Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread)

 
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 >> Mods and Scenarios >> MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) - 9/8/2019 5:04:37 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 17827
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online
Introduction. The following guidelines are an on-going attempt to more accurately simulate World War 2 at the strategic/corps level using MWiF. Section 1 borrows almost verbatim from eouellet’s post on the guidelines he uses for his “War in China” and can be found here. The remaining sections borrow heavily either from the latest WiF CE rule set or from my own playing experience. My intention is to use these guidelines as player imposed, additional constraints to the rules as enforced by the MWiF game engine. Except for section 1 the rationale behind the guidelines in the other sections have not been provided but, as flawed as they might be, there is a rationale for each. If interested please ask. Also, as always I post all this for discussion, critique and above all for fun! MWiF is a game and as any game can be played the way the players, or player, wish.

1.0 War in China.
The Japanese High Command was absolutely terrified at the possibility of a Soviet invasion, and they had a substantive partisan insurgency to deal with in Manchuria. They would had never emptied Manchuria, historically. As well, the Japanese Army and Navy had serious rivalry issues, and never the Navy would have let its Marines forces to be used for “Army’s jobs” in China, except on the coasts.
Lastly, although there was a lot of civilian atrocities committed, the front in China was pretty static, with 3 exceptions: the summer 1940 offensive to capture Ichang, the spring of 1941 where the last coastal cities were taken, and operation Ichi-go in 1944. The Japanese Army had a lot of forces engaged in China, but by and large they were not doing much beyond dealing with partisans, except when it was given strategic priority in those 3 occasions.
For a more historical war in China employ the following:
1.1 Partisans option on (Japanese need to be serious about garrisoning)
1.2. No Japanese’s territorials beyond what they have at the start (Japanese have to feel the stretch). Japan cannot build new territorials or replace at start territorials that are lost.
1.3. Forces in Manchuria and Korea cannot leave, until at war with the USSR, but units can be swapped once delivered in Manchuria/Korea: HQ for HQ, Army/Corps for Army/Corps
1.4. No warlords (tends to favor the Japanese against the Partisans; again they have to feel the stretch)
1.5. Until Japan is at war with the USA, Japanese Marines outside of Japan can only be in or adjacent to coastal hexes (to ensure that Navy troops are not engaged in “Army’s jobs”)
1.6. Japan has to send one extra corps or army to Manchuria no later than J/F 41 (the Japanese worries were increasing as the global war was unfolding)
1.7. Japanese Strategic Bombing only available for Chungking, Chengtu, and Lanchow (this provides an extra incentive to take Ichang)
1.8. Chinese attack weakness option on (to keep the risks for Japan balanced)
1.9. Chinese production reduced to 4 build points, and it is a hard cap (that can be temporarily reduced by Strategic Bombing, and can be temporarily increased by Burma Road build points trade), with the cap increased by 1 more build point for controlling each of Canton and Shanghai (all this to avoid the completely unhistorical super mechanized Chinese Army of 1944 and 1945)
1.10. Burma Road can only be used to send build points or oil that’s saved.
1.11. Saving build points option on (to allow China to build more expansive units over time; and to keep the Japanese on their toes for the need of a potential operation Ichi-go in the later part of the war)

2.0 Oil
2.1. Do not use building Synth oil optional rule.
2.2. Only saved oil can be used to reorganize units during final reorganization. Exception. On Turn 1 oil resource points can be used after using all saved oil for reorganization.

3.0 The Battle of the Atlantic/Importance of Refining Oil
3.1 The number of surprise points (SP’s) required to avoid a naval air combat is revised and variable based on the longest modified range of the enemy’s aircraft included in the naval combat. If the longest modified range of any aircraft included is 18 or greater then the cost to avoid an air combat is 5 SP’s. Otherwise, 4 SP’s if carrier planes are involved or if the longest modified range is between 10 to 17. Finally, 3 SP’s if longest modified range is 6 to 9; 2 SP’s if 3 to 5; 1 SP if 1 or 2. The longest modified range is the range used by the plane to flyout into the sea area (i.e., normal, extended or reaction (half) range).
3.2 An active major power uses only 1 naval move to move any or all of their subs regardless of where they start.
3.3 Germany once per turn and at a cost of 1 BP may move any or all of their subs during a land or air action. They may also use an organized sub to initiate naval combat in as many sea areas they can/wish.

4.0 Mining Norwegian Coast (verbatim from WiF CE rule set).
Once per game, provided the USA and Norway are both neutral and Paris is Allied controlled, then at the start of any Commonwealth naval action (see 10.1) the CW may turn face-down any face-up CW SCS in the 4 section of the Norwegian Sea area (this does not count as a naval move or combat) and announce that they are mining the Norwegian Coast.

The Commonwealth player after mining the Norwegian coast then rolls a die*:
10. Norway immediately becomes a German aligned minor country with no US entry penalty.
9. Same as roll 0-2 but with Germany gaining all the benefits, not the Commonwealth. Furthermore, if an in-supply German land unit occupies London or Moscow during any declaration of war step she man align Norway.
7-8. While neutral, Norway has a trade agreement with Germany supplying her with its resource each turn. Furthermore, if an in-supply German land unit occupies London or Moscow during any declaration of war step she may align Norway.
3-6. Norway is undermined for not taking decisive action to counter this insult to her sovereignty. When next aligned, Norway sets up 1 less INF corps than normal. Place the unit not set up on the production circle to arrive as a reinforcement next turn.
0-2. Place 10 Commonwealth CPs on the production circle to arrive as reinforcements next turn. If Norway is later aligned to any major power her units are set up less 10 CPs.
While Norway is neutral:
(a) she has a trade agreement with the Commonwealth supplying her with its resource each turn; and
(b) Oslo is considered CW controlled solely in regards to naval movement into and out of the Baltic.

*Note. -1 to die roll if a face-up undamaged CW CV with a carrier plane) is in the 4 section of the North Sea area and no face-up German SCS or CV is in any section of the North Sea or Norwegian Sea.

Mined Norwegian Coast. Regardless of the roll, the Norwegian Coast is mined. For now on if the last impulse of any turn is blizzard or snow in the Arctic weather zone, Germany many only ship Swedish resources through the Baltic that turn if Oslo is Axis controlled or if there are an equal or more face-up Axis SCS in the North Sea than Allied.

US entry impact. On a roll of 4 or less randomly pick 1 chit to remove from the US Germany/Italy entry pool or if empty the US can never declare war on Germany or Italy.

5.0 Finland.
5.1 No axis unit may cut any Soviet rail line inside of Karelia if the USSR has satisfied all of the following conditions:
(a) Soviets have claimed the Finnish Borderlands.
(b) No Soviet units are inside of Finland other than the borderlands.
(c) Soviets control Leningrad.
(d) Soviets control and have at least 2 corps/army size land units in Murmansk.
(e) The allies have not blocked the Petsamo resource by cutting the Arctic Highway running along the Karelia-Finnish border.
5.2 Winter War. Germany during any peace step may enforce a peace between Finland and the USSR if: (a) No Finnish City outside of the borderlands are controlled by the Soviets and (b) German and the USSR are not at war.

6.0 Baltic.
While Germany is an active major power you can’t move naval units directly between the Baltic and North Sea (or visa versa), even via Frederikshavn or Kristensen, if: (a) no major power on your side controls any of Oslo, Copenhagen or Kiel or (b) one of more major powers you are at war with control the other two.

7.0 Italy.
7.1 In each of Italy’s two final production phase in 1939 she receives an extra BP.
7.2 During each final production phase in which Italy is neutral and she has at least 1 CP left at sea in the Western Med, she receives an extra BP. In 1939, this BP is in addition to the other one she is already getting.

8.0 Reserves.
A country may only call out and place reserves during their own impulse.

9.0 Shore Bombardment.
The number of ships providing offensive shore bombardment cannot exceed the number of attacking ground units. Similarly, the number of ships providing defensive shore bombardment cannot exceed the total number of defending ground units and notionals.

10. Declaring War.
10.1 After the US entry option of relocating their fleet to Pearl Harbor is choose and to avoid the +2 modifier for declaring war on Japan the two US CVs based at Honolulu each must have an air capacity of at least 4 and be carrying a carrier plane.
10.2 Major powers announce which major powers they are declaring war on, or attempting to declare war on, before any rolls are made. This means that if the US is attempting to declare war on German/Italy or Japan, that all declarations of war by other allied countries are “announced” before the US sees if their DOW was successful or not.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 9/8/2019 5:50:22 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie
Post #: 1
RE: MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) - 9/9/2019 3:08:01 AM   
composer99


Posts: 2838
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
I mean, you can use the house rules you want, but I would really not recommend using the Norwegian sea mining rule from CE as a house rule in MWiF. There's no way to just fudge the effects of that rule, from the US entry effect, to the missing Norwegian corps, etc., by just working around in the game as-is.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2
RE: MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) - 9/9/2019 8:53:58 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 2044
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
Option Soviet–Japanese Garrison
Unless USSR–Japanese have signed a Neutrality Pact each side must have at least 4 army/core sized units in Siberia/Manchuria/Korea.
If a sides goes below the required number the cost of declaring war on the offender i reduced in half rounded down.

US Entry Action 11 Japan Declares war on USSR (7) becomes (3)
US Entry Action 43 USSR Declares war on Japan (-17) becomes (8)

[Designer notes]
Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact , also known as the Japanese–Soviet Non-aggression Pact was a neutrality pact (non-aggression pact) between the Soviet Union and Japan signed on April 13, 1941, two years after the brief Soviet–Japanese Border War.
The Soviet Union pledged to respect the territorial integrity and inviolability of Manchukuo, while Japan did the same for Mongolia.
In WIF it's reprsented by US Entry Action 2. Japan and USSR sign neutrality pact. The rules for standard neutrality pact then applies.
You can choose to break a neutrality pact with another major power due to: (1) enemy aircraft, (2) having the required garrison ratio etc.
But before the agreement in WIF nothing simulates the distrust between Japan and USSR after the brief Soviet–Japanese Border War.
The Japanese High Command had detail plans of attack Hachi-Go Plans and Kantokuen plans against Sibera. USSR Stavka had plans for defense and counter attack.
No sides High Command would have which such a ease sent units from Siberia/Manchuria/Korea with such a ease as you can do in WIF with out a penalty.
The Soviet–Japanese Garrison house rule reduces the risk of such abuse

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 3
RE: MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) - 9/9/2019 11:41:54 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 404
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
I never really understood all the fuss about the Chinese Attack Weakness option...

The Chinese already have weak units and already have (should have) problems mustering enough combat factors for an attack against any Japanese stack that hasn't got a big chance of handing China over to Japan on a silver platter...
-Unless- the Japanese player choose to ignore China, there is no such thing as a successfull Chinese offensive. Barring players who always roll >15 on attacks but that doesn't count. No game should be designed around such dice swinery.

So IMHO the Chinese Attack Weakness option is only for balance. Either the allied player is too strong/lucky, or the Japanese player is too weak or needs some arbitrary help in creating a different strategic option other than putting a lot of units into China.
This also sounds ahistorical to me because this was exactly what Japan had to do: funnel lots of troops into China to be able to keep its head above water. Japan was very afraid of the billions Chinese. And with good reason I might add.

But maybe, if you houserule a large Japanese army in manchuria plus a mandatory peace between USSR and Japan, I can imagine China may grow a little out of hand.

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 4
RE: MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) - 9/10/2019 10:08:44 AM   
peskpesk


Posts: 2044
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
Option None unified Chinese war effort
China must always choose either a pass or a combined action. The only exception is the allied impulse after(even if next turn) which Japan made a land attack or took control over a Chinise hex, China may instead choose a land action.
This option replaces Option 40 Chinese attack weakness.

[Design notes]
Despite facing a common foe in Japan, Chinese society was polarized. Some Chinese were supporters of the Nationalist Kuomintang government; some supported one of the numerous former warlords nominally loyal to the Nationalists; and some supported the Communists, who were engaged in a guerrilla war against the military and political forces of the Nationalists.
Continuing tensions, which sometimes broke out into pitched battles, precluded development of a truly unified Chinese war effort against the Japanese.


_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to TeaLeaf)
Post #: 5
RE: MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) - 9/10/2019 11:53:08 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8259
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf

I never really understood all the fuss about the Chinese Attack Weakness option...

The Chinese already have weak units and already have (should have) problems mustering enough combat factors for an attack against any Japanese stack that hasn't got a big chance of handing China over to Japan on a silver platter...
-Unless- the Japanese player choose to ignore China, there is no such thing as a successfull Chinese offensive. Barring players who always roll >15 on attacks but that doesn't count. No game should be designed around such dice swinery.

So IMHO the Chinese Attack Weakness option is only for balance. Either the allied player is too strong/lucky, or the Japanese player is too weak or needs some arbitrary help in creating a different strategic option other than putting a lot of units into China.
This also sounds ahistorical to me because this was exactly what Japan had to do: funnel lots of troops into China to be able to keep its head above water. Japan was very afraid of the billions Chinese. And with good reason I might add.

But maybe, if you houserule a large Japanese army in manchuria plus a mandatory peace between USSR and Japan, I can imagine China may grow a little out of hand.


I don't agree on this. When the Chinese are building there ART units, they can succesfully ground strike the Japanese. When playing without Chinese Attack Weakness, suddenly, those units can attack at reasonable odds, when in reality, the Nationalists almost never attacked...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to TeaLeaf)
Post #: 6
RE: MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) - 9/10/2019 12:04:16 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8259
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
There is one thing which one can do to make the Japanese lose interest in China.

For every 2 resources/factories controlled by the Chinese at start of the game which are captured by Japan, increase the Chinese production modifier by 0,25, until those resources or factories are again controlled by the Allied side.

And the counterbalance is of course the fact that the Chinese lose 0,25 multiplier for every 2 resources/factories they capture from the Japanese.

Suddenly, an offensive in China isn't that nice to do anymore...


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 7
RE: MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) - 9/10/2019 2:37:25 PM   
TeaLeaf


Posts: 404
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf

I never really understood all the fuss about the Chinese Attack Weakness option...

The Chinese already have weak units and already have (should have) problems mustering enough combat factors for an attack against any Japanese stack that hasn't got a big chance of handing China over to Japan on a silver platter...
-Unless- the Japanese player choose to ignore China, there is no such thing as a successfull Chinese offensive. Barring players who always roll >15 on attacks but that doesn't count. No game should be designed around such dice swinery.

So IMHO the Chinese Attack Weakness option is only for balance. Either the allied player is too strong/lucky, or the Japanese player is too weak or needs some arbitrary help in creating a different strategic option other than putting a lot of units into China.
This also sounds ahistorical to me because this was exactly what Japan had to do: funnel lots of troops into China to be able to keep its head above water. Japan was very afraid of the billions Chinese. And with good reason I might add.

But maybe, if you houserule a large Japanese army in manchuria plus a mandatory peace between USSR and Japan, I can imagine China may grow a little out of hand.


I don't agree on this. When the Chinese are building there ART units, they can succesfully ground strike the Japanese. When playing without Chinese Attack Weakness, suddenly, those units can attack at reasonable odds, when in reality, the Nationalists almost never attacked...

Firs off, I like your idea on how to make Japan lose interest in China, while still not removing the need for Japan to mount large number of troops there!

Regarding the weakness option: what do you consider reasonable odds?
If I start calculating Chinese attacks without the Weakness Option and with a lucky ART that can DG 1 Japanese corps every Chinese attack,
I can come to a +4 on the 2D10 CRT at best (considering a Japanese stack in the open) and a +2 at worst (Japanese behind river or in mountain- or cityhex).
That’s a 38% to 45% chance on a desastrous failure for the Chinese plus another 42% to 45% chance on a ‘normal’ failure (total chance of failure 80% to 90%).
Which means maximum of 1 loss for the Japanese (who’ll pick their div/gun) and 1 to 3 losses for the Chinese who will also become DG.
Now say I am underestimating the Chinese here and they can get a +4 at worst and a +6 at best. Still 80% chance of failure and DG for a Chinese attack.
But I don’t think so, because this requires some 10 Chinese corps (attack from 5 hexsides) and completely ignoring Japanese air flying ground support.

I don’t call that kind of odds reasonable and definately do not see the need to further nerf the weakner units of the Chinese.
FYI, I considered the Chinese attacking from a maximum of 3 hexsides, because a Japanese player who let China attack from 4 (or more!) hexsides is just asking for it.
I find it kind of whiny if Japan wants the Chinese to have even weaker units so they can deploy most of their Japanese troops everywhere but in China.
This was exactly what China in WW2 was about: hold Japanese forces so they cannot be deployed elsewhere.
With the weakness option, this Chinese role is also severely weakened.
In WiF, if Japan plays its offensives in China with lots of troops there, Chiang should be wiser than to launch attacks on his own. With OR without the weakness option...
IOW: I can see the Chinese attacking the Imperial Army only happening if Japan lacks serious commitment in China. In which case I find Japan is asking for trouble so it should get trouble.

Second, and this is what I find really interesting, I don’t think the Nationalist Chinese almost never attacked in WW2!
True, from ‘39 and onwards there’s only a handfull of named offensives (minor or major) that the Chinese initiated but the main Chinese attacks in WW2 were counterattacking after failed/stranded Japanese offensives. So the Japanese launched offensive X, were repelled, after which the Nationalist Chinese counterattacked. Like this, Japan lost like 2 hexes in China for every 4 they took.
What strikes me most is that Japan controlled most cities in China, but failed to wrest control of rural China from Chiang. In WiF terms, somehow Nationalist Chinese were able to be in supply and reinforce their army from the countryside.

Compared to history, I think China already is tweaked down so Japan can have some fun. but maybe that's just my own take on it .

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 8
RE: MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) - 9/13/2019 3:26:36 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3022
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
The war in China is so changed in WiF it is hard to bring it back to historical conditions. For a start, read the size of the famous 7th Rte and N 4th formations - Mao’s biggest units. Also look into who controlled Sian throughout all of WWII.


Some of the WiF CE Norway rules can be simulated in a hard coded WiF 7, some can not. The Baltic movement rules in particular can only be partially recreated. Also in CE, the rules on setting up REServes are flipped back to an older rule on when minors can place theirs, which in turn changes how campaigns work in seemingly simple Denmark.

To better recreate the historical strategic calculus around Denmark (of which there was very little), simply prohibit Allied SCS entry in to the Baltic until Kiel is taken, which would be about exactly how all of the western Allies looked at such a question, outside of a guy named Winston.

(in reply to TeaLeaf)
Post #: 9
RE: MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) - 9/15/2019 9:25:55 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 17827
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
To better recreate the historical strategic calculus around Denmark (of which there was very little), simply prohibit Allied SCS entry in to the Baltic until Kiel is taken, which would be about exactly how all of the western Allies looked at such a question, outside of a guy named Winston.
Interesting. So even if the allies had controlled Oslo and Copenhagen your opinion is that the RN wouldn't have moved into the Baltic unless they also had controlled Kiel too? Well, except for subs. What about sub entry?

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

The war in China is so changed in WiF it is hard to bring it back to historical conditions. For a start, read the size of the famous 7th Rte and N 4th formations - Mao’s biggest units. Also look into who controlled Sian throughout all of WWII.
I'm currently (re)reading Craig Symonds', "The Battle of Midway". What I'm finding very relevant to the war in China in his book is the level of non-cooperation between the Japanese Navy and Army. The Army flat out refused to supply the navy with "troops" for any adventures into Ceylon, Australia or even Midway. When the navy "pitced" their plan to Japan's equivalent of the general staff the army was quite on the whole matter because naval landing troops (e.g., equivalent to marines) were being used. Basically, the army didn't care one way or the other because their troops (i.e., army troops)_ weren't involved. That is, until the Doolittle raid then they backed Yamamoto's plan to trap the US carriers into battle. What's interesting is that Japan's Aleutian campaign actually wasn't a feint and wasn't connect to their Midway campaign except for the timing. Also, what's interesting is Yamamoto's motive for dividing the Japanese Midway forces into four groups. He wasn't afraid if any group appeared too strong that the US navy "would take the bait" and would refuse battle. In reality, Yamamoto got more than he bargain for. I highly recommend the read.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 10
RE: MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) - 9/16/2019 12:26:13 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8259
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
The waters around the Danish Isles are on average between 12 and 15 meters deep at high tide. Not enough for SUB's to dive in...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Mods and Scenarios >> MWiF Historical Guidelines (Discussion Thread) Page: [1]
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

0.137