your most important / absolutely not optional?

[Beryl]

Another surprising thing is when those who say they hate it admit they've never tried it, but those who play it have played both with and without.

[:-]Sorry but I played both, tried it several times and realized that it is better to play without it. It just may allow for an easier learning curve of naval art of war, like learning bicycle with roulette wheels [:D]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Beryl

If I may, I will try to give some reasons not to play with tPotE. At first the option seems to work well in the Pacific where US and Japan are two major naval power, but not in the Atlantic and the Med.
Actually in the Pacific, you don't need the rule as you already need many CSC, CV or airplane pickets to protect your base from invasion, secure your transport sea-lane, convoy chain and supply, and maximize your chance to intercept the ennemy
But in the Atlantic, it favors CW, as the Axis will need to gain initiative AND take a combined/naval or more combined/naval to pose a real threat in central or south atlantic with its SCS/CV (many player don't see it as they never risk the Bismark or even build a CV, and don't even use subs anyway). The german CX raiders have also their move and range halved , and can never reach far away zone like Africa or Indian Ocean, as it is too easy for the CW to put a lone CL in each sea zone.
In the Med, which is only three sea zone, the side with initiative and more ship has a huge advantage if he is able to empty one or more sea zone of ennemies, as on next impulse, the other side could need a total of 4 mouvement point just to travel only some hundred miles away, forcing it to take either double naval impulse or very high risks. The Africa Campaign can be toasted in only two impulse !

The rule forgets that the opposite side has already an advantage if he put/keeps units in several sea area : interception. Interception can already force the moving fleet to stop (and even call for reinforcement) or take a risk and use more movement points.
And against a very big fleet not afraid of interception, try it not on its first move but when it is returning to base : low risk/high gain as the loss that you can inflict will remind your opponent to never try such a bold move again without securing first his return path and attrit the ennemy
Thus a good naval play achieve exactly what the optional rule try to simulate (for chickens )

ORIGINAL: Beryl

Another surprising thing is when those who say they hate it admit they've never tried it, but those who play it have played both with and without.

[:-]Sorry but I played both, tried it several times and realized that it is better to play without it. It just may allow for an easier learning curve of naval art of war, like learning bicycle with roulette wheels [:D]

OK I've resolved not to debate the issue with people who admit they've never tried it.

For the BOA, subs are not affected. I have not played CLiF so I'm reluctant there - indeed I'd be worried about all the extra CLs the CW can now throw into the sea zones. The CXs should maybe be exempt like subs (after all, they weren't trying to look like warships). But that is speculation. I'd have to play it to be sure.

With ITPOTE, if you want to go into the North Sea with German surface ships you have to plan ahead a bit. Fly a German or (even better) an Italian fighter out there. If the CW does nothing, you are back to dodging their intercept roll. You must be willing to fight if you go out as you can't expect them to miss, although at best it's 50/50, which is one reason people don't feel interception is the magic solution.

But let's say the CW wants to maintain "control" of the North Sea. They have to respond and try to get the Fighter to go home (or to Valhalla). So immediately you encourage more Naval combat (I include Naval Air combat in that category). The same applies to putting a ship out instead of a Fighter (which can suddenly go Poof if the weather changes to Storm).

It's a problem if the turn ends with the enemy controlling a sea zone you want to move through? Too bad - I guess you'll have to fight to at least contest it, or better yet have you be the one who controls it.

Anyway... it's funny how polarized the dabate gets, considering it's an optional rule. Suffice to say it's on my starting list of desired optionals and if we are going to play and you refuse without its deletion, then I want some quid pro quo. I'll take the Axis and we can use No ZOC on Surprise. [;)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Another surprising thing is when those who say they hate it admit they've never tried it, but those who play it have played both with and without.

You can say that about a lot of things: hunting, fishing, golf, pickled herring, smoked eel, ...[;)]

Simply trying something means you have a predisposition towards it; and the converse is true too.

---

My father's aunt used to smuggle smoked eel into the US from Sweden, to the delight of all her relatives here.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Another surprising thing is when those who say they hate it admit they've never tried it, but those who play it have played both with and without.

You can say that about a lot of things: hunting, fishing, golf, pickled herring, smoked eel, ...[;)]

Simply trying something means you have a predisposition towards it; and the converse is true too.

---

My father's aunt used to smuggle smoked eel into the US from Sweden, to the delight of all her relatives here.

I told everyone I hated gravy until I was twelve (I'm not sure why) - then I tried it. Smoked eel ain't real high on my list, but I'd try it.

[lomyrin]

Ahh, but the Swedish smoked eel is fantastic and not to be missed if you can get it.

[Beryl]

About BOA, sure you can choose to fight it with SUB alone. I like to use SCS as well, to force CW to use something else than only CA/CL/ASW and I need a naval in Raw7 to send and replace sub in the same impulse (I understood that Raw 8 had some changes in preparation about it)

If any German SCS sails into the North Sea but wants to go further one sea, as I previously wrote interception can also take place during return to base move (either at the end of the impulse, or as result of a naval combat in Norvegian Sea or Faereos Gap for example). So the final odds are not of 50/50 but 60/70 %, even more if the german ship wants to reach Denmark strait or North Atlantic.
You don't need ITOPE to escalate the control of the North Sea, as you need some control to be able to intercept and in case of an interception, both side should have reserve air units to send air reinforcement. Both side could also try to force the other to commit their assets to achieve local air superiority (for strategic bombing or naval air ) before the end of the turn (as FTR in the 0 box returning to base will be of no use)

I think that NO ZOC on Surprise is pro-axis, but don't think that ITPOTE is pro-allied, it is just bad for the game, so I would not accept your deal or only if your bid is high enough.[:'(] Anyway I choose option before choosing side or only if player's experience has to be balanced for a fun game

[brian brian]

thanks Beryl.

[composer99]

I usually play with ItPotE but have no strong feelings on it (although I don't really understand people rubbishing it).

On topic:

I would not play as the Allies without limited overseas supply. If the Axis really wanted to play without it I could probably convinced with a suitable quid pro quo.

[brian brian]

I started this thread because I think a lot of the optional rules are a little too mysterious, particularly any that have come out since the last set of Designer's Notes were published a long time ago now. So it is just to discuss the optionals and perhaps help clear up some of the mysteries of the pros and cons of using them or not using them. One playing group's experience won't be the same as another's. Picking one to use and one to never use is just a device to do that. They are written and published for us to address how the game play work, but I don't always understand their intent that well. A lot of times, I hear "this was intended to address _______" and ________ is something I hadn't even noticed yet.

[SLAAKMAN]

We never use Option 57 (fighter range variation) and we always use Option 20 (No Zoc on DoW). [:D]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I started this thread because I think a lot of the optional rules are a little too mysterious, particularly any that have come out since the last set of Designer's Notes were published a long time ago now. So it is just to discuss the optionals and perhaps help clear up some of the mysteries of the pros and cons of using them or not using them. One playing group's experience won't be the same as another's. Picking one to use and one to never use is just a device to do that. They are written and published for us to address how the game play work, but I don't always understand their intent that well. A lot of times, I hear "this was intended to address _______" and ________ is something I hadn't even noticed yet.

Our group took up WiFFE after a 10 to 15 year hiatus from WiF which would have been version 3 or 4 when we played it last. Wow! Lots of changes. Being idiots, we equated all the options to extra chrome and wanted to use them all. However, we ran out of willpower to read them all and some sounded "wrong" or too much trouble as we closed in on the end of the rulebook. We wanted to play, not read more optional rules!

So options we've never used are: Intelligence, Japanese Command Conflict and Chinese Attack Weakness. Edit: oh yeah and Limited Aircraft Interception - the whole idea of counting out the individual hexes for the air missions and interception range was inherently sickening.

Options we played and have stopped using are: No ZOC on Surprise and Variable Re-org. (Both pro-axis, IMO)

Options we didn't play initially, but play now are: Limited Overseas Supply and Limited Access Across Straits (which do operate somewhat strangely together and require a review of what the FAQ says about them)

Somewhere on the forums I've seen ratings of which of the options are thought to favor the Allies or the Axis. People say "No, this or that option is either attacker-friendly or defender-friendly", but IMO attacker-friendly favors the axis because they do the bulk of the attacking for the first half of the game and the "snowball effect" causes them to do so much more damage to the allies, that the allies are incapable of a full come back even when they switch to be predominantly on the attack.

I now look at all the options as being play balance mechanisms. The problem is you have to play half a dozen games with the same people to really get a feel for when to add some play balance.

[brian brian]

I don't like Japanese Command Conflict because although it is a very historical idea, as I think the rule text says you would need two Japanese players to do it. Having extra LND instead of NAVs works out good for them in China, while always having their MAR instead of INF is also nice for them in the Pacific, where a strong counterattack on disorganized USMC units that just landed can be one of their best tactics. So a player poor at building the Japanese units gets a small lift up at times. This rule should smack them right in their option selection somehow, but that nothing to do with it. Or make certain Japanese units just not co-operate with other units. That would be a hoot. But hell on playability. For that matter, the Luftwaffe shouldn't really cooperate with the Kriegsmarine but also really tough to ever simulate.

I do like Chinese Attack Weakness, cuz the Chinese just weren't going anywhere in WWII, and the things they do in many a game of WiF are just fantastical. They all knew who was going to win WWII, and the bottom line was getting ready for the real war to come.

I know what you are saying about pro-attacker = pro-Axis. I'm OK with that. The 'awesome power of the Allies' makes the Axis the bigger challenge to play I think. And balancing the game is tough. It's a game of deep strategy wrapped in a hell of a lot of nuts and bolts, and lots of even experienced players trip over one or the other. They can't see the war for all the battles.



I still keep thinking about Bounce Combat. I too think that the limited fighter interception rule just makes no sense, but I look at Bounce through that same too-much-tactical lens. Of the 3 reasons I can think of to use it - more airplanes coming off the map, more random chaos all around, and no way to protect your best bombers, which do you think is the most important? I already have no problem flying at -1 most times. Just go up there and roll the dice. The planes are just made of cardboard and there are usually more on the way.

I just don't get that worked up about which plane is on the counter, though that is a big detail improvement. Before Planes in Flames, no one cared which plane was on the counter, cuz there were no plane models, just numbers. I can look at it as the Stukas surviving also means the now combat experienced pilots flying the other bombers are now a lot better, and no wing of planes was all one model anyway, nor did only one model of plane usually get shot down in a large air combat. You just have to represent attrition somehow. And the Germans did fly a few Stukas on into 1945 on the eastern front (Rudel), if they had any fuel. Allied air superiority will gradually become a reality regardless of what models are on the Luftwaffe counters. But when Bounce Combat came out, that's all I can recall there being for an explanation of why to use it. I do though, love the CW rocket FTRs.


Here is another controversial one - en-route aircraft interception. I like it, but then it is easy for me to make quick decisions on that. I know the impulse before whether I am going to intercept or not. So if the B-17s fly extended range right over my FTR gruppes stationed in the Ruhr, I can fly up and make a fight out of it. I don't usually understand the objections to it, but I have known some players with whom perhaps it is better not to use. Still worth it though I think.

[paulderynck]

The biggest thing with Bounce combat is there aren't enough AAs for a defender with lots of fighters to "get at" the other side's best bombers. And what good is a DC result against you if you have all fighters? Might as well be a blank and supposedly a DC is the worst thing the other side can throw... It also combines nicely with unescorted bombers that throw an AC having to take a DC instead.

It is one option I'd never want to play without. Edit: Except maybe with a house rule instead that all A2A results are selected randomly. Even then, it does not encourage enough attrition.

[brian brian]

I have heard lots of players say they wouldn't play without it, so I am probably going back to it. But I like lots of aircraft on the map, makes the impulse type choices more challenging. I also won't play without fractional odds, so we don't have all those 1 point fighter-bomber missions trying to change the odds level all the time. I have messed around with random A2A results, but it is harder to do than the random naval results, a rule I definitely can't play without any more. In the air I frequently forget to do the random part at all, and then which results do you apply them to? All X and Clear, or only X? Not as simple as it sounds, as taking way the A or D player's choice on the Clear seems unfair at first. I think I will keep trying it though, maybe only on the X results. You could say the same thing about the FTRs that are farther back in the line as the Stukas ... the older FTRs should be more likely to take casualties. Ironic in WiF how the term from history "Front-line fighter" makes things more dangerous for them, because you almost always lead with your newest FTR models, unless you have a mixed group of single and twin engine fighters. I think random X results might be a better way to address that than the 2008 Fighter Bounce rule. Might be a long time if ever before I try that one.

Come to think of it, probably Fractional Odds is probably my #1 must-have, far more than HQ Movement. Revolutionizes play in a very good way.

[paulderynck]

Fractional odds is attacker-friendly because for all but exact odds it creates a chance for an upshift. I've often toyed with the idea that to adjust for that you should subtract 0.3 from the odds before rolling. That is a good approximation for how much it helps the attacker IMO. Of course this observation is only in comparison to fixed odds. Others would argue that fractional better represents the amount of combat power the attacker can bring to bear. However, the fact is, there is no 4.37:1 column on the CRT. It definitely is less of a concern with 2D10 where the fractional often shifts the DRM by 1, so you get a smoother correlation of attack power to odds.

[brian brian]

I have heard of people subtracting 0.5 using Fractional Odds, but had not thought about whether that was with 1d10 or 2d10. I have played 2d10 for a long time now, and the fractional seems to work fine as you say for only the +1. We play 'straight fractionals', i.e. without ever rounding anything, where if a 9 factor unit attacks a 3 factor unit across a river, it is 4.5:3, not 5:3.

[paulderynck]

Yes I have become convinced that rounding the point 5 up along with fractional odds is giving double credit for it and should not be done.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Yes I have become convinced that rounding the point 5 up along with fractional odds is giving double credit for it and should not be done.

I's just code the rules, bra. [But I agree with you.]

[Joseignacio]

Bra? Bro?

[paulderynck]

Manzier?