ww2wargame.com
WWII: Struggle for Europe____WWII: Struggle for Asia => First Edition Game => Rules questions from first edition => Topic started by: smckenzie on February 01, 2009, 11:06:08 AM
-
When do we count whether or not the Soviet Union has the 100 PP it needs to DoW Japan?
In our case, the Soviets have 100 or more PP right now, the end of the Soviet turn, but if the Germans (me) were to knock him below 100 PP, would this forestall the Soviet DoW on Japan?
-
During the declare war phase (at the beginning of the allied turn), the Soviets must be 100 plus.
John
-
We’re getting back into our weekly gaming here again after a long pause, which means – of course – we’re 7 or 8 turns into a new game of The Struggle.
We’re trying out several house rules, including stacking rules for aircraft, Italian morale, Craig’s modified Soviet entry with the changed card draw, and supply rules for ships, as well as a retreat rule for ships.
Italian morale has not been a factor yet, though I do need to ask – Jason lost Ethiopia to the British, but this is not on the morale table. Is this intentional, or should the loss of Ethiopia be a -1 to Italian morale?
The limited stacking has had little effect. Even with the limits Germany was able to overwhelm France with aircraft. Jason always builds maximum aircraft out of the gate as Germany, so when he attacked France in Spring 1940 he had 9 fighters, 2 Stukas, and 2 bombers against France’s one fighter and one bomber. Britain had also built maximum A/C, but they were in England, and would have been outnumbered even if they had been in France. Even with the limits Russia is about to be overwhelmed wih A/C. My next go at trying to address this issue of giant stacks of aircraft is to say that each A/C supports two infantry instead of being on a one-for-one basis. For example, if you have 6 infantry, you could have 3 A/C supporting. In addition, unsupported A/C would have no ground attack factor. I know that sounds harsh, but on the Russian Front we’ve had 20+ German A/C in some battles. Even if half of them are unsupported and are rolling ones, with that many dice you’re still going to get some hits. If anyone has any suggestions on this please speak up.
The impact of the changes to Soviet entry is evident. We’re going (if I recall) into the Summer 1941 turn and the Soviets aren’t even at TL 1 yet (admittedly part of that is REALLY bad card draws by the Soviet player Peter). This will definitely give Germany a few more options early in the war, and probably puts a potential Soviet declaration of war around 1943, which I think is about right historically. Overall I like this change.
Ship supply is going to work just like land combat – if a fleet can’t trace a line of supply back to two production centers they suffer the same penalties as ground units.
The revised retreat comes into play if a fleet is surrounded. In the game, if they have no empty space to retreat to they have to fight on to retreat of elimination. With this rule, they can retreat after one round into an occupied sea zone, but are immediately marked as out of supply, and the first action they take in their half of the turn must be to move back in supply )or at least in that direction – they cannot initiate combat. The rationale here is that in WWII you simply could not trap a fleet the way you can in the game – some ships will always be able to escape, and this house rule reflects that reality.
Jason was absolutely dead set against any changes to the rules to require the Japanese to go after the NEI, so we agreed not to change anything this game. However, this morning something occurred to me that I hadn’t thought of before – pretty bad, when you consider how many games we’ve played at this point. Anyway, that brings me to my question, which (believe it or not) relates to declarations of war.
When the Japanese declare war on the western Allies, does this include the NEI? If so, wouldn’t this mean that their income from the NEI would go to the British (or US)? We have not been playing it this way. I just went back and went through the rulebook and couldn’t find anything specific. On page 38 it says that if Japan attacks the NEI they are then also at war with the western allies, but it doesn’t state the opposite. On the next page it says “If Japan attacks the Western Allies (U.S., Great Britain, Free France and the Dutch East Indies) before they are able to declare war on Japan (before the Allied turn), Japan can conduct a one time only surprise attack.” This is the only place in the rule book where the NEI are listed as a member of the western Allies (which may be why I missed it until now). From this, should we assume that a declaration of war by Japan on the western Allies (and vice-versa) includes NEI? If this is the case, this might make a big difference in Japanese strategy, since the NEI would add 7 points of income to Britain or the US.
By the way, what’s the latest on 1) the new game, and 2) a rules revision for this one. I thought I remembered that the rules were going to get a revision, but haven’t seen anything.
Thanks - Bob
-
Hi Bob,
The NEI are part of thw western allies with income going to the UK.
AA guns usually even things out with a strong luftwafte - especially for the soviets! Ethiopia has no effect on Italian morale.
Good rule change concerning fleet retreats - we have made that change as well.
Ok rules revisions are happening but Mark has moved to Europe for business for a few years so he will need to settle down first...
-
Hi Bob - not intentionally left out, but - I belive once Japan is at war with the Western Allies they are also at war with the NEI.
I'm over working in Europe now for a year or two - so John is going to have to keep up the playtesting and forum monitorning more than me.
In the new game, additionaly support units are ignored (do not get a "1" to hit) - that may help with your air problem. . .Eventually, though, Allied air power should overwhelm Germany as they can't keep up with the Brits, Russia and US combined.
Ethiopia was intentionally left out of the Italian morale rules.
cheers,
Mark
-
Hi John - good timing! ;D
-
In addition, unsupported A/C would have no ground attack factor. I know that sounds harsh, but on the Russian Front we’ve had 20+ German A/C in some battles. Even if half of them are unsupported and are rolling ones, with that many dice you’re still going to get some hits. If anyone has any suggestions on this please speak up.
In the game the we Detroit players have been working on, we have come to the idea of allowing the extra air units (fighters and/or bombers) to support on their attack number, but they use a 12-sided die.
I am also looking to change a few of the conditions on the USSR Entry Chart.
Specifically, reducing the effect of the USSR placement of the first Medium Armor and first regular fighter to draw (1) card each.
Also, I am going to remove the draw (1) card for maintaining the minimum garrison condition since this situation is already addressed by the condition of the player not drawing any cards if they don't have the garrison in place.
This seemed like a "double-whammy" condition. The fact that they stop drawing any card if they aren't in compliance should be enough of an incentive to have the garrison. They shouldn't then get rewarded with a card draw for maintaining the garrisons.
Is this the "adjusted" info that you are speaking of?
I think that this is a nice fix. Let me know how it works for you.
Craig
-
I'm over working in Europe now for a year or two - so John is going to have to keep up the playtesting and forum monitoring more than me.
That is what you get for coming up with great ideas. ;D
Actually, this just a convenient excuse for you not to have to play against "Comrade" Dan and his Soviet hordes. ;)
Craig
-
In addition, unsupported A/C would have no ground attack factor. I know that sounds harsh, but on the Russian Front we’ve had 20+ German A/C in some battles. Even if half of them are unsupported and are rolling ones, with that many dice you’re still going to get some hits. If anyone has any suggestions on this please speak up.
In the game the we Detroit players have been working on, we have come to the idea of allowing the extra air units (fighters and/or bombers) to support on their attack number, but they use a 12-sided die.
I am also looking to change a few of the conditions on the USSR Entry Chart.
Specifically, reducing the effect of the USSR placement of the first Medium Armor and first regular fighter to draw (1) card each.
Also, I am going to remove the draw (1) card for maintaining the minimum garrison condition since this situation is already addressed by the condition of the player not drawing any cards if they don't have the garrison in place.
This seemed like a "double-whammy" condition. The fact that they stop drawing any card if they aren't in compliance should be enough of an incentive to have the garrison. They shouldn't then get rewarded with a card draw for maintaining the garrisons.
Is this the "adjusted" info that you are speaking of?
I think that this is a nice fix. Let me know how it works for you.
Craig
1. I’m beginning to think that the problem of having large stacks of aircraft is nigh unsolvable in this game. I already can see that basing limitations for each territory isn’t going to have much impact. I really think the problem is the scale of the map. The rules for these work pretty much like World in Flames. The system works in that game because you have short range aircraft and much larger fronts to cover. A fighter with a range of two isn’t an issue on a front that might be 12-13 hexes wide – but on a front only three or four zones wide it’s a major issue. I’m just about at my wits end with this one. I’ve written a lot of house rules for a lot of games over 30 or so years – a solution to this one just continues to elude me.
I had to do some driving for work this morning, and came up with an idea that I’ll toss out. The idea is that aircraft would be a “limited use” unit. The idea is that they could be used once or twice per turn – after that they’re “used” and can’t be used for anything else until the next turn. What I’m going for here is something like WiF where plane counters are flipped over after they’ve flown a mission. Maybe say each plane can be used twice a turn; after that they get turned upside-down to show that they are “used up” until next turn. The idea would be you could use a plane once for an attack, and then you could use it again in the mech phase – but then it would be flipped and you couldn’t use it defensively in your opponent’s turn. Or you could use it once to attack and then save the other action for when you’re on defense (or don’t use it and save both actions for defense). Another idea might be to have an activation table. After the combat phase roll on a table for each plane used – on, say, 1-4 it can be used again but on a 5 or 6 it gets flipped and can’t be used again until your next turn. If you then use one of the same planes in the mech phase you have to roll for each plane again, but the table drops to 1-3. If a plane then gets used on defense in your opponent’s combat phase next turn the roll drops to 1-2. The idea would be that the more you try to use a plane the greater the chance you won’t be able to use it later. This could be said to simulate necessary down time for maintenance, engine replacement, etc. This might cause a player to think abut whether he really wants to commit so many planes to an attack and risk having a lot of them unable to be used later. As I think back on this, I think this may have some potential – comments anyone?
2. The “adjusted” info you mention above is exactly what we’re trying out. I think this is much more realistic. Given everything that was going on in the USSR at the time I doubt they could have realistically considered going to war much before 1943, which with average card draws is about where this modification would put a Soviet DOW (depending on what else the Germans did, of course). One thought – perhaps the German garrison requirement should slowly go up from 5 ala WiF just to keep Germany honest.
Mark, I just have one question. If you’re in Europe, just how does that relate to getting us the things we want? I really have to question you placing your career, family, etc. above catering to what we want. It’s fine that you want to have your little European holiday, but the rulebook revision (and the next game) are not going to publish themselves. Priorities dude. That’s all I’m saying.
-
I have thought about doing a edit job on the existing rulebook for a long time now.
I have told Mark before that there is a lot of repetition in the many places of the manual that could be cleaned up.
As for the "numbers game" concerning fighters, we never had a problem with unlimited basing, we always were more concerned with the possibility of an air combat going heinously wrong and wiping out one side. That goes back to our conversation of including aborts into the combat numbers.
I do understand your concern via the ranges, but only a map with more territories or the reduction of the fighters' ranges with fix this.
Craig
-
We continued our game last night and it’s developed into a very interesting game. Both sides have some significant opportunities; both sides also have areas where they are really in the weeds.
Jason went for an all-out kill on the USSR. Virtually everything built by both Germany and Japan has been deployed against Russia. As a result, and as you have no doubt guessed, the Soviets are just about done. We just finished the Fall 1942 turn and Moscow is surrounded and out of supply. Peter has three factories in the Urals or he’d be completely out of it – as it is, he’s only building with 41 points. Moscow will fall next turn and then Jason will finish mopping up fairly quickly after that.
The downside is that since he focused so much on the Soviets he hasn’t built much for the IJN – just one CV. As the US, I now have 3 CV’s (2 Pacific, 1 Atlantic) and a CVL on the board (and have 1 CV in the 3 box) so I’m almost at parity. If we can hold on long enough I think the US can almost immediately go on the offensive once Jason declares war on me. Unfortunately, I tried something last night and got a little too cute. I got an extra card from the loss of Stalingrad, which got me to 43 points of cards, so I only built one additional factory this last turn so that I could get a few more units started when I went to war, presumably at the start of next turn. I had already drawn three 2’s and two 3’s so I thought the odds were with me. Naturally, you can probably guess what happened – I drew the last 2 and a 4, so I’m at 49. Of course, this means that I can’t go to war next turn, so he’s got one more turn to prepare before he has to hit me. I have my CV’s covering Hawaii in a zone adjacent to the east, and can move the CVL there next turn as well. I also strategically redeployed a bomber and a heavy bomber to Hawaii so if/when he hits me I may be able to get in a good counter-stroke. A lot will depend on whether he adds his third carrier to the attack – if he does, I’m not sure I want to risk fighting at a disadvantage in fighters. His third carrier is southwest of the Marianas though, so my assumption is that he’ll take Rabaul and Guadalcanal. We agreed to a house rule for this game that Japan can only invade Port Moresby from the Coral Sea, so it’s safe for a turn, and I’m going to see if I can get Peter to strat 3 infantry there.
Overall, my feeing is that by Japan focusing so much on being a land power I’m probably going to be able to achieve dominance in the Pacific fairly quickly. Peter is planning to strat his British CV’s to the Indian Ocean, so even though they can only carry 1 fighter each it will give us overall more carrier-based air than Japan (9-7).
Normally with Russia about to go down I’d say the game’s over. However, last turn Italy also went down (this has raised a couple of questions that I’ll ask at the end of this). We used the alternate surrender rules and Britain spent the last 3 turns or so keeping Italy demoralized. We were able to take Sicily and Milan and one of the North Africa territories to get him to -5. Jason had taken Greece and Crete, but had unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint) used some German infantry when he took Greece, so he didn’t get the “Italian only” bonus. We spent the next year in a war of attrition. He took Milan back to “un-demoralize”; we took something else to knock him back to -5. We assumed at some point he was going to have to draw off some ground troops from the Russian front, at which point we’d have had to find something else to do because we couldn’t have matched him if he’d gotten serious about Italy – but he never did. He sent some fighters, which created a lot of problems, but only a few infantry and an 88. Last turn Peter took Tripoli and Sardinia; that got us to the -8 we needed and Italy surrendered. Germany has troops in Milan and the Heel, Venice and Rome are unoccupied, and the rest of Italian territory is in the hands of the British.
If - and in this game, given what Jason has accomplished as the Axis that’s a BIG word – the Axis lose I believe it will because of Italy. Jason had an incredible advantage in the Med and never really tried to take much advantage of it. What do I mean by this? Well, when France surrendered, we rolled for the ships. We always roll them in the order of size, so it goes transport, the destroyers, cruiser, and battleship. On the transport Peter rolled a one. OK, a pain, but it happens. On the first destroyer, a six. Hurrah - one for our side. Then he rolled – and I kid you not – a one, a one, and… a one. Three straight ones. Needless to say, those ships came in REALLY handy for Jason when he brought Italy into the war. He was able to really pound the British fleet in the med. Fortunately Peter immediately started a CA and a BB when the rolls went this way, so he was able to make up most of his losses. But after one ground combat in North Africa and the big fleet battle Jason never really tried to follow it up. The Italians took the territory west of Cairo, but Peter got it back the next turn. After that – it was like Jason just lost interest in that theatre. He relied on Italy to be able to fend for herself. The problem was that Britain had built a factory and rolled through western North Africa very quickly, as well as taking Ethiopia and Syria, so he was up over 50 points, and there was no way Italy was going to be able to compete with that. Jason could easily have sent 10-12 infantry/grenadiers and a few armor down there without making much of a dent in his East Front onslaught - and that would have been the end of that. But, as I said, it never happened. In addition, we have a nice-sized contingent in western France that he’s going to have to deal with. German production is – well, humongous – so he is starting to fort up, but he can’t just leave that lodgment in France indefinitely. If he doesn’t clear it before the US can start sending a bunch of stuff over it’s going to be difficult to push the Allies out.
So, any opinions? Should Peter and I fold, or is it worth fighting on? As I said, normally with the USSR in such sad shape I’d say it’s time to start over. But with Italy gone and Japan weak (or at least, weaker than I usually see them) in the Pacific, I’m thinking we might be able to hold out long enough to for US production to make itself felt. The US is at 145 (before quartering) and has two factories in the 1 box and one in the 2 box, so in two turns I can be at 160. I’ve also occupied Iceland. As I’m writing this it occurs to me that if he makes a Pearl Harbor attack this turn he’s only got 4 fighters to do it with. If he attacks, depending on what’s left it might be worth attacking him with the survivors of PH and my adjacent fleet in a combined air/surface action. If we mutually destroyed each other I think I’m in better shape than he is – I have a CV in the 3 box (2 next turn) with another CV on the East Coast, plus we have the two British CV’s – he has nothing on the build track. I think it could become interesting in the next couple of turns – IF we can hang on.
Here are my questions:
1) Does the Italian factory in Milan fall into German hands or is it considered damaged? The rules say that when a territory with a factory is captured the factory is damaged, but say nothing about surrender. I can see it going either way on this.
2) Can Germany strategically move units into the unoccupied Italian territories? My assumption is no, he can’t because he won’t own them at the beginning of his turn, but since Italy was an ally I can see this argument being raised.
3) Something else I’ve never asked but have assumed – can you load aircraft onto transports and then strategically redeploy them to a friendly territory? I’ve always assumed you can since it says for strategic moves you can put two of any unit on a transport, and this was done routinely in the war. This gains you an extra zone of movement to redeploy the aircraft (which sometimes makes all the difference).
4) In one of the Axis counter-attacks, Italy used a demoralized armor along with some German infantry against some British infantry. We have always played that if armor that is out of supply attacks a territory with no defending armor or AT guns, they attack at 3 – they have a +1 for no enemy armor, and a -1 for being out of supply. Is this correct?
-
Here are my questions:
1) Does the Italian factory in Milan fall into German hands or is it considered damaged? The rules say that when a territory with a factory is captured the factory is damaged, but say nothing about surrender. I can see it going either way on this.
2) Can Germany strategically move units into the unoccupied Italian territories? My assumption is no, he can’t because he won’t own them at the beginning of his turn, but since Italy was an ally I can see this argument being raised.
3) Something else I’ve never asked but have assumed – can you load aircraft onto transports and then strategically redeploy them to a friendly territory? I’ve always assumed you can since it says for strategic moves you can put two of any unit on a transport, and this was done routinely in the war. This gains you an extra zone of movement to redeploy the aircraft (which sometimes makes all the difference).
4) In one of the Axis counter-attacks, Italy used a demoralized armor along with some German infantry against some British infantry. We have always played that if armor that is out of supply attacks a territory with no defending armor or AT guns, they attack at 3 – they have a +1 for no enemy armor, and a -1 for being out of supply. Is this correct?
OK
1) If german units were there when it fell - it falls into their hands. If it is empty (and therefore neutral) it is damaged.
2) Empty spaces are neutral and you can not rail through neutral - you must occupy them.
3) Yes
4) Yes - correct
:)
-
Sounds like fun!!!! ;D
You should be taking pics of this game for all to see.
Craig
-
Thanks everyone for the comments. I’d still like an opinion as to whether you think this game is worth continuing. I’ve never been in a game where the USSR has so thoroughly collapsed. I know that some of you have, so that’s why I’d like to know whether it’s worth it or our gaming time would be better spent resetting and starting over. I don’t want for us to get together next time and then find out an hour later that it’s over. If that’s the case it would be better to start over and make the best use of our time.
Another question came up during our play that I just remembered. Can a Italy build a factory while demoralized? What happened in our game is that while Italy was demoralized Jason built a factory in Milan. During the entire turn he never got below -5 on the morale table, so his units were out of supply, but I didn’t know if this (or being truly out of supply) impacted the building of a factory (I’m assuming that a factory is considered to be a “unit” per the rules on page 30 where it says, “Players may not build units in unsupplied production center territories” – is this correct?). Since per the morale rules it’s technically the units that are considered out of supply, not the territories I can see that you might say the factory build is OK.
This was our first game in a very long time, so we’ve missed a lot of things and made a lot of mistakes. Still, these sorts of things have been abut even on both sides, so we’re where we are now, and as I said, it looks interesting. The question is whether the Allies can hang on long enough to prevent a victory on VP’s.
Craig,
I will try to upload some photos of the game where it stands now. No promises – my wife is the expert with the digital camera, and she’s in Brazil right now.
-
Hi Bob - You can not build a factory (or anything else) in an out of supply territory. (I'm not sure if that was the question). Without seeing the game I can't say for sure whether to go on. What are the VPs like at this point. Are Paris and Rome in allied hands? - if so - it is probably worth playing out. It sounds like a very interesting game...
-
Hi Bob - You can not build a factory (or anything else) in an out of supply territory. (I'm not sure if that was the question). Without seeing the game I can't say for sure whether to go on. What are the VPs like at this point. Are Paris and Rome in allied hands? - if so - it is probably worth playing out. It sounds like a very interesting game...
John,
No, actually my question was whether Italy can build a factory while demoralized – though maybe that’s a question for Craig since he wrote the Italian morale rules.
And unfortunately, no, the Allies do not hold either Paris or Rome. Paris is German occupied and fairly well garrisoned. Rome is empty, but Germany will be able to occupy it next turn. I think what I’m going to do when I get home from the tax office tonight is to look at the map and count up how many VP’s he has. I think we’re heading into the Fall 1942 turn. If Japan declares war this turn I figure it’ll be Spring 1943 before the US can do much – it seems to me that it takes about three turns for the US to go from pre-war to where they’re able to make themselves felt on the battlefield. The limit that only allows the US to build one of each unit before war is really a pain, too.
-
OK - LMK
-
I would play it out just to see what is possible.
There is nothing like a weird scenario to bring about questions concerning game mechanics. You may come across a whole horde of issues that need to be resolved as per rules of the game.
My gaming group right now is playing a game that Eric from our group came up with. We are in the early stages of our second game and have already worked ourselves into a very crazy playout.
As such we are getting to go over some very interesting ideas and as such we are pushing the boundaries of the rules and their interpretations.
Craig
-
Craig, almost every game we play has a "weird scenario"... :o
We finished this game last week, and as you probably have no doubt, the Axis won on VP’s in Summer of 1943. In true Mark/John fashion I lay the blame for this debacle squarely at the feet of my ally Peter. :P
This was our first game back in many months and many mistakes were made on both sides. Peter neglected to adequately defend several key points in the USSR, and made a critical error in his deployment of Soviet armor, which means instead of being the spearhead for his counter-attack they were instead destroyed by their German counterparts in the Mech phase of the first turn of attack. He did, however, play very well as Britain. In spite of nearly the entire French fleet going over to the Axis he immediately started hammering on Italy and never let up, eventually forcing their surrender.
Jason gamed the system pretty well to keep the US out as long as possible. The US finally got into the war in the autumn 1942 turn. It’s a shame that the USSR collapsed so thoroughly. Our games seldom go this long, and it was kind of neat to actually see the US be able to do something. If the Soviets had just been able to hold at Moscow the ending might have been very different. I had 2 CV’s and a CVE on the Pacific map (all with full aircraft loads). On the turn the before game ended I placed three more CVE’s and a CV (with full fighter complements). The game was about to go very badly for Japan. I had strategically re-deployed the Pacific Fleet to the Coral Sea on the turn that the US entered, so Japan wasn’t able to take the VP’s there. I reinforced there over a couple of turns; he ended up moving back to the Marianas. We had fought one naval battle – he knocked down 5 of my planes and I got three of his, and damaged two of his cruisers and sunk a destroyer. On the last turn I moved adjacent to the Marianas and strategically redeployed all of the carriers I had built there. I would have had 10 fighters and a large surface fleet (no Pearl Harbor), and I’d have basically dared him to loiter around there. I had transports and troops available to really hit the Marianas the next turn. I wish we had been able to keep it going a little longer – I’ve really wanted to have a game as the US where I actually get to have a little fun with all those shiny new Essex-class CV’s…
The limited stacking we used for aircraft was, in my opinion, a complete failure. It still didn’t prevent the massive stacks of aircraft in battles. Yes, you can limit stacking to 5 per flagged territory, but that still doesn’t prevent being able to send 15 aircraft to pounce on a territory that only has 4 or 5 – or having 15 planes available adjacent to each other to prevent the enemy hitting you back. Building AA guns is fine, but it isn’t really much of a deterrent when you have 10-15 aircraft available to hit a territory that has an AA gun or two. Also, AA doesn’t help with airbase attacks (I think this needs to be changed).
I’ve come to the conclusion that the only answer left is to place some sort of limitation on the use of aircraft similar to that in World in Flames, in which every aircraft is a “single use” weapon. I don’t know if it needs to be a single use, or if there should be a die roll to determine availability every phase like I suggested above, but I’m at the end of my patience with this. This issue has just about taken away all the enjoyment I have with this game. I’m going to suggest that we use some sort of mission limits for aircraft this next game; if that doesn’t work I’m at the point of suggesting we move on to find something else to play. That point may be moot, as Peter and Jason are both now quite interested in trying out World in Flames, and I think we’re going set that up and give it a go around the end of this month.
Craig, I wanted to ask you about the modifications you made to Soviet entry. We used that this game and Jason made a very astute point. With the delay of possible Soviet declaration of war it really gives Germany a much freer hand. I’m not opposed to that – in my mind your modifications push things to being more historical – but I wondered how many times you’ve used it and whether or not you’ve seen any impact on play balance. As much as I like historical integrity I don’t want to sacrifice game balance.
This was (I think) our third game with the optional Italian surrender rules and I have come to the conclusion that they are spot-on.
One more rule question did come up. Jason never took the Netherlands; deliberately, as it turned out. When the Allies went to war with Japan he argued that since Germany never declared war on the Netherlands that the NEI shouldn’t go to the Allies. Peter and I vetoed this, citing page 38 of the rulebook that lists the NEI as one of the western Allies, but (assuming our interpretation was correct) this is a potential loophole that should be closed.
-
Craig, I wanted to ask you about the modifications you made to Soviet entry. We used that this game and Jason made a very astute point. With the delay of possible Soviet declaration of war it really gives Germany a much freer hand. I’m not opposed to that – in my mind your modifications push things to being more historical – but I wondered how many times you’ve used it and whether or not you’ve seen any impact on play balance. As much as I like historical integrity I don’t want to sacrifice game balance.
This was (I think) our third game with the optional Italian surrender rules and I have come to the conclusion that they are spot-on.
I only got part way thru a game in which I was trying out some new ideas, so I didn't get a good feel for my Soviet entry adjustment.
I have always wanted a more "situation-based" entry for the USA and USSR in any game that I play. From this game to the games that my group comes up with, I always think that the entry of these countries needs to be based off of what is going on in the game, not because of some historical timeline.
I feel that the adjustments that I came up with more accurately model what would happen based on the events of a game, not history. I think that the Germans should have the ability to do "what-if" strategies and not be punished.
If they choose another path, including never seriously threatening the Soviet Union, then so be it. I hate them being forced to follow a very structured path, especially one that gives almost no margin for error.
Thanks for the love on the Italian Moral Chart. I will pass that along to Dan from my group since that was his mostly his work.
One more rule question did come up. Jason never took the Netherlands; deliberately, as it turned out. When the Allies went to war with Japan he argued that since Germany never declared war on the Netherlands that the NEI shouldn’t go to the Allies. Peter and I vetoed this, citing page 38 of the rulebook that lists the NEI as one of the western Allies, but (assuming our interpretation was correct) this is a potential loophole that should be closed.
You would need to say something about the Netherlands being a part of the WA. They aren't listed as such and don't automatically become part of the WA at the outset of the game.
The NEI only become a part of the WA because the Netherlands in usually crushed by the European Axis by the time the Japs attack.
Yes, it is a loophole, but it is one that comes about because of the "historical" mindframe that Mark operated in when he designed the game. Fortunately, we were able to come up some alternate ideas- like the alternate entry rules- to get him out of his comfort zone. ;)
Craig
-
Hi from Prague!
OK - so I can't think outside of my historical box enough for you guys, huh? I'll have to work on it. . . ;D
A couple of suggestions though:
If you alter the US or Soviet entry - I think you may want to modify the vicotry point track as well (since it is more or less based on a historical timeline) - something like a +1 VP shift in the Allied favor for every turn the US entry is delayed past Winter 41 (for example, if the US did not enter until Summer of 42 - there would be a +2 VP shift in the allied favor). . .
As far as air support goes - I really think we should consider doing away with the unsupported combat strength - only support units that have a front line unit to support can attack/defend. I think that would help get rid of the horde of planes supporting an attack as well as the 1 infantry unit invastions supported by 6-7 ships.
-
Hi from Prague!
OK - so I can't think outside of my historical box enough for you guys, huh? I'll have to work on it. . . ;D
A couple of suggestions though:
If you alter the US or Soviet entry - I think you may want to modify the vicotry point track as well (since it is more or less based on a historical timeline) - something like a +1 VP shift in the Allied favor for every turn the US entry is delayed past Winter 41 (for example, if the US did not enter until Summer of 42 - there would be a +2 VP shift in the allied favor). . .
Wow! :o Did you post this somewhere before because this is the first time I’ve heard this, and we’ve been using variable entry for the US and USSR for a long time. If not, I’d say that’s a pretty major oversight! If the VP track is balanced for a historical US entry, then your suggestion makes sense to me. That would explain why most of the time in our games (taking into account occasional luck) the Axis usually wins once we reach the point that we check for VP’s. The VP shift in our last game would have been +3 to the Allies and would have made a huge difference in the game. I’m not saying we would have won – but on the turn the game ended Jason would have been 2 VP’s short instead of 1 VP over. I’m not convinced he wouldn’t have still won – but he would have definitely started to lose VP’s in the Pacific and the game would have definitely gone at least a few more turns.
If the VP’s should be modified for delayed US entry shouldn’t a note to that effect be added to the variable entry rules?
Does the same situation apply to entry for the Soviet Union? It seems to me that a delay in Soviet entry doesn’t have the same kind of impact on the game that it does with the US and all of its production; it also gives Germany a few more options to try out some different things.
As far as air support goes - I really think we should consider doing away with the unsupported combat strength - only support units that have a front line unit to support can attack/defend. I think that would help get rid of the horde of planes supporting an attack as well as the 1 infantry unit invastions supported by 6-7 ships.
I agree with this idea, but I still don’t think it goes far enough. The other side of the coin here are the massive attacks on airbases. I know that the airbase rules are an optional rule, but one of our players insists that we use them because they are historical. I agree with him that they’re historical, but as written they’re also game-breaking. Not allowing aircraft to make ground attacks unless they have a front line unit to support fixes half of the problem – we still need a fix to the airbase attack problem.
One of the things I like in World in Flames is that you have to make decisions every turn as to how you’re going to use your fighters. For example, as Germany you can use them all tactically – but if you do you won’t have anything left to defend against strategic bombing attacks. Who hasn’t played WiF and faced that decision near the end of a turn where you have one fighter left and you can use it on a mission – but you’re looking at that stack of STR’s that your opponent hasn’t used yet… That kind of decision process is missing from The Struggle.
For our next game tonight I think I’m going to suggest that we make all aircraft single-use-per turn similar to WiF. You can use them only once – it’s your choice whether to use them offensively or hold them back to be able to react to your opponent. The one difference I’ll suggest is that planes can always defend in their own territory against airbase or tactical (but not strategic) attacks. Similarly, CV air groups can always defend their fleet ala the naval rules in WiF. Rebases will not count as an action – that way a player can move a plane forward tactically and then be able to use it in the Mech phase.
Another thing I like from WiF is that on strategic bombing attacks you get a +1 column shift if your enemy doesn’t intercept the bombers. I think something similar ought to be done in this game – say, a +1 to the die roll if bombers or strategic bombers (but not other aircraft) making strategic attacks aren’t intercepted. This could account for the very real political consequences that would result from not trying to defend the homeland.
Regarding the amphibious attacks using only one infantry and then using shore bombardment – we haven’t been doing this, though looking back through the rules I can see that it doesn’t say you can’t. We’ve always said from the very first game we played that you can only use one ship for every two infantry (1 ship for 1-2 INF, 2 ships for 3-4, etc.). Any excess ships cannot bombard. I can tell you that this has worked for us very well. Letting excess ships bombard at a 1 seems kind of cheesy to me – sort of like the massive unsupported aircraft ground attacks.
We did have another question come up during our last game that I just remembered. When a fighter wants to retreat from a combat, does it move 2 or 4? I have assumed 2, based on page 21 of the rulebook, which reads, “Air units can retreat a maximum of their movement range” and also the usage of the term “movement range”, which has always been differentiated from the term “movement allowance.” Which is correct?
You would need to say something about the Netherlands being a part of the WA. They aren't listed as such and don't automatically become part of the WA at the outset of the game.
Actually, they are – it’s on page 39 of the rulebook, which reads “If Japan attacks the Western Allies (U.S., Great Britain, Free France and the Dutch East Indies) before they are able to declare war on Japan (before the Allied turn), Japan can conduct a one time only surprise attack.” It does seem open to interpretation, but to me the clear intent is that the NEI are part of the Western Allies once war breaks out. I do think this point needs to be clarified (Mark?) to avoid gamesmanship like in our last game. In our last game the argument was that since Germany never attacked the Netherlands, they weren’t part of the Allies and so once Japan went to war the NEI wouldn’t be part of the Allies.
Historically, Japan HAD to have the oil of the NEI; oil was their very reason for going to war. One of the flaws in the game in my opinion (as I’ve stated many times) is that Japan doesn’t have any compelling reason to go after the oil once they’re at war. I’ve played games that weren’t as detailed as this one where Japan had to take the NEI by a certain turn or they automatically lost the game. By saying that the NEI joins the Allies once war breaks out, at least there is some cost in game terms (the economic points of the NEI going to the Allies) if Japan doesn’t do in the game what they historically pretty much had to do once they made the decision to go to war.
I suppose the Dutch might have tried to stay neutral if Japan left them alone. They did however, regard Japan’s mounting aggressiveness as a threat, and Japan had already become rather strident in their “requests” to the Dutch for more oil, with more than a few thinly-veiled threats. As it was, none of this matters, because Japan wasn’t going to leave them alone. The rules already say that Japan can’t go to war with the UK but not the US (an interesting “what-if” – if the Japanese DOW was against the UK but not the US could Roosevelt have gotten the support he needed to go to war?), so why not add the NEI to that same equation. You can’t and shouldn’t force a player to play historically, but you can and should force them to deal with historical realities, and saying that the NEI are part of the Western Allies accomplishes this. Arbitrarily stating that the NEI are part of the Western Allies is no different than saying Japan can’t be at war with the UK or US separately, and closes a loophole in the rules.
Mark/John – can we get a ruling?
-
Bobsalt- The "they" that I was referring to in my statement (that you quoted) is the home country of the Netherlands, not NEI.
The Netherlands is not listed in the rule set as part of the WA. The NEI is only listed because of the aforementioned historical bias that Mark operated under in his designing of the game.
As for the shifting of the VP system based on the entry of the US/USSR, that is a point to be further discussed.
Does the whole VP chart shift out the (x) number of turns too?
Or just the upper end of the VP score regardless of the timeframe of when the game ends?
Maybe the scoring of VPs should just start on the turn that the USA comes into the game, which would then mean that the game can possibly end further out than the set number of turns it now ends at.
Craig
-
Maybe the scoring of VPs should just start on the turn that the USA comes into the game, which would then mean that the game can possibly end further out than the set number of turns it now ends at.
I think this is a better idea than adding to the VP total. If you add to the VP total, using our last game as an example where US entry was autumn of 1942 (3 turns late), on the last turn of the game the Axis would need 13 VP’s instead of 10 – that’s a 30% difference. 3 points isn’t so much in summer of 1942 when the difference is 45 versus 42, but that three point differential at the end of the game is probably really going to skew the victory conditions against the Axis. It seems to me that it’s probably better for play balance to do as you suggest and push the victory check back a number of turns equal to the number of turns US entry is delayed.
Of course, as a side note – has anyone ever actually played out a full 25-turn game? I think we’ve gone as far as early 1944 once.
I kind of like the idea of going extra turns. It’s sort of like Stoppage Time in Futbol.
Mark/John – Still waiting for a ruling on the NEI question from my post above. This will probably be a factor in our current game when we resume tomorrow night so I’d like to get a definitive answer.
-
Hi - so the intent is that the NEI will join the allies as soon as the Japanese declare war on the Western Allies. Production goes to the Brits if they are not taken over by the Japs