Ridiculous rules

[Courtenay]

What are people's favorite ridiculous rules in WiF? The ones that trying to visualize what is happening just makes you smile?

My two favorites are Italian SCSs in pools being delivered to Germany and Japan after an incomplete conquest of Italy when the Allies hold Gibraltar and the Suez canal, and SCS invasions by cavalry divisions.

For the first, I have visions of a damaged Littorio on a giant carriage being hauled over the Alps by a large number of people pulling ropes.

For the second, well: "Heave! Sploosh. Heave! Sploosh. Heave! ...."

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

What are people's favorite ridiculous rules in WiF? The ones that trying to visualize what is happening just makes you smile?

My two favorites are Italian SCSs in pools being delivered to Germany and Japan after an incomplete conquest of Italy when the Allies hold Gibraltar and the Suez canal, and SCS invasions by cavalry divisions.

For the first, I have visions of a damaged Littorio on a giant carriage being hauled over the Alps by a large number of people pulling ropes.

For the second, well: "Heave! Sploosh. Heave! Sploosh. Heave! ...."

warspite1

As for Italian SCS, well I didn't know that was a thing but that's pretty rubbish to say the least. Submarines yes... SCS er well no.

Cavalry division is less of a problem for me although doesn't make much historical sense. That a cavalry regiment could no longer have horses but keeps its cavalry designation is possible - although (certainly in the British Army) cavalry tended to become tank or armoured units and so they shouldn't be invading (until much later in the war). And if they became foot soldiers then they should no longer have the cavalry movement allowance......

Peacekeepers is the one that kills me (although there was a long thread about this and I understand why it is there in game terms). The Soviets attack Finland - Germany has ceded Finland as part of the NS Pact - but despite this she sends potentially whole armies to fight the Soviets and stop them from taking Helsinki. None of which happens to bring the Soviets and the Germans to a state of war.....

[brian brian]

Convoy Points should be excluded from the Cooperation rules.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

and SCS invasions by cavalry divisions.

For the second, well: "Heave! Sploosh. Heave! Sploosh. Heave! ...."

Wasn't the 1st Cavalry Division the lead unit in the US invasion of the Admiralty islands in 1943?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

and SCS invasions by cavalry divisions.

For the second, well: "Heave! Sploosh. Heave! Sploosh. Heave! ...."

Wasn't the 1st Cavalry Division the lead unit in the US invasion of the Admiralty islands in 1943?

warspite1

.... but probably not on horseback [;)]

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Convoy Points should be excluded from the Cooperation rules.

And: convoy points should be allowed to enter neutral ports (even if there are enemy convoy points in port).
Also: convoy points in neutral ports are always in supply.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

and SCS invasions by cavalry divisions.

For the second, well: "Heave! Sploosh. Heave! Sploosh. Heave! ...."

Wasn't the 1st Cavalry Division the lead unit in the US invasion of the Admiralty islands in 1943?

warspite1

.... but probably not on horseback [;)]

[:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


Wasn't the 1st Cavalry Division the lead unit in the US invasion of the Admiralty islands in 1943?

warspite1

.... but probably not on horseback [;)]

[:D]

warspite1

These guys appear a little confused. They do know their orders for an amphibious assault meant them storming the beach from the water right?

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

.... but probably not on horseback [;)]

[:D]

warspite1

These guys appear a little confused. They do know their orders for an amphibious assault meant them storming the beach from the water right?

You're are absolutely killing me. I busted a gut laughing at your response. Thanks! [:D]

[paulderynck]

Well if CAV can invade in WiF (FE or CE) or in MWiF, then it's a bug. Check 28 - Unit Costs and Characteristics.

My favorite ridiculous rule is the one about minor naval units not being able to base in some places, some times - like the Dutch TRS.

[brian brian]

I have a book called Cavalry of WWII. They were used a fair bit on the Eastern Front, on both sides. Germany rebuilt some disbanded formations, largely for anti-partisan duty.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Well if CAV can invade in WiF (FE or CE) or in MWiF, then it's a bug. Check 28 - Unit Costs and Characteristics.

What Paul said.

And you can not transport cavalry on SCS. Only infantry is allowed on SCS.

And if you can invade with a cavalry division from a SCS, then that is not one bug but two.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Well if CAV can invade in WiF (FE or CE) or in MWiF, then it's a bug. Check 28 - Unit Costs and Characteristics.

What Paul said.

And you can not transport cavalry on SCS. Only infantry is allowed on SCS.

And if you can invade with a cavalry division from a SCS, then that is not one bug but two.

Can you invade with a cavalry division from a transport? I can't recall if I've done that before or not. I think I have but then again maybe not?

[paulderynck]

As stated, if you can do it in MWiF, it's a bug. In WiF it's against the rules.

[Admiral Delabroglio]

One rule that always annoyed me in WiF is that a minor is limited by its controlling major power choice of action
For instance, Poland is controlled by the CW.
During the first allied impulse, the CW usually chooses a naval impulse. Hence, the Polish land units are stuck doing nothing. Even if Germany uses only a screen of slow units against Poland.
At one time, I considered using a house rule for "Major Minors", ie minor countries who have a HQ in their force pool : if a major minor is attacked (NOT if it deliberately joins in, for instance Yugoslavia joining in if an allied power has 4 units in an adjacent country) then its units have their own action limits, using the China ones, with the following restriction : if the controlling major power chooses a land / naval / air action, then the minor can take either the same type of action or a combined. If the controlling major uses a combined action, the minor can pick any action. The benefit is lost if the minor is conquered, even if liberated afterwards.
It would emphasize the difference between a minor coutry fighting for its freedom and a minor country giving in to half veiled threats into entering the war and making only a half hearted effort.

Best regards

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Admiral Delabroglio

One rule that always annoyed me in WiF is that a minor is limited by its controlling major power choice of action
For instance, Poland is controlled by the CW.
During the first allied impulse, the CW usually chooses a naval impulse. Hence, the Polish land units are stuck doing nothing. Even if Germany uses only a screen of slow units against Poland.
At one time, I considered using a house rule for "Major Minors", ie minor countries who have a HQ in their force pool : if a major minor is attacked (NOT if it deliberately joins in, for instance Yugoslavia joining in if an allied power has 4 units in an adjacent country) then its units have their own action limits, using the China ones, with the following restriction : if the controlling major power chooses a land / naval / air action, then the minor can take either the same type of action or a combined. If the controlling major uses a combined action, the minor can pick any action. The benefit is lost if the minor is conquered, even if liberated afterwards.
It would emphasize the difference between a minor coutry fighting for its freedom and a minor country giving in to half veiled threats into entering the war and making only a half hearted effort.

Best regards

warspite1

I certainly take your point, although I suspect the reason is probably twofold - firstly ADG liked to have as few country specific rules as possible and preferred, where possible, to have the same rules apply to all.

The second could be that, quite simply, WWII should never have panned out the way it did. It was really quite ridiculous. And that gives a problem to all strategic wargame designers of WWII. How to make force sizes in anyway realistic, that still give the Germans a chance and allows the Allies some degree of flexibility in what they do.

All WIF players know the key to the Allies winning is to keep the French (and Poles) fighting. So while the WIF rules may unrealistically handicap the Poles, it is just as unrealistic for the Poles to fight in a way designed specifically to help the CW (and of course I am thinking initial set up in particular, as the Poles had little choice but to set up as they did in real life whereas in WIF, the CW will have no such qualms about setting up the Poles to keep them in the game).

Its a real balance that needs to be struck.

[brian brian]

Take a Combined to start with the CW. Prioritize. 2 naval "moves" can accomplish a lot. It is actually not a good idea to instantly deploy the BEF anyway, as you want to hold your reserves to possibly respond to what Germany might do in the west (Rotterdam, Denmark). And what can the Axis do to the Allies on impulse #3, anyway? Maybe an Italian DOW - but if that happens, you probably don't want ships at sea anyway, and the CW has an ally in the Med with their own navy. The CW convoys should be 3 zones away from any Kriegsmarine raids - & they might not even have U-Boats with that range to start, in some games.

Then, the Poles can move a few units. Maybe take 2 Combined impulses. Maybe if the Poles can move a little, the Germans might be less willing to take a Combined to launch a naval raid.

If Germany goes in for a strong attack across the Rhine in 1939, the Poles should fight hard, keeping both their air units - if the FTR beats just one German FTR, that is a big help to the Allies as the Germans might have the other 3 in Belgium. If Germany is not careful and maybe flips a lot of units on an attack in Poland, the CW can rail move the oil from Persia into Warsaw and the Polish air fights again. (Russia should hold off on entering East Poland until the Germans have at least one of the Polish factory hexes in such a Poland Fights scenario).


There are some other possible game situations where minors operating under major power action limits can get frustrating, but action limits always circle back to: priorities. You are C-i-C, you decide. Convoys need protection? Set that up the turn previous if necessary.

[craigbear]

Far more frustrating is to have to take a pass to help Russia survive when you really really want to take an action... not too realistic if you think about it.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: craigbear

Far more frustrating is to have to take a pass to help Russia survive when you really really want to take an action... not too realistic if you think about it.

It's frustrating, that's for sure. One of the guys I used to play with over the board always said: "that rule simulates politics". I think he's right, where this is concerned. In a multiplayer game, you really get very nice discussions when Uncle Joe asks mr. Churchill to pass, especially when the latter sees all kind of nice things he can do to put pressure on the Japanese...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: craigbear

Far more frustrating is to have to take a pass to help Russia survive when you really really want to take an action... not too realistic if you think about it.

It's frustrating, that's for sure. One of the guys I used to play with over the board always said: "that rule simulates politics". I think he's right, where this is concerned. In a multiplayer game, you really get very nice discussions when Uncle Joe asks mr. Churchill to pass, especially when the latter sees all kind of nice things he can do to put pressure on the Japanese...

warspite1

I think your friend is right - although would also add it simulates the decisions that the allies had to take on compromising their own needs in order to keep the USSR in the war.

So whilst trying to end a turn is unrealistic in terms of real life, the concept really isn't unrealistic.

How much were the tanks and aircraft sent to the Soviet Union needed in the Western Desert or the Far East?

How much were the Royal Navy ships engaged in the convoys to Russia required in the Med?

It is natural in WIF for the Allies (and the Axis) to play as a team, but that too is unrealistic. The turn end 'needs vs wants' at least in some way goes to explore the sometimes very different needs and wants of each power.