Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Ridiculous 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 >> Ridiculous rules Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Ridiculous rules - 5/8/2020 5:13:29 AM   
Courtenay


Posts: 3750
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline
What are people's favorite ridiculous rules in WiF? The ones that trying to visualize what is happening just makes you smile?

My two favorites are Italian SCSs in pools being delivered to Germany and Japan after an incomplete conquest of Italy when the Allies hold Gibraltar and the Suez canal, and SCS invasions by cavalry divisions.

For the first, I have visions of a damaged Littorio on a giant carriage being hauled over the Alps by a large number of people pulling ropes.

For the second, well: "Heave! Sploosh. Heave! Sploosh. Heave! ...."

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....
Post #: 1
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/8/2020 5:30:56 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42023
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

What are people's favorite ridiculous rules in WiF? The ones that trying to visualize what is happening just makes you smile?

My two favorites are Italian SCSs in pools being delivered to Germany and Japan after an incomplete conquest of Italy when the Allies hold Gibraltar and the Suez canal, and SCS invasions by cavalry divisions.

For the first, I have visions of a damaged Littorio on a giant carriage being hauled over the Alps by a large number of people pulling ropes.

For the second, well: "Heave! Sploosh. Heave! Sploosh. Heave! ...."
warspite1

As for Italian SCS, well I didn't know that was a thing but that's pretty rubbish to say the least. Submarines yes... SCS er well no.

Cavalry division is less of a problem for me although doesn't make much historical sense. That a cavalry regiment could no longer have horses but keeps its cavalry designation is possible - although (certainly in the British Army) cavalry tended to become tank or armoured units and so they shouldn't be invading (until much later in the war). And if they became foot soldiers then they should no longer have the cavalry movement allowance......

Peacekeepers is the one that kills me (although there was a long thread about this and I understand why it is there in game terms). The Soviets attack Finland - Germany has ceded Finland as part of the NS Pact - but despite this she sends potentially whole armies to fight the Soviets and stop them from taking Helsinki. None of which happens to bring the Soviets and the Germans to a state of war.....

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 2
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/8/2020 3:29:15 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3131
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: online
Convoy Points should be excluded from the Cooperation rules.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 3
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/9/2020 2:04:04 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 18856
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

and SCS invasions by cavalry divisions.

For the second, well: "Heave! Sploosh. Heave! Sploosh. Heave! ...."
Wasn't the 1st Cavalry Division the lead unit in the US invasion of the Admiralty islands in 1943?


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 4
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/9/2020 8:41:47 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42023
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

and SCS invasions by cavalry divisions.

For the second, well: "Heave! Sploosh. Heave! Sploosh. Heave! ...."
Wasn't the 1st Cavalry Division the lead unit in the US invasion of the Admiralty islands in 1943?

warspite1

.... but probably not on horseback


_____________________________

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



(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 5
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/9/2020 4:58:12 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8424
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Convoy Points should be excluded from the Cooperation rules.


And: convoy points should be allowed to enter neutral ports (even if there are enemy convoy points in port).
Also: convoy points in neutral ports are always in supply.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 6
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/9/2020 7:22:07 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 18856
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

and SCS invasions by cavalry divisions.

For the second, well: "Heave! Sploosh. Heave! Sploosh. Heave! ...."
Wasn't the 1st Cavalry Division the lead unit in the US invasion of the Admiralty islands in 1943?

warspite1

.... but probably not on horseback







Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 7
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/9/2020 7:25:13 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42023
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

and SCS invasions by cavalry divisions.

For the second, well: "Heave! Sploosh. Heave! Sploosh. Heave! ...."
Wasn't the 1st Cavalry Division the lead unit in the US invasion of the Admiralty islands in 1943?

warspite1

.... but probably not on horseback






warspite1

These guys appear a little confused. They do know their orders for an amphibious assault meant them storming the beach from the water right?


_____________________________

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



(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 8
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/9/2020 7:28:47 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 18856
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

and SCS invasions by cavalry divisions.

For the second, well: "Heave! Sploosh. Heave! Sploosh. Heave! ...."
Wasn't the 1st Cavalry Division the lead unit in the US invasion of the Admiralty islands in 1943?

warspite1

.... but probably not on horseback






warspite1

These guys appear a little confused. They do know their orders for an amphibious assault meant them storming the beach from the water right?


You're are absolutely killing me. I busted a gut laughing at your response. Thanks!

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 9
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/9/2020 8:14:11 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7926
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Well if CAV can invade in WiF (FE or CE) or in MWiF, then it's a bug. Check 28 - Unit Costs and Characteristics.

My favorite ridiculous rule is the one about minor naval units not being able to base in some places, some times - like the Dutch TRS.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 10
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/9/2020 10:58:30 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3131
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: online
I have a book called Cavalry of WWII. They were used a fair bit on the Eastern Front, on both sides. Germany rebuilt some disbanded formations, largely for anti-partisan duty.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 11
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/9/2020 11:29:19 PM   
Orm


Posts: 19488
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Well if CAV can invade in WiF (FE or CE) or in MWiF, then it's a bug. Check 28 - Unit Costs and Characteristics.


What Paul said.

And you can not transport cavalry on SCS. Only infantry is allowed on SCS.

And if you can invade with a cavalry division from a SCS, then that is not one bug but two.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Orm -- 5/9/2020 11:30:28 PM >


_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 12
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/10/2020 10:13:46 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 18856
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Well if CAV can invade in WiF (FE or CE) or in MWiF, then it's a bug. Check 28 - Unit Costs and Characteristics.


What Paul said.

And you can not transport cavalry on SCS. Only infantry is allowed on SCS.

And if you can invade with a cavalry division from a SCS, then that is not one bug but two.



Can you invade with a cavalry division from a transport? I can't recall if I've done that before or not. I think I have but then again maybe not?


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 13
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/11/2020 7:45:43 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7926
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
As stated, if you can do it in MWiF, it's a bug. In WiF it's against the rules.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 14
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/27/2020 11:36:49 AM   
Admiral Delabroglio


Posts: 104
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
One rule that always annoyed me in WiF is that a minor is limited by its controlling major power choice of action
For instance, Poland is controlled by the CW.
During the first allied impulse, the CW usually chooses a naval impulse. Hence, the Polish land units are stuck doing nothing. Even if Germany uses only a screen of slow units against Poland.
At one time, I considered using a house rule for "Major Minors", ie minor countries who have a HQ in their force pool : if a major minor is attacked (NOT if it deliberately joins in, for instance Yugoslavia joining in if an allied power has 4 units in an adjacent country) then its units have their own action limits, using the China ones, with the following restriction : if the controlling major power chooses a land / naval / air action, then the minor can take either the same type of action or a combined. If the controlling major uses a combined action, the minor can pick any action. The benefit is lost if the minor is conquered, even if liberated afterwards.
It would emphasize the difference between a minor coutry fighting for its freedom and a minor country giving in to half veiled threats into entering the war and making only a half hearted effort.

Best regards

_____________________________

Admiral Delabroglio

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 15
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/27/2020 4:55:44 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42023
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral Delabroglio

One rule that always annoyed me in WiF is that a minor is limited by its controlling major power choice of action
For instance, Poland is controlled by the CW.
During the first allied impulse, the CW usually chooses a naval impulse. Hence, the Polish land units are stuck doing nothing. Even if Germany uses only a screen of slow units against Poland.
At one time, I considered using a house rule for "Major Minors", ie minor countries who have a HQ in their force pool : if a major minor is attacked (NOT if it deliberately joins in, for instance Yugoslavia joining in if an allied power has 4 units in an adjacent country) then its units have their own action limits, using the China ones, with the following restriction : if the controlling major power chooses a land / naval / air action, then the minor can take either the same type of action or a combined. If the controlling major uses a combined action, the minor can pick any action. The benefit is lost if the minor is conquered, even if liberated afterwards.
It would emphasize the difference between a minor coutry fighting for its freedom and a minor country giving in to half veiled threats into entering the war and making only a half hearted effort.

Best regards
warspite1

I certainly take your point, although I suspect the reason is probably twofold - firstly ADG liked to have as few country specific rules as possible and preferred, where possible, to have the same rules apply to all.

The second could be that, quite simply, WWII should never have panned out the way it did. It was really quite ridiculous. And that gives a problem to all strategic wargame designers of WWII. How to make force sizes in anyway realistic, that still give the Germans a chance and allows the Allies some degree of flexibility in what they do.

All WIF players know the key to the Allies winning is to keep the French (and Poles) fighting. So while the WIF rules may unrealistically handicap the Poles, it is just as unrealistic for the Poles to fight in a way designed specifically to help the CW (and of course I am thinking initial set up in particular, as the Poles had little choice but to set up as they did in real life whereas in WIF, the CW will have no such qualms about setting up the Poles to keep them in the game).

Its a real balance that needs to be struck.




< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/27/2020 4:57:04 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Admiral Delabroglio)
Post #: 16
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/27/2020 5:20:04 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3131
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: online
Take a Combined to start with the CW. Prioritize. 2 naval "moves" can accomplish a lot. It is actually not a good idea to instantly deploy the BEF anyway, as you want to hold your reserves to possibly respond to what Germany might do in the west (Rotterdam, Denmark). And what can the Axis do to the Allies on impulse #3, anyway? Maybe an Italian DOW - but if that happens, you probably don't want ships at sea anyway, and the CW has an ally in the Med with their own navy. The CW convoys should be 3 zones away from any Kriegsmarine raids - & they might not even have U-Boats with that range to start, in some games.

Then, the Poles can move a few units. Maybe take 2 Combined impulses. Maybe if the Poles can move a little, the Germans might be less willing to take a Combined to launch a naval raid.

If Germany goes in for a strong attack across the Rhine in 1939, the Poles should fight hard, keeping both their air units - if the FTR beats just one German FTR, that is a big help to the Allies as the Germans might have the other 3 in Belgium. If Germany is not careful and maybe flips a lot of units on an attack in Poland, the CW can rail move the oil from Persia into Warsaw and the Polish air fights again. (Russia should hold off on entering East Poland until the Germans have at least one of the Polish factory hexes in such a Poland Fights scenario).


There are some other possible game situations where minors operating under major power action limits can get frustrating, but action limits always circle back to: priorities. You are C-i-C, you decide. Convoys need protection? Set that up the turn previous if necessary.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 17
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/28/2020 2:29:30 AM   
craigbear

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 1/21/2020
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
Far more frustrating is to have to take a pass to help Russia survive when you really really want to take an action... not too realistic if you think about it.

< Message edited by craigbear -- 5/28/2020 2:30:22 AM >

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 18
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/28/2020 1:06:08 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8424
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: craigbear

Far more frustrating is to have to take a pass to help Russia survive when you really really want to take an action... not too realistic if you think about it.


It's frustrating, that's for sure. One of the guys I used to play with over the board always said: "that rule simulates politics". I think he's right, where this is concerned. In a multiplayer game, you really get very nice discussions when Uncle Joe asks mr. Churchill to pass, especially when the latter sees all kind of nice things he can do to put pressure on the Japanese...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to craigbear)
Post #: 19
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/28/2020 3:34:32 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42023
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: craigbear

Far more frustrating is to have to take a pass to help Russia survive when you really really want to take an action... not too realistic if you think about it.


It's frustrating, that's for sure. One of the guys I used to play with over the board always said: "that rule simulates politics". I think he's right, where this is concerned. In a multiplayer game, you really get very nice discussions when Uncle Joe asks mr. Churchill to pass, especially when the latter sees all kind of nice things he can do to put pressure on the Japanese...
warspite1

I think your friend is right - although would also add it simulates the decisions that the allies had to take on compromising their own needs in order to keep the USSR in the war.

So whilst trying to end a turn is unrealistic in terms of real life, the concept really isn't unrealistic.

How much were the tanks and aircraft sent to the Soviet Union needed in the Western Desert or the Far East?

How much were the Royal Navy ships engaged in the convoys to Russia required in the Med?

It is natural in WIF for the Allies (and the Axis) to play as a team, but that too is unrealistic. The turn end 'needs vs wants' at least in some way goes to explore the sometimes very different needs and wants of each power.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 20
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/31/2020 9:40:27 AM   
Admiral Delabroglio


Posts: 104
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
Another extremely annoying rule is the US entry effect of war declarations against Italy or by Italy

Turn 1, impulse 3 : Italy declares war on France
Benito : "Rolled an 8, no US effect"

Turn 1, impulse 4 : the CW declares war on Italy
Franklin : "Rolled an 8, those nasty war-mongering Britons are trying to expand the conflict, I decree that two chits be removed from the Euro-Axis entry pool"
Wincton : "Chit"

I believe it used to be -14, in the CE edition it is -18.

Best regards

_____________________________

Admiral Delabroglio

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 21
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/31/2020 2:49:05 PM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4628
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline

for me the worst rule, is the easy conquest of Italy.

I wish that was a option

_____________________________

the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com

(in reply to Admiral Delabroglio)
Post #: 22
RE: Ridiculous rules - 5/31/2020 4:33:30 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7926
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral Delabroglio

Another extremely annoying rule is the US entry effect of war declarations against Italy or by Italy

Turn 1, impulse 3 : Italy declares war on France
Benito : "Rolled an 8, no US effect"

Turn 1, impulse 4 : the CW declares war on Italy
Franklin : "Rolled an 8, those nasty war-mongering Britons are trying to expand the conflict, I decree that two chits be removed from the Euro-Axis entry pool"
Wincton : "Chit"

I believe it used to be -14, in the CE edition it is -18.

Best regards

In CE, if one partner is already at war with a partner on your side, the US entry for a DoW is halved.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Admiral Delabroglio)
Post #: 23
RE: Ridiculous rules - 6/1/2020 1:40:40 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21858
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral Delabroglio

Another extremely annoying rule is the US entry effect of war declarations against Italy or by Italy

Turn 1, impulse 3 : Italy declares war on France
Benito : "Rolled an 8, no US effect"

Turn 1, impulse 4 : the CW declares war on Italy
Franklin : "Rolled an 8, those nasty war-mongering Britons are trying to expand the conflict, I decree that two chits be removed from the Euro-Axis entry pool"
Wincton : "Chit"

I believe it used to be -14, in the CE edition it is -18.

Best regards

In CE, if one partner is already at war with a partner on your side, the US entry for a DoW is halved.

Sorry, but that sentence did not compute.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 24
RE: Ridiculous rules - 6/1/2020 2:26:36 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7926
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
If Italy DoWs France only, it costs half the stated US entry for the CW to DoW Italy.

If France DoWs Italy only, it costs half the stated US entry for Italy to DoW the CW.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 25
RE: Ridiculous rules - 6/1/2020 5:25:37 AM   
Admiral Delabroglio


Posts: 104
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
Indeed ! Thanks for pointing that out. It is much better that way.
Too bad I still haven't had the time (and the required space) to install the CE board game in my living room.

_____________________________

Admiral Delabroglio

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 26
RE: Ridiculous rules - 6/29/2020 10:40:24 PM   
Oberost

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 12/17/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


for me the worst rule, is the easy conquest of Italy.

I wish that was a option


This^^.
Or at least that the Allies had to archieve the four conditions for the conquest of Italy, not just 3.

Also, 1 convoy point giving supply to the US and British Army and Air Force that lands in Europe...

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 27
RE: Ridiculous rules - 6/30/2020 12:33:07 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8424
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberost


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


for me the worst rule, is the easy conquest of Italy.

I wish that was a option


This^^.
Or at least that the Allies had to archieve the four conditions for the conquest of Italy, not just 3.

Also, 1 convoy point giving supply to the US and British Army and Air Force that lands in Europe...


That's the Italian political situation in the game, when the Italian King decided to revolt against Mussolini.
The same could also be said for France. French politics was a total mess in 1939-1940, which resulted in Vichy...

And I agree on the convoy point for supply. Why should one need a convoy point to supply a single Japanese unit in a sea zone? The total number of ships historically needed to supply a Japanese corps in a sea zone is far less than the equivalent of the convoy point. It's one of the reasons why I don't agree with the LOS rule. To arbitrary. Playability on the board however, dictates simplicity sometimes.

< Message edited by Centuur -- 6/30/2020 12:36:41 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Oberost)
Post #: 28
RE: Ridiculous rules - 7/1/2020 6:42:49 AM   
Orm


Posts: 19488
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If Italy DoWs France only, it costs half the stated US entry for the CW to DoW Italy.

If France DoWs Italy only, it costs half the stated US entry for Italy to DoW the CW.

So if CW, or USSR, DOW Japan, then the US entry cost is halved (since Japan is at war with China)?

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 29
RE: Ridiculous rules - 7/1/2020 3:49:46 PM   
Admiral Delabroglio


Posts: 104
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
For supply issues, I like the rule in use in Fatal Alliances very much : a port, for instance, can provide supply to a (very) limited number of units.
True, units in WW1 did not use as much supply as in WW2, but those ports, even in pacific islands, prabably could also provide some form of supply.
As for a single CP required to keep a cavalry division in supply, or able to keep over 2 million US, CW, Free French, Polish, Belgian troops in supply (apologies to those I have forgotten in my ignorance) simulates the will to risk ships near the shore rather than the actual number of ships in use.

Best Regards

_____________________________

Admiral Delabroglio

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Ridiculous rules Page: [1] 2   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

0.164