Matrix Games Forums

When we played the board game, we used to play with some any house rules. Now in MWIF we have talked about it and about some new ideas. I woul like to share with you and read your opinions about this house rules. Do you think are good or bad, unbalancing, etc?

Rule 1: Russian Partisans.

Ignore russian partisans while USSR haven´t got control on any russian european city.

We decided this after checking in one of our games the unrealistic consequences of the european russian conquest. The USSR can rebuilt the red army very easily and have no restrictions on the size of their forces. We don´t know how this could be possible if you think that in 1939 more than 75% of the USSR population lived in in European Russia.

Rule 2. Aligning Spain (and Portugal)

We dislike too much the RAW rule. We plays with two house rules versions.

Version a) Germany can align Spain if conquers France, USA are not in war with any european axis powers, and Germany spends one offensive chit (and can align Portugal, at he same time, if spends another chit).

Version b) Germany can align Spain after the conquest of France or the collapsing of Vichy France, USA are not in war with any european axis powers, and Germany spends two offensive chits (and can align Portugal, at he same time, if spends another chit).

We play another versions, rolling dices like the original coups in WIF, with countercoups... but the a and b are the two that we used to play with.

Rule 3. The Italian Gambit.

USSR can not declare war on Italy unless there are some italian armies in any border country with USSR (excluding Poland).

Rule 4. Manchurian Vladivostok Garrisons.

We play this rule until USSR Japan war rules are implemented.

USSR must have four corps in far Siberia, and Japan must have four corps in Manchuria and Korea while Japan and USSR are in peace.

Rule 5. Chosing combat results.

Using the 2d10 combat chart. The attacking player can choose any combat result equal or lower than real result.

Sometimes we play this version: the attacking player can choose any combat result equal or lower than real result if at least one HQ is included in the attack.

there are another minor rules we play but these are the most usual for us.

What do you think about them?

IMO:

Rule 1 and 4 are not unreasonable but also are unnecessary.

Rule 2 is awful. It means practically an automatic loss of Gibraltar and a very skewed game favouring the Axis. What Axis player wouldn't spend 30 or 45 BPs for almost an auto-win?

Rule 3 makes sense and prevents some Allied gameyness but MWIF already has an easier "Breaking the Pact garrison" option.

Rule 5 defeats one of the purposes of 2D10 which was to increase attrition. In other words: the "magic 14" will never occur.

Rule 1: I can understand the reasoning behind this, but on the other end: why allow Germany free reign of the area without any troops to control the area. It's a fast area, full of hostile people. If one looks at the number of citizens there, the way Germany behaved towards the population and the huge area to control, one should not allow Germany to have no troops at all in the European USSR. Also: the same reasoning could apply to all nations conquered by Germany. Such as France, Poland and on and on and on. As long as there are troops fighting against the Axis, those countries will do the best they can to get underground movement in occupied countries to become active...

Rule 2: I would only allow the alignment of Spain after a CW DoW on Portugal or the capture of Gibraltar (if the US isn't in the war). That's a gambit which would have driven Franco mad, because he would know he is next on the list. And the other way around: if the US DoW's Portugal. is at war with Germany and Italy and has at least 6 corps in Portugal, I would give the Allies the opportunity to align Spain, but with the same restriction which sometimes apply to Hungary: only one unit allowed to leave Spain. Franco was only interested in staying in power. After all: he stayed in power untill he died, didn't he. And there aren't a lot of dictators around who achieved that...

Rule 3: let the USSR declare war on Italy. I don't care with the Axis, especially if the US isn't in the war already. As Paul said: there are good rules regarding the garrison in place...

Rule 4: you can always simulate a peace treaty between the USSR and Japan. You can do so. There's only US entry rolls which don't take place.

Rule 5: that's totally ridiculous. Why change the result always to the attackers favour? Why reduce the Fog of War which is there in this table. You might have a +12 on an attack, but hey: that wasn't old men you were fighting when you rolled a 2! That were Hitler's finest. Damn the intelligence service, not the 2D10 table...

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

IMO:

Rule 1 and 4 are not unreasonable but also are unnecessary.

Rule 2 is awful. It means practically an automatic loss of Gibraltar and a very skewed game favouring the Axis. What Axis player wouldn't spend 30 or 45 BPs for almost an auto-win?

Rule 3 makes sense and prevents some Allied gameyness but MWIF already has an easier "Breaking the Pact garrison" option.

Rule 5 defeats one of the purposes of 2D10 which was to increase attrition. In other words: the "magic 14" will never occur.

Thanks for your comments.

We play 1 to reflect, some way, the unstability and the population losses of USSR with Russia in german hands. Is not a very realistic way but is simple and easy way to manage. In old wif, if USSR was expeled to Siberian boxes, Germany could resist against her with a handfull of corps. With the maps in MWIF and in extended games much more, this is not possible. In one of our games, germany destroyed red army four or five times but with some american help "Stalin" rose a new army each time too easily and this is total unrealistisc. In fact, many historians thinks that if the mother russia had fallen propably USSR had collapsed.

About rule 4 is just an easy way to simulate a neutrality pact between Japan and USSR. I hope Steve makes this rule not very late.

Sorry to read you about rule 2, is one of our favourites [:D]. I dón´t think it is awfull. These are our reasons:

1)Is not easy to conquer France.
2) Makes French player to play more realistic defense of France (not "all for Paris strategies")
3)German Player must to conquer France without spending an offensive chit or must pay very soon in the game for another one or 2. These things are very risky bussines if luck doesn´t smile you.
4)USA are not very content about this. I didn´t say it but we use to declare war to some far away minors to simulate the USA entry chits.
5) Historically, Germany never had declared war in Spain for political and strategical factors but in MWIF happens many times. We know that is just a game but we don´t like these historical aberrations (maybe becouse other player and me are historians).

Rule 3. I don´t know what do you want to say with "Breaking the Pact garrison", maybe the optional rule about it?

And the last one, rule 5, maybe you and centuur are right but our reason is that the attacker allways decide when press o leave the attack. I don´t think that rule talks about fog of war (there is no any kind fog of war in Wif)and we dislike specially that sometimes better dices results produce worse combat results (for example 1/2 when there is jus one enemy corps[:@]). By the way, I prefer to use the limited version: you can change the result only if you got an HQ included in combat to give more relevance to the HQ.

Sorry for the long explanations but we (my friends and me) had a long discussion about this rules last saturday and I wanted to know another points of view.

Thanks again.

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Rule 1: I can understand the reasoning behind this, but on the other end: why allow Germany free reign of the area without any troops to control the area. It's a fast area, full of hostile people. If one looks at the number of citizens there, the way Germany behaved towards the population and the huge area to control, one should not allow Germany to have no troops at all in the European USSR. Also: the same reasoning could apply to all nations conquered by Germany. Such as France, Poland and on and on and on. As long as there are troops fighting against the Axis, those countries will do the best they can to get underground movement in occupied countries to become active...

Rule 2: I would only allow the alignment of Spain after a CW DoW on Portugal or the capture of Gibraltar (if the US isn't in the war). That's a gambit which would have driven Franco mad, because he would know he is next on the list. And the other way around: if the US DoW's Portugal. is at war with Germany and Italy and has at least 6 corps in Portugal, I would give the Allies the opportunity to align Spain, but with the same restriction which sometimes apply to Hungary: only one unit allowed to leave Spain. Franco was only interested in staying in power. After all: he stayed in power untill he died, didn't he. And there aren't a lot of dictators around who achieved that...

Rule 3: let the USSR declare war on Italy. I don't care with the Axis, especially if the US isn't in the war already. As Paul said: there are good rules regarding the garrison in place...

Rule 4: you can always simulate a peace treaty between the USSR and Japan. You can do so. There's only US entry rolls which don't take place.

Rule 5: that's totally ridiculous. Why change the result always to the attackers favour? Why reduce the Fog of War which is there in this table. You might have a +12 on an attack, but hey: that wasn't old men you were fighting when you rolled a 2! That were Hitler's finest. Damn the intelligence service, not the 2D10 table...

What you say about rule 2, I completely agree althoug knowing Franco, he could seek allegiance with the allies[;)]

For the other rules, I answered in other post.

Thanks for yor comments.

It's a known fact that how more pressure an occupying force puts on a civilian population, the higher the chance that people will resist that occupying force. So, regarding rule number 1, I don't think you should fix this by eliminating Partisans in the European USSR.

The question remains: if the USSR would have been kicked out of Europe, would they have survived (or could they have maintained a fighting force in the field against Germany). That's difficult to answer. If one looks at the USSR during the war years, one sees a tremendous boost in the population where "mother Russia" is concerned. The question is: was this also present in Siberia and the South-eastern USSR? What I do know, is this: in MWIF Japan should grab Vladivostock and invade the USSR out of Manchuria. Also: Germany should cut the railroad to Murmansk by aligning the Finns in the first turn immediately. If Germany and Japan do so, than it becomes quite difficult for the Wallies to send supplies to the USSR. Minor ports in the Far East tend to freeze and the Caucasian oil fields should be taken by Germany, before entering Siberia in force, cutting the Persian route for Allied build points...

My experience is, if the Axis can kick the USSR out of Baku and the European USSR, they have won the game, no matter what. Those few resources which the USSR has left, provided the Axis keep hammering on the remaining Soviet forces. The Axis have to at least kill of as many units worth in build points, which the USSR can build...

On rule number 5, you state that there is no Fog of war in World in Flames. I disagree. It's there, but it isn't done by making rules for it. No, it has been put into the die rolls and the way the combat tables are build for WiF.

On the 2D10 table, I still believe that that's the place where, for land combat, a certain Fog of war is created, by adding the dreaded 14 (as opposed to the 1D10 table, which IMHO is to straight forward).
You see the same thing happening in naval combat. If the rolls are there, than surprise for any side can be devastating to the other side, what ever the force attacking. I see the dreaded 14 in the 2D10 table as being in the same area. It is an illusion for any commander (even the surpreme commander in a strategic game) during WW II to know exactly what the opponent has massed against him. In the air-to-air combat table, you can get a result which damages the enemy, no matter what the odds...

The best example during WW II itself is Arnhem, where the British Para's were dropped on top of two SS Panzerdivisions, which were temporarily resting after front duty. The Allies believed that there were only weak garrison forces in the area. Thus: the dreaded 14 in 2D10. No sir, that wasn't a garrison unit you attacked, but it was Hitler's finest. But on the MWIF map, there was only a 5-1 garrison defending the river visible on the Allied map of World in Flames...

What you are looking for in Rule 1 is some sort of "Manpower" rule. A few have been proposed over the years.

The historical Russians (like all powers in the war save the USA) did face a tight supply of people to staff their war effort by 1945. Their clumsy infantry tactics certainly didn't help things.

The game simplifies the political health of the USSR regime for sure. Losing Moscow would have had consequences of some sort but it is impossible to guess what they would have been.

I like a simple House Rule to make a capital city worth fighting for - A Major Power may not lend or receive Build Points or Resources, including from Trade Agreements, on the turn they lose control of their capital. Any such Resources or Build Points designated in the Lending Phase are lost and may not be saved or used by any Major Power.

This simulates the political chaos that would result and also keeps the French from giving their production to the British at the end.


Anyway, if the Communists had fallen there would still have been some sort of resistance to the Nazis, who were too exploitively evil to make peace with. This would have included Nationalistic Partisans - the Red Army had to fight such partisans on reclaimed USSR territory on into 1946 in places.

[quote]ORIGINAL: brian brian

What you are looking for in Rule 1 is some sort of "Manpower" rule. A few have been proposed over the years.

Yes, you are right. We use this rule to balance some way the loss of the russian manpower more than reflects a pecefully russia under the german boots.

Anyway, sometimes I reflect on MWIF and by one side, I think it´s a great WIF computer version but by other side, I think it won´t be more interesting have done a new game based in the WIF mechanics but improving some things that the boardgame can´t manage. For example, manpower based in the control of cities o even hexes; a simple but flexible research system, undetermined force pools (freedom to built what you want), a political in flames integrated in the game, naval repair and construction in specif ports, some kind of morale rules, hideen task naval forces, roads and rails constructions...a lot of possibilities. Yes I know it would be a new game but I think it would be a wonderful game...[:D]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

The question remains: if the USSR would have been kicked out of Europe, would they have survived (or could they have maintained a fighting force in the field against Germany). That's difficult to answer. If one looks at the USSR during the war years, one sees a tremendous boost in the population where "mother Russia" is concerned. The question is: was this also present in Siberia and the South-eastern USSR? What I do know, is this: in MWIF Japan should grab Vladivostock and invade the USSR out of Manchuria. Also: Germany should cut the railroad to Murmansk by aligning the Finns in the first turn immediately. If Germany and Japan do so, than it becomes quite difficult for the Wallies to send supplies to the USSR. Minor ports in the Far East tend to freeze and the Caucasian oil fields should be taken by Germany, before entering Siberia in force, cutting the Persian route for Allied build points...

My experience is, if the Axis can kick the USSR out of Baku and the European USSR, they have won the game, no matter what. Those few resources which the USSR has left, provided the Axis keep hammering on the remaining Soviet forces. The Axis have to at least kill of as many units worth in build points, which the USSR can build...

I agree but in our game, a very strange game, Germany launched a 1942 Barbarossa and Japan was hard pressed early and conquered in 1945. The sovietic had time to send a lot of factories to siberia and received resources via Vladivostok and Manchuria.It could rebuilt his army in 3 or 4 turns. Naturally, I, the german player, won the standard game but not the war. We left the game in 1950 summer becouse my computer can´t manage the calculus, it was very slow. Now that I have some extra free time, I will retake my AAR about this game, it was very funny and interesting.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

What you are looking for in Rule 1 is some sort of "Manpower" rule. A few have been proposed over the years.

Yes, you are right. We use this rule to balance some way the loss of the russian manpower more than reflects a pecefully russia under the german boots.

Anyway, sometimes I reflect on MWIF and by one side, I think it´s a great WIF computer version but by other side, I think it won´t be more interesting have done a new game based in the WIF mechanics but improving some things that the boardgame can´t manage. For example, manpower based in the control of cities o even hexes; a simple but flexible research system, undetermined force pools (freedom to built what you want), a political in flames integrated in the game, naval repair and construction in specif ports, some kind of morale rules, hideen task naval forces, roads and rails constructions...a lot of possibilities. Yes I know it would be a new game but I think it would be a wonderful game...[:D]

ORIGINAL: Viktor_Kormel

ORIGINAL: brian brian

What you are looking for in Rule 1 is some sort of "Manpower" rule. A few have been proposed over the years.

Yes, you are right. We use this rule to balance some way the loss of the russian manpower more than reflects a pecefully russia under the german boots.

Anyway, sometimes I reflect on MWIF and by one side, I think it´s a great WIF computer version but by other side, I think it won´t be more interesting have done a new game based in the WIF mechanics but improving some things that the boardgame can´t manage. For example, manpower based in the control of cities o even hexes; a simple but flexible research system, undetermined force pools (freedom to built what you want), a political in flames integrated in the game, naval repair and construction in specif ports, some kind of morale rules, hideen task naval forces, roads and rails constructions...a lot of possibilities. Yes I know it would be a new game but I think it would be a wonderful game...[:D]

True, it might make this game even better. To me, the old production rules of World in Flames, where one didn't know which unit one is building (is it the dreaded SS Arm, or did Hitler allow the Rumanians to use the precious steel for political reasons) until it was ready, was a very good thing. However, disliked by most players at that time...

But it all comes back to resources to build this game. And those resources are in short supply, I'm afraid...

I pretty uch just play World in Flames though still own several cardboard wargames.

But I look forward to more computer gaming in the future, where as Vktor mentions, computer software can handle things difficult to do on paper, like hidden units and We-Go orders instead of I-Go-You-Go systems

I would particularly like to play an American Civil War game where you only get to see a visual of what is in front of your 'character' (an Army commander) and information on what is happening to your left-wing only reaches you at the speed of a courier. Who might get picked off by an enemy sharpshooter along the way. And all you have for a map is a period-authentic hand-drawn topo from your best West Point educated military engineer. And then when you tell your left-wing falling asleep with no activity over there to detach a brigade and help you here in the center, it takes 30 minutes for the left wing to receive this order.

Similarly, I thought the Mel Gibson movie "We Were Soldiers" was a brilliant look at what it would be like to command battalion level infantry combat, completely different than how it works playing Squad Leader. Computers could accomplish that infinitely better than paper.