Optional Rules Preference: LOS and Eng

[jboldt007]

So was sitting in a boring meeting the other day and decided to figure out some more questions to ask.
Here goes: do experienced players tend to use the following optional rules or not:

Limited overseas supply: I kind of like it but makes it very hard for some theatres to conduct operations effectively - North African for Italy / CW and the Pacific. Historically one could argue both ways - somehow some supply always got through- Malta, the "slot", etc. On the other hand, in hostile waters supply was almost always conducted in convoys which the optional rule reflects.

Construction Engineers: combat engineers is a no brainer- but construction engineers can create some real headaches - for example- France falls and Brest becomes a minor port. The axis can't put subs into the "sub pens" (unless they want them to get plastered) until Brest is repaired to a major port which means an engineer unit needs to be rushed over there post haste.

National Chinese Attack Weakness: this would seem to be good for a new Japanese player to help them in China but it does result in a defensive attrition type role for the National Chinese.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: jboldt007

So was sitting in a boring meeting the other day and decided to figure out some more questions to ask.
Here goes: do experienced players tend to use the following optional rules or not:

Limited overseas supply: I kind of like it but makes it very hard for some theatres to conduct operations effectively - North African for Italy / CW and the Pacific. Historically one could argue both ways - somehow some supply always got through- Malta, the "slot", etc. On the other hand, in hostile waters supply was almost always conducted in convoys which the optional rule reflects.

Construction Engineers: combat engineers is a no brainer- but construction engineers can create some real headaches - for example- France falls and Brest becomes a minor port. The axis can't put subs into the "sub pens" (unless they want them to get plastered) until Brest is repaired to a major port which means an engineer unit needs to be rushed over there post haste.

National Chinese Attack Weakness: this would seem to be good for a new Japanese player to help them in China but it does result in a defensive attrition type role for the National Chinese.

I like all 3 of these optional rules. Although maybe engineers shouldn't take quite so long to build, ...

[paulderynck]

LOS and attack weakness - definitely.

Construction Engineers I started out playing with since we already had a lot of earlier version of WiF under our belts and wanted to play all the optionals we had counters for. But now I think they are just a PITA and really don't add much to the game. AAMOF they are a production tax. The extra logistics to get them to red factories and ports just distracts from the game and I don't think they really scale well to that function in addition to being combat engineers. All the powers had plenty of non-combat personnel to accomplish those functions.

[jboldt007]

Yeah - re construction engineers. It seems
A bit of a stretch - there has to be allot of civilian crews out there to do that work!

[jboldt007]

But does make engineers more valuable - I like adding value for specialty units because it expands the decisions one makes for unit purchases.

[Joseignacio]

Construction Engineers no way. Not only they are necessary for ports but also for factories you capture or damaged factories.

If you use this option you'll have to do the was without Combat Engineers at all. They are always needed elsewhere. One of the most unuseful optionals the game has.

LOS, it depends. I have played with and without and I cannot tell which one I like more.

[Centuur]

Construction engineers is a strange rule. The rule is not historically sound at all. Where all countries had combat engineers, some countries, especially the Soviets, Germans and the Japanese had a totally different view on how to manage reconstruction units.

The last three had engineer units who were often not even equipped with firearms and therefore were not combat units at all and were specialized in reconstruction damaged area's like railroads, bridges, ports and factories. If you would represent this, than the German army would need to get at least 3 engineer units with zero combat factors at start of the game...

Chinese attack weakness is a historically sound rule, but so is the Japanese Command conflict too, which was one of the problems of the Japanese aircraft factories. The army and navy were constantly battling on what aircraft would have to be build....

Limited overseas supply sounds looks like a good rule, but I don't like it because of the fact that it's an "all or nothing" rule. It's not reasonable to need a whole convoy point to make sure that a division is in supply on an island in a sea area and it's also not reasonable to have a whole army group consisting of 10 corps or more to be in supply with only 1 convoy point present in the sea area next to it.
It's too arbitrary IMHO.

[Joseignacio]

I forgot Chinese Attack weakness. We use to play with it.

But remember:

- It doesn't affect the communists (including partisans, which are commies as well).
- Anyway the chinese have nothing to do attacking the Japanese in the coastal areas (deployment), where they can be supported by their fleet, powerful navs (with tactical factors) and even some CVPs who can bomb 1 or 2 hexes from the coast.

[Courtenay]

I like LOS and I don't like Chinese attack weakness, but will not argue strongly about them. What I will argue strongly about is the construction engineer rule. Some rules are anti-Allied. Some rules are anti-Axis. Constructions engineers are anti-human. They are just a continual exercise in frustration. The reason we play games are that they are fun. Construction engineers are un-fun. There are some optional rules I require, and some I forbid. Construction engineers fall squarely in the "forbid" camp.

[rkr1958]

Limited oversea supply - yes. While this is an "all or nothing" rule as Centuur pointed out I've grown to really like this rule. I've played several games without it but have played using it in my last two games. My sense is that this rule adds greatly to the historical feel to the game without adding any, or much, play burden. My feel is that it makes naval play, especially in the Pacific and in the Med, more significant. It also adds the element of now having to protect supply lines or interdicting this lines, sometimes held as significantly greater force, to attempt to throw a monkey-wrench in your opponent plans.

Chinese attack weakness - yes. I like because without it I think it gives the Nationalist Chinese too much punch and unfairly burdens the Japanese.

Construction Engineers - a big FAT NO, for the reasons stated previously.

Another rule you didn't mention but one I really like, is unlimited breakdown. I feel this rule makes the play in China and the Pacific much better.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Limited oversea supply - yes. While this is an "all or nothing" rule as Centuur pointed out I've grown to really like this rule. I've played several games without it but have played using it in my last two games. My sense is that this rule adds greatly to the historical feel to the game without adding any, or much, play burden. My feel is that it makes naval play, especially in the Pacific and in the Med, more significant. It also adds the element of now having to protect supply lines or interdicting this lines, sometimes held as significantly greater force, to attempt to throw a monkey-wrench in your opponent plans.

Chinese attack weakness - yes. I like because without it I think it gives the Nationalist Chinese too much punch and unfairly burdens the Japanese.

Construction Engineers - a big FAT NO, for the reasons stated previously.

Another rule you didn't mention but one I really like, is unlimited breakdown. I feel this rule makes the play in China and the Pacific much better.

To me, Unlimited Breakdown seems okay in the Pacific. It is in the Med that I have trouble with it.

The Italian fleet can be transformed into 20+ troop transports and put almost a dozen broken down corps (German) across the Med in one impulse. The divisions all regroup at the end of the turn. This can happen while France is still in the game or after it has been Vichied or conquered. Capturing Egypt and all of North Africa is then pretty straightforward.

Without this rule the Axis is limited to getting at most 3 or 4 corps over per turn.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Limited oversea supply - yes. While this is an "all or nothing" rule as Centuur pointed out I've grown to really like this rule. I've played several games without it but have played using it in my last two games. My sense is that this rule adds greatly to the historical feel to the game without adding any, or much, play burden. My feel is that it makes naval play, especially in the Pacific and in the Med, more significant. It also adds the element of now having to protect supply lines or interdicting this lines, sometimes held as significantly greater force, to attempt to throw a monkey-wrench in your opponent plans.

Chinese attack weakness - yes. I like because without it I think it gives the Nationalist Chinese too much punch and unfairly burdens the Japanese.

Construction Engineers - a big FAT NO, for the reasons stated previously.

Another rule you didn't mention but one I really like, is unlimited breakdown. I feel this rule makes the play in China and the Pacific much better.

To me, Unlimited Breakdown seems okay in the Pacific. It is in the Med that I have trouble with it.

The Italian fleet can be transformed into 20+ troop transports and put almost a dozen broken down corps (German) across the Med in one impulse. The divisions all regroup at the end of the turn. This can happen while France is still in the game or after it has been Vichied or conquered. Capturing Egypt and all of North Africa is then pretty straightforward.

Without this rule the Axis is limited to getting at most 3 or 4 corps over per turn.

Good point. Though I feel unlimited breakdown is almost a necessity for the Pacific given the island combat nature of that theater. Also, unlimited breakdown in China I feel is almost a must given the smaller hex scale sizes. What do you think about a compromise where unlimited breakdown can only be used in the Pacific and not in Europe or North Africa to include the Med? Or do you feel Japan has sufficient divisions without unlimited breakdown to grab all the islands they need to grab?

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Limited oversea supply - yes. While this is an "all or nothing" rule as Centuur pointed out I've grown to really like this rule. I've played several games without it but have played using it in my last two games. My sense is that this rule adds greatly to the historical feel to the game without adding any, or much, play burden. My feel is that it makes naval play, especially in the Pacific and in the Med, more significant. It also adds the element of now having to protect supply lines or interdicting this lines, sometimes held as significantly greater force, to attempt to throw a monkey-wrench in your opponent plans.

Chinese attack weakness - yes. I like because without it I think it gives the Nationalist Chinese too much punch and unfairly burdens the Japanese.

Construction Engineers - a big FAT NO, for the reasons stated previously.

Another rule you didn't mention but one I really like, is unlimited breakdown. I feel this rule makes the play in China and the Pacific much better.

To me, Unlimited Breakdown seems okay in the Pacific. It is in the Med that I have trouble with it.

The Italian fleet can be transformed into 20+ troop transports and put almost a dozen broken down corps (German) across the Med in one impulse. The divisions all regroup at the end of the turn. This can happen while France is still in the game or after it has been Vichied or conquered. Capturing Egypt and all of North Africa is then pretty straightforward.

Without this rule the Axis is limited to getting at most 3 or 4 corps over per turn.

Good point. Though I feel unlimited breakdown is almost a necessity for the Pacific given the island combat nature of that theater. Also, unlimited breakdown in China I feel is almost a must given the smaller hex scale sizes. What do you think about a compromise where unlimited breakdown can only be used in the Pacific and not in Europe or North Africa to include the Med? Or do you feel Japan has sufficient divisions without unlimited breakdown to grab all the islands they need to grab?

After thinking about it for a bit I can see where unlimited breakdown gives nations way too much and cheap amphibious capability. Against a lightly garrisoned Gibraltar or Malta the axis early on can attempt a low odds, low cost amphibious attack with 3 divisions. So what if the odds are 30%, they're only risking 3 divisions for a potential significant gain. Also, unlimited breakdown lets the attacker and potentially the defender off cheap if every front line stack is manned by two corps and a division.

[paulderynck]

These are options. Try unlimited breakdown without SCS transport.

[AlbertN]

LoS: I'd struggle to play without. BUT it also depends with which naval options you play with. Since in the tabletop game there are basic ships, Ships in Flames and Cruisers in Flames (not to add Convoy in Flames).
To play without LoS means to me pratically playing with the basic game ships (Which are only CA and BB and CV at the ratio of 1 counter each 2 roughly).

Chinese Weakness: A must. In fact if you check the RAW8 on the Australian Design Group webpage, the Attack Chinese Weakness is not anymore optional but included in the baseline of the rules.

Construction Engineer: Useless Optional Rule as already depicted. As per above, in the RAW8 it has entirely disappeared.

[jboldt007]

Great comments .. so I'm thinking: LOS (in MWIF), YES; Attack Weakness: a must (YES); Constuction Engineers: NO

I like unlimited breakdown - in the context and scale of the game it makes sense. Sometimes a corps just feels too big. The issue is how combat losses are taken. Randomly assigning a loss say would mean a division would only have a 1/3 chance of being taken as a loss. Using a division solely as "cannon fodder" doesn't always feel right (Artillery was usually the last thing to go in a set piece battle). In any event, breaking down too many units of course drastically weakens a player's forces (which may be worth it in the Pacific). As noted, playing without SCS transport could offset this, even though it is historically accurate that nations (especially Japan) used SCS transport extensively.

One dynamic of LOS I've learned is that in key sea areas one can use say a spare transport [because one purchased too many instead of AMPHs ...] in a high sea box with a patrolling force along with the convoys in the '0' box with their screening units. If the convoys get isolated and attacked you still have the transport bringing in the goods.

[TeaLeaf]

Never liked the Chinese Attack Weakness option. It sounds historical yes, but the fact that the Chinese cannot attack effectively without the attack weakness rule if Japan attacks them methodically, is simulation enough for me already.
Chinese units are very weak compared to the Japanese. The only time China can think about attacking is if Japan is ignoring China (or perhaps late in the war). This simulates the weak chinese enough IMHO. The attack weakness option just removes a strategic dilemma for Japan; now they can ignore China to a much larger degree without getting punished.

Feels just axis-biased to me, especially if played without Japanese Command Conflict (option removed from RAW8) and with Allied Combat Friction standardized as well (again, RAW8).

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf

Never liked the Chinese Attack Weakness option. It sounds historical yes, but the fact that the Chinese cannot attack effectively without the attack weakness rule if Japan attacks them methodically, is simulation enough for me already.
Chinese units are very weak compared to the Japanese. The only time China can think about attacking is if Japan is ignoring China (or perhaps late in the war). This simulates the weak chinese enough IMHO. The attack weakness option just removes a strategic dilemma for Japan; now they can ignore China to a much larger degree without getting punished.

Feels just axis-biased to me, especially if played without Japanese Command Conflict (option removed from RAW8) and with Allied Combat Friction standardized as well (again, RAW8).

The key when using this optional rule is to start building planes and of course the Chinese ART when the tide is turning. The Japanese will have fewer units than the NatChi in China and they may often not be in supply, especially when the Allied navy is doing there job.
In late war, one plays the Chinese the same way as one plays the USSR. Who cares about losing some cheap units. You've got enough of those available and the Japanese cannot affort losses.
If you play without the attack weakness, the Chinese army can wreck havoc on the few Japanese troops in the theater. Any result which has a 50% chance of destroying a Japanese unit is worth it. The Chinese losses are of no consequence, for as long as the Chinese has a healthy number of units available to them...
And don't forget the Communists, who don't suffer from this rule and have a nice army available to use too.

[AlbertN]

Never played with the Japanese Command Conflict. They've already way too few BPs to risk that suddenly they get that LND3 with 2 tactical factors instead of the badly needed NAV3 truth be told.

And as Centuur said if the Chinese can attack properly it's game over for Japan later when they cannot afford that many Land Impulses nor replace losses on all the fronts.
Which dictates them to maul the Chinese as soon as possible preventing other strategies. China anyhow has indeed cheap units (CAVs costing 2 for example, Warlords to an extent and so forth).

[TeaLeaf]

So after receiving some 4-year beating from Japan, the Chinese (IF still alive) are not allowed a fair chance of revenge [X(]?
It's not that China can do anything early in the war, if Japan chooses to ignore China (mostly). Chinese chance comes only late in the war anyway -without Chinese Attack Weakness.

Also, it's not that China didn't have the means to attack Japan effectively, they didn't want to (always looking sideways to the commies). Big difference, because it kept Japan honest. Japanese still feared what Nat. Chinese could do. I think playing with Chinese Attack Weakness removes any sort of cautiousness towards Chinese from Japan. Leaving aside whether that is something good or bad for now.

But yeah, during a hexacon Some1 close to ADG once said to me WiF is too much favoring the axis lately (I'm not giving his name away or he might be assassinated [:D]), so maybe I am worrying too much about the allied chances. But I keep watching ADG. Standardizing Chinese Attack Weakness AND allied Combat Friction but removing Japanese Command Conflict makes me think [;)].