Combined WiFCE/DoD III Campaign Playthrough #6: Jul/Aug - Nov/Dec 1936

[@davidkujala3603]

Thx too you me and my friend bjarne will start a dod/ wif soon Love your work. Keep up the exellent work

[@shawntorno]

Finding this series riveting. Thank you for the effort… you’re costing me a lot of money, however. After your tutorials, I purchased the Deluxe CE. Now I’ve gone and bought everything else WiF related that I could find. Much appreciated, and don’t worry, I wont tell my wife it was your fault. Would you consider, at some point, sharing your thoughts on adding Patton in Flames and/or America in Flames to the tail end of a DoD3/WiF game? Would love to hear how that works (or doesn’t).

[@thetabletopsedge]

Thanks for the kind words! I would be happy to share my thoughts on PatiF and AiF, but I have no experience with those games, so I can't really speak with any authority on them. I know they are stand alone games, but also compatible with WiFFE (since that was the current WiF edition when they were published). I do not know if they are fully compatible with WiFCE, but since the differences between FE and CE are so slight, you could probably manage something. The main reason I don't have any experience with those games (both of which appear to have been produced with the same high quality as the "core" WiF game) is interest, or lack thereof, in the subject matter. Alt-history/hypothetical wars have never really had much interest for me (DoD games can REALLY push me out of my comfort zone), so I never bothered to pick up PatiF or AiF. I believe WiFCE includes scenario setups for PatiF and/or AiF games, just as it does for DoD/WiF games, so I would think that at some point we may see an updated edition of both from ADG. I wish I had more to say about PatiF and AiF. In addition to a DoD IV, which is fully compatible with WiFCE, I would love to see ADG bring back the WiF Annuals. The Annuals of the early '90's, when WiF 5th was the current edition were excellent. The Annuals published during the FE period were less so, although the 2008 Annual had a lot of interesting optional rules (like Factories in Flames and the 3D10 Land CRT). It would be great to see some more strategy articles like we saw in the early Annuals, as well as various analytical articles. Something like the ASL Journals would find a good reception among the WiF community, I think. Thanks for watching, and stay tuned for more to come!

[@denisdelarive7753]

I have played some of these and they add an interesting possibility to extend the war, if the allies don't win big and are faced with Invading Japan. I agree with Tabletop's Edge that AiF is a bit of a stretch, but the extra units like the Jets, and Canadian Marines are interesting. The heavy units, (some you can get as early as 1939), and the politics in flames are the most useful for WiF, and having the ability to create certain post war minors can also be fun, partisan in Egypt could potentially create a pro-soviet minor as early as 1941! If you are into a more complete WiF, then many of these rules can be added as house rules. I always use politics in flames as it add a political system that while somewhat different from DoD is very accurate and fun. Having to also take into account the need to take objective cites so you can make or keep minors on your side can change how you fight certain wars, who among your allies should take them, (for influence). As for AiF many people would enjoy marching their panzers through Georgia for the sea to Atlanta! Or seeing the US invade Cuba!

[@shawntorno]

Thank you both for your replies. I do understand that not everyone is a fan of alternate history, but personally I enjoy exploring the what ifs. It seems like these two stand alone games could be added via house rules (sort of a if this situation, then proceed with AiF, if that proceed with PiF). It sparks my imagination, though I confess to not having looked into the products as of yet to confirm the possibility. Anyway, as Denis said, the additional units may be nice to add by themselves, should the war go late. Appreciate the answers, and looking forward to future episodes.

[@thetabletopsedge]

@@shawntorno While I haven't played either PatiF or AiF, I would absolutely encourage you to try both. From what little I do know of them, they both have the high quality of the core WiF game, and can fit rather seamlessly onto the back end of a standard WiF game.

[@bjarneandreassen9118]

Great update again, thanks for this! When will the new convoys start bringing in some more money for the allies? Really looking forward to see how 1937 starts out.

[@thetabletopsedge]

I believe the French have just been able to start receiving the Senegalese resource. The TP's take 5 turns to build, and France will need 5 of them to bring in one of the Burmese oil that the CW is sending them as part of the Level 1 Treaty. Those TP's should arrive by M/A'37, allowing France to finally get access to an oil resource. The CW should be able to start shipping additional resources in the next couple of turns (CP's only take 4 turns to build). With the CW committed to building 1 CP and 1 TP per turn, and having been doing at least that for the past year, 1937 should start to see that construction pay in terms of increased resource utilization. One of the really cool things about the WiF production system is the time factor involved. MP's will end up having to make an investment in various military units, but end up having to wait anywhere from 1-12 turns to see them actually arrive on map, and then another 1-2 turns before they can reach a position where they are able to influence the course of battle. This rewards planning and forward thinking, but also introduces the chance for a player to misread the situation and get caught out by not having what he needs when he actually needs it because something unforeseen has occurred on the front lines. I expect 1937 will see things begin to accelerate a bit. Both Japan and Italy are poised to do their first gear up, which will increase their income, allowing them to be a bit more adventurous. They both are still in desperate need of more resources, so they'll be pursuing those as well. For Japan, China is a rich store of reasonably close resources (and a couple factories), which makes it very tempting to go to war with her soon. All those CV's and BB's piling up in the Construction Pool are going to be expensive...

[@harrygoatleaf4032]

In the first round of bids at about 8:49 you did not add Political Effectiveness to any of the bids. In the second round of bids at about 32:26 you added Political Effectiveness to every power's bid whether they bid last time or not. I am just learning DoD III from the 2012 online rules which state: "Each major power that didn’t get to play any political options in the turn receives bid points equal to its current modified political effectiveness, even if it didn’t bid for an option." Which is correct out of the three different treatments? I suspect this rule is correct and isn't that one of the purposes of using the two "Last Card" markers? While I am here, thanks for doing this great series so thoroughly. I will probably never play DoD with WiF but its an impressive system.

[@thetabletopsedge]

This is an excellent example of the kinds of problems one has had to deal with when implementing the often poorly written WiF rules over the years. Harry has a long history of vaguely, or poorly, worded rule sections that are open to different interpretations. The physical rule book (dated 2004) included with the 2008 printing of DoD III states in section 5.D BONUS BID POINTS "Every major power that did not get to choose an option this turn earns bid points equal to its current modified political effectiveness. If you a have a negative political effectiveness you must lose money equal to your negative modified PE. This can send you below your credit limit." It also states in section 8.6 ENDING POLITICAL AFFAIRS "Each major power that didn't get to play any political options in the turn receives bid points equal to its current modified political effectiveness, EVEN IF IT DIDN'T BID FOR AN OPTION." As you can see there is a discrepancy in the rules. The two sections do not say the same thing. The online DoD rules from 2016 have the same language in both sections. The use of the phrase "didn't get to play..." is a very bad choice of language. It is far too imprecise. My interpretation of that is that one must at least attempt to play an option (which means bidding at least 1 bid point) in order to "not get to play" an option. If you choose not to bid, there would have been no option for you to "not get to play". This is why early on I was only awarding bonus bid points to MP's that bid, but had the Political Phase end before they had a chance to play an option, while not awarding the bonus bid points to those that did not bid. The language in DoD II does not include the, "even if it didn't bid for an option," language in section 8.6. So in DoD II, the bonus bid points were restricted to only those MP's that bid but did not get to choose an option that turn. Which makes more sense to me than giving the bid point bonus to everyone who didn't play an option. The bonus bid points are a compensation for having bid but not gotten the opportunity to choose an option. If a country bid zero, then it wouldn't get to choose an option under any circumstances, and therefore deserves no compensation for the Political Phase ending early. The 1st Last Card marker is used to track which MP is currently the "active" MP in the Political Phase. The 2nd Last Card marker is used to show the point at which the Political Phase ends (because the MP's below the 2nd Last Card marker all bid 0, which does not entitle them to choose a political option this turn). The MP's located below the 1st marker and at or above the 2nd marker are those MP's that bid but did not get to play an option (and are entitled to the bonus bid points). For some reason, the clause, "even if they didn't bid for an option," was added to 8.6, but not 5.D. Is the addition a mistake? Is the omission from 5.D a mistake? I don't know, but I DO know that it is very sloppy (and the addition to 8.6, without further context, makes little sense). The reason for me not adding the bonus bid points in the J/A'36 turn is that the previous turn's Political Phase did not end early. Every MP that bid had a chance to play an option, so no bonus bid points were due to be awarded. However, the J/A'36 Political Phase DID end before all bidders had a chance to play an option, and therefore bonus bid points were awarded for the S/O'36, including those MP's that did not bid (which still does not make any sense to me, but section 8.6 clearly states that is the case, although section 5.D does not). The Bonus Bid Points issue has created some confusion for a number of viewers, so I will likely take a few moments to discuss it in the next episode. And since it isn't WiF if you aren't house ruling things, I will very likely go back to the way I was originally handling it (and was handled in DoD II). My interpretation may, in fact, be incorrect, but it is the one that makes the most sense to me. And this is not the only house rule I'll be including in the current campaign playthrough. I may be greatly underestimating the importance of PE, but it does already break ties for political initiative (which makes perfect sense) and is a factor in certain option prerequisites. Handing out bonus bid points to every MP that didn't play an option (even if they bid zero) every turn equal to PE seems a bit much. But that's just my take. Sorry for the confusion, and I should probably have addressed this earlier. Thanks for watching!

[@denisdelarive7753]

@@thetabletopsedge I share your opinion, giving non acting MP more bonus bids is a bit silly, and very nicely explained. I think many well informed players have good reasons to add house rules, after reading the CE rules, I found that excluding PAR drops from friendly, or PART occupied hexes contradicts historical action like those of the US in Italy, and the Soviets in winter. IF you look for it you can find many exceptions that might make you consider a house rule.

[@harrygoatleaf4032]

@@thetabletopsedge In terms of both common sense and realism I agree that the PE uplift should only go to MPs that made an actual Bid but could not exercise an Option only because the Phase ended. The DoD II rule wording is a bit unsettling though as it means that Harry consciously added the words "even if it didn't bid for an option" to DoD III. Maybe he had too much "sun" that day?! Another strange thing is that nobody on BGG or CSW has raised this issue. I have never played DoD but you would think that giving every MP their PE bonus regardless would lead to a rather weird game the longer it went on. Thanks for taking the time to reply so comprehensively and keep going as I am really enjoying seeing how the story unfolds. I can't believe you will still be at it in 1946 so at some stage please mention whether DoD keeps operating alongside WIF or whether it fades out at some stage.

[@thetabletopsedge]

@@harrygoatleaf4032 You are far from the only one who has been a bit confused by my implementation of the bonus bid points, so I'm going to take a couple of minutes in the next episode (which I hope to start filming this evening) to discuss the issue and clearly explain how I am going to handle it in this particular playthrough.

[@tridbant]

Getting interesting. Things are starting to move

[@czujnywilczek6832]

Very nice video I hope for another ASAP :)

[@czujnywilczek6832]

One thing Soviets are gaining not infantry cores but armies XXX - core XXXX - army

[@thetabletopsedge]

@@czujnywilczek6832 Correct. The historical designation on the Soviet and Chinese counters is the army symbol, not the corps symbol. However, the game has two sizes of units. The larger sized units are referred to as "corps" (because most every MP's large land units are, in fact, corps) and the small units "divisions" (even though many of the specialized units like ART or AT have the brigade symbol). In game terms, there is no functional difference between a historical "army" and a corps. So I will often refer to any large land unit by the generic term "corps". Sorry if this caused any confusion. Thanks for watching!

[@czujnywilczek6832]

@@thetabletopsedge Sure :) One more question is there a Spanish civil war in this game?

[@nikolai877]

27:45 Shouldn't Germany have ended up on 3 money, since they were 4 in the hole after the IPO2 Trade Agreement with Sweden?

[@thetabletopsedge]

Correct. It looks like I forgot to deduct the 4 for the Trade Agreement. Germany's current total has been adjusted. She currently has 1 at the start of J/F'37.

[@jeromeguebey9638]

Very very nice playthrough. It reminds me of 5th Ed + DoD II ( i guess) that we ran some 25ish yeras ago. Very entertaining and quite valuable for new players. One thing though. You said in a previous video that chosing a specific IPO would prevent any other MP to chose the same. Shouldn't then Italy selecting the increase biding option prevents Japan in doing the same?

[@thetabletopsedge]

I presume you are referring to both the Italians and Japanese selecting the option to Gear Up production this turn? The Gear Up is not an IPO, it is a country specific option. The restriction of only one MP selecting a given option each turn only applies to the IPO's (the "generic" political options). Or at least that's how I've been playing it.

[@douglas9521]

Great series. Out of interest,how does the Spanish Civil War happen in this game?

[@pm71241]

It can. And Fascist Spain / Republic Spain is 2 different set of units. Right now Spain is just 1 political entity.

[@thetabletopsedge]

One of the IPO's is "Coup", which allows a MP to attempt a coup in a minor country. A die roll is made, with various DRM's applied, and the Coup Chart is consulted. Results range from a counter coup (in which the MP playing the option is implicated) that results in negative influence in the minor, to a successful coup that adds (potentially a lot) of positive influence, to a Civil War breaking out. So to trigger the SCW, someone will have to play the Coup option, and then roll high enough to get the Civil War result. At that point, starting forces for the Republicans and Nationalists will be determined and set up. From there, one of the MP's will control each side in the Civil War and it will proceed very much like normal WiF. The length of the SCW will have a big impact on how easy it will be to align the winning side to whichever MP was controlling it during the SCW. A short war makes it much more likely that the Nationalists will become an active participant with the Fascists in the event of a larger war breaking out later on, while a long, drawn out war will make it very unlikely that the winning side will ever join in the larger conflict. I'm hoping everyone will get to see this play out in the current game sometime in 1937. There is an optional rule that states a coup played in Spain automatically results in a civil war. I may use a portion of that optional rule, just to ensure the SCW starts. I still haven't made up my mind, though. We'll see when the time comes.

[@douglas9521]

@@thetabletopsedge OK, as I don't know the full system or story it sounds a bit weird to do it that way. From watching you play these decisions are important and require funding. Why would foreign powers pay for this. I'm no expert on the Spanish civil war, but it was civil. Yes foreign powers got involved but it was civil by everything I've read. It should be something the major powers can if they choose react to, not initiate. As I say, I don't know the ins and outs so could be way of with my thinking🤔. But just seems a bit out of kilter. Hope that makes some sense?

[@denisdelarive7753]

@@douglas9521 Actually the in game activation of the SCW is caused by Italy playing the coup option and it resulting in a civil war. There is some logic to deliberately playing this if you use the automatic civil war option since having Spain join you later will be easier, and deadlier to you enemies. Any power could support the "right" side as the advantages are so good as to completely change the strategy for controlling the Mediterranean Sea. If one side plays it the other can't risk not getting involved, (Allies did not, but Soviets did), since the winner can then use options to build minor units, (or the PiF and AiF heavy units that I always use), to make it easier to align, (and it changes the influence counters you place). Fortunately, for the Allies, Italy-Germany did not invest in making Spain an active ally. Spain did send the Blue division, (250th Infantry), to fight the Soviets, I use a home rule for this. Finally I do recommend using the automatic civil war option, since this event is so important to WWII, (some date the start of the war with these events).

[@thetabletopsedge]

@@douglas9521 The Coup option is a risky way to try to gain influence in a country, with the goal of moving its marker into your MP marker's hex, allowing you to eventually control the minor if a war breaks out. The outcome of the coup is uncertain (and is based on the result of a modified die roll). However, if you roll well you can gain a very large number of influence points in the targeted minor (upwards of 20, which is a huge amount). The downside is that if you roll poorly you could see a counter coup that gives you a large amount of negative influence (potentially up to 30), as well as implicating you in the coup attempt, or your coup attempt may end up triggering a civil war. If the rebel side of the civil war wins, and wins quickly, this can also give you a lot of influence in the minor. So the coup option is definitely a high risk-high reward proposition. If I recall correctly, the SCW triggered automatically back in the first edition of DoD, but when the second edition was released, I believe ADG wanted civil war to be a possibility in any minor, not just Spain. It was part of the effort to turn WiF into a true sandbox style game. There may be some DoD III games where Spain never has a civil war. I think it would be more entertaining and interesting for viewers to get to see a Spanish Civil War WiF-style, so I may borrow part of the relevant optional rule that says the first time a coup is played on Spain, the civil war automatically breaks out. I still haven't decided, I may just leave it up to the dice gods. Hopefully, when you see the Coup IPO played all of this will make more sense. Thanks for watching!

[@PalleRasmussen]

A "Nat 1" is an unmodified result of 1. Nat 20 is an unmodified result of 20.

[@harrygoatleaf4032]

I am learning from the DoDIII rules on the ADG website. They are dated 24 October 2012. You ever to online DoD rules of 2016. Could you post a link? Thanks

[@thetabletopsedge]

It's technically not an official version of the rules. It's a consolidated version of the rules which includes the various country chart play aids I've been using. It can be found in the Files section of the Days of Decision III page on Board Game Geek. Here's the link to the page: boardgamegeek.com/filepage/107590/dod-iii-2009-plus-wiffe-incl-annual-2008

[@harrygoatleaf4032]

@@thetabletopsedge Ah, silly me, I had downloaded those folders but didn't spot the word file of 2016 rules in amongst all those national charts. Thanks. A quick look at them suggests that, to learn the game, I still need to go through the main 2012 rules but then apply the 2016 rules being the necessary amendments for playing DoD with WIF.

[@kentnilsson465]

Does GErmany really have 7 for Sept-Oct given that they had to pay 4 for the minor agreement with Sweden? They had 1 going in to July, paid one for pol initiative and 4 for the minor agreement plus 7 build points. 1+7-1-4=3 or am I wrong?

[@thetabletopsedge]

You are correct. I had forgotten to adjust their money total on the track to account for the cost of the agreement with Sweden.

[@davidkujala3603]

When does next video come ?

[@thetabletopsedge]

I am hoping to have it uploaded either later tonight, or tomorrow (Thursday) at the latest! And I've begun filming on the episode after that, so hopefully that one will be ready to go in about a week.

[@kentnilsson465]

At 1:07:40 you say that Fra get 2, had 0 before. They build nothing, But in the Jan 1937, at 18:17 you say that Fra has 3. According to my calculation 2 is correct. Sorry for being picky, Im trying to see if the DoD events+builds match the situation IRL in 1939, in an effort to see if the money earned match what you can do compared to real life results. Same with Russia, they should have 0 at Jam 1937. And Finally, shouldnt Germany have 3 buildpoints going into Jan 1937. If all these are corrected, or Im wrong, in later videos I appologize Ger starts 5 Jan -3 Rhineland, -2 Pilot, +6 BP= 6 Mar -2 Pol iniative, -3 Pilot+CV, +6=7 May -4 Pol initi, -4 agreement Swe, -4 BB+BB, +7=2 July -1 Pol init, -4 Swe deal, +7=4 Sept -1 Pol ini, -3 SS+Bomb, -5 Alliance+7=2 Nov -6 Pilot+CA+Bomb, +7=3

[@davidkujala3603]

I say yiiiihaaaa

[@rickh9908]

You have a amazing personality!!! Get to the top fast - *Promo SM* !

[@thetabletopsedge]

Thanks!