American entry

[Joseignacio]

When so many years ago one of my friends explained the WIF rules to me, or his understanding of them unfortunately...

... he explained to me that if for some reason the American player lost more entry chits than he had, he could not join the war any time in the future.

I have searched through the RAW 7.0, and in the RAW 8.106 which is what we are playing at the moment, but I cannot find it. Didn't find anything in the FAQ either, searching for "entry".

I wonder if this rule exists at all or he had all this wrong.

[Orm]

Your friend had it right. Although I have no idea if the rules applies to the latest version of WIF. But it surely applies to MWIF. See marked sentence cut in below.

Cur from RAC: 13.3.3 US entry actions

Actions both sides take before the US is at war with every Axis major power can hasten or delay the entry of
the US into war with the Axis powers.
When a major power takes any action specified on the US entry actions chart, you should check the US entry
cost of that action. If the cost is positive, you may have to randomly choose one or more markers from the common
marker pool and put it in one of your entry pools. If the cost is negative, you may have to randomly choose one or
more markers from an entry pool and return it to the common marker pool.
If the action has "(Ge/It)" after it, place or remove the marker into/from the German/Italian entry pool. If the
action has "(Ja)" after it, place or remove the marker into/from the Japanese entry pool. In all other cases, the US
player can choose either entry pool.
For every 10 US entry points the action costs, randomly select 1 marker. If there are any remaining points,
roll a die. If the roll is less than or equal to the remaining points, select another marker.
Example: Japan occupies Indo-China. This has a US entry cost of 12. So, you add 1 marker from the
common marker pool to the Japan entry pool. Roll a die and compare it to the remaining 2 points. If you roll a 1 or
2, you put a further marker into the Japan entry pool.
You can only pick markers for each action once, regardless of the number of times that the action occurs,
unless the chart notes otherwise.
If the US can’t take a marker from an entry marker pool when required, it can never declare war on that
pool’s major power(s).

[Joseignacio]

Thanks. And now, searching for "If the US can't take a marker" I found it as well in the RAW 7.0 wit the same wording. In 8.106 however, it changes. In case someone is interested:

You may only pick markers for each action once, regardless of the number of times that the action occurs, unless the chart notes otherwise.

Whenever the US can’t take a marker from an entry pool when required, the US loses one turn's regular entry markers (see 13.3.1) for each marker not removed. Furthermore, if an Allied major power triggered the removal, it may never claim any territory (see 19.6), give or receive any build points or resources from the US (see 5.), or co-operate (see 18.) with her, for the rest of the game.

[paulderynck]

The change is the result of the the two potential strategies that were written up in the 2008 WiF Annual. They were "No USA in Europe" and "No USA in Pacific".

The idea was for the Allies to be crazy aggressive in one or the other and then the USA would fight mainly in the other unless it did something that would make the other Axis powers DoW the USA. IMO the most attractive was the Pacific because eventually the USA could still pass the Unrestricted Naval Warfare US Entry Option and provide the lift and fleet cover for the CW to invade Japanese possessions.

The downside was lower production for half the war if the Axis could not be goaded into a DoW. But there are so many Multiple States of War abuses that the USA can be awfully, terribly annoying to the Axis Power(s) the USA can never DoW.

[Joseignacio]

Thanks for the explanation. Now I can be prevented and know what is going on if somebody does it against me, although I guess there is no much you can change to face it.

That's the part of the game I like less. I understand this is a game of Grand Strategy, which includes not only fighting but producing and making diplomacy (up to a point), but this is too much like an exploit. No matter that it is a reflect of the real life exploits that were or could have been in the war.

Fake neutralities and all...

[paulderynck]

It struck me as odd that the designer would be happy to publish these potential strategies and then effectively disallow them in the next issue of the rules.

[Joseignacio]

Some of these strategies seem to be "public" for the "experts" in some communities, like some websites and specially the wifdiscussion lists, so maybe he was speaking of something it was widely known for the fans (so no tip or surprise there) but something he felt it was an exploit and he proptly patched it. Maybe.

After all this is and has been an ever evolving game.

[Courtenay]

The multiple states of war and the peacekeeper rules are my least favorite rules in WiF. I try to avoid them as much as possible. In particular, I require Italy to DOW both the CW and France (if Vichy does not exist) simultaneously, and I require the CW and France to DOW Italy simultaneously.

[Joseignacio]

Yes, For me those are the worst too. I understand the need for them but handling them is tricky, can become gamey and is complicated.

[Viktor_Kormel_slith]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

The multiple states of war and the peacekeeper rules are my least favorite rules in WiF. I try to avoid them as much as possible. In particular, I require Italy to DOW both the CW and France (if Vichy does not exist) simultaneously, and I require the CW and France to DOW Italy simultaneously.

You are right, in our game it is an usual strategy played by Italy [:(]. Another trick for Italy, if you conquer Suez soon align Irak and Persia or declare war persia before URSS and never declare war on Russia.

We sometimes play some houserules to avoid another nasty tricks, for example URSS can´t declare war to Italy except if there are Italian units near the russian frontier. About USA I don´t understand the advantage of only fight in one front, would you mind to explain me?[&:]

[Joseignacio]

I have suffered that one too, I thought it was not very fair, but now I see it's an exploit, but I was thinking more in exploits more evident like the USSR declaration of war or others that make the game really messy like battles at sea where for example, GE fights CW and FR but IT is at war only with FR, the mess is serious. It could get more complicated, though, like with USA at war with JA but not with GE and IT or vice versa.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Viktor_Kormel

We sometimes play some houserules to avoid another nasty tricks, for example URSS can´t declare war to Italy except if there are Italian units near the russian frontier. About USA I don´t understand the advantage of only fight in one front, would you mind to explain me?[&:]

Of course there are disadvantages for the USA, notably never getting to full PM (except see #6), but the best example is against Japan. Imagine this:
1. USSR DoWs Japan and surprises her.
2. Then the CW does the same.
3. Perhaps reeling in shock, Japan does not pre-emptively DoW France, and France also does a DoW with a surprise impulse.
4. Of course, US entry against Japan goes far into the toilet but once negative, there are no more chits to lose, it can't get worse.
5. Eventually, USA gains back enough entry to pass "Unrestricted Naval Warfare" and has a huge naval task force to provide lift for CW invasions of the Japanese Pacific holdings.
6. Tired of this, the Japanese DoW the USA and get a surprise impulse, but by this time it's too late as she never has recovered from 1, 2 and 3.

[vicberg]

IMO, these are boutique strategies used by players who've played the game too much and wanted to try something different, or played at a con and wanted some element of surprise.

Most experienced allied players do very little to affect US Entry. Gear up brings US prod to 20 BPs. War Appropriations brings US Prod to 30. Dow against GE/IT brings to 40. DOW against Japan brings to 50. US Prod goes up another 10 for each full year after total war. So bringing the US into the war as early as possible is more important than virtually anything else.

If GE makes inroads into Russia, GE economy can become a monster, another reason why a single front US War is risky at best. Plus victory conditions may make such that the allies can't win, as the US can't get involved in the other front, even including exploits.

Russia DOW on IT. Nice for Russia to be able to move units, but too big an affect on US Entry. CW Dow on Japan? Only can happen if playing chrome which gives the CW an absurd amount of extra ships to be able to do something and then I'm not confident CW could win. Their crappy carriers and CVP against the Japanese? And French DOW? Another crap fleet. Yes both could make inroads against Japan, but could they hold it? And what is GE/IT doing while the Allied fleet is in the pacific? Playing solitaire? And there goes US against GE/IT and probable allied victory because of victory conditions.

[paulderynck]

For the No USA in Pacific, the CW and France don't have to hold stuff, they just have to hurt Japan's economy. Especially the CPs. And Unrestricted Naval Warfare means the USA can do everything in the Pacific except make the actual invasions with its land units.

That's the theory anyway. It would be interesting to try it. But the big abuse with the strategy was not its actual execution... well taking advantage of Multiple States of War is an abuse, but there are many such of those... but the BIG abuse is that once the USA goes negative, there is no additional penalty. Many possible fixes were discussed for RAW8 - that would still have permitted the strategy but prevented the big abuse - but ultimately the designer chose to write the rule to essentially eliminate the strategy.

In the meantime, Multiple States of War is still around and still can be abused.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

For the No USA in Pacific, the CW and France don't have to hold stuff, they just have to hurt Japan's economy. Especially the CPs. And Unrestricted Naval Warfare means the USA can do everything in the Pacific except make the actual invasions with its land units.

That's the theory anyway. It would be interesting to try it. But the big abuse with the strategy was not its actual execution... well taking advantage of Multiple States of War is an abuse, but there are many such of those... but the BIG abuse is that once the USA goes negative, there is no additional penalty. Many possible fixes were discussed for RAW8 - that would still have permitted the strategy but prevented the big abuse - but ultimately the designer chose to write the rule to essentially eliminate the strategy.

In the meantime, Multiple States of War is still around and still can be abused.

It's as Paul said. During a CW surprise impulse the Japanese loses a lot of convoy points. If the French send a cruiser squadron towards Japanese waters, the same can happen next turn. And those two pesky USSR SUB's might also down a couple of CP. This alone can hurt the Japanese production a awful lot. Sure, some luck is needed on the Allied side, but if it happens, it means the Japanese can lose as much as 20 build points, if you add all up...

So I agree totally with Paul, that the penalty for the US isn't good enough. In RAW8 that penalty is far bigger, making this "gamey" situation far less interesting for the Allies.

If ever, I would like to see this one appearing in MWIF as an additional optional rule...

[Courtenay]

The only time I heard a no USA Pacific strategy working was at a con where the Allies made use of a gross abuse of the rules: They attacked the Japanese convoys to the US, knocking them out. This was pre-RAW7, when there were insane penalties on not having those convoys, which basically prevented the Japanese from effectively fighting the Allies, and the CW and France were able to conquer Japan. Those rules were changed soon thereafter.

(If someone had pulled this on me, I would have said "OK, you win. Let's do something else more fun. Root canal?" [:)] )

[Orm]

If someone pulled that on me back then, I would definitely have said something more colourful than that. But I do agree with your point.

[paulderynck]

If things like this are never tried, then they never get identified for the next issue of the rules. For all of those who claim they play because they enjoy playing more than winning, these petulant cries of "I quit" ring rather hollow. As we used to say in our group: "What will we do when we finish this game? - Start another one, of course!"

AAMOF after reading about the strategies, I thought I would like to play as the Axis just to see if they were as good for the Allies as advertised. I think the No USA in Europe one is likely not a game winner for the Allies, unlike the better possibilities for the No USA in the Pacific, because of the way Unrestricted Naval Warfare fits into it.

Of course in the first incarnation mentioned by Courtenay, it would seem the Axis were doomed right away and that's why the rules were changed so quickly.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

The only time I heard a no USA Pacific strategy working was at a con where the Allies made use of a gross abuse of the rules: They attacked the Japanese convoys to the US, knocking them out. This was pre-RAW7, when there were insane penalties on not having those convoys, which basically prevented the Japanese from effectively fighting the Allies, and the CW and France were able to conquer Japan. Those rules were changed soon thereafter.

(If someone had pulled this on me, I would have said "OK, you win. Let's do something else more fun. Root canal?" [:)] )

What were the changes to the rules you mention?

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

The only time I heard a no USA Pacific strategy working was at a con where the Allies made use of a gross abuse of the rules: They attacked the Japanese convoys to the US, knocking them out. This was pre-RAW7, when there were insane penalties on not having those convoys, which basically prevented the Japanese from effectively fighting the Allies, and the CW and France were able to conquer Japan. Those rules were changed soon thereafter.

(If someone had pulled this on me, I would have said "OK, you win. Let's do something else more fun. Root canal?" [:)] )

What were the changes to the rules you mention?

The old rules imposed severe limits on the actions a player could take if the convoy chain was broken. The new rules got rid of that, and replaced it with putting two chits in (or taking two chits out) of the Japanese entry pool.