Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

House Rules

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> House Rules Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
House Rules - 1/19/2015 3:58:16 PM   
RickInVA

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 4/27/2011
Status: online
Wondering what kind of House Rules people play with.

For MWiF there would seem to be two kinds, those to compensate for something not implemented in the rules (like Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact) and those of preference (anything else).

Back in the board game days the group I played with didn't allow the US or CW to declare war on neutral countries. We figured they were the good guys and just wouldn't do that.

What are some of yours?
Post #: 1
RE: House Rules - 1/19/2015 4:07:23 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 38081
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RickInVA

Wondering what kind of House Rules people play with.

For MWiF there would seem to be two kinds, those to compensate for something not implemented in the rules (like Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact) and those of preference (anything else).

Back in the board game days the group I played with didn't allow the US or CW to declare war on neutral countries. We figured they were the good guys and just wouldn't do that.

What are some of yours?
warspite1

No arguments re them being the good guys - but its naïve to think that they would not have attacked countries if they felt it the necessary thing to do.

The UK's decision to land in Norway and Sweden!!
Gamelin's plan to bomb Soviet oilfields
The attack on the Vichy Fleet at Mers-El-Kebir, Dakar, Madagascar etc
The US/British invasion of French North Africa


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/19/2015 5:13:02 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to RickInVA)
Post #: 2
RE: House Rules - 1/19/2015 4:43:28 PM   
Ur_Vile_WEdge

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline
Don't forget the attacks on Iraq and Iran in 1941. Which, in WiF, are flat out attacks on neutral minor countries.


Some house rules I've played, now or in the past:

Ships in the 0 box don't exist for ITPOE purposes; they neither slow down enemies nor help your own guys deal with an enemy presence in the seazone.

A new U.S. Entry option, Ge/IT 26, "CW occupies the Azores". I forget exactly what tension I gave it. Play the option, and the Azores becomes CW territory, provided Portugal is neutral. You pair this with a second houserule, that if there is ever an allied unit in metropolitan Portugal during an Axis DoW step, Germany may align Spain.

Mostly to stop those first turn Portugal attacks, which, I'll freely admit, I do all the time myself without some houserule against it.


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 3
RE: House Rules - 1/19/2015 5:51:32 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8053
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
We had a different houserule regarding Portugal and Spain. This was that Italy could align Spain if an Allied nation DoW'ed Portugal, except when this Dow was done by the US. If the US did DoW Portugal (or liberate it) Spain could be aligned by the United States if the US had 10 corps sized land units in Portugal (CW/French do NOT count). If Spain was aligned this way, Franco would only send one land (not the HQ itself) or air unit out of the country, (or it's colony's) to support the Allied attacks on the Axis.

Franco was only interested to stay in power if you look at the Spanish position during WW II...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)
Post #: 4
RE: House Rules - 1/19/2015 6:05:08 PM   
Cohen_slith

 

Posts: 1755
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
We're pretty much at an embryonal status of House Rules but for now we use what follows:

Poland must setup in Western Poland (including planes).
Non colonial (Territorial / Militia) forces must setup in their national countries. (Fleets can still split).
Soviets can declare war to Italy only if they can eligibly break the R-M Pact with Germany - if Italy is fighting alongside Germany vs CW. (Unless Italy possess a minor country neighbouring Russia homeland).
Soviets can declare war to Bulgaria only if they can break the R-M pact.

In the latest game we're doing we're experimenting a house rule on the strat-bombing en-route interception (Pratically if one can intercept before the bomber, the bomber must go to a factory in intercept range)

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 5
RE: House Rules - 1/19/2015 6:20:23 PM   
Ur_Vile_WEdge

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline

I admit, the houserule about Germany aligning Spain had less to do with an analysis of what Franco was likely to do and more to be something to punish the CW for attacking a historic ally for minor tactical advantages. Furthermore, it encourages the historical "Get the Azores by diplomacy" angle by making it far more expensive to just attack Portugal and seize them.




(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 6
RE: House Rules - 1/19/2015 7:55:54 PM   
dhucul2011

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 9/12/2007
Status: offline
Our house rules for historical realism:

1. Finnish forces cannot move outside of Finland or USSR when aligned with Germany. Stops the silly Mannerheim in the invasion of France crap.
2. Vichy France will NOT DOW the Allies even when hostile.
3. USSR MUST claim Bessarabia and Borderlands by end of 1940.
4. USSR and Germany cannot attack each others peacekeepers if the hex contains only their units. A bug in MWIF actually uses this house rule right now! Yes, Germany can sit a corps in Helsinki and stop a full conquest by the USSR.
5. Italy MUST invade Greece by end of 1940.

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)
Post #: 7
RE: House Rules - 1/19/2015 8:29:40 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3200
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline
One I use is that the hexside north of Liege, between Germany and Belgium, is impassible unless the Netherlands is an active minor country.

My reason for the rule is simple: while the hex on the west is Belgian, and the hex on the east is German, the hexside between them belongs to the Netherlands. The WiF map does not reflect that fact, but that does not mean that I can't implement it.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to dhucul2011)
Post #: 8
RE: House Rules - 1/19/2015 9:30:26 PM   
Ur_Vile_WEdge

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline
quote:

USSR and Germany cannot attack each others peacekeepers if the hex contains only their units. only their units. A bug in MWIF actually uses this house rule right now! Yes, Germany can sit a corps in Helsinki and stop a full conquest by the USSR.



I'm just curious as to why you would play this way? How would you stop it if you have the jackass "Soviet Units in France and/or Belgium" exploit if someone tried to pull that?


Edited out what was probably an accusational tone.

< Message edited by Ur_Vile_WEdge -- 1/19/2015 10:31:44 PM >

(in reply to dhucul2011)
Post #: 9
RE: House Rules - 1/19/2015 10:13:36 PM   
Viktor_Kormel_slith


Posts: 372
Joined: 11/14/2013
Status: offline
In our current global war game, me and my opponent pacted some rules when we discover some absurd consequences of the extended game.

1)China is out of the war when Japan surrenders. Imagine all those chinese units roaring around the world!
2)There were not agreement about URSS manpower but in my opinion, with european URSS in german hands there must be some kind of limitation. I destroyed soviet army one and one and other one times but give them some breathe "et voila" Red Army at full power again.There is no many people living in Siberia
3) We decided to cancel russian partisans becouse the program ignores the garrison units out of European Russia (Siberia, Uzbekistan etc)

And some more but less important.


_____________________________

Sorry, for my bad english! "Wiffing" since 1990 to the tomb!

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)
Post #: 10
RE: House Rules - 1/19/2015 11:19:45 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7670
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
The one we always disliked was when playing the Oil option, disorganized ships at sea could re-org at turn end even though they could not trace a path to oil. So our house rule was you could stay at sea disorganized but could not reorganize unless it was theoretically possible (after sliding down one sea box) to have RTB'd to a port from which you could trace both a valid supply path and a valid path to the oil (they can be separate).

Sort of an "Isolated Re-org" rule for naval units.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Viktor_Kormel_slith)
Post #: 11
RE: House Rules - 1/20/2015 6:17:26 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8053
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

One I use is that the hexside north of Liege, between Germany and Belgium, is impassible unless the Netherlands is an active minor country.

My reason for the rule is simple: while the hex on the west is Belgian, and the hex on the east is German, the hexside between them belongs to the Netherlands. The WiF map does not reflect that fact, but that does not mean that I can't implement it.


That's a good one. My personal opinion is that that hex should become Dutch controlled and Liege should be one hex south. Also, the NEI oil rules are not reflecting what would have happened if the Dutch stayed neutral. I don't believe that the Dutch would support an oil embargo against Japan when neutral. Never, since they would act as a "cash and carry" for the warring nations. So to keep everybody happy, they would supply both sides, until one wasn't able to pay anymore. In WW I they delivered goods to anyone who could pay for them and that made the Dutch one the richest countries of Europe between the wars. No way Dutch politics would change with The Hague still free of enemy forces...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 12
RE: House Rules - 1/20/2015 8:47:39 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2912
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
We looked at the historical date that the CW could use the Azores finally, I believe it was May, 1943, and came up with a house rule that they could do so once the Axis (including Vichy) controlled no hex in Africa.


(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 13
RE: House Rules - 1/20/2015 11:07:58 PM   
Ur_Vile_WEdge

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline
Would you count Madagascar? The Japanese can hold out there a surprisingly long amount of time.


(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 14
RE: House Rules - 1/21/2015 4:14:09 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3200
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline
A house rule that I have not used, but have often thought of using is that if Norway is not an active minor coutnry and the weather in the Arctic is snow or blizzard CW has an SCS in the Norwegian Sea then the CW may execute search and seizure against the Swedish resources.

The point of this rule is to duplicate the historical situation in Norway. The CW is not going to declare war on Norway. However, they were perfectly willing to violate Norwegian neutrality to a limited extent. This rule allows them to do so. Until the US is in the war, they might not want to do so because of the US entry effects, but after the US declares war, there is no reason for them not to. In turn, this gives the Germans a reason to invade Norway.

I have never actually used this rule, so don't know if it works. What are people's opinions?

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)
Post #: 15
RE: House Rules - 1/21/2015 5:17:33 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2912
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
I think it is an accident of history that the UK didn't go to war with Norway. The British had troops and minelayers loaded in embarkation ports when Hitler launched his attack, I believe. This might have cost them their alliance with South Africa had it gone through, among other repercussions.

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 16
RE: House Rules - 1/21/2015 6:28:01 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8053
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
I don't know. The way the British behaved in Norwegian waters was slowly turning the Norwegian people towards joining the Axis side. Especially the Norwegians Fishermen and the Merchant navy would have reacted strong on operation Wilfred if the Germans wouldn't have attacked Norway the next day. To put mines in neutral waters (and Norway was neutral at the moment those mines were launched from the British vessels) is an act of war...

Norway in those days depended on merchant shipping to get food to the population, especially up north...

Also, search and seizure would mean that British vessels would have to operate within the Norwegian fjords. Shipping never got far enough out to sea (only a couple of hunderd meters was already enough). This would mean that the Norwegian population would witness this and that would mean more anti British sentiments in the country.

Personally I would like to see that messing with shipping from Narvik to Germany would mean that a chance that Norway will join the Axis before the US enters the war should be build in too...



< Message edited by Centuur -- 1/21/2015 7:29:35 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 17
RE: House Rules - 1/22/2015 12:57:05 AM   
tom730_slith

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 1/28/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dhucul

Our house rules for historical realism:

1. Finnish forces cannot move outside of Finland or USSR when aligned with Germany. Stops the silly Mannerheim in the invasion of France crap.
2. Vichy France will NOT DOW the Allies even when hostile.
3. USSR MUST claim Bessarabia and Borderlands by end of 1940.
4. USSR and Germany cannot attack each others peacekeepers if the hex contains only their units. A bug in MWIF actually uses this house rule right now! Yes, Germany can sit a corps in Helsinki and stop a full conquest by the USSR.
5. Italy MUST invade Greece by end of 1940.



I love adding as much historical realism as possible, and totally agree with #1, and #3. The Finns really had a great deal of integrity given the fact that there were two of the worst dictators in history breathing down their necks. Mannerheim refused to attack Leningrad and refused to go further than the territory that the USSR had taken from them. So yeah, Mannerheim in France? Couldn't happen due to the nature of the Finns.
Now Stalin demanding Bessarabia and the Finn borderlands? Absolutely! As clear as taking the Baltic States!

Personally I prefer giving Italy the flexibility to make moves at their discretion. I've been re-reading Count Ciano's diary recently and from that it is clear they had their eyes on Yugoslavia for a LONG time, and after the fall of France had a lot of interest in French North Africa. Mussolini basically wanted "booty" - to enrich his regime at the expense of others. This is a big reason he actually did NOT want Vichy involved in the war on the Axis side. He wanted their stuff!

I also recently read an account of the terrible British actions against the French fleet, a clear act of war on their part which might have driven Vichy into the Axis camp (if Axis leadership had more foresight and was less interested in punishing the French!) I like the possibility of a Vichy that is a co-belligerant due to British actions. I think much like the Finns the French would want to limit their actions to recovering territory and punishing the British.

ANyway, love the ideas, thanks!

(in reply to dhucul2011)
Post #: 18
RE: House Rules - 1/22/2015 5:28:58 PM   
Cohen_slith

 

Posts: 1755
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
About rules on Norway, I think the Germany at the moment is quite weak already without adding more penalties to have them invade Norway.
There should be some bonuses for Axis to invade Norway instead.

(in reply to tom730_slith)
Post #: 19
RE: House Rules - 1/22/2015 9:35:45 PM   
Viktor_Kormel_slith


Posts: 372
Joined: 11/14/2013
Status: offline
I think like Cohen, in fact, my game partners and me don´t used to invade Norway.

_____________________________

Sorry, for my bad english! "Wiffing" since 1990 to the tomb!

(in reply to Cohen_slith)
Post #: 20
RE: House Rules - 1/23/2015 5:30:53 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8053
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
Now, that's something I see to. Norway isn't interesting at all. Perhaps in late game, the Wallies might grab it, just to make sure Germany loses those precious iron ore in winter weather and Germany hasn't got the forces available anymore to do something about it...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Viktor_Kormel_slith)
Post #: 21
RE: House Rules - 1/23/2015 5:51:22 PM   
Ur_Vile_WEdge

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline
Same here. I've seen Norway get attacked by Germany around the historical time a grand total of once: And even though the operation went off without a hitch, there's really nothing in Norway that's worth the 2 TRS and 10+convoys that will sail off to join the British when you do it. Especially right at what is possibly the most critical juncture of the Battle of the Atlantic.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 22
RE: House Rules - 1/23/2015 5:53:09 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2912
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
Invading a neutral Norway is a good move for the western Allies from the mid-game on. The Germans have to take combined impulses to send anything there, for one, and it starts to pry open the Baltic as well.




re: Using Africa as a condition for the CW gaining access to Portuguese territory, and Madagascar - yes, I would include Madagascar in such a rule. The historical Allies had to launch an operation to wrest it from a Vichy governor, there was a bit of small-scale combat there even. With it sitting just off-shore from a Portuguese colony, having it firmly in Allied hands from either Vichy or Japanese control would be a factor weighing on a Portuguese decision to allow Allied military access to their territory.

By the spring of 43, when basing rights were granted in the Azores, the Battle of the Atlantic had just a few months before tipped against the U-Boats. The British came closest to defeat in that Battle in the first few months of 43, but by that summer they turned the corner and never looked back, benefitting from new technology, increased long-range air assets being devoted to the ASW effort, AND the use of the Azores closing one of the last "air gaps" on the Atlantic routes.

Ultimately though, few players are interested in the SUB campaigns anyway. Portugal was generally more important during a struggle for Gibraltar, and the easy Allied DOW of the place was addressed by giving the Portuguese an extra unit, and moving up the year availability of another one. That was probably a good fit, though the Royal Navy floating artillery can still take the place without a whole lot of trouble, but a few more land units required than previous.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 23
RE: House Rules - 2/1/2015 5:17:35 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 14286
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
I've been toying with the following, and will give it a try in my solitary play. At first I didn't think they were linked as I have them linked, but after some thought they could be linked historically. Away, here's my first cut.

If the Soviets claim the Finnish borderlands then the Germans must invade Norway within a year. If the Germans deny the claim then both the CW and France can send land and air units to Norway assuming Norway is aligned to one of the allied powers. If the Germans allow the claim by the Soviets, then the CW or France may still align Norway, but neither can send land or air units to Norway. Failure by the Germans to invade Norway within one year of the Soviets claim, allows the CW, or French, player to DOW Norway without Norway aligning to any power and resulting in the immediate conquest of Norway by the allies.

One of Churchill's main motivation for intervening in Norway was to establish a supply path to send aid, and possibly troops, to the Finns in the winter war against the Soviets. This plan was only stopped a few days before it was suppose to start by the Finns agreeing to a cease fire with the Soviets. So in game terms if the Germans had allowed the claim then that would have removed one of the main incentives for the British intervention into Norway. From a WMiF game perspective, the Soviet player can gain an extra resource, some Finnish territory, and force the Germans to invade Norway by making the claim. If the German player wants to make it hard on the Soviet player; i.e., by denying it, then in return the Germany player's life is made harder in Norway. Or, Norway and one their victory points (i.e., Oslo) is handed over for free to the CW if the Germans decide not to invade Norway if the Soviets claim the Finnish borderlands.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 2/1/2015 6:51:31 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 24
RE: House Rules - 2/1/2015 5:50:25 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 38081
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I've been toying with the following, and will give it a try in my solitary play. At first I didn't think they were linked as I have them linked, but after some thought they could be linked historically. Away, here's my first cut.

If the Soviets claim the Finnish borderlands then the Germans must invade Norway within a year. If the Germans deny the claim then both the CW and France can send land and air units to Norway assuming Norway is aligned to one of the allied powers. If the Germans allow the claim by the Soviets, then the CW or France may still align Norway, but neither can send land or air units to Norway. Failure by the Germans to invade Norway within one year of the Soviets claim, allows the CW, or French, player to DOW Norway without Norway aligning to any power and resulting in the immediate conquest of Norway by the allies.

One of Churchill's main motivation for intervening in Norway was to establish a supply path to send aid, and possibly troops, to the Finns in the winter war against the Soviets. This plan was only stopped a few days before it was suppose to start by the Finns agreeing to a cease fire with the Soviets. So in game terms if the Germans had allowed the claim then that would have removed one of the main incentives for the British intervention into Norway. From a WMiF game perspective, the Soviet player can gain an extra resource, some Finnish territory, and force the Germans to invade Norway by making the claim. If the German player wants to make it hard on the Soviet player; i.e., by denying it, then in return the Germany player's life is made harder in Norway. Or, Norway and one their victory points (i.e., Oslo) is handed over for free to the CW if the Germans decide not to invade Norway.
warspite1

rkr1958, interesting idea - and the following does not invalidate your idea, but is just for historical accuracy.

Churchill had absolutely no intention of sending troops to aid Finland. His ahem..."plan" was to stop iron ore getting to Germany - and in his usual inimitable style, he wanted action this day! Chamberlain - fortunately in this case - was a brake on this madcap idea.

Having landed in Norway with a small, ill-equipped (sound familiar ) force, elements would then march into Sweden (conveniently via the iron ore fields) apparently "on the way to Finland" - which they would never reach....but they would remain on Swedish soil! The Swedes would obviously be only to happy with this state of affairs.... right

The deliberations went on so long that Finland surrendered before any action was taken - thus the pretext for landing was gone.

Despite this, this brain-dead idea would not go away though and a landing in Norway was about to happen* when - this time it was the Germans that beat them to it.

* The idea was to mine Norwegian waters - something that was bound to see Germany react - and when they did, the British would land

I have read a couple of books on this - and the way the British and French governments conducted matters in the first year of war was a complete and utter joke. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable the way they carried on. France were happy for any plan that involved the British taking the lead - and vice-versa - so each could blame the other if it went wrong....

And that was just one episode - don't get me started on Gamelin's spiffing wheeze - bombing the Soviet oilfields

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/1/2015 7:27:15 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 25
RE: House Rules - 2/1/2015 6:58:35 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 14286
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I've been toying with the following, and will give it a try in my solitary play. At first I didn't think they were linked as I have them linked, but after some thought they could be linked historically. Away, here's my first cut.

If the Soviets claim the Finnish borderlands then the Germans must invade Norway within a year. If the Germans deny the claim then both the CW and France can send land and air units to Norway assuming Norway is aligned to one of the allied powers. If the Germans allow the claim by the Soviets, then the CW or France may still align Norway, but neither can send land or air units to Norway. Failure by the Germans to invade Norway within one year of the Soviets claim, allows the CW, or French, player to DOW Norway without Norway aligning to any power and resulting in the immediate conquest of Norway by the allies.

One of Churchill's main motivation for intervening in Norway was to establish a supply path to send aid, and possibly troops, to the Finns in the winter war against the Soviets. This plan was only stopped a few days before it was suppose to start by the Finns agreeing to a cease fire with the Soviets. So in game terms if the Germans had allowed the claim then that would have removed one of the main incentives for the British intervention into Norway. From a WMiF game perspective, the Soviet player can gain an extra resource, some Finnish territory, and force the Germans to invade Norway by making the claim. If the German player wants to make it hard on the Soviet player; i.e., by denying it, then in return the Germany player's life is made harder in Norway. Or, Norway and one their victory points (i.e., Oslo) is handed over for free to the CW if the Germans decide not to invade Norway.
warspite1

rkr1958, interesting idea - and the following does not invalidate your idea, but is just for historical accuracy.

Churchill had absolutely no intention of sending troops to aid Finland. His ahem..."plan" was to stop iron ore getting to Germany - and in his usual inimitable style, he wanted action this day! Chamberlain - fortunately in this case - was a brake on this madcap idea.

Having landed in Norway with a small, ill-equipped (sound familiar ) force, elements would then march into Sweden (conveniently via the iron ore fields) apparently "on the way to Finland" - which they would never reach....but they would remain on Swedish soil! The Swedes would obviously be only to happy with this state of affairs.... right

The deliberations went on so long that Finland surrendered before any action was taken - thus the pretext for landing was gone.

Despite this, this brain-dead idea would not go away though and a landing in Norway was about to happen* when - this time it was the Germans that beat them to it.

* The idea was to mine Norwegian waters - something that was bound to see Germany react - and when they did, the British would land

I have read a couple of books on this - and the way the British and French governments conducted matters in the first year of war was a complete and utter joke. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable the way they carried on. France were happy for any plan that involved the British taking the lead - and vice-versa - so each could blame the other if it went wrong....

And that was just one episode - don't get me started on Gamelin's spiffing wheeze - bombing the Soviet oilfields
Thanks for the info! Most of my understand (or misunderstanding) on this comes from an episode in the BBC series, The World at War, which I love. In it there's an interview from the early 70's with PM Chamberlain's private secretary and I found it really enlightening to why things happened in Norway the way they did. During the phony war, the hope by the western allies was that WW2 wouldn't be a repeat of the first war. And that it would / could be fought on distant battlefields, such as in Norway, and far away from Western Europe. He also goes on to discuss the fiasco in Norway, the fall of the Chamberlain government and how Churchill came to power. I'm sure you know this history better than me but it was between Winston and some other chap (who's name I can't remember).

By the way, the British landed in Norway without snow shoes. The French had snow shoes but forgot to load the lashing for binding them to their feet. In effect, British and French movement in northern Norway was constrained to roads. Also, the British in their foray into Norway learned the lesson that naval power without air power is highly vulnerable to enemy air power.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 26
RE: House Rules - 2/1/2015 7:09:53 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 38081
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I've been toying with the following, and will give it a try in my solitary play. At first I didn't think they were linked as I have them linked, but after some thought they could be linked historically. Away, here's my first cut.

If the Soviets claim the Finnish borderlands then the Germans must invade Norway within a year. If the Germans deny the claim then both the CW and France can send land and air units to Norway assuming Norway is aligned to one of the allied powers. If the Germans allow the claim by the Soviets, then the CW or France may still align Norway, but neither can send land or air units to Norway. Failure by the Germans to invade Norway within one year of the Soviets claim, allows the CW, or French, player to DOW Norway without Norway aligning to any power and resulting in the immediate conquest of Norway by the allies.

One of Churchill's main motivation for intervening in Norway was to establish a supply path to send aid, and possibly troops, to the Finns in the winter war against the Soviets. This plan was only stopped a few days before it was suppose to start by the Finns agreeing to a cease fire with the Soviets. So in game terms if the Germans had allowed the claim then that would have removed one of the main incentives for the British intervention into Norway. From a WMiF game perspective, the Soviet player can gain an extra resource, some Finnish territory, and force the Germans to invade Norway by making the claim. If the German player wants to make it hard on the Soviet player; i.e., by denying it, then in return the Germany player's life is made harder in Norway. Or, Norway and one their victory points (i.e., Oslo) is handed over for free to the CW if the Germans decide not to invade Norway.
warspite1

rkr1958, interesting idea - and the following does not invalidate your idea, but is just for historical accuracy.

Churchill had absolutely no intention of sending troops to aid Finland. His ahem..."plan" was to stop iron ore getting to Germany - and in his usual inimitable style, he wanted action this day! Chamberlain - fortunately in this case - was a brake on this madcap idea.

Having landed in Norway with a small, ill-equipped (sound familiar ) force, elements would then march into Sweden (conveniently via the iron ore fields) apparently "on the way to Finland" - which they would never reach....but they would remain on Swedish soil! The Swedes would obviously be only to happy with this state of affairs.... right

The deliberations went on so long that Finland surrendered before any action was taken - thus the pretext for landing was gone.

Despite this, this brain-dead idea would not go away though and a landing in Norway was about to happen* when - this time it was the Germans that beat them to it.

* The idea was to mine Norwegian waters - something that was bound to see Germany react - and when they did, the British would land

I have read a couple of books on this - and the way the British and French governments conducted matters in the first year of war was a complete and utter joke. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable the way they carried on. France were happy for any plan that involved the British taking the lead - and vice-versa - so each could blame the other if it went wrong....

And that was just one episode - don't get me started on Gamelin's spiffing wheeze - bombing the Soviet oilfields
Thanks for the info! Most of my understand (or misunderstanding) on this comes from an episode in the BBC series, The World at War, which I love. In it there's an interview from the early 70's with PM Chamberlain's private secretary and I found it really enlightening to why things happened in Norway the way they did. During the phony war, the hope by the western allies was that WW2 wouldn't be a repeat of the first war. And that it would / could be fought on distant battlefields, such as in Norway, and far away from Western Europe. He also goes on to discuss the fiasco in Norway, the fall of the Chamberlain government and how Churchill came to power. I'm sure you know this history better than me but it was between Winston and some other chap (who's name I can't remember).

By the way, the British landed in Norway without snow shoes. The French had snow shoes but forgot to load the lashing for binding them to their feet. In effect, British and French movement in northern Norway was constrained to roads. Also, the British in their foray into Norway learned the lesson that naval power without air power is highly vulnerable to enemy air power.

warspite1

The World At War Sheer Quality!

Yes, this was all part of the bizarre way the British / French went about things in the early months of the war. Hence Gamelin wanting to bomb the Caucasus from Syria, and not wanting the British to mine the Rhine - as it might mean the Germans retaliating on French soil. These are two French examples - but the British were equally as clueless .

The Norwegian Campaign started badly, got steadily worse (through Admiralty interference) and just kept getting more and more amateurish as things "progressed". The Allies had no fighter cover (except a few Gladiators that flew from a frozen lake - (and were quickly destroyed)), the troops had little by way of AA, the troops were largely territorial battalions as the small regular army was in France, as you say, some of the troops did not have the right equipment because plans were made on the hoof and shipping was diverted elsewhere....the whole thing was just a shambles.

The other chap was Lord Halifax. Good job he didn't get the job - and frankly I'm not sure he wanted it in any case.

Fortunately the Germans did not have the expertise they were soon to gain and so could not take advantage of their air supremacy against the RN. One of the saddest episodes of the campaign was the loss of the carrier Glorious - and that was nothing to do with air power - she was sunk by the ugly sisters, while sailing back to the UK alone (just 2 destroyers as escort - and for reasons that are not completely known) through a war zone with no CAP fighter protection What made her loss even worse was the loss of many RAF fighter pilots who had landed their Hurricanes on deck in a magnificent display of skill just a few hours before. What a waste..


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/1/2015 8:20:39 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 27
RE: House Rules - 2/1/2015 7:29:21 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 38081
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
As has been discussed before, there is little reason to get the Germans to attack Norway. What about if the US throw was guaranteed e.g.

- if Germany attacks Norway in 1940 [at any time before or during an attack on France] then regardless of whether there is a CW response, the Allies suffer a US Entry loss of one/two chits [provided Oslo is captured by the Germans]. Would that be enough to make this difficult operation worthwhile?

The German then weighs up the US Entry setback for the Allies vs the CP they give to the CW and the time, effort and resources that would need to be thrown into an attack.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 28
RE: House Rules - 2/1/2015 7:41:24 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 14286
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

she was sunk by the ugly sisters
Who were the ugly sisters?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

As has been discussed before, there is little reason to get the Germans to attack Norway. What about if the US throw was guaranteed e.g.

- if Germany attacks Norway in 1940 [at any time before or during an attack on France] then regardless of whether there is a CW response, the Allies suffer a US Entry loss of one/two chits [provided Oslo is captured by the Germans]. Would that be enough to make this difficult operation worthwhile?

The German then weighs up the US Entry setback for the Allies vs the CP they give to the CW and the time, effort and resources that would need to be thrown into an attack.
Interesting, by honestly I don't Germany invading Norway would make war with the US less likely. What about if the VP for a neutral Norway goes to the CW? Or the possibility that the CW could align Norway once Germany and the US were at war?

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 29
RE: House Rules - 2/1/2015 7:51:10 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 38081
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

she was sunk by the ugly sisters
Who were the ugly sisters?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

As has been discussed before, there is little reason to get the Germans to attack Norway. What about if the US throw was guaranteed e.g.

- if Germany attacks Norway in 1940 [at any time before or during an attack on France] then regardless of whether there is a CW response, the Allies suffer a US Entry loss of one/two chits [provided Oslo is captured by the Germans]. Would that be enough to make this difficult operation worthwhile?

The German then weighs up the US Entry setback for the Allies vs the CP they give to the CW and the time, effort and resources that would need to be thrown into an attack.
Interesting, by honestly I don't Germany invading Norway would make war with the US less likely. What about if the VP for a neutral Norway goes to the CW? Or the possibility that the CW could align Norway once Germany and the US were at war?
Warspite1

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

The rationale being that Germany acted against the British employing Wilfred/R4 (which of course they dont physically have to do) - the game just assumes the CW has mined Norwegian territorial waters.

Yes, I like the idea of alignment - that would be interesting.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> House Rules Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.178