Counters

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I think I will just throw in here that, ...

... while I have refused to include most "WIF design kit" elements as part of MWIF product 1, ...

... the data files are CSV (comma separated values) files that can be editted using Excel or Notepad, so ...

... you can change which hexes have what resources, including factories, to affect the game's play-balance.

One caveat on this is: if you manually go in and modify the game data files, when you restore a saved game, all the current data files must match what were in use when the save was made. For instance, if you modify the data files, all the saved games that come with the released product will fail to work (crash and burn immediately).

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Japan had light and medium armour too, aren't you underestimating them? Of course compared to soviet tanks they were not as fiersome. But I am sure they were doing the job against the chinese army, no need to build a 60 tons tank if the enemy have no armor, most of the theater of operation is jungle and islands.

China is the only country their armor was equal to or better than. Even Italian tanks were better than Japanese tanks.

Mmmm from wiki seems that the japanese armor were desperately outclassed in both quality and quantity against the americans. [:)]

The early/mid-war Japanese tanks had riveted armour plate and small guns. The American tanks were miles ahead in all categories. Even the American light tanks were better than what the Japanese were fielding. Later in the war that changed somewhat.

The most successful Japanese tank was the Medium Tank Tank Type 97 with a 57mm low velocity gun and up to 25mm of riveted armour plate. This was later upgraded to a tank with a high velocity 47mm gun and up to 50mm of riveted armour plate. Not what I would want to go to war with against the tanks the Allies put in the field.

The Japanese later in the war tried to produce assault guns along the line of the German StuG's with guns large enough to kill a Sherman. Their main defense against Allied tanks was a long pole with an AT mine attached at the end. Great results against the Allied tanks, not so great for the man employing it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

The japanese fielded a grand total of 4 Tank divisions in the war  (not Armour corps)!  Since they never had a tank or mech corp at all, and the counters are just pure fantasy, I guess we can call them whatever we like.  Another fine example of WiF Fantasy, where they beef up the axis powers to make them be able to compete against the allies for a fun game.

So then, you want the Japanese to have no armored units in the game? WiF is not about what was built so much as what could have been built. Would you please refresh my old and failing memory of the German marines and their long and proud history of amphibious assaults during the war....or how many US Corps were used during the invasions of the pacific islands. How many US Marine Corps units that invaded were Corps sized units again?

A bigger question is COULD they have been built? Because if WiF is only about what was done then we don't need to do builds at all. Just have them show up on time. If WiF is about what could have been done then we have what you term as fantasy units.

ORIGINAL: Orm
Yea. The Allies got no beefing and no fantasy units in WiF. Hmmm.... the armored French corps leaps to mind.

The French Armored Corps were very strong and had the Germans very concerned. The main reason they were ineffective was the Germans caught them refueling and destroyed many of their tanks while they were out of fuel. There are some very powerful Soviet armored units early in the game as well.

4 Tank divisions with 4 motorized divisions and supporting elements would be 4 armored/mechanized corps if they were organized that way. In most oob there were no more than one tank division in an armored corps.

The Japanese never came close to putting anything like an armored or mechanized corps in the field. The only possible place that would have benefited them would have been China. The Chinese had no armored forces so the Japanese really didn't have a need to do that. However, I think WiF shows the value of such an organizational change if Japan had done that. The Chinese don't deal with Japanese armor well at all. The cost in the game to make that armored organizational change(buying the Japanese Armor/Mech) is expensive so you don't get it without a high cost. Which the Japanese wouldn't have either. You will only buy the Armor/Mech units if you intend on taking China out. Japan didn't opt for that strategy. If they had they would have more than likely have formed their armor into harder hitting units.

Instead they chose to do battle on the high seas. If you, as the Japanese player, chose that strategy you will find buying the Armor/Mech units very expensive as well and more than likely not worth the price.

WiF comes with about double the actual allotment of specialty units. In some places the OOB was abstracted. How else do you do that with a Grand Strategy game that is based on Corps level units?

It doesn't take much research into the chain of events, during the war, to see that for the Axis to get anywhere near 1945, all the stars in the universe have to line up in a row. There are even times, early on, where they can even push the stars past being lined up in a row and win. The fact is, for the Axis to win, they have to be both lucky and good. The Allies can just be average to win. If the Allies are both lucky and good they win early. That's what makes most games of WiF end early for our group. One side or the other takes a commanding strategic position that the other side has no chance at either breaking or stalemating. When that happens we start again.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The fact is, for the Axis to win, they have to be both lucky and good. The Allies can just be average to win. If the Allies are both lucky and good they win early. That's what makes most games of WiF end early for our group. One side or the other takes a commanding strategic position that the other side has no chance at either breaking or stalemating. When that happens we start again.

Remember that you speak from an old version experience of WiF.
It's not so true in WiF FE, with the Axis side winning quite often.
But it also depends on what "Winning" means.

[bredsjomagnus]

It's not so true in WiF FE, with the Axis side winning quite often.
But it also depends on what "Winning" means.

 
Just curiouse.
Doesn´t the Allies win most of the time in the yearly WiF-meatings in US and Europe? In the 2008 annual it said that there was only one axis victory IIRC, last game event. Was that a coincidence or a repeated pattern?
 
 

[LiquidSky]

WiF is a fantasy game...it is filled with fantasy units, mostly for the axis.  I have no problem with that, its what makes this game so much fun to play, and gives the axis the extra oomph it needs to try and achieve a victory.  My argument was not to not allow the extra mech units, but as to what they should be called.  They are called 3rd Armour (Mech) 4th Armour (mech) and so on.  Shannon changed their name and somebody argued against it saying they should keep their (gag) 'historical' name.  Well...since the units themselves are a clear fantasy, that didnt even show up on a planning board much less in an actual army, they have no 'historical' name but are instead named by Harry Rowland in a fit of irony.  It really doesnt matter to me if the Japanese could have scrapped their fleet and built a thousand armour divisions, mech units should be called mech and armour should be called armour so that newbies dont get confused.  The japanese didnt call them anything because they didnt exist.  There idea of mechanizing an army would have been to use kabuki cabs to carry their troops   But anything to give the Japanese a chance to win makes for a more fun game.
 
 

[LiquidSky]

In my long experience with the game, I have never seen the Axis side win.  However, if you play by the rules, instead of somebodys twisted version of it, you would have bid for powers, and sides dont win, only individual powers.  Quite often you will see people make stupid bids to play powers that no longer have a chance of winning (such as Germany) that skew the results.  Or, you may decide you dont like bidding and go by the historical levels.  Even so, if you add up the allied side, vrs the Axis side, you will see way more games in the allied favour, because they can drive out and get them. 
 
China needs 2.
CW needs 19.
France needs 1.
Germany needs 10.
Italy needs 0.
Japan needs 5.
USA needs 17
USSR/CC needs 13
 
Or you can go for Automatic Victory:  Control [font=times]Berlin, Canberra, Chungking, Delhi, London, Moscow, Paris, Pretoria, Rome, Taihoku, & Tokyo. and your side wins automatically.  The other side gets zero.  You get your objectives and the enemy/neutral objectives closest to your capital.[/font]
[font=times][/font] 
[font=times]The options you use will skew the game as well.  Some options favour others.  If you use bidding, then play balance is automatic.  But if you dont, you are making it easier/harder for different sides/countries to win.  I would say that in the dozen or so games I have played to 1945, the CW is usually the winner, with the Italians, or Russians in second.  Germany rarely does well, and usually has less then 10 objectives left.  Japan can do okay, but suffers easily from auto victory as they only control the fate of Taihoku and Tokyo (and perhaps Chungking). [/font]
[font=times][/font] 
[font=times]If you use bidding, then their is a lot less cooperation amongst the allies, and maybe even infighting to the axis credit.  If you dont use any victory at all, Germany/Italy/Japan are hard to conquer.  If you use historical levels, then the allies are one big happy family and can usually dole out victory so that everyone on their side wins equally. [/font]

[Mad Russian]

We are about 50-50 with side wins.

However, if you play by the rules, instead of somebodys twisted version of it, you would have bid for powers, and sides dont win, only individual powers.

We've never bid for sides. We put names in a hat and draw out the country each gamer is to play. So we must be some of those you consider to have a twisted version of the way we play.

To each his own.

Good Hunting.

MR

[brian brian]

the Allies have held an edge at US Wif-Con for some time, winning on more than 50% of the tables each year. I think the organizer of Euro WiF-Con mentioned the same thing creeping into their results as well, although I have heard they tend to have more games of WiF Classic at their Con.

I think in current WiF:FE with the most common optionals and kits, the Allies hold a definite edge, given equal skill levels around the table. The great variable is US entry, which was recently 'flattened' to make entry extremes less likely. MWiF will put more spikes in the possible outcomes there. I think Allied losses tend to come from poor Allied play, with the most common mistake being poor strategic decision-making by the USSR, and the second most common one being the West not supporting the Russians sufficiently at crunch time. The Axis can lose in many other ways.


like Steve said, you can always 'rebalance' the game by adding or subtracting resources to each side. This is the balancing mechanism that has always been suggested by Harry Rowland.




I like that you are allowed to do whatever you want controlling a Major Power in WiF. So the Italians can build a dangerous horde of naval bombers, rather a bunch of infantry armies soon to dissolve at the combat front in North Africa and Russia.

The biggest 'fantasy' I see in WiF is China, by a long way. Even the Chinese can build motorized and up units. This is OK with me, but that should require more of an Allied investment. The reality was anything in China with a motor probably came from outside the country. The US invested hugely in trying to support the Chinese military. In WiF, China gets a decent enough military with the incredible logistic tail required in history being nearly invisible.

I will never support efforts to shoe-horn the game into 'historical'-ness. Players should be able to pick any strategy and any mix of forces they want. But they should face the realistic obstacles to their plans that would occur.

[Mad Russian]

Chinese Tank Forces:

Chiang's army received $250 million worth of tanks, trucks, and aircraft from the Soviet Union in 1938, plus some British and French military supplies. Nevertheless, by the summer of 1939 Japan controlled most of northeastern China and all major coastal seaports, except for the British Crown Colony at Hong Kong. In short, China was isolated except for supplies moving from the west along the so-called Burma Road or through French Indochina.


****
A list of Chinese tanks is difficult to put together because every sort of import and seized weapon was used. Many local armor versions were set up from materials on hand. Warlords would take trucks and have metal plates bolted to the sides and a machine gun mounted on the top. At the beginning of the conflict with Japan, the Chinese had a variety of old AFV and 7000 trucks. China had 2 armored battalions that fought around Shanghai when war broke out with Japan in 1937. Almost half of China's armor was either captured or destroyed by 1938 as out of the 96 tanks they started with, only 48 remained. 


****
In the meantime, the fusion of both lines had given birth to the excellent M3 (the British Stuart, later nicknamed "Honey"). It joined the fighting even before the entry of the USA in the war, in North Africa with the British. It served as reconnaissance vehicle until the end of the war and was issued to almost all allied nations, China included.


****
A prime example of "make do" emerged when a shipment of Stuart M-3 light tanks arrived in India - but without Armored Force personnel to maintain and man them. Luckily, Stilwell's staff included a gung-ho former Armored Force officer, Colonel Rothwell Brown. The Colonel quickly came up with a brand new entity, the First Provisional Chinese-American Tank Group. To train and lead the outfit, he found a number of officers and GIs happy to leave engineering and transportation battalions. For tank crews, the Colonel drew upon the ranks of raw Chinese conscripts flown in to serve in the infantry. Almost none had driven a motor vehicle, much less entered a tank - and they had only three months to shape up for combat.

Yet Colonel Brown's mini-tank force soon managed to put such continuing pressure on the enemy in support of Chinese troops as to play a valued part in the Allied effort. Their light tanks proved so vulnerable that they suffered heavy losses. However, 12 Sherman medium tanks later arrived, to be manned by the American volunteers, and supplied just the extra muscle needed. When Stilwell's troops finally drove through to connect their new road at the Chinese border to the old Burma Road to Kunming, there were tanks of the First Provisional Chinese-American Tank Group to clear away the last enemy.


Good Hunting.

MR

[Obsolete]

Quite often you will see people make stupid bids to play powers that no longer have a chance of winning (such as Germany) that skew the results.

When I find someone like that, I love to play vs them for real $.  You should try it!

[Greywolf]

Patrice, as I know you can provide counters for avatar could you please provide me with the french armor unit with a decent name, something like "D.C.R" or "Cuirassée" ou "1er Blindé" ou simplement "Char". Anything but this stupid "Chevalier" that make no more sense whatever than the light blue coloring (at least we aren't got the lys flower anymore...).
 
BTW the only important Chevalier related to WWII is the singer...

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

Patrice, as I know you can provide counters for avatar could you please provide me with the french armor unit with a decent name, something like "D.C.R" or "Cuirassée" ou "1er Blindé" ou simplement "Char". Anything but this stupid "Chevalier" that make no more sense whatever than the light blue coloring (at least we aren't got the lys flower anymore...).

Which one ?

[Greywolf]

I would take:
 
'1er Grpe Cuirassé'
 
or '1er Cuirassé' if that is too long, technically this unit could be named 'Keller' as it is the name of the commanding officier and it regroup 2 of the french 4 DCR. But I wonder if the name isn't taken by an HQ ...

[Froonp]

Is it this one ?
There is no French arm named '1er Cuirassé' in the countermix, but this one has it in its writeup.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

Patrice, as I know you can provide counters for avatar could you please provide me with the french armor unit with a decent name, something like "D.C.R" or "Cuirassée" ou "1er Blindé" ou simplement "Char". Anything but this stupid "Chevalier" that make no more sense whatever than the light blue coloring (at least we aren't got the lys flower anymore...).

BTW the only important Chevalier related to WWII is the singer...

Which one ?

Maurice!

Oh you meant which counter... sorry.[:)]

[Greywolf]

I would rather have the original "Chevalier" unit but renamed to "1er Cuir." as I think that "1er Groupe Cuirassé" would be too long :p
 
Or, did I misunderstood the fact we could edit the counter in the files in MWiF ?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

I would rather have the original "Chevalier" unit but renamed to "1er Cuir." as I think that "1er Groupe Cuirassé" would be too long :p

Or, did I misunderstood the fact we could edit the counter in the files in MWiF ?

No missunderstanding from you, counters can be edited from the files in MwiF.
Though I won't do that, because it is also possible to rename units from within the game.
I'll do that tonight.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

I would rather have the original "Chevalier" unit but renamed to "1er Cuir." as I think that "1er Groupe Cuirassé" would be too long :p

Or, did I misunderstood the fact we could edit the counter in the files in MWiF ?

No missunderstanding from you, counters can be edited from the files in MwiF.
Though I won't do that, because it is also possible to rename units from within the game.
I'll do that tonight.

Just in case this wasn't clear, ...

there are two ways to do this:
1 - change the unit's name in the data file, and
2 - rename a unit while playing a game.

Patrice will use the second method for taking the screen shot of the unit with the modified name.

[Greywolf]

This is quite a good news. I can think of several occasion where I can use a rename feature ( especially on Cl and such unit ).