From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: New WiF stuff
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 12:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.075727.10949@honte.uleth.ca>, std_wilson@hg.uleth.ca writes...

Thanks to those that followed up my request for info on the new WiF goodies.
If only I lived in the US, I'd have snarfed them all up in about a millisecond.

A few comments (admittedly underinformed):

1) Concerning different plane types in PiF, while it sounds like fun, I wonder
if it isn't going a little too far.  Myself, I think the old system was
perfectly sound.  A good unit drawn at the start of the game stays as good
through the game, so what?  Why not consider that the unit is continuously
upgraded with new unit types throughout the war?  The elite units of the
armies and air forces were usually exactly the ones who were the first to
receive new and better equipment when it became available, so what's the
problem?  In cases where there was a clear _relative_ improvement in aircraft
performace, say with the US in the Pacific, this is perfectly well handled
by introducing new and more powerful generic air units (and CVs), as the game
does.  While it is still possible to draw a US 4 factor FTR in 1945, the
_average_ quality level is better then.

Speaking of CVs, presumably they fall outside this upgrade, no?

I suppose the next upgrade will be for different models of tanks in each
armored corps, an anomaly no less pronounced than for planes: there is
obviously no comparison between the combat power of a 1939 armored division
and a 1944 armored division...

2) Concerning the US P51 bomber escorts, which someone said were missing in
WiF, it always seemed clear that these were factored, in a perfectly
reasonable way, into the very high air-to-air strengths of the US STR.  I
suppose separating the two is OK, since it would allow the US to use these
better units in different roles, if desired, as long as the air-to-air
strengths of the bombers themselves are lowered.

3) Scandinavian expansion map: great idea, which I thought of kludging up
several times myself.  Although with the changes to combat in off-map boxes
(to make it more realistic and more difficult to capture the huge areas
represented so easily) in 5th ed, it is not as glaring a need as before.
There are other changes I have thought of doing to the maps, mainly adding
some land areas (Madagascar, South America, the West Indies, etc.) and changing
around the connections between sea areas.  It is interesting that the maps to
the game SS Amerika are the same scale as the European WiF map...another
possibility might be to make new Pacific maps at the same scale as the European
and eventually include most or all the world at a consistent scale.

4) Fatal Alliances:  Sounds great too, I wonder if it includes many diplomatic
elements (as the name might suggest).  Gotta track down this one.


>	The group I play WiF with is experiencing a problem with 5th ed. and 
>I would like to know if anyone else has experienced the same and if so
>what solutions they have come up with.  It is also possible that I have 
>missed something in the rules in which case I would also like to be        
>enlightened.  The problem exists with the Russo-German Garrison Rules. 
>The standard sequence of events in the 1939 scenario is Germany declares 
>war on Poland 1st impulse followed by the British and French declaring war 
>on Germany in their 1st impulse.  With the declaration on Poland by Germany
>of the partition line.  When the conquest phase comes it is conceivable    
>that Germany will not have finished off Poland but the Soviets will definitely
>and garrison rules now apply.  None ofthe German units in Polish ZOC will 
>count and it is conceivable that the Russians can break the garrison 
>requirements and thus enter the war in the Nov/Dec turn of 1939 - game over.
>I admit that the likelyhood of Poland lasting more than one turn is slim 
>attempt this on their second impulse and thus screw up the German offensive.

I think your editor is deleting some lines, since a few of your sentences seem
cut off.

You might want to check the exact wording of the rule. I seem to recall that
Germany and Russia must share a common border...until Poland falls, Russians
adjacent to the Polish (as opposed to German) border do not count.  I recall
worrying about this once and deciding if the rule was followed to the letter
there was not a serious problem.  And anyway, the chance of Poland not falling
to a competent and full-strength German attack are pretty small.  I'll check
the rules though.


Thanks again,

Dave