Unlimited Breakdown...

[Jagdtiger14]

When playing with this, is there any reason Italy does not DOW CW, France, or both at its first opportunity (Axis impulse #3)? And if for some reason Italy does not, is there any reason France and CW do not DOW Italy at their first opportunity to avoid the surprise impulse INF div invasions?

[Centuur]

The Italians can only sail one ship every impulse if they are neutral. So to get all those division in place will take a while (and you cannot leave them at sea at the end of the turn too). If the turn ends, well, that's about it. And there is US entry to consider too. A CW or French DoW on Italy isn't looked nicely upon in the US.

However, if the turn lasts long enough, one might get some juicy attacks along. Of course, it also depends a little bit on the optional rules which are used, too.

[Orm]

As Allies the incentive for declaring war on Italy increase in proportion to the targets Italy present at sea. So a few divisions at sea might prompt a DOW.

[AlbertN]

Technically, with what Italy can move and do in a surprise Impulse is that it's pretty limited.

If you have X divisions on the sea you gave ample warning to the W.Allies, which in my eyes would otherwise surprise the Italian in return and seize Sardegna (It's 1 resource, and that's badly needed).
In my early games I was most of the time doing an surprise invasion, somewhere, with Italy, at impulse 3 of the game.
Somehow (but that may be dependant on how my partner plays) I evolved into taking a full naval, and trying to engage in as many seas as possible the W.Allies (subs in Atlantic, Cps in the Med or even SCS / CVs).

Though at the present we do not use that optional as we deem it game-breaking (in fact, far too easy to have "infinite" divisions to do long range invasions with cruisers; not only - every stack virtually turns into a 3 strong stack, which is rather relevant for losses on Soviet Front, etc).
What was a limited (tested I assume, implied by design - accounting it was so because also of counter limits) resource to allocate (a division to soak up losses) has turned into a grand asset where regularly all the worst units (3-4 strong) were getting a breakdown for a 1 strong INF division.

[Jagdtiger14]

We used to take a crappy Italian TRS and sail it to the Red Sea to pick up and bring home (if the CW didn't already DOW Italy) the supply chit (2 impulses). Then on the third impulse (if CW didn't already DOW Italy) sail the CA Eugenio Di Savoia into CSV, and then on the next impulse (if the CW didn't already DOW Italy) DOW CW(getting the subs out into the Atlantic as well). It can be devastating to the convoys.

The board game is limited to the counter mix. I'm not sure the limited number of div's in the board game is due to play testing as much as it might be to cost constraints. It may not seem like it with all the counters added over the years, but I remember Harry being resistant at times to new counter sheets.

Now that unlimited breakdown is a possibility as I think it should be allowed, it changes the game dramatically. Combine that to the MWiF map, and things can get really interesting! Does that mean the option is broken? I'm not sure. Personally at the moment I really like playing with the option.

Concerning the initial question, I think Orm hit it on the head when he wrote post #3 above...but that also applied in the usual way we played Italy which normally forced a decision on CW to do something before things got out of hand.

[brian brian]

So I've noticed MWiF changes something with Unlimited Breakdown and the set-up Rules.

Quote:

AfA/MiF option 2: After you have set up, you can break down any of your land units into divisions even if they are in ZoCs (see 22.4.1) provided you still conform to stacking limits.

This means that in WiF, you can break down a corps during set-up, but the 2 resulting divisions will still be in the same hex. In MWiF, the player can break down a corps and then set-up the divisions in 2 different hexes.

I guess since we all can't wait to play WiF:Master Edition anyway, this change is of random import to any given player. But it is a change.

And when you combine this change with an option still not coded but played in some 80% of games (my guess) - Isolated Re-Org - Jt14 has found a nifty gift for the Italian player.

I know I will forever have the hardest time remembering the facts of Option 47, since I've been playing with it for 20+ years, and even before ADG made it into an official rule. A flipped isolated unit stays flipped, in my mind.

[paulderynck]

Agreed the game may let you do it but if players know the rule and agree to abide by it, then is not an issue.

Unfortunately no one has maintained a list since Day 1 of all the MWiF deviations - many of which are not documented in the RAC. It has come to the point where either you play with a rules guru and self enforcement or you accept MWiF as MWiF, with its obvious map deviation and many others...

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

So I've noticed MWiF changes something with Unlimited Breakdown and the set-up Rules.

Quote:

AfA/MiF option 2: After you have set up, you can break down any of your land units into divisions even if they are in ZoCs (see 22.4.1) provided you still conform to stacking limits.

This means that in WiF, you can break down a corps during set-up, but the 2 resulting divisions will still be in the same hex. In MWiF, the player can break down a corps and then set-up the divisions in 2 different hexes.

I guess since we all can't wait to play WiF:Master Edition anyway, this change is of random import to any given player. But it is a change.

And when you combine this change with an option still not coded but played in some 80% of games (my guess) - Isolated Re-Org - Jt14 has found a nifty gift for the Italian player.

I know I will forever have the hardest time remembering the facts of Option 47, since I've been playing with it for 20+ years, and even before ADG made it into an official rule. A flipped isolated unit stays flipped, in my mind.

The problem I have with this optional rule is, that it is too rigid. Why can't a unit be reorganised if it is miles and miles out of enemy reach?

Let's take a good example: Italian East Africa. The Italian unit there goes OOS. It than moves and it is flipped. There is no enemy pressure on this unit, because the Allies are far, far away... Why can't it be reorganised? That's not how this rule should work, IMHO. Reorganisation means IMHO that a unit can be put back to combat readiness. That should be possible for any unit not in an enemy ZOC, I believe.

On unlimited breakdown, I think we should report this as a bug. Perhaps it's easy to fix. If it isn't, than Steve can say: sorry guys, to difficult to fix...

[brian brian]

Personally, I do prefer how the game handles East Africa, with Option 47 in use. Being "flipped" (cardboard game term) or "disorganized" (MWiF term) is a playability simplification.

Just using the "in ZoC example" - what if a unit that can't trace supply was flipped in a combat that eliminated the enemy units (and thus ZoC), say with supply cut later in the turn for it?

Also, the game is designed so the pieces don't have "memory" - if a unit flips, it flips; though it can flip for a variety of reasons the players don't have to remember the reason later.

And with no attritional loss system, flipping can in part represent some casualties that can be replaced from behind the front - if the unit is in communication with it's rear areas.

All of that could be improved with the assistance of computer technology in the design, but I don't see that happening, ever. That would be a new game.

And I think for every Italian-advance-in-East-Africa example, there are many more possible counter-examples of when Isolated Re-Org is just goofy, which is why a solid majority of WiF players use the optional rule.

But to consider just the example of Italian regular units in East Africa (i.e. the ones actually from Italy), consider these quotes from the Wikipedia entry on the campaign in East Africa:

"Due to the isolation of the AOI from the Mediterranean, the Italians had very little opportunity for reinforcement or supply, leading to severe shortages, especially of ammunition."

on casualties during the Italian occupation of British Somaliland: "British casualties were 38 killed and 222 wounded; the Italians had 2,052 casualties and consumed irreplaceable resources." [Italian casualties likely mostly desertion, imo, and that # is minuscule considering they had over 300K men under arms in theater]

on the limited advance into Sudan: "From there the Italians ventured no further into Sudan, owing to a lack of fuel."

on the limited advance into Kenya: "The Italians eventually advanced to water holes at Dabel and Buna, nearly 62 miles (100 km) inside Kenya but lack of supplies prevented a further advance."

One should remember that what in World in Flames is an empty hex still contains the notional units - small scale military forces.Advancing into enemy territory consumes supplies even while the enemy withdraws.

I'm OK with the Italian TERRitorial forces being able to re-organize after an advance, that is plenty generous of the WiF logistics system, which always seems modeled on Axis logistics systems, which were frequently run on a solid dose of optimism.


[and I think the new WiF8 rules due to be published in October, finally, loosen supply things up a little in a way that allows a little more Italian activity in East Africa, though I can't recall the exact details on those (maybe just for the new Red Sea Flotilla naval unit in KiF) as I haven't kept up with the draft versions and am just waiting for publication to play it]


Overall, I like the Unlimited Breakdown system, and would play with that Optional turned ON. I'm not so sure about the change to allow a corps/army required to be in a given geographic area to now allow two divisions anywhere in that geographic area instead. I wish the computer version could mesh with the paper version quite a bit more. Which is why I spent most of my WiF time using CyberBoard still.

[Centuur]

To me, the reorganisation optional rule should be somewhat like this:

A unit which is out of supply, will not reorganise if it can't reach a primary supply source, using a basic supply path of unlimited length if that unit is either adjacent to an enemy unit or if all adjacent hexes of that unit are in an enemy ZOC.

That should be much better, IMHO. The campaign in Italian East Africa was a British success, because they kept pressuring the Italian units. In such a case, an out of supply unit should not get reorganised.

Any non oil unit which is 150 kilometers from an enemy ZOC or unit, should be able to reorganise, since there is no pressure from the enemy on that unit.

The way this option is written in RAW is far, far to rigid, IMHO.

[Joseignacio]

If I understood you well, Centuur, that would be tragic in WIF, cause many units may get disorganized in a simple bad luck roll combat, and, since they cannot move when disorganized, they might never be able to be combat ready even in one year if the enmy doesn't move a crappy unit from in front of them.

[Centuur]

I don't think you understand me correctly. I would like to see that a unit doesn't reorganise if:

the unit is out of supply

and

the unit cannot trace a basic supply path of unlimited length to a primery supply source

and

the unit is adjacent to an enemy unit OR all hexes adjacent to the unit are in enemy ZOC.

That is what I would like to see for an optional rule, replacing the optional rule of isolation.

[Joseignacio]

True, that's why I was wondering if I got you well. Not sure I like it.

I mean if the rational is these units are too close with the enemy walking on their steps, no matter whether they can get a supply route, they should still not be able to reorganize.

If the rational is that because of a defeat the unit has lost a lot of their equipment, but stands in good order, morale and a reasonable cohesion, then all they need are supplies and it doesn't really matter that the enemy is 5 miles away if they get it.

I believe WIF spirit is the second case, that's why the optional is like it is, no matter that the name "reorganization" can be confusing.

[Courtenay]

I do not like that optional rule, because it certainly did not apply to the Japanese. Their outposts were isolated for years, were repeatedly bombed, but they stayed organized.

For that matter, German cut off formations in France (Bordeaux, Dunkirk) stayed organized.

[Centuur]

Were those units organised? Or were they disorganised and didn't the Allies want to attack them, because they didn't want to take casualties to take those ports and islands which they considered to be of no use to the Allied war effort?

I believe the last thing applied. And that's confirmed by the way the Allies "guarded" those "PoW camps". They used a little more man (which were better equipped) than the Axis but almost never had the numbers to take those places.

[paulderynck]

Also who's to say the German formations in France and the Japanese on many of those islands were equivalent to being disorganized? They were simply bypassed. Had sufficient attention been paid to getting them to the game state of "disorganized" then they could have been brittle from then on without re-supply. One reason the Japanese have so many white print units is to simulate their fanaticism even when disorganized.

I favor using the Iso Re-org rule and would like to see it top the list for implementing the as yet uncoded optional rules.

It is optional and I think it is the minority that would not use it.