House Rules

[etsadler]

Wondering what kind of House Rules people play with.

For MWiF there would seem to be two kinds, those to compensate for something not implemented in the rules (like Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact) and those of preference (anything else).

Back in the board game days the group I played with didn't allow the US or CW to declare war on neutral countries. We figured they were the good guys and just wouldn't do that.

What are some of yours?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RickInVA

Wondering what kind of House Rules people play with.

For MWiF there would seem to be two kinds, those to compensate for something not implemented in the rules (like Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact) and those of preference (anything else).

Back in the board game days the group I played with didn't allow the US or CW to declare war on neutral countries. We figured they were the good guys and just wouldn't do that.

What are some of yours?

warspite1

No arguments re them being the good guys - but its naïve to think that they would not have attacked countries if they felt it the necessary thing to do.

The UK's decision to land in Norway and Sweden!!
Gamelin's plan to bomb Soviet oilfields
The attack on the Vichy Fleet at Mers-El-Kebir, Dakar, Madagascar etc
The US/British invasion of French North Africa

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Don't forget the attacks on Iraq and Iran in 1941. Which, in WiF, are flat out attacks on neutral minor countries.


Some house rules I've played, now or in the past:

Ships in the 0 box don't exist for ITPOE purposes; they neither slow down enemies nor help your own guys deal with an enemy presence in the seazone.

A new U.S. Entry option, Ge/IT 26, "CW occupies the Azores". I forget exactly what tension I gave it. Play the option, and the Azores becomes CW territory, provided Portugal is neutral. You pair this with a second houserule, that if there is ever an allied unit in metropolitan Portugal during an Axis DoW step, Germany may align Spain.

Mostly to stop those first turn Portugal attacks, which, I'll freely admit, I do all the time myself without some houserule against it.

[Centuur]

We had a different houserule regarding Portugal and Spain. This was that Italy could align Spain if an Allied nation DoW'ed Portugal, except when this Dow was done by the US. If the US did DoW Portugal (or liberate it) Spain could be aligned by the United States if the US had 10 corps sized land units in Portugal (CW/French do NOT count). If Spain was aligned this way, Franco would only send one land (not the HQ itself) or air unit out of the country, (or it's colony's) to support the Allied attacks on the Axis.

Franco was only interested to stay in power if you look at the Spanish position during WW II...

[AlbertN]

We're pretty much at an embryonal status of House Rules but for now we use what follows:

Poland must setup in Western Poland (including planes).
Non colonial (Territorial / Militia) forces must setup in their national countries. (Fleets can still split).
Soviets can declare war to Italy only if they can eligibly break the R-M Pact with Germany - if Italy is fighting alongside Germany vs CW. (Unless Italy possess a minor country neighbouring Russia homeland).
Soviets can declare war to Bulgaria only if they can break the R-M pact.

In the latest game we're doing we're experimenting a house rule on the strat-bombing en-route interception (Pratically if one can intercept before the bomber, the bomber must go to a factory in intercept range)

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

I admit, the houserule about Germany aligning Spain had less to do with an analysis of what Franco was likely to do and more to be something to punish the CW for attacking a historic ally for minor tactical advantages. Furthermore, it encourages the historical "Get the Azores by diplomacy" angle by making it far more expensive to just attack Portugal and seize them.

[dhucul2011]

Our house rules for historical realism:

1. Finnish forces cannot move outside of Finland or USSR when aligned with Germany. Stops the silly Mannerheim in the invasion of France crap.
2. Vichy France will NOT DOW the Allies even when hostile.
3. USSR MUST claim Bessarabia and Borderlands by end of 1940.
4. USSR and Germany cannot attack each others peacekeepers if the hex contains only their units. A bug in MWIF actually uses this house rule right now! Yes, Germany can sit a corps in Helsinki and stop a full conquest by the USSR.
5. Italy MUST invade Greece by end of 1940.

[Courtenay]

One I use is that the hexside north of Liege, between Germany and Belgium, is impassible unless the Netherlands is an active minor country.

My reason for the rule is simple: while the hex on the west is Belgian, and the hex on the east is German, the hexside between them belongs to the Netherlands. The WiF map does not reflect that fact, but that does not mean that I can't implement it.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

USSR and Germany cannot attack each others peacekeepers if the hex contains only their units. only their units. A bug in MWIF actually uses this house rule right now! Yes, Germany can sit a corps in Helsinki and stop a full conquest by the USSR.

I'm just curious as to why you would play this way? How would you stop it if you have the jackass "Soviet Units in France and/or Belgium" exploit if someone tried to pull that?


Edited out what was probably an accusational tone.

[Viktor_Kormel_slith]

In our current global war game, me and my opponent pacted some rules when we discover some absurd consequences of the extended game.

1)China is out of the war when Japan surrenders. Imagine all those chinese units roaring around the world![:@]
2)There were not agreement about URSS manpower but in my opinion, with european URSS in german hands there must be some kind of limitation. I destroyed soviet army one and one and other one times but give them some breathe "et voila" Red Army at full power again.There is no many people living in Siberia[:-]
3) We decided to cancel russian partisans becouse the program ignores the garrison units out of European Russia (Siberia, Uzbekistan etc)

And some more but less important.

[paulderynck]

The one we always disliked was when playing the Oil option, disorganized ships at sea could re-org at turn end even though they could not trace a path to oil. So our house rule was you could stay at sea disorganized but could not reorganize unless it was theoretically possible (after sliding down one sea box) to have RTB'd to a port from which you could trace both a valid supply path and a valid path to the oil (they can be separate).

Sort of an "Isolated Re-org" rule for naval units.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

One I use is that the hexside north of Liege, between Germany and Belgium, is impassible unless the Netherlands is an active minor country.

My reason for the rule is simple: while the hex on the west is Belgian, and the hex on the east is German, the hexside between them belongs to the Netherlands. The WiF map does not reflect that fact, but that does not mean that I can't implement it.

That's a good one. My personal opinion is that that hex should become Dutch controlled and Liege should be one hex south. Also, the NEI oil rules are not reflecting what would have happened if the Dutch stayed neutral. I don't believe that the Dutch would support an oil embargo against Japan when neutral. Never, since they would act as a "cash and carry" for the warring nations. So to keep everybody happy, they would supply both sides, until one wasn't able to pay anymore. In WW I they delivered goods to anyone who could pay for them and that made the Dutch one the richest countries of Europe between the wars. No way Dutch politics would change with The Hague still free of enemy forces...

[brian brian]

We looked at the historical date that the CW could use the Azores finally, I believe it was May, 1943, and came up with a house rule that they could do so once the Axis (including Vichy) controlled no hex in Africa.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Would you count Madagascar? The Japanese can hold out there a surprisingly long amount of time.

[Courtenay]

A house rule that I have not used, but have often thought of using is that if Norway is not an active minor coutnry and the weather in the Arctic is snow or blizzard CW has an SCS in the Norwegian Sea then the CW may execute search and seizure against the Swedish resources.

The point of this rule is to duplicate the historical situation in Norway. The CW is not going to declare war on Norway. However, they were perfectly willing to violate Norwegian neutrality to a limited extent. This rule allows them to do so. Until the US is in the war, they might not want to do so because of the US entry effects, but after the US declares war, there is no reason for them not to. In turn, this gives the Germans a reason to invade Norway.

I have never actually used this rule, so don't know if it works. What are people's opinions?

[brian brian]

I think it is an accident of history that the UK didn't go to war with Norway. The British had troops and minelayers loaded in embarkation ports when Hitler launched his attack, I believe. This might have cost them their alliance with South Africa had it gone through, among other repercussions.

[Centuur]

I don't know. The way the British behaved in Norwegian waters was slowly turning the Norwegian people towards joining the Axis side. Especially the Norwegians Fishermen and the Merchant navy would have reacted strong on operation Wilfred if the Germans wouldn't have attacked Norway the next day. To put mines in neutral waters (and Norway was neutral at the moment those mines were launched from the British vessels) is an act of war...

Norway in those days depended on merchant shipping to get food to the population, especially up north...

Also, search and seizure would mean that British vessels would have to operate within the Norwegian fjords. Shipping never got far enough out to sea (only a couple of hunderd meters was already enough). This would mean that the Norwegian population would witness this and that would mean more anti British sentiments in the country.

Personally I would like to see that messing with shipping from Narvik to Germany would mean that a chance that Norway will join the Axis before the US enters the war should be build in too...

[tom730_slith]

ORIGINAL: dhucul

Our house rules for historical realism:

1. Finnish forces cannot move outside of Finland or USSR when aligned with Germany. Stops the silly Mannerheim in the invasion of France crap.
2. Vichy France will NOT DOW the Allies even when hostile.
3. USSR MUST claim Bessarabia and Borderlands by end of 1940.
4. USSR and Germany cannot attack each others peacekeepers if the hex contains only their units. A bug in MWIF actually uses this house rule right now! Yes, Germany can sit a corps in Helsinki and stop a full conquest by the USSR.
5. Italy MUST invade Greece by end of 1940.

I love adding as much historical realism as possible, and totally agree with #1, and #3. The Finns really had a great deal of integrity given the fact that there were two of the worst dictators in history breathing down their necks. Mannerheim refused to attack Leningrad and refused to go further than the territory that the USSR had taken from them. So yeah, Mannerheim in France? Couldn't happen due to the nature of the Finns.
Now Stalin demanding Bessarabia and the Finn borderlands? Absolutely! As clear as taking the Baltic States!

Personally I prefer giving Italy the flexibility to make moves at their discretion. I've been re-reading Count Ciano's diary recently and from that it is clear they had their eyes on Yugoslavia for a LONG time, and after the fall of France had a lot of interest in French North Africa. Mussolini basically wanted "booty" - to enrich his regime at the expense of others. This is a big reason he actually did NOT want Vichy involved in the war on the Axis side. He wanted their stuff!

I also recently read an account of the terrible British actions against the French fleet, a clear act of war on their part which might have driven Vichy into the Axis camp (if Axis leadership had more foresight and was less interested in punishing the French!) I like the possibility of a Vichy that is a co-belligerant due to British actions. I think much like the Finns the French would want to limit their actions to recovering territory and punishing the British.

ANyway, love the ideas, thanks!

[AlbertN]

About rules on Norway, I think the Germany at the moment is quite weak already without adding more penalties to have them invade Norway.
There should be some bonuses for Axis to invade Norway instead.

[Viktor_Kormel_slith]

I think like Cohen, in fact, my game partners and me don´t used to invade Norway.