Your top 3 fav optional rules?

[Vanman]

2D10 Land Chart
-First time I played MWIF I rejected this one and went with 1D10 + Blitz Bonus. Why? 2D10 looked too complicated and intimidating.
I went with the familiar and easy first. Now that I have played 2D10, I would never go back. It is not that complicated at all, results tend
to be more realistic (less chance of outright disaster and hence more attack rolls are going to be made), and the benefits to armour are substantial.

Fractional Odds
-Although you still need to do it to some degree, greatly reduced are the efforts to garner that one extra factor to increase your odds shift.
This was a great addition.

Limited Overseas Supply
-this is a very important option since it basically forces you to fight to keep your supply chains open. The Med is a slaughterfest with this
rule in effect and Pacific gets far more interesting as well.

Of course I view separate CV planes and the additional land units as essential, but I think the top three (of those rules I have used) as my favourites.

[Courtenay]

1) Motorized movement costs. Absolutely essential to the play of the game. Otherwise you have panzer corps being the best units to zip through swamps.

2) O-chits. Needed to keep the game flowing

3) Fractional odds: makes life much simpler.

This ignores divisions. Divisions are not just an optional rule; WiF is two completely different games depending on whether or not you use them.

[Centuur]

1. Pilots

2. Carrier planes

3. Partisans (I hate the nasty buggers, but I will not play without them...).

[Viktor_Kormel_slith]

1) 2D10 Land Chart but only if you play with divisions if not the onslaught is assured...
2) offensive chits I don´t consider it like optional
3) fractional odds, it is wonderful not to loose time to get one damned point

By other way, I dislike Limited Overseas Supply, adds too much complexity and just a little fun, I think the basic supply rule is enough for me.
About partisan...I think they are too powerfull, specially in france and china,but play without partisans is very unbalancing to the axis. I play with it but disgusted [;)]
Pilots and carrier planes is good but I don´t like the hiperinflation of planes that provokes. In II WW the air forces were very important but not enough like in MWIF.
motorized points is a good one, I allways play it.

[Orm]

1) Scrap Units
2) Partisans
3) Artillery

[Jagdtiger14]

1. 2d10
2. 2d10
3. 2d10

Since I do not consider 2d10 optional, nor almost everyone mentioned above, and many others:

1. Oil rules
2. Frogmen
3. Ski Troops

[juntoalmar]

It's seems many people agree that 2D10 it's almost mandatory to play, but using it together with divisions. At the moment I still feel a beginner and I'm playing with a few optional rules. No 2D10, no divisions. When I finish the Global War I'm playing right now, I'm considering for the next game to add some rules and move to 2D10 but no divisions (as it makes the game quite more complex, it seems).

Does it makes sense? 2D10 without divisions?

Or does it make the game unbalance somehow?

[Courtenay]

Onw major point of the 2d10 table is that it is bloodier than the 1d10 table. This is why it is good to use with divisions -- with three high stacks and cheap attrition units, you need bloodier results to prevent unreasonable unit build up.

For the same reason, 2d10 does not work so well without divisions. The game was originally made with no divisions and 1d10. Without divisions, I would use 1d10. With them, 2d10.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Onw major point of the 2d10 table is that it is bloodier than the 1d10 table. This is why it is good to use with divisions -- with three high stacks and cheap attrition units, you need bloodier results to prevent unreasonable unit build up.

For the same reason, 2d10 does not work so well without divisions. The game was originally made with no divisions and 1d10. Without divisions, I would use 1d10. With them, 2d10.

I agree.

[Braig]

Actually, the game was originally designed with 6 sided dice and no divisions......but i may be showing my age here.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Braig

Actually, the game was originally designed with 6 sided dice and no divisions......but i may be showing my age here.

I have over 100 six sided dice from all the board games I own (Strategy & Tactics games mostly).

[paulderynck]

S & T ?? !! [&:]

They never shipped me a single die with the magazines... ever! [:@]

But NOW I know! The reason they always arrived 3 months late was someone at the post office was opening mine and removing the dice. [:-]

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

S & T ?? !! [&:]

They never shipped me a single die with the magazines... ever! [:@]

But NOW I know! The reason they always arrived 3 months late was someone at the post office was opening mine and removing the dice. [:-]

I never knew that Steve used to work at the post office where your games were processed...

[brian brian]

Fractional Odds

Partisans - I feel strongly this shouldn't be an optional. One shouldn't simulate WWII and pretend the Axis were just misunderstood nice guys.

2d10 - really brings out fine detail of WWII Combined Arms operations - in a grand strategy game. I want to try "First Loss Must Be A Corps" House Rule someday, with divisions in play. Divisions give the players excellent flexibility, but campaigns can progress with far too few counters removed. 100K German casualties in France historically and many German players can complete it with just 4-5 division pieces and 1 corps removed. Also 2d10 helps insulate the Axis from a string of bad throws when counter densities are low, which can cripple valid strategic lines of play. The most common result in 2d10 is in the middle and that is a big difference.


I subscribed to S&T for a long time. I think I only kept the Great Battles of The American Civil War issues, and the two Rommel games, Desert Fox and the sequel for Tunisia. I'm reading Master&Commander lately and I wish I would have kept Fighting Sail, from about #84 I think, I might track that one down again.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

100K German casualties in France historically and many German players can complete it with just 4-5 division pieces and 1 corps removed.

warspite1

How many casualties would 5 divisions and a corps destroyed equate to? Using France as the example I can't see that that is particularly ahistoric.

Of course that in part is a function of the fact that this game does not have individual losses within units (not being a computer game) or even step losses like SPI's ETO and PTO had; its destroyed or nothing. But at c16,000 x 5 for a division and c48,000 + for a corps - those losses don't seem a million miles off the actual 156,000 casualties.