WIF/MWIF mechanics

[dhucul2011]

I played the board game once many years ago and I have a few questions for the experts on some of the reasoning behind certain game mechanics. Maybe these questions have been posed to Harry Rowland in the past or maybe they have been discussed before:

1. Why does a full Corps only break down to two divisions and most often times the attack factors of the two divisions only add up to half of the attack factor of what the Corps was? Were Corps not usually comprised of three or more divisions and why do I lose so much attack strength on breakdown?

2. It seems that there are no opportunities for the Graf Spee (and/or Deutschland) to actually go surface raiding in the South Atlantic due to range restrictions. So why are they represented in the game? Shouldn't these two units start at sea?

3. If I invade Denmark in 1939 I understand that the US Entry chit may be higher but is there not a reaction from Norway? Do the Swedish resources continue as normal in winter turns when they would have to go through Narvik? I would think that Norway and the King of Denmark's brother would have at least restricted trade in some way. Otherwise there is no reason to attack Norway. Am I wrong?

4. If I invade Netherlands in 1939 does Belgium not react? Again, I would think that they would have aligned to France in this case. It just seems to me that there is no variability in the reaction of nations to invasions other than different US Entry chits. It's too formula. I invade X and I know 100% that Y will react in this way.

I may be wrong in some cases but would like to hear thoughts and if anyone knows the reasons why these rules are.

Thanks!

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

I'm guessing at some of these.


1) Divisions have a lot of "soft power". They can take a loss in place of a full sized corps, they can invade off of SCS (well, inf can), they let you stack higher, etc. 1 combat factor of "division" is much better than a combat factor of a corps. Therefore, in an effort to maintain balance, if you want those added flexibilities, you'll have to give up some raw force.

2) If you wanted to make the game fully historical, I guess. But then again, the CW rarely operates convoys in that part of the world, and modeling the ability to send the pocket battleships out there would involve so many exceptions to the rules regarding normal attack ranges and what a Major Power at peace is able to do that IMO, it really isn't worth the hassle of building it into the system.

3-4) Again, I think you're asking for an enormous amount of extra rules, extra complications, and extra hassle if you start making incredible thrust counter-thrust to every minor power interaction. Would it make the game more realistic? Probably. Would it make the game better? I'm not even sure if it would make the game more fun in an absolute sense, and I certainly don't think it would be worth the added complexity. Because you wouldn't stop there. I (and a lot of others, I believe) like to attack Portugal on the first turn with the CW. Shouldn't that drive Spain further into the arms of the Axis? How come there isn't a compelling reason to have an Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941 a la real life? Isn't it weird how the Saudis never actually give the Allies oil starting in 1942? Etc..

The game isn't bout completely re-creating WW2, it's about taking the strategic situations that underlay the war and then handing it to the players to slug it out.

[warspite1]

dhucul I do not have any official responses but would comment as follows:

1. Remember the limitations of a cardboard counter game. The land units have always been the most abstract – certainly since PiF and SiF appeared. Having the right size divisions to match every corps would mean a potentially much larger counter pool - and added expense/partial countersheets etc. There may also be a play balance issue i.e. making some stacks too powerful if, for example, a 12 factor Panzer Corps is broken down - that would make a couple of 4 or 5 factor divisions or too many 2-factor. Remember also that historically each corps tended to have “corps assets” and not divisional assets, so there would be some element that would not be attached to a division.

2. This is a strategic game. It would seem difficult (if not impossible?) to come up with special rules (to include supply ships) to cater for what was, in tonnage sunk terms, such a small part of the convoy war. The performance of the surface ships as raiders was, frankly, pathetic.

3. and 4. Together. Would Norway or Belgium really react in such a way as to invite invasion by the Germans? I don’t think so, not in the slightest. They would thank the lord it wasn’t them and maybe make a few diplomatic noises of protest…maybe.

[Centuur]

The first three questions, I can't answer. The fourth however, I can answer.

In the 1920's a war almost occurred between Belgium and the Netherlands over the area of Zeeuws-Vlaanderen (the approaches of the port of Antwerp). Thus, Belgium and the Netherlands weren't on very good terms at all before WW II. A lot of stress in the border regions was also caused by various tax problems, which encouraged a lot of smuggling at the border (especially butter, cheese, tabacco and liquor).

So if the Netherlands had been attacked only, chanches are that especially Belgium would join the side attacking the Netherlands, provided they would get a nice chunk of land out of it. The other way around, the Dutch wouldn't react at all, due to the neutrality politics which got them throught WW I...

Personally, I even believe that if the Netherlands had remained neutral during WW II, they would continu supplying oil to both parties out of NEI. They wouldn't support the oil embargo at all. This is due to what happened during the first world war, where the Dutch traded with everyone, provided they paid up. They would have become a "cash and carry" for the warring sides, just as they did during WW I, when they empied the German gold reserves by supplying a lot of food and other supplies to Germany...

In the 1920's the Netherlands was one of the richest countries in Europe...

[paulderynck]

On 1, the idea (I think) is to make breaking them down less attractive. Also there IS a loss of combat power because it is assumed all the corps assets just disappear into a replacement pool for other corps.

On 2 - true, and likely the reason CoIF and CLiF have the CXs in them. Those raids were miniscule in effect compared to the submarine offensive and the way the game mechanics for naval warfare evolved, would have taken too many "special" rules to replicate (see below).

On 3 and 4 I know from discussions with Harry that he opposes specialized rules as much as possible. His objective is to allow the game "engine" to work regardless of who controls what or which county aligns with which other. FREX there's a strategy for Germany to focus entirely east (especially if Russia messes up going after Rumania and Germany can break the garrison) - which means WestWall in the west '39 to '42 and quite likely an ALLIED DoW on Belgium!

Also the same rules have to work for Days of Decision, where almost anything goes!

[Extraneous]

1. Why does a full Corps only break down to two divisions and most often times the attack factors of the two divisions only add up to half of the attack factor of what the Corps was? Were Corps not usually comprised of three or more divisions and why do I lose so much attack strength on breakdown?

"A land unit represents an army or corps (optional division units represent smaller units". That means that a division represents a unit smaller than a Corps not an actual division. Think of divisions from broken up Corps in MWiF as battle groups or Kampf groups.

Corps have differed in size from 1805 with Napoleons Corps d'Armée and continue to do so today. Corps were and are not always triangular in structure.

You loose so much strength because you loose your Corps command structure (artillery, medical, communications, and etc.).



2. It seems that there are no opportunities for the Graf Spee (and/or Deutschland) to actually go surface raiding in the South Atlantic due to range restrictions. So why are they represented in the game? Shouldn't these two units start at sea?

Germany moves first. If you want to take a combined action you can move them to sea.



3. If I invade Denmark in 1939 I understand that the US Entry chit may be higher but is there not a reaction from Norway? Do the Swedish resources continue as normal in winter turns when they would have to go through Narvik? I would think that Norway and the King of Denmark's brother would have at least restricted trade in some way. Otherwise there is no reason to attack Norway. Am I wrong?

Yup no reason to invade Norway by either side. Britain planed to invade Norway but Germany did it first.

"If the last impulse of the turn was blizzard or snow in the Arctic weather zone, Germany can only ship the Swedish resources through the Baltic Sea area if Narvik is not controlled by an Allied major power [Designer’s Note: this represents the fact that the resources were transported through neutral Norwegian coastal waters during Winter]."



4. If I invade Netherlands in 1939 does Belgium not react? Again, I would think that they would have aligned to France in this case. It just seems to me that there is no variability in the reaction of nations to invasions other than different US Entry chits. It's too formula. I invade X and I know 100% that Y will react in this way.

After watching the Allies do nothing to aid Poland, Denmark, and the Netherlands (other than declare war on Germany)?

[brian brian]

a few notes

1 - a group of WiF gamers in Germany has created a full division level version of WiF called the "Master Edition". If pre-orders reach 1000, ADG will go to press with the game. I would say it remains to be seen if this will ever happen, as the order process has been open for several years now.

2 - extended range Kriegsmarine raids would be possible with the Milchcow units that appeared with the Convoy in Flames kit. Most players thought the rule was unworkable as first published. Also most players will gladly add chrome to the land battles, but are less enthusiastic about adding chrome to the (for many) somewhat more mysterious war on the oceans. It is worthwhile to remember that historical German surface raids in WWII sank perhaps 2 or 3 of the game's "Convoy Points" and adding fine detail to the Battle of the Atlantic doesn't gain the players a whole lot at this scale.

3 - there is of course an expansion game called Days of Decision that simulates minor country reactions to Major Power decisions, from 1936 - 1939. But those reactions stop once General War starts in Europe. Personally, I would like to see the DoD system combined with WiF to model minor country diplomacy during the war, as WiF paints this area of history with a pretty broad brush at times in the interests of simplicity. Consider the end point of Finland and Rumania's participation in the Axis for an example of what I mean.


Portugal - some players prefer to have the CW attack the place, yes. Some of those players would first wait and see if Germany will be attacking towards Gibraltar or not. ADG has complicated the operation by adding units to the Portugal OoB and moving up the years of their availability as an official change to the rules that is already in place and should be in MWiF I expect.

Norway - a lot of players think there should be more strategic decision making implications for each side over policy towards Norway in the game. For that reason, there will be some new rules regarding Norway in the next edition of the rules.

Persia - the Allies have plenty of incentive to launch a joint Anglo-Soviet invasion of Persia, or not to do so. Indeed that is the smartest way for the Allies to attack the place, to limit the possibility of Japanese intervention. The USSR can be quite fragile in the game if the Germans attack it in 1941, and smart Allied play is to send as much aid from the West through as many routes as possible. This can be done through a neutral Persia; however an Allied-conquered Persia nets the Allies two more oil resources that can be easily delivered to Russia, and the Axis can also attack the Middle East and possibly align Persia themselves if it is still neutral.

Denmark - this is usually attacked by the Germans in 1939 due to the mechanics of moving ships into the Baltic Sea. The real Allies would not likely have raided the Baltic with naval forces due to the extremely high risk of loss. Churchill actually wanted to do so anyway, but was dissuaded by his naval high command. WiF players are commanding cardboard counters and don't mind sending them to their doom, and indeed frequently do so before the rules mechanics allow Germany to overrun Denmark. It is an interesting point of history to wonder what the reactions of the Scandinavian countries would be to a German occupation of Denmark alone, but is simply too fine of a detail for the game unless and until more robust political rules are written, if ever.

[dhucul2011]

OK, thanks for all of the input guys.

I read that WIF was the ultimate World War Two wargame so that's why I went out and bought MWIF. Now I realize that while MWIF is a true representation of the boardgame it also inherits all of the restrictions that a board game brings.

I have been trying to compare apples to oranges in enquiring why MWIF does not have certain features that a computer wargame SHOULD have such as variable diplomacy and research as well as fog of war.

I accept that WIF is the best boardgame created and Steve has done a great job of emulating it on the computer but for a more full and rich experience as a computer wargame I would still suggest that SC is currently the best computer based game. SC3 with the return of hexes will be even better.

If future versions of the WIF rules, coded into MWIF to allow for more variable events, FOW and research can be expected that's great news!

Until then, MWIF is WIF and not the all encompassing computer war game that I had hoped for.

[Centuur]

Well, it depends on what you expect. Things like FOW are present in the game, althought abstract. The odd "2" roll on the 2D10 table for example if you attack. I than always say that it wasn't a lousy MIL I've landed the British PARA on in Arnhem, but a bloody SS Panzer Corps. Also the fact that you don't know which unit you are exactly producing when you buy it is a type of FOW. Not finding the enemy at sea is FOW (or getting found by the enemy with your carrier planes being refuelled on deck, i.e. a lot of surprise points against you). A lousy bomber killing the best FTR on the board in impossible odds in air to air combat is another example.

Research is also present, due to the increasing fighting capabilities of the later planes, ships and land units. What to buy, limits your options. Abstract, I know, but it is there none the less.

This is one of the things in which WiF has surpassed the other board games. Using simple means, it creates FOW and research.

Will MWIF have the things you want to see? I don't think so, since it is meant to look and feel the same as the board game.

That is to say: at first. No one knows what the distant future looks like...

[dhucul2011]

I REALLY have an issue with losing a 9-4 German corps on 3:1 odds against a 3 strength French militia because I get a crappy role.

OR losing a 4-3 Indian corps against a 1 strength partisan on a crap roll.

Breakdowns to satisfy losses should be coded into the game.

I know what people will say.....have a division included to avoid this but it's still kind of unrealistic.

[paulderynck]

It's things like that that train players to try and include a crap unit in an attack and not risk good units (or units they can't afford to lose) by attacking with them singly, especially on an Assault. A lot of veteran players won't even make an attack with a 9-4 by itself unless it is an auto victory. The game teaches that if you are willing to make the attack, you must be willing to accept the worst case result.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: dhucul

I REALLY have an issue with losing a 9-4 German corps on 3:1 odds against a 3 strength French militia because I get a crappy role.

OR losing a 4-3 Indian corps against a 1 strength partisan on a crap roll.

Breakdowns to satisfy losses should be coded into the game.

I know what people will say.....have a division included to avoid this but it's still kind of unrealistic.

warspite1

You would be highly unlikely to lose such units - crappy roll or otherwise - unless of course you attack with suitably penal dice modifiers, e.g. because you choose to attack in bad weather or due to terrain or whatever. But then that is up to you.

If you still have an issue, then maybe this is not the game for you.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Just wait till you get to naval combat. A 9-4 infantry, as annoying as it is, costs 3 bp to replace and takes 2 turns to spit back out. Now wait and see if a bad roll (Well, usually a series of rolls) means you lose 3 carriers......

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

Just wait till you get to naval combat. A 9-4 infantry, as annoying as it is, costs 3 bp to replace and takes 2 turns to spit back out. Now wait and see if a bad roll (Well, usually a series of rolls) means you lose 3 carriers......

A battle like Midway can happen in this game, which makes it so very good...

[brian brian]

Step losses on the land units would be a better representation, sure. But this is / was a game designed to use with cardboard counters.

You have to let go of the idea of the German 1st Infantry Corps being completely wiped out in a battle. It wasn't. It took heavy losses and had to be withdrawn from the front (bad roll). Maybe it only took moderate losses but stayed in the line (flipped / disorganized on an average roll). Maybe the enemy formation broke in a rout a half hour after the Assault jumped-off (good roll) and losses were light. Maybe it took light to moderate losses in a battle three times in a row and in the fourth battle, it was just about kerput but couldn't be actually withdrawn (counter still removed). It won't be back up to strength for a while because Hitler, all in a panic, diverted all the fresh manpower into brand new divisions instead (MIL units). But it's still in or near the line (notional unit / ZoC perhaps), trying to prepare for what's next amidst all the test firings of Kaytushas the Russians keep flinging at it...

I've played games with 2-sided counters. I've played them with units having more than one counter to represent reduced combat power after a few battles. I've played them where every unit has a counter on top with a number 1-9 on it to represent it's current strength as a fraction of the value printed on the counter. Those systems all work, but not as slickly as WiF does.

And MWiF is just an adaptation of a paper-and-cardboard game. It is not in any way designed to be a computer wargame. I hope the game system will be, some day. There are many things that could go into such a game … such as true aircraft radii of operation, so the Americans can't seize the Marshalls and use them as a base for land-based air to cover the landing craft hitting the beaches of Iwo Jima; true hidden movement, especially for naval units (maybe simultaneous movement) and some formations behind the front - where is that IISS Pz Corps anyway, ask the Red Devils? Intell points and Recon points could be spent on things …
But I think an important one that would be trivial to implement, would be a secret production system. Gee, I didn't know the other guys were even building Marine units ….

[AlbertN]

I agree the mechanic does not favor at all "low" tie rolls (3:1, 4:1 which in real life would be often amazing ratios still here neat very light results, especially IF using the 2D10 system).
But in the end of the day it's how the game is designed, so ... not much to do about it.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
And MWiF is just an adaptation of a paper-and-cardboard game. It is not in any way designed to be a computer wargame. I hope the game system will be, some day. There are many things that could go into such a game …

Obviously Steve needs to first deliver on MWiF as a faithful adaptation of the boardgame. But later perhaps, after the bugs are fixed and NetPlay is working and the additional optional rules and scenarios are implemented and the AI is working fairly well, then... perhaps some additional features could be added as game *options* for FOW, secret production, and such. Perchance to dream...

[bo]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: brian brian
And MWiF is just an adaptation of a paper-and-cardboard game. It is not in any way designed to be a computer wargame. I hope the game system will be, some day. There are many things that could go into such a game …

Obviously Steve needs to first deliver on MWiF as a faithful adaptation of the boardgame. But later perhaps, after the bugs are fixed and NetPlay is working and the additional optional rules and scenarios are implemented and the AI is working fairly well, then... perhaps some additional features could be added as game *options* for FOW, secret production, and such. Perchance to dream...

All good posts gentlemen and I think there might be a possibility of a FOW, would never push it though. One place for a cool FOW would be in naval stacks, with a Light cruiser on top of a 15 unit stack and you have no idea what is in the rest of the stack like you do now, could lead to some nasty suprises [:(] Oh well just dreaming.

Bo

[alexvand]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: brian brian
And MWiF is just an adaptation of a paper-and-cardboard game. It is not in any way designed to be a computer wargame. I hope the game system will be, some day. There are many things that could go into such a game …

Obviously Steve needs to first deliver on MWiF as a faithful adaptation of the boardgame. But later perhaps, after the bugs are fixed and NetPlay is working and the additional optional rules and scenarios are implemented and the AI is working fairly well, then... perhaps some additional features could be added as game *options* for FOW, secret production, and such. Perchance to dream...

All good posts gentlemen and I think there might be a possibility of a FOW, would never push it though. One place for a cool FOW would be in naval stacks, with a Light cruiser on top of a 15 unit stack and you have no idea what is in the rest of the stack like you do now, could lead to some nasty suprises [:(] Oh well just dreaming.

Bo

Actually in the Boardgame there was/is an interesting FOW mechanic. There were 3 or 4 chits for each power that were named things like "TF 58" or "Combined Fleet". Then there was a separate board off to the side with holding boxes. You would put your units in the holding boxes and the chits would be on the map. But your opponent wouldn't know which holding box went with which chit. So you could see the size of the possible fleets but wouldn't necessarily know which one you would be engaging.

(Or wait, was this a houserule we played with. It was cool either way.)

[Viktor_Kormel_slith]

I think when the game will be finished and I hope, will be succesfull, matrix could go far beyond, adding extras like you said. It´s a pity that code is not very friendly to modding because we could help!