Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Current Campaign Begins

Expand Messages
  • LGB
    ... have ... weakness ... cities (this ... Chinese ... Japan to ... face a ... accurate ... Interesting rule- you guys really want to make China a sideshow
    Message 1 of 43 , Dec 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, devinc@a... wrote:
      > We are starting up what we hope is a final alpha test of WIFH. We
      have
      > adopted a great many house rules. Some new ones we are using in
      this campaign:
      >
      > 1. China Fix:
      >
      > A) All Chinese units (including Communist) suffer from attack
      weakness
      >
      > B) All factories in Un-Occupied China are blue
      >
      > C) All resources in Un-Occupied China can only be used by China
      >
      > D) All victory cities in Un-Occupied China are now non-victory
      cities (this
      > matters for Chorus of Nations)
      >
      > E) Every city in Un-Occupied China taken by Japan increases the
      Chinese
      > partisan number by 2.
      >
      > The net intent of these is to make China extremely unattractive for
      Japan to
      > attack and vice versa. It also means a Japan conquering China will
      face a
      > garrison value of around 40.
      >
      > These Chinese changes are designed to result in a more historically
      accurate
      > Chinese stalemate, and as a result of item #2 below.


      Interesting rule- you guys really want to make China a sideshow huh?
      My initial reaction is that there is now zero Japanese incentive to
      do anything in China except strat bombing them silly. I am not
      certain that all of occupied China yielding nothing if taken is
      historically accurate. I am also far from certain that giving the
      Chi-Coms attack weakness is enough of a fix. Assuming China will be
      attacked very little, if at all, one might imagine China going over
      to the strategic offensive earlier than is mostly seen. Please let
      us know how it turns out.

      Lane
    • devinc@aol.com
      ... Unfortunately, that s not the only problem. There is simply an inherent problem with masses of LBA sitting in the 1 box waiting to pounce. That just didn t
      Message 43 of 43 , Dec 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 12/3/2003 10:17:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, RG1066 writes:

        > It isn't just the speed of planes vs ships it is the speed of planes vs planes and the speed of planes and ships vs LBA airbases. I view surprise in favor of the naval side vs the LBA side as something on the order of catching them on the ground and bombing and strafing their airbase or catching them in an unfavorable air to air situation. Something that represents a devastating decisive surprise attack when it is planes vs ships should not represent a very minor annoyance when it is planes vs planes. It would be like going to Las Vegas and being allowed to take 95% of your bet back after you see what the cards are and having them deal the cards again; sooner or later you are going to win big. As RAW stands now there is a huge disparity in the effects of surprise if a side only has LBA involved in a sea zone. Instead of trying to rectify the situation by limiting the amount of LBA allowed in the sea zone I would prefer to fix the real problem of making
        > the axis LBA take their chances if they want to play.
        >
        > Rich Gause

        Unfortunately, that's not the only problem. There is simply an inherent problem with masses of LBA sitting in the 1 box waiting to pounce. That just didn't happen.

        Devin
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.