps sized units or specialist units. The existing rules about which units have to be taken as first losses would still take precedence.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Mayhemizer, is it worth trying as an experiment?

[Mayhemizer_slith]

a HR that only one loss can be taken by a non specialist divisional unit. Further losses have to be either corps sized units or specialist units. The existing rules about which units have to be taken as first losses would still take precedence.

I don't think problem is taking 2 losses with INF div's. In our last game I think it happened once or twice.

I see three benefits for using unlimited break down:
1) There is always MOT div to take first loss in blitz.
2) Lots of invasions, specially for Japs.
3) Easier to transport units over seas.

Without unlimited break down blitz combat would cause more losses in BP's for attacker.

We can remove unlimited break down next in game.

Edit: We can also go with this HR, but those situations will be quite rare. I would say first 2 losses can't be INF div's. If you roll 14 (3 units lost) you can destroy 2 INF div's and some other unit.

[AllenK]

No argument with 1 to 3.

Using a Mot Div as first loss in a Blitz combat is fine. It's in the rules and would still be within the scope of the proposed HR. It would however use up the one non-specialist slot. Further losses would have to be corps sized or an Eng/Art (these specialist units are pretty rare and generally expensive so if the player wants to lose these, then fair enough).

The issue is whether being able to use further (in all likelihood) Inf divisions to soak up losses 2 and 3, when required, is too easy on the attacker compared to what the combat system in original WiF intended.

The HR is the best way I can think of for giving benefits 1 to 3 but keeping within the spirit of the original WiF combat system that doesn't have (and probably therefore doesn't allow for) unlimited breakdowns.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

Only one INF div or MOT div can be destroyed in one combat. Sounds good to me.

Question: is MTN div special unit in this house rule? PARA and MAR units definitely are.

[AllenK]

I agree all those should count as specialist. They are rare units with extra benefits and in some circumstances have to be either taken as first losses or they all get wiped out if the attack fails.

Japan set-up done. Will work on Germany tomorrow evening.

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: Cohen

It's the fact the map is so large that Japan cannot sensibly defend anyhow from Russia and is fated to get the beating anyhow.

In my opinion Japan had little hope of conquering large portions of Asia due to the inherent limitations of it's racist ideology, which was so exploitive it required lots of troops to occupy conquered territory. The map scale change makes this a little more clear, imo - and I am also a player that doesn't think the Partisans rule should be optional. They were further hobbled by the limitations of the Bushido code, a result of which was not enough emphasis on decidedly non-glorious logistics. The euro-scale forces Japan to pick one serious campaign rather than a couple at once.


Ditto on the good call of ditching the Light Cruisers, which make naval losses irrelevant. No side ever runs out of ships with those in play, or worries about it. Instead they use up too much oil to ever leave port.


A good amount of players of the cardboard game add Divisions, but go with a simple House Rule that First Loss Must Be a Corps. The goal is to keep counter density a little lower so game play moves along a little better, but without getting rid of the Specialists and the shoe-string campaigns completely.

[rkr1958]

With unlimited breakdown does the corps go back into the force pool once you break it down? If it did wouldn't this essentially be the same as having no limit on the number of corps you could build?

Also, with unlimited breakdown can you still only breakdown one corps per side per turn?

[AlbertN]

A good amount of players of the cardboard game add Divisions, but go with a simple House Rule that First Loss Must Be a Corps. The goal is to keep counter density a little lower so game play moves along a little better, but without getting rid of the Specialists and the shoe-string campaigns completely.

The only group of WiF'ers I know (they play via Vassal) use this HR.

With unlimited breakdown does the corps go back into the force pool once you break it down? If it did wouldn't this essentially be the same as having no limit on the number of corps you could build?

No the matching Corp - if split with unlabelled divisions (as per divisions which are not in the Force Pool) is placed in a Breakdown Pool and cannot be rebuilt until either the corp is reformed or the parent divisions (or equivalent divisions to the 2 parents) are both destroyed.
Though in many cases you could want to get rid of a 3 / 4 strong Corp for two 1 strong Divisions to soak losses or other purposes.

Also, with unlimited breakdown can you still only breakdown one corps per side per turn?

You can break down as many corps as you want / can.

[Jagdtiger14]

I really, really like unlimited breakdown...this is one aspect of MWiF that is superior to the board game. As Brian wrote concerning the Japs, I whole heartedly agree! I think divisional warfare in China/Manchuria/Siberia could work for Japan.

I understand why the HR for Japan/USSR pact. However, I disagree that USSR spoils the Axis game...its just that you need to figure out a solution, and I have one (or two) I would like to try. Try to not use HR's (other than USSR/Jap pact) if you can help it...HR's re-invent the game. You get used to a certain style which then fails if you play someone who refuses to play your HR. You are then at a disadvantage.

[AllenK]

The same argument applies to optional rules. You adopt a certain style according to the options you prefer. You meet an opponent who refuses them .... Two of the HR's we've decided to adopt are attempts to play with optional rules yet to be coded: En route interception and USSR-Japan neutrality pacts. If the multiplayer game gets off the ground USSR and Japanese players will be free to negotiate any sort of pact as long it is playable within the current game structure. In this game, those negotiations have happened and both sides are happy with the stated terms.

I'm a fan of unlimited breakdown but I'm not convinced the consequences in terms of combat losses has been thought through. For example, the combat table calls for 2 losses. If both of these are absorbed by broken down divisions, the actual loss is only one unit as the two will be reformed into the original corps prior to rebuild. The combat tables (and particularly 2d10) are based on the board game which only has limited breakdowns. The board game also has the further penalty that breaking a corps into 2 of the limited divisions means they cannot then be separately built until re-available though recombining back into the corps.

[AlbertN]

The point of the losses is quite focal. It's not only the "2" losses being a topic, but also how many divisions at once you have.
With Unlimited Breakdown the Soviets can easily have multiple stacks of size 3 with INF-Div obtained by splitting their 3-3 and 4-3 corps; which anyhow litterally shield any relevant unit they've in the stack (like INF + INF+Div + HQ / MECH / ARM). Same would go for Germany later in the game obviously or anyone which is invested in the role of defender of turn.
Or France can easily optimize their defence with some added divisions. Heck, suddenly the Italian Front turns out to be manned by 3 divisions and 1 corp if needs to be.

By how the game is in its own flow, during the turn you suffer X losses. Then you have the breakdown phase. Then X losses are returned to force pool or Scrap Pool through the Scrapping Process. And then there is production where you can produce them anew.
It litterally means that if let's say Germany has a total of 3 MOT-Div at avail, and you lose all 3 of them in the first turn of Barbarossa - you cannot simply break down more of them in Barbarossa Turn2 - because they're not yet in the Force Pool when you can breakdown. They'd be avaiable pratically for Barbarossa Turn 3.
That is a relevant detail in my eyes which force the players to better planning in how to use their allocated divisions at hand.
Japan as well has to carefully plan what to invade first and what to do after. They cannot just have as many divisions as they want (and I can assure you, each 4-3 corp you have you split in 2 INF-Divs for your surprise supercombined otherwise) furthening the instant reaches of Japan by a lot!

The only realistic thing I'd see it enhance would be the Norway invasion, where actually the many German landings would fit in 1 Combined Naval Move and their 3 land attacks - but Norway anyhow is not invaded because of how the game is designed. (Maps and such.)

[Jagdtiger14]

I like the fact that your HR's reflect options not yet coded.

I agree slightly with the opinion that the same argument applies to optional rules. The reason is that players for the most part have at some point experimented with the vast majority of the options and would have some familiarity/opinion about them. Also, its highly unlikely that players will simply dive into a game and let their opponents dictate which are played with and which are not...so there would have to be some kind of compromise. If you and I were to play a serious game (tournament or con) its highly unlikely (not impossible) that I would reject any "HR" and stick only to negotiations over actual game options.

On consequences of combat for unlimited break down I don't see a big problem since its quite possible that one or both sides could have only divisions in the fight (I've seen this many times). However, I do agree with you on the further penalty the board game has vs MWiF. Over all I think its a net positive.

Cohen: I agree with the French/Italian front comment. Unlimited breakdown does change the game compared to the board game, but I think its a very interesting one...allows for more options and gives us something more to think about...especially in Asia. Realistically unlimited breakdown is natural...see AllenK post #6 second sentence. For obvious reasons the board game can not do this...although I whole new WiF board game was recently developed to use divisions.

I also like en-route interception. Our board game group played with this a few games and really liked it. We eventually ditched it because it was adding too much time to the game when 5 players get together one day a week for x hours. It really slows game play and we want to churn out turns as quickly as possible. MWiF wont have this same problem.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

US places 1 chit to Japan pool and 2 chits to Germany/Italy pool.

Looks like Fall Gelb to me: Germany has 8 corps and 2 divisions on Polish border, others are in western front...

Germany declares war on Poland, on a 9 US gets one chit.

Poland decides to fight for her existence, planes are in cities and all troops will fight to the end.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

Italy has placed troops against Egyptian border in Africa.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

Italy and southern France.