Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page 1 of 212next »

While I agree with you that the peacekeepers need some tweaking, I don't think your proposal works very well.

I think it was WIF 4 or 5, (I wasn't playing, but my Dad was back then), when allied players hit upon the following exploit. Suppose Germany sets up historically, and smashes Poland on the first turn, doing little else. Then, on an allied impulse, the Soviet Union declares war on Belgium. Since then, as you propose, the major power couldn't enter unless they were at war with someone at war with the minor, Germany effectively couldn't attack France, unless they could break the garrison, DoW the Soviets, and fight a war on two fronts.

What we used to house-rule is that if the minor was conquered, and the peacekeeper Major Power wasn't at war with the conquering major power, they would have to leave. It had the biggest effect on Persia, since the Japanese Peacekeepers rarely left the coast, but if you pounded Tehran……

Anyway, hope you find this helpful.

Peacekeeper rule. by Ur_Vile_WedgeUr_Vile_Wedge, 09 Jun 2011 18:23

A simpler fix would be that Germany isn't allowed to align Roumania the impulse they declare war to Yougoslavia but had to wait the next impulse (wich isn't very historical either).

A more drastic fix but more historical would be that Germany cant declare war to Yougoslavia if Germany isn't at war with Bulgaria/Greece or Turkey. Would make the Balkans behave more historically.

by IKerenskyIKerensky, 04 Oct 2010 13:09

Interesting stuff.
I played a lot of WIF 2nd through 5th Edition. Then restarted up WIF FE recently. I noticed the Germans DOW Yugo early and often.
I was wondering at that point why didn't the Germans do this back before WIF FE, as the Ahistorical loophole straight away is the German DOW on Yugo? Many rules are diffferent, but it then occured to me that before WIF FE, there weren't any Reserve units, and the effective Starting German army (all armies) were smaller counter mix. In the olden days Germans built INF units early for a complete line, so I believe they didn't have the units in 1939 to DOW Yugo and grab the Lowlands - Weather and Map changes have changed the time table slightly also in Netherlands and Belgium (in older WIF, Germans attacked the Lows asap in all weather).

So, it appears the combination of Weather effects changes, and added units at start has allowed the Yugo War effectively right away. Added choices are good. But it is interesting, that the way Harry first had it designed, the Yugo -No Bess Exploit wasn't as fruitful for other reasons. Making a strategy highly profitable, with less downside is ofcoarse bad, as we don't want to see a gambit regularly. Hence the term "Annoying"
The danger is we do nothing about it, and it become "normal". A house rule fix is certainly in order for this one.

Re: Go back to the Pact? by EvildanEvildan, 24 Sep 2010 18:23

I think for now, since I don't have an easy way to remedy these problems, I'm going to move this rule to the Undergoing review section. I think I've got an idea for a more general logistics rule anyway that could supplant this one. If there's still a need, we can come back and work this one over some more.

Re: In that case by PabloniusPablonius, 13 Oct 2009 15:36

In that case then it might make sense to test the simple rail regauge of maybe allowing one hex to be advanced per impulse along a rail line. If it's not regauged it's not a RR for anything. The thing is I don't think there was much problem regauging in say Europa, it just became another thing to keep track of. It might however slow things down in Russia a bit and provide some real incentive for Russia to try and delay, or even speedbump more, around the rail lines.

Consider that right now if you have a city in the rear and advance past it and reduce it later that the moment you take it the rail line now extends as far past the blocking city as you can move but now the rail head would only advance from the city 1 hex per impulse. It might actually be a good idea, lol.

In that case by lgb42lgb42, 02 Oct 2009 08:01

It's a good point. It certainly makes the rail-movement aspect of the rule unworkable. I still have hope for the slowing down of the HQs— although tying it to the railway gauge might be problematic.

The Eastern front moves too quickly as it currently works. WIF needs a simple logistical friction rule.

This railway gauge rule is brand new so there hasn't been an opportunity to test it yet.

Re: Not Realistic by PabloniusPablonius, 01 Oct 2009 11:53

It's not a very realistic rule. The rail lines were in fact re gauged by dedicated railroad engineers by both sides as the front moved forward and back.

A simple rule would allow the rail head to move X spaces per turn or impulse so eventually the re gauged rails catch up to your units and then affects the other guy as he advances later. A more complex rule would add railroad engineer units and rules to re gauge them. Personally I'd suggest the simple approach- I gave up Europa for things like RR ENG, lol.

I'd also note your rule also places a higher premium on doing an all out Barb and having the largest possible number of units available at the start instead of more spaced out builds with reinforcements steadily coming out to rail forward. It also makes naval transport more attractive. In any case has this rule been played yet and what were the results?

Not Realistic by lgb42lgb42, 01 Oct 2009 03:51

Patrice it's his optional rule and he can state how it works. I've got rule set called Simple WiF and I modify all manner of things from FiF and elsewhere to make it work.

If you can put aside your dogmatic approach a moment you might consider how it would actually work. Frankly incorporating the bounce rule as you wish breaks the rule as I explained above. Your insistence on doing it like that when it knowingly breaks the rule could be seen as a backhanded method to kill a rule one might not like.

I'll provide an example where RAW is overruled by optional rules. If you use CoiF then the intrinsic asw in CP's is lost. I don't believe we told the CoiF designers that they had to keep everything in RAW to make the new kit work.

Sorry, I'm talking about Bounce, the normal bounce, not the new Fighter Bounce house rule.

Not being able to bounce (normal) any enemy plane breaks the RAW in the first place. The Dogfighting rule have to adapt to that, and have provision to that. If not, it is a bad rule.

The first thing I'd note is that fighter bounce is brand new under the House of Rules and not exactly a 100% official option. To argue it must be played a certain way with this rule is problematic. It can interact with Dogfights in any manner Pablo wants to incorporate into his optional rule. Personally I do think fighter bounce should even be legal with Dogfights. Consider if you have 1 really good FTR. By the Dogfight rule it must be in the first combat. Till it's shot down you can use it to bounce the lowest rated enemy fighters over and over! This is frankly a total abuse of the fighter bounce rule where, like any other bounce, the bouncing fighter must go to the back of the line in normal combat which under the Dogfight rule has zero meaning.

So I entirely disagree with your view Patrice and think it would be extremely bad to play it the way you want and in fact I believe it breaks the Dogfight rule. IMO, either restrict fighter bounce to fighters in that combat, and bombers, or just drop it. Personally, I'm not sold on the fighter bounce in the first place but that is overshadowed by how much I dislike the new back up air to air rule which I know was not properly tested- nor liked by anyone in my area to my knowledge.

Fighter Bounce with Dogfights by lgb42lgb42, 05 Aug 2009 05:10

Well, what is the problem with "end up with awkward situations where a dogfight that is yet to be resolved loses all its planes". This dogifht no longer exist, and that's all. Why limiting bounces to fighters involved in that dogfight ? The whole a2A combat is a single A2A combat. You allow any dogfight to bounce any bomber, but not any fighter. Not consistent, not logical, and against RAW bounce that any plane can suffer from a bounce. Same headaches. Better stay in the continuity of what exist rather than invent differences that serve no purpose, only making the thing unclear.

Re: Bounce combet by FroonpFroonp, 13 Jul 2009 16:49

Heh, well, Lane disagrees with you (see 1st comment). The problem with allowing fighters to bounce other dogfights is that you could end up with awkward situations where a dogfight that is yet to be resolved loses all its planes. Now since the intent is that all dogfights are resolved simultaneously, you have to remember what the a2a ratings were. What happens if a dogfight has nothing left to shoot at (because of bounces and because all the bombers are gone)? It just created lots of unnecessary headaches. And in practice, we found that it didn't really matter. You're mostly interested in bouncing bombers anyway and the "choosier" variant of the dogfighting rules gives you some flexibility in matching up fighters.

Re: Bounce combet by PabloniusPablonius, 13 Jul 2009 16:15

Good point, Patrice. The rule was modified several times during the initial discussion on the list. Since I can't remember the history of it, I'm just going to arbitrarily call this version 1.1 and update it whenever it changes. : )

Re: General comment by PabloniusPablonius, 13 Jul 2009 16:06

A DC or AC should allow a bounce combat against any opposing bomber or fighter including fighters in other dogfights. There is no reason to exclude them. I tis still the same global A2A combat.

Bounce combet by FroonpFroonp, 12 Jul 2009 07:01

Pablo, you should put version number, and update time for your optional rules, so that one knows if the one he sees here is the same as the one he read and decided to try 6 months ago. I noticed that the Dogfight rule was modified, but can't be sure that the version I read initialy (and copied to my hard disk for future reference) is up to date or not..

General comment by FroonpFroonp, 12 Jul 2009 06:56

I did face this situation before as the German player. I won the day because the allies concentrated a huge defense in the north behind the rivers but did not check their southern border accurately.

I used Italy to infiltrate the french lines in the Alps and sent my best german troops to effectively infiltrate more. The allies were not able to put a good defense on time. It ended up with a full invasion of France from the southern border and Paris fell in september-october 1940. The allies were so sure to stop me they had a morale break and surrendered.

I may have been lucky also.

Faced this situation before by micheljmichelj, 23 Jun 2009 16:56

I agree that this is gamey, if done on purpose. I see a danger for the Axis using this exploit. They are out of supply in England, if the Allies wins the initiative, they can keep them out of supply, ground strike them and counterattack and most certainly destroy some of their corps if they are out of supply and flipped.

Double edged strategy by micheljmichelj, 23 Jun 2009 16:49

By current RAW when the Soviets DOW on Bulgaria they gain 2 resources, the one in Bulgaria and the one less pact resource they send to Germany when Germany aligns it. Germany loses the pact resource and can no longer rail the Turkish resource. Italy must be active and willing to risk a CP in order to try and transport that resource. On top of this 3 or 4 resource swing the Bulgarian force pool is gone, 13 BPs, and the Bulgarian resource can not be recaptured till some time after the start of Barb.

Please see our groups only house rule in the No Bess section of this website. Basically this makes Bulgaria less attractive and in trade the No Bess Gambit is removed. Personally with current RAW I regard the Soviets taking Bulgaria as being exceedingly attractive. In fact if one checks the FAQ one will see confirmed by Harry that one may demand Bessarabia, see if Germany allows or forces a DOW, and then DOW on Bulgaria the same impulse. So if one is set for a DOW on Romania it makes perfect sense to go ahead and do Bulgaria.

It's worse than described. by lgb42lgb42, 08 Apr 2009 18:27

I'm not sure what you mean. Germany can align Romania exactly like they do at present. The only thing my option does is allow the USSR to demand Bess and close the loophole that Harry created- he changed the rules in response to the Denmark gambit and created the No Bess gambit.

Frankly many players already do not claim Bess as standard play. This actually can be seen as a gambit to prevent either A) Germany aligning Romania prior to Barbarossa or B) failing that, by a DOW on Yugo, the axis can not align Yugo. Many players have regarded aligning Yugo to Italy as important and thus not demanding Bess did mean Romania was not aligned prior to Barb.

I do not understand your point that aligning Romania due to a German DOW on USSR or Yugo, a Soviet DOW on Romania, or due to denying the claims after the Soviets claim Bess have any reasonable differences much less why any might be "legitimate" or not? All of these are in the standard rules and my option changes none of them.

As of now Germany can prevent the USSR from demanding Bess by a DOW on Yugo and aligning Romania. This is a loophole created by Harry when he changed the rules to prohibit any allied DOW, except for CW/FR on Germany, on the 2nd impulse of turn 1. This was his response to the Denmark Gambit that he saw at Eurowifcon. All I am doing is allowing the USSR to demand Bess even if Germany DOWs Yugo and aligns Romania.

Re: Go back to the Pact? by lgb42lgb42, 08 Apr 2009 18:15

I hear you Lane and others have made the same point. I've changed the bounce rule to address your comments.

As for the GFR, I'm not convinced that there's anything you can do to discourage people from building fighters. Air superiority is just too important. But what I think makes the GFR really wonky is the race to advance build the next generation of planes in an effort to get that all-important quality edge. In RAW, the longer you go, attrition actually decreases as a proportion of your on-map units and your production increases. This causes the GFR to actually accelerate! If you increase/scale attrition appropriately, players are forced to choose between recycling planes or shrinking their force pool (instead of steadily building towards UFOs). That's exactly what this rule is designed to do.

Re: Bounce by PabloniusPablonius, 04 Apr 2009 13:53
page 1 of 212next »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License