House Rules you arrogantly assume everyone should use..

[Vanman]

Alright all. I have two

1) Victory. Objective cities = 15. Game ends Sept/Oct 45. Axis have more than 15 cities, they win. Less, they lose. 15 its a glorious tie. I plagiarized this from some distant post ages ago. Thank you whoever you are.

2) Russo-Japanese Pact border garrisons = 1939 (7 to 1) 1940 (6 to 1). 1941 (5 to 1) etc etc. Since I don't like WIF to be decided in 1940 Manchuria, this is required. This includes a mandatory 5 land units (Corp/Army equivalent) that must stay in Manchuria....its miserable enough for China.

Anyone else?

[Orm]

I have one that I have tried to include in almost every game that I had, and a second that I probably will include in every new game that I have. A lot of other HR from game to game. A couple that I try to include in all my email games as well.

1) Only strategic bombing missions are allowed at night.
2) Partisans must be placed actively, if possible, and then used actively. No 'hiding' partisans in remote areas just to increase partisan value.

[Orm]

I like to use the expected totals of objectives for each major power at the end of Jul/Aug 1945 table from the Scenarios Booklet to determine the winner.

Note that in the Global War campaign the table has 15 VPs for Axis, so this table might be were your 16 points for Axis to win comes from.

0000.jpg (36.95 KiB) Viewed 1168 times

[paulderynck]

For RAW7 I have always used 15 as the victory level except that if the USA aligns both Mexico and Brazil then it drops to 14. The rationale for this is that in a game with bidding, it costs the USA 1 to do that.

In WiFCE there are now 70 VPs available and the number for a draw is 11 (or 10 if using the house rule above).

[peskpesk]

MWIF optional rules with historical flare

Night Missions Only Strategic bombing

Description:
Only strategic bombing allowed as a night mission (all other missions must be performed by day).

Reason:
This aligns with WIF-8 rules. Also for game speed, frequent checking the misson type and rule “abuse” are limited with this optional rule.

Historical Note:

During WW II the most common Night Missions was flewn as part of a Strategic bombing mission.

Limited saving of build points

Description

You may save oil and build points you didn’t use in production. Active major powers may save any amount of each, every turn. Neutral major powers may save any amount of build points but only 1 oil (in addition to their previously saved oil), the remainder being destroyed (your choice which). You can’t save general resources.

Reason:
A build-up of SAVED BP will allow the US to launch an unhistorical early ship building program, which also it to build all carriers at the same time, thus tipping the balance in the Pacific.

Historical Note:
Only in January 1942 — a mere month after the attack on Pearl Harbor — President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the establishment of the War Production Board. Transitioned From Peacetime to Wartime Production.

Italian Horn of Africa

Description:
Final victory, Subtract 1 from CW vp total for each of Ethiopia,
Italian Somaliland and Eritrea.which still was Italian controlled during EOT step Nov/Dec 1942.

Reason:
In MWIF there are no threat to the RedSea or to allied minor countries/territories around the Horn of Africa due to supply limitation. This is corrected in and aligns with WIF-8 rules and the strategic importance of the Horn of Africa contrasts sharply with MWIF grand scale. The small scale campaign fought during WW II is not a good fit for the importance it had.

With the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden cleared of Axis forces, the Ships of the United States were able to proceed directly to the Suez Canal, which helped to relieve the strain on British shipping resource. Just leaving the Italians holdings without addressing the Naval, Arial threat would not be an option for the Allies, although in MWIF you can doit without fear.

Historical Note:
The Italian forces in Horn of Africa are a big potential threat to British supply routes along the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal. While Egypt and the Suez Canal were Mussolini's obvious primary targets, an Italian invasion of either French Somaliland or British Somaliland were reasonable choices. The British had to act after the Italians took control of Berbera and then moved down the coast to complete their conquest of British Somaliland. The British colony was annexed to Italian East Africa.

[Centuur]

MWIF optional rules with historical flare

Night Missions Only Strategic bombing

Description:
Only strategic bombing allowed as a night mission (all other missions must be performed by day).

Reason:
This aligns with WIF-8 rules. Also for game speed, frequent checking the misson type and rule “abuse” are limited with this optional rule.

Historical Note:

During WW II the most common Night Missions was flewn as part of a Strategic bombing mission.

Limited saving of build points

Description

You may save oil and build points you didn’t use in production. Active major powers may save any amount of each, every turn. Neutral major powers may save any amount of build points but only 1 oil (in addition to their previously saved oil), the remainder being destroyed (your choice which). You can’t save general resources.

Reason:
A build-up of SAVED BP will allow the US to launch an unhistorical early ship building program, which also it to build all carriers at the same time, thus tipping the balance in the Pacific.

Historical Note:
Only in January 1942 — a mere month after the attack on Pearl Harbor — President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the establishment of the War Production Board. Transitioned From Peacetime to Wartime Production.

Italian Horn of Africa

Description:
Final victory, Subtract 1 from CW vp total for each of Ethiopia,
Italian Somaliland and Eritrea.which still was Italian controlled during EOT step Nov/Dec 1942.

Reason:
In MWIF there are no threat to the RedSea or to allied minor countries/territories around the Horn of Africa due to supply limitation. This is corrected in and aligns with WIF-8 rules and the strategic importance of the Horn of Africa contrasts sharply with MWIF grand scale. The small scale campaign fought during WW II is not a good fit for the importance it had.

With the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden cleared of Axis forces, the Ships of the United States were able to proceed directly to the Suez Canal, which helped to relieve the strain on British shipping resource. Just leaving the Italians holdings without addressing the Naval, Arial threat would not be an option for the Allies, although in MWIF you can doit without fear.

Historical Note:
The Italian forces in Horn of Africa are a big potential threat to British supply routes along the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal. While Egypt and the Suez Canal were Mussolini's obvious primary targets, an Italian invasion of either French Somaliland or British Somaliland were reasonable choices. The British had to act after the Italians took control of Berbera and then moved down the coast to complete their conquest of British Somaliland. The British colony was annexed to Italian East Africa.

That last one is a good one. The Italian East African fleet didn't have large ships, but had destroyers and submarines. Fuel for the ships and Subs was a big problem, however. But the British lost merchantmen and a light cruiser in the Red Sea...

[rkr1958]

1) Only strategic bombing missions are allowed at night.

what about airborne drops? A number of those happened at night (e.g., D-Day, Sicily).

[craigbear]

Not certain how to implement it, but I would like to halve shore bombardment strength for defenders. Way too effective as is, and being an unplanned action, as opposed to offensive, I think penalties are merited.

[juntoalmar]

Not certain how to implement it, but I would like to halve shore bombardment strength for defenders. Way too effective as is, and being an unplanned action, as opposed to offensive, I think penalties are merited.

I remove defensive shore bombardment completely.

Does anyone have a house rules for units completely isolated over time? Like those russian units that resist for many turns in a city completely surrounded.

[rkr1958]

Not certain how to implement it, but I would like to halve shore bombardment strength for defenders. Way too effective as is, and being an unplanned action, as opposed to offensive, I think penalties are merited.

I like (use) the updated (CE, WIF 8) rule for shore bombardment.

11.15.2. Shore bombardment. Only 1 SCS may be added to the combat for each co-operating friendly unit (including notional) involved in the combat. Furthermore, you ignore any shore bombardment factors that exceed the total (modified) combat factors of the land units they are supporting.

I apply it to offensive, as well as defensive, shore bombardment. Does in general though have more of a constraining effect on defensive vs offensive shore bombardment.

[jjdenver]

2) Russo-Japanese Pact border garrisons = 1939 (7 to 1) 1940 (6 to 1). 1941 (5 to 1) etc etc. Since I don't like WIF to be decided in 1940 Manchuria, this is required. This includes a mandatory 5 land units (Corp/Army equivalent) that must stay in Manchuria....its miserable enough for China.

I know this should be obvious but somehow it's not clear to me. Can you explain this more? It means SU needs 7:1 garrison to DOW? Why are 5 units in Manchuria needed? For example 2 JP units in manchuria would require 14 SU units for DOW?

EDIT: Ah I have it now - in addition to garrison, 5 JP units need to stay in Manchuria forever? That seems harsh maybe later in the war.

[rkr1958]

2) Russo-Japanese Pact border garrisons = 1939 (7 to 1) 1940 (6 to 1). 1941 (5 to 1) etc etc. Since I don't like WIF to be decided in 1940 Manchuria, this is required. This includes a mandatory 5 land units (Corp/Army equivalent) that must stay in Manchuria....its miserable enough for China.

I know this should be obvious but somehow it's not clear to me. Can you explain this more? It means SU needs 7:1 garrison to DOW? Why are 5 units in Manchuria needed? For example 2 JP units in manchuria would require 14 SU units for DOW?

EDIT: Ah I have it now - in addition to garrison, 5 JP units need to stay in Manchuria forever? That seems harsh maybe later in the war.

I'm using the below house rule on this matter in my solo (counterfactual) play and really like it. It's definitely harsh especially for Japan and even for the USSR up to ND41. The way it works is that the unit types specified must be on the frontier (i.e., within 3-hexes of enemy controlled hex) from the epoch (turn) listed (e.g., MJ41) up until the beginning of the next epoch (e.g., ND41). This means that the Soviets must keep Zhukov HQ-A in Soviet Asia and on their frontier with Japan until the ND41 turn, which they then can rail him back to Eastern Europe. What's brutal for Japan is that they're required to keep an HQ-I for the entire game until Jan/Feb 1945 on the frontier with the USSR. The epochs, numbers and types were "extracted" from seven WIF 7 scenario setups. Note that DC and OC are the number of defensive and offensive pact chits; respectively and are included for completeness.

999-HR-3.png (56.46 KiB) Viewed 1012 times

[Centuur]

I don't like that house rule at all. It is to strict on the Japanese and the USSR. A normal peace pact can be agreed on by both players and that's it (and if I'm playing the Japanese, I would really want such a pact, because it gives me free reign in China). If I'm playing the USSR, I would never want such a pact to be in place before it looks like China is save.

[Courtenay]

One rule that I use is that if an SCS or CV is destroyed, it must be scrapped. No rebuilding Enterprise or Akagi.

[Orm]

One rule that I use is that if an SCS or CV is destroyed, it must be scrapped. No rebuilding Enterprise or Akagi.

I have mixed feelings about this one. I loathe rebuilding sunk named ships. However, I suspect that if the game creators didn't have a counter limit there would be more ships to build. When WiF was first created the ships counters were generic, and then the generic counters were gives historical names. The game has evolved a lot since those generic counters. And a lot more counter-sheets. But still a limit on them.

[rkr1958]

I don't like that house rule at all. It is to strict on the Japanese and the USSR. A normal peace pact can be agreed on by both players and that's it (and if I'm playing the Japanese, I would really want such a pact, because it gives me free reign in China). If I'm playing the USSR, I would never want such a pact to be in place before it looks like China is save.

I like to use in my solo counterfactual game(s) because it's "historical". However; for non-solo, competitive play I agree that it's too restrictive.

Though, it could be a tool in competitive play to "mitigate" or "deemphasize" the impact of China on the early to mid game.

[rkr1958]

One rule that I use is that if an SCS or CV is destroyed, it must be scrapped. No rebuilding Enterprise or Akagi.

I have mixed feelings about this one. I loathe rebuilding sunk named ships. However, I suspect that if the game creators didn't have a counter limit there would be more ships to build. When WiF was first created the ships counters were generic, and then the generic counters were gives historical names. The game has evolved a lot since those generic counters. And a lot more counter-sheets. But still a limit on them.

Just curious if anyone has ever played in a game where one of the major powers built out their entire force pool of ships. That is, playing with ships in flames.

Can't image if any were built out with both ships and cruiser in flames.

[Vanman]

2) Russo-Japanese Pact border garrisons = 1939 (7 to 1) 1940 (6 to 1). 1941 (5 to 1) etc etc. Since I don't like WIF to be decided in 1940 Manchuria, this is required. This includes a mandatory 5 land units (Corp/Army equivalent) that must stay in Manchuria....its miserable enough for China.

I know this should be obvious but somehow it's not clear to me. Can you explain this more? It means SU needs 7:1 garrison to DOW? Why are 5 units in Manchuria needed? For example 2 JP units in manchuria would require 14 SU units for DOW?

EDIT: Ah I have it now - in addition to garrison, 5 JP units need to stay in Manchuria forever? That seems harsh maybe later in the war.

We had a variety of games where the war was basically decided in Manchuria in 1940. Either Japan collapsed due to Soviet Armor and not able to handle fighting both the USSR and China at the same time, or the USSR would get a bit bogged down and the Wehrmacht would crush them in 1941. It became tiresome so I felt these rules worked best as it basically ruled out a war in Manchuria in the early years of the war. Tying down 5 Japanese land units (ok maybe it was 4, I cannot remember exactly) made it so China wouldn't be rolled quite so easily. Of course with China having to face Japan alone for years, there is always the issue of Nationalist Attack Weakness and Multiple Cities to deal with. The former does not amount to much as China is rarely able to attack in the early years, while the latter can be tough for the Japanese as China has a far better chance of getting units behind Japanese lines to wreak periodic havoc (gotta love that Cav).

Van

[Courtenay]

One house rule I use, but do not expect everyone to use: If Vichy is not in existence, If Italy declares war on either France or the CW, it must declare war on the other. If either France or the CW declares war on Italy, the other must do so to.

The reason I do this is because I hate the multiple states of war rules.

[paulderynck]

One house rule I use, but do not expect everyone to use: If Vichy is not in existence, If Italy declares war on either France or the CW, it must declare war on the other. If either France or the CW declares war on Italy, the other must do so to.

The reason I do this is because I hate the multiple states of war rules.

How do you handle USA at war with Japan but not the Euro-axis?