For example: If the Allies have 6 LBA in the 4 section and 10 in the 3 section and rolls a 2 for its search number, it may include a maximum of 12 LBA in each round of combat, and no more than 9 of these may be from the 3 section. Rationale: LBA never dominated sea
zones the way they do in WIF. Specifically, Axis FTR and NAV
hordes waiting in the 2 box to get lucky and smash Allied fleets
is a very unrealistic tactic. This rule brings CVs back as important
means of power projections. Marine units are not halved when attacking across an all-sea hexside. Rationale: It makes no sense whatsoever
that marines invading off of landing craft from the open sea
are not halved, but doing the same thing across a short channel
suddenly halves their combat abilities. Invading across a channel
is at least as easy, if not easier, to conduct, and on a tactical
level there should be no difference between the two. A sub combat may only be called if one side has subs. Rationale: There were some funky
results that could be gained if a side got 4 surprise points
and called a sub combat with no subs present on either side.
The only missions which may be flown at night are:
Specifically, Ground Strike and Ground Support missions are
not allowed at night. Rationale: Except for a very few
Russian missions, almost no close support missions were flown
at night during WW2. The idea of hordes of night ground support
missions from WW2 aircraft borders on the absurd. Plus, Jeff's
head explodes whenever we discuss the subject.
The option from the 2008 World in Flames
Annual that allows the US to lend lease 1 build point or resource
to Russia each turn (except J/F) if Russia controls one of three
certain Siberian ports or cities is modified so that the US must
control Dutch Harbour. If the US does not control Dutch Harbour
during both the Lending Phase and the Production Phase of the
turn, then the Northern Lend Lease Route cannot be used.
Should this be the case, the resource or build point lent
to Russia is still wasted and cannot be used by the US. Rationale: This route went from
Alaska to Siberia and the US should have to at least minimally
maintain some sort of hold over the flight route. This also makes
Dutch Harbour somewhat more important and worthy of its victory
hex status.
All Norwegian air and land units with build dates prior to 1940
are changed to 1940.
With respect to Finland and Sweden, penalties for Allied declarations of war are doubled in 1939 and increased by 150% in 1940. Note such increases pertain to Chorus of Nations. If not using Chorus of Nations, such penalties could be applied to USE. Narvik now has absolutely no effect on Swedish resources. During any turn in which all of the Swedish resources are
Allied controlled or no Swedish resources are either German controlled
or being lent to Germany (irrespective of whether Germany actually
receives the resources), the cost of all oil-dependent units
built by Germany increase by 1 build point. This represents the
importance of Swedish iron ore to the German war effort. Rationale: WIF handles the entire
Norwegian situation very badly. Norway fell ridiculously easily
to the Germans once they landed, and the country's mobilization
was so disorganized that only a few battalions ever got into
combat.
Furthermore, the reason for the Norway campaign was Hitler's
fear that the Allies would invade Norway and then enter Sweden
and take over the Swedish iron ore fields. This house rule now
incentivizes the Allies to possibly try to take over the Swedish
iron ore, at great cost to Germany if successful), but makes
the penalties for such preemptive action before 1941 great enough
to hopefully not make it a no-brainer. Overall, this rule is
designed to encourage the German player to preempt the Allies
by DOWing and taking Norway easily in 1940. Rationale: Partisans are weak enough
in WIF without limiting the counter mix so severely that enough
cannot be placed around the world. In addition, this rule allows
for some territories to have tougher partisans than others. Do not apply a bonus for NAV or long ranged CVP when calculating the search points generated for a port strike. Rationale: It doesn't make sense
why NAV and long ranged CVP would somehow be better at port striking,
and the RAW leads to a weird situation where having a CVP with
4+ range as a fighter in the port strike somehow gives you surprise
points but having an even longer ranged FTR as a fighter does
not. Any and all bonuses for attacking, except for HQ support and ENG, are halved when the attacking units are halved or thirded. Rationale: It should be harder to
do the things represented by the attack bonuses when crossing
a river.
|
||
Click here to continue. | ||
Click here to return to the previous page. |