your most important / absolutely not optional?

[brian brian]

So I have been wondering how other folks play the game some times. With a kit of 70 some optional rules to pick from, everybody plays it differently. Some people want maximum detail/chrome, others want the game to go as fast as possible.

What do you think is the most important optional rule to include?

What is the one optional rule you absolutely do not want to play with?



These answers change for me over time, but lately I think I prefer HQ Movement the most. I prefer seeing the game become ever more realistic, and am willing to invest extra time spent playing to see that. But that rule costs nothing in time, except in further complicating your decision making. I don't find it realistic for the German army logistics centers to move forward at 5 hexes / impulse (three HQ-A with 5 mp) in clear weather. I would also note that I don't look at optional rules as pro-Axis or pro-Allied, but rather as pro-attacker & pro-defender, and each side spends half the game in each role. So slowing down Rommel and Guderian slows down Zhukov and Patton as well.

Conversely on my realism bent, I have never had any desire at all to play Bounce Combat. I just don't get it. [The newer Aircraft Intensity and Fighter Bounce rules in the 2008 Annual? Right out, for me.] I don't like thinking I am playing some sort of dogfighting game; if I want to do that I'll just break out the wonderful little Ace of Aces books. I think the argument is that the Stukas never get shot down without it, and I can see some validity to that, but I also see the Germans not having a limitless supply of other planes to book-end the Stukas with. And perhaps Bounce Combat helps lower aircraft numbers and thus counter density, a good thing I guess, but maybe that could be done with the idea of more expensive pilots instead. But I think players don't like increased unit costs any more than they like decreased logistical candy. But in air combat I have enough trouble remembering who rolls first, who is the attacker and defender to pick the C or X results, and adding extra rounds to the process just drags me down.

And I like the new Randomised Losses optionals for naval combat so much, that I am going to try them in air combat as a House Rule in my next game. Land and air combat in WiF, after all, is just a convenient way to represent the steady attrition of all combat operations, and sometimes a unit has to come off the map somehow. So I think picking X and C results randomly might accomplish that quite well, and the Stukas just might be dangerous to fly after all.

I am, however, always interested in good reasons to use an optional rule, as they frequently appear without commentary on why they might be a good thing to add to your next game of World in Flames.

[Centuur]

We always used to play with the No ZOC on surprise Impulse option. The reason for this is that to us it really simulates the way an attacked nation behaves in the first few days of the war (surprise, lower moral, a lot of mistakes, broken communication lines, civilian population fleeing...). Also, an attacking nation usually knew the enemy set up due to spies operating in the attacked country. That meant that units were ordered to leave certain enemy positions alone, because other units were assigned to attack those positions. Especially in the first week of war, that was usually very effective.

The rule we all hated was the Intelligence one. We played with it once and than decided to discard it. This is because the Axis can't rival the Allies at all, when using this rule. Now historically, this is true, however: shouldn't there be a way for the Axis to counter this? WiF makes it possible to get a total different war than historically, however: when playing with Intelligence it's always the Allies who benefits more from this rule than the Axis (especially in late war). And with the big green monster on the board, that was too much for us...

[Beryl]

I think the use of the options depends of the time you are willing to allocate to the game, and if you want to give some advantage or not to a side/country. For example no ZOC on surprise is a huge advantage to germany in Belgium (already simulated by OC) and can screw USSR, allowing the crossing of the dniepr too fast.
Intelligence give some advantage to the allies (and before Offensive points, some use to late war allied production) but should IMHO be rewritten.
One option that doesn't exist and I would like to see in WIF is a real 1st Russian winter effect, like automatic face-down for unsupplied non winterised units and automatic loss or replacement by div for face down out of supply corps. The russian 1941 OC only simulate the Moscou russian counter offensive. Germans suffered about 100 000 case of frostbite in dec 1941, for a total of 250 000 by the end of the winter, without any battle. The lack of men was evaluated by the wehrmacht between 400 and 600 000 men (meaning that 1/3 to 1/2 of the loss were non battle loss)

[BallyJ]

The Option we never play with is NO ZOC surprise.
I would only play this if I was teaching a beginner
the game and they needed a helping hand.
There are lots we always play.
I would always use Ochits.

[Red Prince]

I suppose I could do without O-chits if I really had to, but I like them.

If I had to choose a single Optional I wouldn't want to play without, it would be Divisions. I think they force better planned attacks, since you have to account for 3 units instead of 2. More importantly, though, is that I've never played a game without them since I began beta-testing, so I don't know if I'd know what to do without them.
-----
For the one I would never want to play with, it's easy: In the Presence of the Enemy . . . I have enough trouble with the Naval system as it is. [:D]

[Orm]

I actually think 'In The Presence of the Enemy' makes the naval war easier.

My favorite optional would be 'scrap units'.

I would say that 'construction engineers' is the option I would rather avoid if I only had to pick one.

[brian brian]

I think sometimes it is easy to forget that certain rules are actually 'optional'.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think sometimes it is easy to forget that certain rules are actually 'optional'.

Scrap Units is not optional in WIF FE.

But for MWIF, I have made it optional. That makes one less unique-to-WIF rule a new player has to understand before he starts messing around with the game.

[morgil]

We usually do not play with these optional rules, or with modifications to them.

Optopn 7 : (Engineers)   We do use them with all rules except they dont have to be present to repair factories, any odd land unit will do.
Option 14: (Oil things)   Stored Oil markers are free to produce, but the oil must be transported to a red factory you control, and stored there.
Option 16: (Recruitment limits)
Option 17: (HQ movement)
Option 19: (In the presence of the enemy), We tried it, but it is very demanding, and it increases the attrition of naval units something fierce.
Option 20: (Surprised ZOCs)  Yeah, nothing says Axis victory like this one. It can work together with O-49 though.
Option 38: (Defensive shore bombardment) Never tried this.
Option 40: (Chinese attack weakness) We use a modified version of it, as it only applies to a 2 hex wide band along the coast, sortof simulating O-38.
Option 45: (Variable reorganisation cost )
Option 46: (Partisans) Actually here we feel there are not enough partisans, and we roll 2 d10 and apply both for partisan generation.
Option 49: (Hitler’s war)
Option 51: (En-route aircraft interception)
Option 63: (Intelligence)
Option 64: (Japanese command conflict)
Option 73: (Heavy weapons units)

I guess I would have to pick 19 or 20 as options I would not play with, depending if I was JPN or USSR.
Options i really cant see me playing without, would be 43, 2d10 land combat, IMO its enough luck based as is.
Or maybe divisions, divs are cool.

[paulderynck]

2D10 has more luck than 1D10. I'm starting to hate 2D10 after two or three games of it now, following many with 1D10. I can't count the number of times I've rolled 19 or 20 when it didn't matter and 2 thru 5 when it did. [:@]

One thing in favor of 2D10 is that the losses to the attacker are higher.

[Orm]

I feel that the 2d10 attack table brings more luck to the game.

And while it is true that the 2d10 can give attackers more losses it also helps the attackers to stay organized and that in turn favors the attackers and lead to more losses for the defenders.

Nowdays I favor the 1d10 table combined with the blitz optional.

[brian brian]

I think luck is less with 2d10. The # result is just more likely to fall in the middle, so you are less likely to get a string of rolls far below or above the middle result. It does change the game in other ways; a +2 per flipped unit somehow seems more powerful than the +1 on 1d10 and Ground Strike is more critical as +2 is a guaranteed odds level increase on a smoother bell curve of results. And there are far more +1 mods on 2d10 than the comparatively few +0.5 mods on 1d10. Single attacking units are at greater risk on 2d10, making 1d10 better for Paratroopers, which is good because in the real war there were very few corps level paradrops and 1d10 WiF Para armies seem far too powerful to me; the inverse of Ground Strike on 2d10. A big pro-attacker change on 2d10 is automatic HQ support, giving most every HQ the ability to raise combat an odds level. Overall I just prefer the increased amount of detail on 2d10, in addition to the better dice result distribution.

I do think the attacker's big advantage in WiF:Final Edition is the speed of the HQ units, making the game wheel across the map (and thus the warring economies' resource base) too fast, which actually ties in with Orm's thought that there are less flipped attackers on the 2d10, though I am not sure that is completely true with the half-flip result. ?Hard to tell, I haven't played 1d10 in a long time? WWII army/army group commanders would have loved to go that fast I think, as they frequently had logistical pauses (early August 1941 in Russia, September 1944 in France) that are only somewhat represented by the end-of-turn sequence - due to units only flipping when they have pretty bad luck in combat, otherwise never suffering normal wear-and-tear.

For the combat rolls in the game, I feel there are enough of them that the results level out over time for each side. US Entry luck is more critical, and weather rolls as well. I am fine with that. Even weather can balance out with good and bad in different halves of the game. But real commanders had zero control over the weather, and in WWII, rather limited predictions on it compared to today. WWII is replete with references to _____-est period Europe/Asia had seen since _____ about the weather. That's what commanders have to deal with.

Can't someone give me some good reasons to try Bounce Combat again?

[paulderynck]

Much of what you say is true except the less luck part. In 1D10 the smallest increment of both good and bad luck is 10%. In 2D10 it is 1%. Getting screwed and knowing it happened on a 1 in a hundred shot is less luck then if it had been 1 in ten??

HQ Support is a double-edged sword as in 2D10 it promotes "use it or lose it" so when an impulse goes extra long, you find you can't take advantage of it because all your HQs are flipped and you don't want to risk advancing out of supply range.

I like Bounce Combat for all the reasons you listed previously as its advantage in post #1. Mainly it introduces more chance into the equation for a defender in air combat, which encourages air combat on his behalf when odds are not that favorable. This in turn makes air combat more exciting. We marvel at how many times a +1/-1 air combat creates a Bounce opportunity at +4/-4 only to have the bomber clear through! [X(]

[brian brian]

I don't follow that part on the 1%. The 10% increments I do, yes. But 2d10 has 19 possible results not distributed equally in likelihood, since we are talking about the sums, not 1% increments. But I think we are talking past each other a little about two different things - luck across a set of results, and lucky results within a set of results.

2d10 can have more unexpected results that are extremely unlikely from either end of the curve that are called 'luck', but across a game a player should experience less results from either end of the results with 2d10 than they might on 1d10, making combat more predictable on average but sometimes extraordinarily unpredictable.

This should be better for the Chinese & Japanese players for example, where there aren't as many land attacks and a run of several sequential results all good or bad (also called 'luck') can dramatically change the war in that theater. A set of sequential results like that is less likely on 2d10.


I find HQ Support is changing yet again with the new Offensive Points rule, making it a little easier to grab that extra odds level when you want it.


thanks for the insights on Bounce Combat, I'll probably try it again sometime I suppose. my usual opponent in the summer time is as ambivalent about it as I am as we find it a little frustrating to execute.

[paulderynck]

About the 1%. The odds of rolling a 2 or a 20 are each 1%. A 3 or a 19 are each 2%. Or put it this way: People who bet the Field in Craps and think its a good bet because they cover more than half the numbers, don't know much about probability.

Another way to say extremely unlucky (or lucky) is: "extraordinarily unpredictable". Luck does not even out over a long series of rolls because luck counts on the really important battles and you can get extraordinarily unpredictable results on the important battles while it doesn't matter worth beans if you roll all the others in the 7 to 15 range where 70% of all the results will occur. People don't make low odds attacks unless they absolutely have to. Most of the time you don't care if you roll anything above a 6.

The key things with bounce combat are to remember the non-phasing player always fires first, the bouncing fighter returns to the back of the pack (if it is still around). And if not, you recalculate the air-to-air combat odds before the phasing player fires his return fire in response to the initial defender's fire. There is also this little gem buried in the rules: "A player bounced in combat may spend three surprise points in a naval air combat to select which of their aircraft will be bounced." I've never once seen that used.

[Froonp]

I would never play with
In the Presence of the Enemy (this is an option for chickens [:D] )
Suprised ZoC (too unbalancing)
Railway Movement Bonus (it was designed for pacific scaled maps in the first place)

(from the top of my head)

[brian brian]

Hi Froonp, it is I think verboten to discuss Presence of the Enemy on the yahoo list any more, but perhaps some people here would be interested in it's pros and cons, where we have a lot of new or never players reading along. I play it in part to create some attrition among the naval units that just otherwise hardly seem to sink at much of an historical rate, but how something 'seems' to me in WiF isn't always actually the case. I have always been puzzled by why the Presence rule doesn't include SUBs.....a single report of a conning tower sighting would definitely slow down WWII naval ships. but maybe that is already accounted for in the movement points, that it's a given that once you sail past the harbor's torpedo nets, there might be an Enemy SUB lurking in your Presence. but anyway, give me some reasons not to play it.

[paulderynck]

ITPOTE is one of the most passionately discussed options out there. There was a poll taken on the Yahoo list with about 100 respondents. 52% said they use it all the time and 10% said sometimes. The rest, never, never, never !!

The people who like it say it encourages more naval combat, especially "non-super-fleet" confrontations, and has a better "feel" for the ongoing battle to control sea zones. The people who hate it (as that seems a better description of the sentiment from those against) feel it's very unrealistic.

Realistic or not, I think the game plays better with it.

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.

[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 )

[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 )

Have you played ITPOTE?