Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Potential House Rules for More Historical Play

 
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 >> Potential House Rules for More Historical Play Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 3/23/2021 8:42:00 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
I'm going to start this thread and throw out a few house rules I've been kicking around to try to achieve a more historical play. Any and all comments are welcomed and other proposed, Historical House Rules (HHRs) too.

HHR-1. Scandinavian Exclusion Hexes. Ground units may not enter shaded non-port hexes except by rail.

The objective of this house rule is to approximate the off-map areas of WiF CE map in Scandinavian. My experience has been that it's too easy for the axis to cut the rail line from Murmansk. Also, I thinks it's common for the axis player to deploy significant Finnish forces on the border close to Murmansk and seize that city/port on the initial invasion turn.

A possible secondary objective is to make claiming and denying the Finnish borderlands more attractive, specifically being able to claim the Rybachi Peninsula and better securing the defense of Murmansk and, if denied, by making it much more difficult for the Soviets to be able to move into non-borderland hexes and force the "winter war" to continue indefinitely.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie
Post #: 1
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 3/23/2021 9:06:36 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
HHR-2. Reflagging of US and USSR CPs. Prerequisite: Option 32, "US Refutes Naval War Zones" has been selected or is in effect (i.e., US is at war with Germany, Italy & Japan). US CPs operating, or that will only operate, in Northern Pacific sea zones (defined as the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, Okhotsk Sea or Sea of Japan) may be changed to USSR ownership. These CPs may be changed back to US ownership at any time by the US.

HHR-3. Up to 1/2 half (rounded down) of US PPs and BPs given the USSR may be sent by the Northern Pacific route using reflagged US to Soviet CPs. PPs and BPs are halved (rounded down) separately.

Rationale: See picture below.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 3/23/2021 9:20:38 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 3/23/2021 9:19:56 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
HHR-4. Saved oil can't be used for production.

HHR-5. The amount of oil that axis powers can stockpile (i.e., have saved) is limited. At a minimum, Germany and Japan can have 2 saved and Italy 1 saved oil point. Otherwise the number of saved oil points is limited to the number oil points that an axis major power controls. Traded oil and loss (but not destruction) of oil through strategic bombing neither increases or decreases this limit. However, loss of control of an oil resource through capture or by control by partisans does as does destruction of oil points by strategic bombing or voluntary action. An axis major power cannot save any oil above their limit. However, they are not forced to reduce their saved oil if they find themselves above their limit. But once above their limit that can't save any more oil until they're below.

Rationale: My experience is that it's too easy to stockpile oil in the early game when a country's production multiplier is the lowest and use that saved oil in production when it's larger. Also, I've found that the axis can build up oil stockpiles in the early game that basically makes oil a non-issue for them when in reality it was a major/critical issue for both Germany and Japan throughout the war but especially late.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 3/23/2021 9:23:26 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 3
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 3/24/2021 6:41:49 AM   
Orm


Posts: 21631
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I'm going to start this thread and throw out a few house rules I've been kicking around to try to achieve a more historical play. Any and all comments are welcomed and other proposed, Historical House Rules (HHRs) too.

HHR-1. Scandinavian Exclusion Hexes. Ground units may not enter shaded non-port hexes except by rail.

The objective of this house rule is to approximate the off-map areas of WiF CE map in Scandinavian. My experience has been that it's too easy for the axis to cut the rail line from Murmansk. Also, I thinks it's common for the axis player to deploy significant Finnish forces on the border close to Murmansk and seize that city/port on the initial invasion turn.

A possible secondary objective is to make claiming and denying the Finnish borderlands more attractive, specifically being able to claim the Rybachi Peninsula and better securing the defense of Murmansk and, if denied, by making it much more difficult for the Soviets to be able to move into non-borderland hexes and force the "winter war" to continue indefinitely.






With this rule, as I understand it, there can be no (real) battle for Norway. If Germany DOW Norway, then the Allies can occupy Narvik, and there is nothing Germany can do about it.

And why is it that major forces may enter the Rybachi Peninsula, but not the area north of Lake Ladoga?

No practical way to reinforce the Petsamo area for Axis after the Finnish units are placed. Only way to get forces there is by sea. I know that Germany used the sea route to ship supplies, and units, to the Arctic region. But they used the protection of the coastal waters to do so. No way in MWIF to use all the Norwegian fjords for protection...

_____________________________

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 rkr1958)
Post #: 4
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 3/24/2021 11:18:28 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8663
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
I don't agree on the first point at all. Because it gives the Allies a good incentive to DoW Norway and grab Narvik, thus robbing Germany of the Swedish resources in snow or blizzard at the end of the turn.

However: you can do something else regarding Finland. If Germany DoW's the USSR and the USSR did not demand the Borderlands, the Finnish army cannot enter the USSR if Leningrad is Soviet controlled or until any Allied unit enters Finland. They may attack USSR units sitting on the border.

The second and third ones is something I agree on. I always found it strange that this wasn't reflected somehow in MWIF.

The points regarding the oil rule is something I don't agree on. I always experience oil problems with the Axis at the end of the game. And even the Allies might find them struggling to have enough oil to reorganise all units at the end of the game. And there is something else too. Units build in 1939 are economically far more usefull if one compares them to units build in f.e. 1943...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 3/24/2021 11:19:12 AM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 5
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 3/25/2021 12:40:31 AM   
eouellet


Posts: 95
Joined: 2/1/2018
Status: offline
Maybe a simplier rule could be not to allow any HQ in that zone, as historically it would have created very significant logistical challenges to so. The battle of Narvik can still occur, and the limited combats that occured in the far north shores can also occur. Using the isolated units rule could also avoid some serious non-historical stuff to happen. Finally, by not using the ski divisions, this further keeps things within historical bounds, as there were very little combat in most of that zone during WWII because logistics was a real nightmare.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 6
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 3/25/2021 12:45:29 AM   
eouellet


Posts: 95
Joined: 2/1/2018
Status: offline
HHR-6 Night missions can only be used for strategic bombing AND only night fighters can escort/intercept a night bombing mission. This is easy to implement on MWIF manually. Historically, day fighters were completely useless at night. This also makes the CW miserable Defiant air units suddenly useful, and the rest of the force pool regarding night air fighters meaningful. This is also in line with the British decision of doing night air bombing, as Germany had a limited number of night fighters for quite some time.

< Message edited by eouellet -- 3/25/2021 12:54:01 AM >

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 7
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 3/25/2021 3:33:31 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8663
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eouellet

Maybe a simplier rule could be not to allow any HQ in that zone, as historically it would have created very significant logistical challenges to so. The battle of Narvik can still occur, and the limited combats that occured in the far north shores can also occur. Using the isolated units rule could also avoid some serious non-historical stuff to happen. Finally, by not using the ski divisions, this further keeps things within historical bounds, as there were very little combat in most of that zone during WWII because logistics was a real nightmare.


I don't know about the last line. Sure, for the Germans the logistical nightmare was in place, but for the Finns? If the Finnish army would have wanted to cut the railroad, they could have done so. The plans were in place but were never executed. It were the politicians who decided against it.

And on the STRAT bombing, I agree on. But there is no en-route interception rule in place. And since that isn't there at this moment, I would not want to use night missions at all.

< Message edited by Centuur -- 3/25/2021 3:35:57 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to eouellet)
Post #: 8
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 3/25/2021 4:45:44 PM   
eouellet


Posts: 95
Joined: 2/1/2018
Status: offline
You are right about the Finns, as I took a short cut.

The Finns could have operated up to a certain distance from their borders, including reaching the Murmansk rail line. But there were logistical limits as to how far they could go in such a terrain.

The bigger issue was political, as you noted. Finland had limited objectives in the war, essentially to recover the lost territories from the Winter War. Also the Finns were not that convinced that the Axis could defeat the Soviet Union, and hence they had to plan for having an angry and powerful neighbour still alive. Not angering the Russian Bear remains, to this day, one of their core foreign policy pillars. So, to help Ronnie to have a more historical war in the Arctic, if one wants the ski divisions, then the rule should be that no Finn land unit can move out of 1939 Finland's original border, which is pretty much what they did historically as a rather lukewarm ally of Germany.

A good book on this is "Finland's war of choice: the troubled German-Finnish coalition in World War II," by Henrik Lunde.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 9
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 4/5/2021 4:24:14 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3189
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
For Finland I would consider something simpler like “Axis units may not cross the 1939 USSR-Finnish border unless an Allied unit has previously entered a hex in Finland not part of the Finnish Borderlands zone.”

One should also consider the ramifications of possible Allied play before changing rules - a USSR that had pushed deeper into Finland could have led to different choices by Finnish leadership later in the war; ditto for one facing invasion by the other Allies.

And if you want to incentivize historical play, the Red Army force pools should probably not receive white print counters (MWiF Elite) until starting the next J/F turn after the USSR first loses a land unit in ground combat. Without the Winter War, Germany would have had an easier campaign in 1941. The newly purged, 20-years-since-combat Red Army learned a lot of hard lessons in 1939, though that includes experience in Manchuria before Sept. 1 1939.


For Norway I doubt I would change anything as the counter mix and supply rules already make operations there plenty difficult. Neither side expected to be able to operate there with the supply line vulnerabilities. (The newer rules help via better Supply Unit capability though)


For oil use a simple House Rule is to require using an oil in production for every 2nd Pilot produced - 1 oil for 1 or 2 Pilots, 2 oil for 3 or 4 Pilots, etc. That was a large contributor to the Axis downfall as oil shortages led to decreased pilot training time leading to decreased combat performance leading to decreased ability to defend oil resources leading to more oil shortages leading to...

The save oil rules are generous in the simplicity. 1940 Adolf Hitler probably couldn’t divert all oil received by Germany to his military rather than civilian use while he was “winning” the war and even demobilizing a few divisions. But 1943 Adolf Hitler had more domestic political power than in 1940. As the war progressed all countries consolidated political power including the democracies. This is seen in the game via the rising production multiples. So I would do any oil-save-rule tinkering via ties to current production multiples.

(in reply to eouellet)
Post #: 10
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 4/29/2021 6:57:12 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
"Historical" House Rules (version 2):

HHR-1. USSR/Japanese Garrisoned Peace. (See chart below).

HHR-2. Reflagging of US and USSR CPs. Prerequisite: Option 32, "US Refutes Naval War Zones" has been selected or is in effect (i.e., US is at war with Germany, Italy & Japan). US CPs operating, or that will only operate, in Northern Pacific sea zones (defined as the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, Okhotsk Sea or Sea of Japan) may be changed to USSR ownership. These CPs may be changed back to US ownership at any time by the US.

HHR-3. Up to 1/2 half (rounded down) of US PPs and BPs (separately) given the USSR may be sent by the Northern Pacific route using reflagged US to Soviet CPs.

HHR-4. Murmansk Convoy. The rail line to Murmansk can be cut if and only if: (1) the axis control Vologda or (2) the allies cut the Arctic Highway in Finland.

(revised) HHR-5. Night Mission Limitations. Only night missions allowed are strategic bombing, para drops and their associated fighter escorts and intercepts.

HHR-6. Axis saved oil limits. Limit = PM x [# Oil points controlled - # controlled Oil points destroyed/isolated/occupied by partisans]. Germany and Japan can always have a minimum of 2 oil saved and Italy 1. Traded oil neither increases or decreases this limit. Also, oil lost (not destroyed) through strategic bombing does not affect this limit. An axis power is never forced to use saved oil if above their limit.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 5/3/2021 2:16:34 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 11
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 4/29/2021 7:03:02 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
I'm also attempting to compliment this "Historical" House Rules with the following optional rules that I'm NOT using.

Optional Rules Not Used:

1. Pilots.
2. Carrier Planes.
3. Defensive Shore bombardment.
4. Railway movement.
5. Construction engineers.
6. V Weapons.
7. Atomic bombs.
8. CLiF.
9. Synthetic oil plants.
10. HQ movement.
11. Unlimited breakdown.
12. Variable carrier plane searching (not sure possible without CVPs).
13. Bottomed ships.
14. Isolated Reorg limits.
15. Carpet bombing.
16. Kamikazes
17. Interment (not sure possible without pilots).
18. Food in Flames.

Now the decision to not use some these optional rules in not about attempting more historical play but more about reducing the complexity of my game play.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 12
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 5/1/2021 5:15:45 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
Attached are detailed historical RN and French navy dispositions for Sep 1939 developed and provided by Warspite, who's a genius when it comes to the navies of WW2.

I took these dispositions and translated them to MWiF at-start RN and French navy deployments as "accurately" as I could. All of this was done 2 to 3 years ago.

These MWiF setups include the CLiF kit; however, one could ignore the MWiF CLs if one doesn't wish to play with that kit and still use this translated historical setup.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 5/1/2021 5:36:33 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 13
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 5/1/2021 5:17:39 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
The Home Fleet (RN).




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 14
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 5/1/2021 5:23:02 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
UK Fleets

Like I said earlier these setups and charts were generated 2 to 3 years ago. When I was reviews this chart I though I had made a mistake as Admiral William James' Portsmouth force was setup in Plymouth. So after I went back and reviewed Warspite's setup notes I determined that that wasn't a mistake. I had to make a tradeoff as Vice Admiral Lancelot Holland's force was based in Portland, which is isn't represented on the map. The closest major base that is is Portsmouth so by setting up Holland's force there I then decided to setup James' forces in Portsmouth.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 15
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 5/1/2021 5:24:29 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
American, West Indies and South Atlantic Commands.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 16
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 5/1/2021 5:26:47 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
North Atlantic Command and Mediterranean Fleet.

Note that the ships based at Aden, which are part of the Mediterranean fleet, are constrained by MWiF to Asia. Aden is the closest Asian based to the Med in MWiF.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 17
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 5/1/2021 5:27:53 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
East Indies, China, RAN, New Zealand.

Ships in red that are lined through are included in MWiF but can't deploy to the area listed. Also it's worth noting that some RN CLs are classified in MWiF as CAs.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 5/1/2021 5:30:51 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 18
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 5/1/2021 5:32:16 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
Marine Nationale.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 19
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 5/1/2021 5:32:46 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
Marine Nationale (2/3).




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 20
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 5/1/2021 5:33:14 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
Marine Nationale (3/3).




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 21
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 5/3/2021 2:05:29 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3189
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
Wot? No more giving the code word on the BBC and night-dropping the Agent to help Colonel Hogan plan the obliteration of Dusseldorf, again?

(Have always thought night PARA missions have historical precedent)

Cool to see where all the ships were, look forward to seeing how the Axis ships were set up.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 22
RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 5/3/2021 2:14:43 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 21955
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
(Have always thought night PARA missions have historical precedent)
Excellent point. Will add para missions and their fighters to strat bombing.

(revised) HHR-5. Night Mission Limitations. Only night missions allowed are strategic bombing, para drops and their associated fighter escorts and intercepts.


< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 5/3/2021 2:16:08 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 23
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Mods and Scenarios >> Potential House Rules for More Historical Play 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

0.242