From: caraher@pn32.petnet.med.umich.edu
Subject: Re: New WiF stuff (PiF)
Organization: pet/cyclotron
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:44:23 GMT

>What I'm wondering is:  does this play exclusively with the 5th edition rules,
>or could I fudge it on to my 4.5 ed. game?

Offhand I can't think of any reason PiF won't work with WiF 4.5; the 5th
Edition air rules and the 5th Ed. charts are included in the package, so if
there are any 4.5 / 5.0 changes that matter you'll get the rules anyway.

Personally, I think the argument that PiF may be overkill because the same
progressive improvement in equipment also occurred in armor units is mostly
sound. The standard air game in WiF works well enough, but I think the key
change in PiF is the effect of variable aircraft ranges. So while a 1944
armored division may outclass its 1939 counterpart in terms of firepower, in
game terms that would be reflected as an increase in combat strength.
Progressive improvements in equipment by all sides would presumably "cancel
out" (more or less), so using the same force pool throughout the war is not so
bad for ground units. But for air units, the situation is far more dramatic
because of the variable range of air units. Early in the war, fighter ranges
are typically from 3-5 hexes. By late in the war, this has
doubled (except for some of the German fighters), which can have an enormous
impact on play.
I agree that the "notional escorts" included in the high air-air strengths of
US STRs is a reasonable machanism to reflect long-range fighter escorts. I'd
like to reassure you all that the balance has been maintained by lowering the
air-air values of *all* bombers (there are a few bombers that can go it alone
vs. fighters, but not many; escorts are almost mandatory in PiF).

I'm an aviation fanatic so PiF is a must for me, but I can see how it may slow
the game down a bit (not because of new rules so much as because each aircraft
has significantly different capabilities, making rebases very important). So if
you're content with the WiF5 air game just keep on playing that; PiF just gives
you a few more levers to pull, and is instructive on the operational problems
each side faced in effectively using airpower in a way that WiF cannot be.

By the way, CVs are outside the scope of the expansion, which can have some
peculiar effects in the Pacific which are somewhat offset by revised naval air
rules for land-based aircraft (each sea box section costs 2 MP in PiF).

I've played a couple turns of Fatal Alliances solitaire. Yes, there is a
healthy set of errata, mostly in the scenario setup. Even though they share a
game system, FA and WiF feel a lot different. You very quickly lear that in FA,
you simply cannot beat any decent army on the field. Some of the weaker powers
may be defeated in battle, but for the most part you have to play for morale
effects. This makes naval battles the ultimate gamble, because LS and HS damage
count for large morale effects. There is strategic bombing, oddly enough; the
effects are mostly on morale, and can go against either side. There is little
diplomacy in this game; there's an optional rule to allow both sides to try to
sway Italy by shipping her resources, but apart from that the die is cast by
the time the players set up the board (Germany is more or less forced to
execute the Schlieffen plan by
set-up constraints). There is a procedure analogous to WiF US entry for each
major power that starts neutral (CW, Italy, US, Ottoman Empire), but
you can't easily influence CW or Ottoman entry by more than a turn or two,
and there aren't enough events with big entry effects to make playing the entry
tables interesting until the US gets close to joining in.

Finally, I'd like to apologize to Dave - I'm new to this game and set the
distribution of my PiF summary to US or North America (*oops*)...