Combined WiFCE/DoD III Campaign Playthrough #7: Jan/Feb 1937

[@joshuabolt7800]

Wew, I literally refresh my KZbin and the video is out just a minute ago. Nice. Loving this series so far

[@adults_talking]

LOVE the convoy point house rule! i will be using that from now on, great idea!

[@thetabletopsedge]

Thanks! I should caution you, though, that it really needs to be used in conjunction with our other house rule regarding how convoys are attacked. Alternatively, you can still use the RAW convoy attack method, but you would then probably need to have the Resource Transportation Segment (in which all resources are shipped to the factories) moved to occur right after the Convoy Pipeline Placement Segment. The reason for that is that if you use the RAW convoy attack system, players could sail SUB's into various sea zones, sink some CP's, and there would be no way for you to send in additional CP's to cover losses. Our house rule makes this unnecessary because it removes convoy attacks from the regular sequence of play and puts them in a "strategic warfare" category. I'll explain fully in the video I plan on doing to discuss our convoy rules.

[@bjarneandreassen9118]

Great new update. Thank you for this one! Looking forward to hear your take on the convoysystem (and the next update of course!).

[@thetabletopsedge]

Thanks! The more I think about it, the more inclined I am to introduce, and then use, our house rule for convoy attacks in this playthrough. Stay tuned for more info.

[@czujnywilczek6832]

Another nice video. :) I would really apreciate to be more frequently published ;)

[@davidkujala3603]

Great video

[@pm71241]

Hey.... a new episode. This is almost like Game of Thrones. ... now where did I put that bottle of Lagavulin?

[@jamescurran9002]

Then I would always bid one point, and then play a zero.option when or of my turn comes up. For instance playing the election, or rolling for PE increase, etc.

[@denisdelarive7753]

Very interested to see where this is going.

[@pm71241]

The "even if they did not bid" text is AFAIK still in the revised DoDIII rules. - but I agree with you that it doesn't seem thought through.

[@thetabletopsedge]

Unfortunately, there have been a few rules over the years that haven't appeared to have been fully thought through. But on the whole, most of the evolution in the rules improved game play.

[@robanderson918]

@@thetabletopsedge you're not wrong, but it is the WWII game. I do like your convoy rule...and frankly think most CW players unwittingly use it anyway :)

[@danieldahlberg8986]

Well, I like it. Think it introduces uncertainty into the game which is good and a little more real. A failed try to get an option played represents the uncertainty of global politics. Don't understand why you should get rewarded for a failure? But that is what house rules are for. 😊 But don't understand why you use the word "interpretation"? The rule is very clear

[@markriley5966]

Another excellent video. Never having played DoD and previously only having thought of it as massively extending the time to play WIF, I am now starting to see a couple of advantages to it aside from it being an interesting add on in itself. First, it gives players a chance to get used to everything that happens on the WIF map when counter density is low and action minimal e.g. establishing CPs and getting used to moving Resources about. Second, the horribly complex WIF rules around control, conquest, liberation etc seem more straight forward with DoD and where exercising political options does a lot of the work for you anyway. Would be interested in your views on this to help me decide whether or not to take the plunge next time we get the WIF urge!

[@thetabletopsedge]

Thank you! Adding DoD to WiF will definitely increase the playing time, so that should be a major consideration in your decision to try it. However, if time is not an issue for your group, then it is likely worth trying, at least once. It also depends on the "playing style" of your group. For instance, if you all prefer to play more of a competitive, tournament style game, then I might advise against adding DoD at this point in time because DoD III is not yet 100% updated to the WIFCE edition. For example, there are discrepancies in objective location totals (which are used to determine victory). That said, the rules are probably 90-95% compatible, and if your group is looking for a more relaxed, fun game then I would recommend it. Adding DoD will definitely give you a very different WiF experience. First, it transforms the game into a trilateral struggle by separating the Communists from the other Allies. DoD also gives you a lot of leeway with regards to various strategies to pursue. The Fascist powers will be the most active early in the game, in large part because they have so much to do to reach the point where they can launch a major war with a realistic chance of victory (or at least not getting crushed right away). It's entirely possible in a DoD/WiF game to see Poland aligned with Germany, and other things you'd never see in a WiF game. As you mentioned, DoD does provide a couple of benefits for newer players. The at start counter density is extremely light. This can prevent players from getting overwhelmed by having to figure out how to manage large numbers of units right from the beginning (and in a pure WiF game, Axis mistakes early on can doom the game). DoD also improves on the WiF stand alone political rules. To sum up, I see the pros of a DoD/WiF game as: low initial counter density, no major war at start, better political rules, much greater variety in how the game unfolds. Balanced against that are the cons: longer playing time, potential analysis paralysis especially for newer players given how wide open the starting situation is, more rules to learn and digest Do the pros outweigh the cons? For a group of experienced WiF players I would say definitely yes. If you are trying to introduce new players to WiF, the answer isn't as clear cut, but I still think it would be worth a try. I would give the least experienced players the Democratic MP's because I think there is more room for errors, especially early on while trying to learn the system. Hope this helps, and as the video series continues you will hopefully get an even better feel for whether doing this would be the right option for your group.

[@McCainenl]

Am I wrong in thinking the influence costs are a bit too expensive? It seems like with the rules as they are, over the timespan given you'll be able to move very few countries very few steps overall, which makes it seem a bit ineffectual. But maybe I am misjudging it

[@thetabletopsedge]

I don't think that is accidental. Historically, not that many minor countries aligned with the MP's. You had the 4 "Axis Minors" (Finland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria), and I believe Siam could be considered to have joined Japan. Relatively late in the war Brazil and Mexico joined the Allies. But none of the European minor countries actually joined the Allies before the Axis attacked them. One of the issues with the first edition of DoD was how easy it was for minors to actively take sides. Minor country influence was tracked on a completely different type of display than is used in DoD II and DoD III. Given how much influence is required to move a minor country marker a single space, it does require an extensive effort on the part of a MP to get the minor stacked in their hex. As The MP's gear up and have more money available, they will be able to expend more political effort in attracting various minors. In the early game, everything moves more slowly, but with time events (both political and military) should begin to speed up, and before you know it a major war has broken out.

[@pm71241]

Not sure what the problem with the Convoy Points ... they are not handled like ships. Explicitly because they have 0 movement allowance - meaning that they do no patrolling. They are constantly in motion. The 3 range is merely to introduce some intertia in how you can redistribute them. ... which IMHO sounds fair. Just like gearing limits.

[@thetabletopsedge]

There are several problems with the way CP's are handled, including combat. But they are too numerous to elaborate fully on in the comments, so I will be uploading a video discussing the issues with convoys and explaining the house rules we use to address them. To put it as succinctly as I can, the major mistake they made with the introduction of SiF was to bring the CP's and SUB's into the operational/tactical naval war, treating them essentially just like any other ship counter. It leads to wildly ahistorical behavior and results. The CP's are NOT constantly in motion. The counters are placed in a sea zone, where they stay until they are sunk/damaged/aborted, which requires sailing out "reserve" CP's from a nearby port. The biggest issue with CP's isn't their movement, but it's the simplest to correct. The real problem is combat and how losses are suffered. That requires some rules that are too complex to include in a regular playthrough video, so I'll do one just on that specific topic.

[@jamescurran9002]

I just reread my rulebooks, and nowhere do i see where additional Bid Points garnered from PE statis is for only one turn. Are you sure youre interpreting that correctly?

[@clarkcommando1983]

I may be posting on the wrong video. But question you talked abkut an alternate sub warfare system. I found some rules on boardgame geek do you know are they what you brought up

[@thetabletopsedge]

To my knowledge, no. The sub warfare rules I've mentioned are house rules that my local group developed back in the late 1990's/early 2000's.

[@clarkcommando1983]

@@thetabletopsedge ok good to know as I’m preparing to play a combined wif deluxe plus DOD gsme. I havnt played wif in over ten years. Big excited used to play All the time

[@joshuabolt7800]

What I'm wondering regarding that convoy rule is the allowance to get new convoys into the seazones before the end of the turn. Obviously we are way off the battle of the Atlantic, but say the germans blow up a load of British shipping, in RAW you're able to being new convoys in to supplement and not completely lose those resources (albeit potentially way less). It sounds like that isn't possible with this house rule. What's the rationale behind it? It may also factor into that convoy attack rule, no idea

[@thetabletopsedge]

One of the two biggest mistakes Harry made in WiF's rules evolution over the years was to try to treat convoys (and SUB's) like other, regular naval units. The way convoy attacks are handled in the current rules (and have been since SiF was introduced shortly before Final Edition was released) is bad. Convoy losses are dependent entirely upon extreme dice results. What I mean by that, is that in our group's experience, the vast majority of turns see either absolutely zero CP losses, or they see a major sea zone completely denuded of all CP's, breaking the convoy pipeline. Weather plays a role, but it's driven largely by the search rolls for each side. The resource transportation by convoys doesn't belong in the tactical, or operational, sphere of the conflict. It is strategic warfare, and should be treated as such. The objections we have had with the rules as written (for about 25 years now) is based both on a historical argument AND a game play argument. Not only do the convoy attack rules not present anything remotely resembling what happened during the war, they also degrade the game play experience. For instance, in most of our games the Germans never even bother to try a Battle of the Atlantic because it's never worth the effort. It is very easy to make most of the CW convoys practically invulnerable to SUB attacks, barring really extreme search rolls. And because it requires such extreme search rolls for the SUB's to have any effect at all on the CP's, it means that they are going to have an outsized effect on them when do manage to finally get to attack them, sinking most/many, and likely causing the CW player to simply abort everything in the sea zone to prevent more dire losses. This, of course, results in the breaking of the pipeline and the loss of ALL resources traveling through it. Which will have the knock on effect of completely trashing the CW's gearing limits due to her production being reduced by 75-80% one turn. "So just have some CP's sitting in nearby ports than can sail out later in the turn and replace the lost/aborted ones," you might say. First, that wasn't how things worked historically. There were never a bunch of merchantmen sitting around in a port waiting to rush out and replace those that were sunk. Second, it could easily require 10-15 CP's to replace those lost/aborted (just in one sea zone). Considering the CW starts the 1939 scenario with only 81, that's putting roughly 20% of her entire merchant marine into "reserve". Third, given the vagaries of how the turn ends, you may not have an opportunity to sail those "reserve" CP's out and the pipeline is cut anyway. Finally, it's not practical to have enough unused CP's lying around to do this. Sadly, the changes introduced with SiF have really destroyed the sub war. I will be doing a video in the not-too-distant future discussing this subject in greater detail, and also presenting the house rules we have been using for some time. In our experience, the house rules have provided a much more accurate feel to the sub war, while increasing the overall enjoyment of WiF. Your concern about lost resources is legitimate if the RAW convoy attack rules are used. As you say, if the Germans sink/abort some CP's during the turn, there is no way for the CW to replace those CP's. In our house rules, convoys are only attacked at the end of the turn, just prior to the Return to Base Segment, in a special Convoy Attack Phase. Which means there is no need to mess with any CP's until the end of the turn, once you've done the Convoy Pipeline Placement Segment at the beginning. More details to follow in the upcoming video.

[@joshuabolt7800]

@@thetabletopsedge ahhh, I see. Thank you! I'm still new to WiF all things considered (compared to veterans that is, I have been playing now for over a year), so its always interesting to look at things like this. I'll watch out for that video in future!

[@denisdelarive7753]

@@thetabletopsedge Nice idea, and looking forward to seeing how you can make this work. I am wondering if a small change might help reflect the more global nature of the CP usage and add restrictions as to where you ships can actually go. I think that the placement of CP should be made according to ocean and sea zones for a few reasons. 1) as stated before to reflect the limits of shipping availability due to long distances and number of ships. 2) to account for blocked passages and limited sea access, as is the case for the Soviet Union, (ships in the Arctic Sea just can't get to the Black Sea as easily as CW ships moving in the Atlantic, also applies for the Caspian Sea). 3) forces nations to actually plan where to place new ships, and creates delays similar to those that the US had planning invasions. 4) forces nations to build more CP, and makes those few minors CP that much more interesting. 5) prevents abuses like instant Japanese CPs in the Red Sea, or German CPs saving the bacon of good old Rommel, after the Italian CPs are sunk. My final idea is to consider certain Seas as restricted. And use larger areas with natural cutoff points, like Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Far East, with the land locked sea of Europe, each being a zone. Considering the convoy battles I agree that it needs to be better, I just wonder how you would handle events like raiders getting to CP before any SCS could stop them? This could lead to unfortunate advantage to the defender since the raiders just don't get a shot before being sunk or running for home. Early German SCS raiders did scatter and damage some CW convoys. We can get back to that when you explain your house rule. I think you are right about cutting CP chains since the battle of HX 229 - SC 122 was the closest the Germany got. About house rules; how do you handle the English Channel, (in WiFFA they make it a seperate zone), I find it best to include it in the Bay of Biscay zone to account for the limited movement rule, (Channel to North Sea). The whole North Sea - Channel - Norway Coast is such a mess in WiF.

[@davidkujala3603]

When is next vid due plz

[@thetabletopsedge]

I meant to reply to this yesterday, but as you probably know by now the next episode just dropped. I am hoping to get another episode finished this week.

[@davidkujala3603]

Yeaaaaa