Winter War

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
composer99
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

RE: Winter War

Post by composer99 »

If Germany declines to declare war on Greece then she cannot send troops to Greece; Italy has to fight that war on her own.

In the case where Italy (and not Germany) were to declare war on Greece, while also being at war with CW and France, I would think a German intervention, even without a (formal) declaration of war, would be perfectly reasonable. It is, after all, what happened historically.

(RAC in §9.2 mentions that you can't declare war on "A minor country that is already controlled by a major power on the other side." So if an active Italy declares war on Greece and it aligns to CW, either Germany ends up at war with Greece as a consequence of its alignment to CW - without getting the benefits of surprise - or Germany can never again declare war on Greece.)
~ Composer99
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Winter War

Post by warspite1 »

It certainly makes things much easier - and still keeping things historic - to have Germany (in that situation) declaring war on the same turn as Italy.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
composer99
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

RE: Winter War

Post by composer99 »

Well, historically Italy was at war with Greece from 28 October 1940 and Germany didn't initiate hostile action against Greece until 6 April 1941 (without a formal declaration of war by Germany against Greece).

However from a gameplay perspective I would agree that a joint Axis DoW makes more sense.
~ Composer99
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Winter War

Post by warspite1 »

Yes I meant to say historic feel. I would rather the Germans be a few months out on "Ochi" day than some weird take it or leave it situation where Germany could never go to war with Greece because they missed some false window of opportunity.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4369
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Winter War

Post by Courtenay »

I had never contemplated the Russian DOW on Belgium. I am trying not to, now. [:)]

My objections to the peacekeeper rule are the Germans sending corps to fight in Rumania and Finland if there is a Russian attack on those places without having a war with Russia, and all other similar situations.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Winter War

Post by paulderynck »

As the Axis, I'd be thrilled if the Soviets DoW'd Belgium. If Italy was active at the time, my biggest decision would be whether to align Belgium with Germany or Italy. Try it out in a game of MWiF and see what happens. Russia can DoW Belgium on the 4th impulse of SO39.

As for Italy, Musolini had the option of DoW one or both of France and the CW and the other ally has the option to DoW Italy. I have seen every possible combination of those DoWs and non-DoWs and they've all been interesting games with interesting situations. Force Italy to DoW both and you've just added a boredom factor to WiF that it never had.

As for Peacekeepers it all comes down to timing. The Russians are the ones that need to play carefully but once they gather the appropriate forces, Germany has to make a major commitment of land and air units to be effective. Germany has lots of fish to fry, so if they make that commitment, it costs them elsewhere. One of the biggest mistakes novice Russian players make is demanding Bess and/or the Borderlands at the wrong time of the game or without enough forces to give the Axis player pause over whether to even force Russia to DoW.

Paul
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Winter War

Post by Joseignacio »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

142 views and no one has a view one way or the other on Multiple States of War? Does that mean everyone is fine with it - its the bestest thing since sliced bread? So angry about it they cannot bring themselves to utter its name? or are currently residing in couldn't careless one way or the other, corner? or what? [:D]

Just curious for people's thoughts please on the rule.

I just connected after a weekend out. You impatient boy! [:)]

I consider the MSoW the worst rule in WIF. Really WIF whould get rid of things that may be very complex but don't add to the game except complexity. For example, the rules for naval engagement are debatable but give excitation, flavour, to the game.

However the MSoW not only are ahistorical but also make a complex game like this almost unintelligible. Not only it has very complex rules in it but it also leads to weird situations not covered by the rules, which have had to be solved by experienced players and finally Clarifications. Some of them were so complex or contradictory that had to be asked to Harry and we have a decision that is right just because Harry said so, no because it comes from the logics or the wording of the rules.

If Belgium alignment would be the problem (don't think so, because no sense in making such rules just for that), it would be easier to make a house rule that Belgium cannot be aligned by URSS, and that'd be much better.

Complexity yes, for emulating the reality but not just because.
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: Winter War

Post by JeffroK »

From an historical view, "Peacekeepers" is such a late 20th Century phrase.

Sounds like it should be "Foreign Volunteers"

To cover this, IMVHO, you would get the unit despatched change into the colours of the Nation being supported, for all intents become a unit of that country. Might be relevant for a Division scaled game but not MWIF scale.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Winter War

Post by Joseignacio »

But Foreign Volunteers fought even in an offensive way, which Peacekeepers ONU-like units cannot, only defense.

Like the Spanish Blue Division who went into Russia with the Wehrmacht. The polish in UK. The Spanish soldiers in the French army (the first entering Paris, btw).

And earlier, the blessed International Brigades in the WWII training, the Spanish civil war, along with the Italian volunteers and the GE Condor Legion.
User avatar
michaelbaldur
Posts: 4800
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:28 pm
Location: denmark

RE: Winter War

Post by michaelbaldur »


deleted
the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com
User avatar
michaelbaldur
Posts: 4800
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:28 pm
Location: denmark

RE: Winter War

Post by michaelbaldur »

4. There was mention of Italy declaring war on Greece (or Yugoslavia) alone. I do not have an issue with that although am thinking off the top of my head here. If Greece is attacked by Italy after Italy is at war with France and the UK then no problem. Germany can join in that war or not. Either way the Western Allies are at war with both Italy and Germany. If Germany declines to declare war on Greece then she cannot send troops to Greece; Italy has to fight that war on her own. If Italy attacks Greece while neutral the same rule applies as per Finland above. If the Western Allies want to defend Greece then they have no option but to declare war on Italy. They cannot send hundreds of thousands of men, aircraft and ships to defend Greece, while Mussolini laughs at the mild inconvenience….

what !!!!!

Germany have no choice of joining.. if ITaly dow Greece, then it align to somebody, CW or France.

and germeny is at war with CW and France, and by default all its controlled minor.

so when ITALY dow greece, germany is automatic at war with Greece
the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Winter War

Post by Joseignacio »

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur
2. The situation in Finland. Germany and the Soviet Union have a peace pact. They both need it for different reasons, but it is an uneasy peace with neither trusting the other, and both being more than happy to break the pact – but only as soon as their purposes are served, not before.
We are supposed to believe that German forces could engage the Soviets in Finland without there being a war? Paul you mentioned there were peacekeepers but come on, what is possible in WIF is not Count Dracula suddenly appearing on the Mannerheim Line. This is whole German army corps (a whole army in one stack) + Kriegsmarine + Luftwaffe fighting against the Soviets - while there is a peace pact between the two countries in place! On that scale, that is war my friend – and to have such allowed is totally unrealistic.

the Germans can´t fight against the Russians, only thing the can do is to be in Finnish hexes

and they can´t use Kriegsmarine + Luftwaffe.

and they can´t move into Russian hexes. so basic you can do noting there

They can use Luftwaffe and I understand that Kriegsmarine too, but only to support GE units, obviously then, only for defense.
User avatar
michaelbaldur
Posts: 4800
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:28 pm
Location: denmark

RE: Winter War

Post by michaelbaldur »

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur
2. The situation in Finland. Germany and the Soviet Union have a peace pact. They both need it for different reasons, but it is an uneasy peace with neither trusting the other, and both being more than happy to break the pact – but only as soon as their purposes are served, not before.
We are supposed to believe that German forces could engage the Soviets in Finland without there being a war? Paul you mentioned there were peacekeepers but come on, what is possible in WIF is not Count Dracula suddenly appearing on the Mannerheim Line. This is whole German army corps (a whole army in one stack) + Kriegsmarine + Luftwaffe fighting against the Soviets - while there is a peace pact between the two countries in place! On that scale, that is war my friend – and to have such allowed is totally unrealistic.

the Germans can´t fight against the Russians, only thing the can do is to be in Finnish hexes

and they can´t use Kriegsmarine + Luftwaffe.

and they can´t move into Russian hexes. so basic you can do noting there

They can use Luftwaffe and I understand that Kriegsmarine too, but only to support GE units, obviously then, only for defense.

you are correct.
the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com
joshuamnave
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:51 am
Contact:

RE: Winter War

Post by joshuamnave »

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Peacekeepers: the problem is that the rule is absurd. If any country intervened that way, they would be at war. I defy you to find a situation anywhere that duplicates the effect of the peacekeeper rule. If you put corps size ground forces in the way of an invader, you are at war with them.

It's estimated that somewhere between 25-45,000 Chinese troops were in Vietnam during the Vietnam war. The US did not want a war with China, and so Chinese peacekeepers did not cause one. US troops fought in WWI prior to our entry without causing a war, and the US sent fighters and pilots to China to resist the Japanese invasion without starting an immediate war. Of course those were "unofficial" but you can make the same argument for WiF peacekeepers.

But more importantly, the peacekeeper rule, like so many other WiF rules, is an abstraction. In the first Indochina war, the Vietnamese received large amounts of military aid from China as well as military advisors and intel during the siege of Bien Dien Phu. Although there were no PLA corps in the fight, China supplied enough weaponry to outfit several. In WiF terms, the diversion of material to Indochina would be represented by a Chinese counter, even if the troops were Vietnamese.

Without the peacekeeper rule, there would need to be a different way of diverting national resources into a low grade conflict. The easiest would be to expand the lend lease rule so that major powers could lend units to minor belligerents that would then fight under that flag. But functionally that's not very different from the current rule, so I don't see the need for an extra layer of complexity to accomplish the same thing.

My only problem with the peacekeeper rule is that the last time I used it, it wasn't working properly (peacekeepers couldn't be attacked). I haven't tried it again in the last several patches, so maybe it's been fixed, but I don't recall seeing any mention of it in any patch notes.
Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky
Jaimainsoyyo
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:47 pm

RE: Winter War

Post by Jaimainsoyyo »

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

But Foreign Volunteers fought even in an offensive way, which Peacekeepers ONU-like units cannot, only defense.

Like the Spanish Blue Division who went into Russia with the Wehrmacht. The polish in UK. The Spanish soldiers in the French army (the first entering Paris, btw).

And earlier, the blessed International Brigades in the WWII training, the Spanish civil war, along with the Italian volunteers and the GE Condor Legion.

[:-] ONU offensive in Korean war is a counterexample of your proposition http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/k ... /unoff.htm
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Winter War

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Peacekeepers: the problem is that the rule is absurd. If any country intervened that way, they would be at war. I defy you to find a situation anywhere that duplicates the effect of the peacekeeper rule. If you put corps size ground forces in the way of an invader, you are at war with them.

But more importantly, the peacekeeper rule, like so many other WiF rules, is an abstraction.
warspite1

If it were an abstraction I could get comfortable with it – but it’s patently not. If there were an attempt to make it even remotely plausible I could get comfortable with it, but there isn’t.

Finnish Front

There is nothing in the rules to stop the Germans effectively fighting the Soviets in Finland (albeit they cannot attack the enemy). But with a few well-placed units, some air power and the Kriegsmarine, they don’t have to. The Soviets will have extreme difficulty in making any headroom – and it will cost them dearly.

So how could it work? If for example the Soviets invade Finland, and Hitler decides to help the Finns, he could send a limited number of troops.

- That number would be effectively reduced from the German OOB and given to the Finns (no need for different counters but for all intents and purposes the Germans are fighting in Finnish uniform – and across the front – not as a homogenous unit (that just requires a bit of imagination).

- That number would need to be limited – say two divisions or a small corps 4 or perhaps 5 strength but no more. In this case the German units could attack as part of a Finnish attack.

- No tank, motorised or mechanised units – infantry only

- Possibly minimal fighter aircraft support. Again, one counter and must be a second-line unit. E.g. No Bf-109.

- Certainly no Kriegsmarine support

Italy / France and the CW

Sorry but this is simply a NO under any and all circumstances imo. Churchill was desperate to keep France in the fight (and so was France funnily enough!). We are envisaging the following situation. We have to assume Mussolini decides he wants Corsica, French North Africa and Savoy. He doesn’t want any of the British Empire and so declares war only on France. It’s a stretch but I’ll go with it.

However, that is Mussolini’s side. What about Churchill and Reynaud? Italy has declared war on France but not the British. They launch an attack along the Mediterranean coast towards Toulon, supported by the Regia Marina. The French appeal for assistance from Britain.

Italian troops are being ferried to North Africa to seize Tunisia and Algeria and Morrocco.

"We need you to attack the Italian Fleet, they’re killing us here". Churchill chews on this cigar, sips a brandy and thinks about it for a nano second…. "Nah! I’d love to help seeing as I need my French Allies in the war and if the Italians break through it does not matter even if the Anglo-French forces hold the Germans in the north but you know what? I don’t think I’ll bother".

Where does that even begin to make any sense in the context of WWII?


Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
composer99
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

RE: Winter War

Post by composer99 »

I think after a certain point the sandbox-style rules of WiF allow actions that for some players break verisimilitude too greatly to be enjoyable; where others will simply 'go with the flow'.
~ Composer99
Numdydar
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: Winter War

Post by Numdydar »

The easiest solution would be to play with someone, where if Italy attacked France, the UK would declare war ASAP against Italy. Or, if playing the Axis, agree that Italy has to declare war on both UK and France on consecutive impulses like they did historically.

Of course Italy is still free to go to war whenever they want on minors.

I realize either of the above has an impact on US entry, but that is something that just has to accepted in order to prevent the silliness of allowing Italy to be at war with just France or the UK. A small price to pay for the realities of the real war.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Winter War

Post by warspite1 »

My understanding was that there was only one throw even if the Italians declared war on both in the same impulse. That will be my house-rule. If the Italians want to go to war against France or the CW, they declare war on both.

Less certain is what happens if the French or CW attack Italy, but I think the same rule should apply.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Winter War

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: composer99

I think after a certain point the sandbox-style rules of WiF allow actions that for some players break verisimilitude too greatly to be enjoyable; where others will simply 'go with the flow'.
warspite1

May I just congratulate you on the word verisimilitude. Perhaps you will permit me to counter with:

I think the MSoW rule is simply floccinaucinihilipilification.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”