Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 'stuffing' the border

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: 'stuffing' the border Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 9:36:28 PM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WiFDaniel

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Having played a substantial number of CWiF games, and still doing so, I have not found any reason to complain about the entry chit values. All the games have progressed in the US entry level in a fashion very comparable to the boardgame's levels and the US actions and entry into the war has been within the expected range in time.


I'm sure you did but... have you played a successful stuff in CWiF?

Some groups/players just never try to stuff the border.

Daniel



Yes in some games stuffing has worked and in others not. No concerted effort to draw it to the ultimate end has been made in my experience. Our Russian has either had a pretty solid stuff situation or just left speedbumps by spring of 41.

Stuffing in the opposite direction has also occurred with the Germans busy in other areas and in those the Russians have not been able to DoW Germany until JF43.

Lars

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 31
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 10:13:10 PM   
bredsjomagnus

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		I have hardly played WIF at all, but if I understand things right the chance that US joins the war increase if the peace between Germany and Russia remains?!?! If that is the way it works in the boardgame, it just sounds strange. Why should USA be more and more motivated to declare war on Germany the longer the peace (non aggression pact) is in effect? If the peace or non aggression pact should influence at all I think it should be in the opposite way. What am I missing?


/Magnus

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 32
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 10:27:34 PM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

I have hardly played WIF at all, but if I understand things right the chance that US joins the war increase if the peace between Germany and Russia remains?!?! If that is the way it works in the boardgame, it just sounds strange. Why should USA be more and more motivated to declare war on Germany the longer the peace (non aggression pact) is in effect? If the peace or non aggression pact should influence at all I think it should be in the opposite way. What am I missing?


Short answer is: it is the way it works but we do not have an explaination why.

I do not believe there is any "wifzen" here. However, the more I think of of it, the more I realize it works as a nice play balance.

One boring but winning strategy is for Germany to sitz on its Eastern border. Holding the pact until JF43 - like Lars mentioned - or even until 44 - I've seen it happen - is pretty efficient in terms of attrition and final objectives count. When Germans have a double line of triple stacks on the border, behind the Bug or the Vistula, believe me, Russians don't go very far.

All that to say that, in terms of game pleasure, it would not be a nonsense to speed up US Entry if Pact holds forever.

Daniel

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)
Post #: 33
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 10:43:57 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		You could "wifzen" it by suggesting that a continued non-aggression pact between Germany & USSR means that Britain is "standing alone" longer as the sole fighter against Germany, so the US is more motivated to get in to help the British.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 34
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 11:32:20 PM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

I have hardly played WIF at all, but if I understand things right the chance that US joins the war increase if the peace between Germany and Russia remains?!?! If that is the way it works in the boardgame, it just sounds strange. Why should USA be more and more motivated to declare war on Germany the longer the peace (non aggression pact) is in effect? If the peace or non aggression pact should influence at all I think it should be in the opposite way. What am I missing?


/Magnus


The USSR and Germany “peacefully” engaged in an arms race. While each are massing troops on each other’s borders. Sooner or later one side or the other is going to start something.

Its not that they are at peace but they are gearing up for war with each other.

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)
Post #: 35
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/13/2007 1:41:05 PM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline 		Has anyone eventually asked Harry for his perspective on USE/Pact chits?

Daniel

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 36
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/13/2007 3:16:07 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WiFDaniel
Has anyone eventually asked Harry for his perspective on USE/Pact chits?

Not yet, but if no one does, I'll do .
Anyway, I'm sending him periodicaly the list of rules questions for rules clarifications, I can slip this into the lot.

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 37
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/13/2007 8:48:33 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		hi folks, somehow my connection timed out in the middle of a reply and when I refreshed I was logged in as guest and then my browser wouldn't load my cookie with my password and when I reset my password the forum software took my name information from my email account, where I accidentally typed my first name twice a long, long time ago and left it that way, and this forum software won't let me re-use the login trees or edit my login name, so I'm on a new name again. this is about the fifth time this has happened to me, I don't mean to change names like this but I can't help what software does. My name is Brian Jarvinen and I am from Michigan, perhaps I know some of you from WiFCon actually.

Anyhow, I have never seen the USSR/German use of chits impact US entry as I've never seen anyone try and stuff the border in a dozen+ games of WiF. Most people think it is impossible and/or too scary. When I have tried it it has become moot as the Axis selected a 1942 Barbarossa regardless of what the Russians were doing.

The change to unlimited chits with the same probability distribtution would be a definite change in the play of the game. Although the US can't reveal exact chit values, if they draw a lot of 0s and 1s it is quite common for them to suggest to the other Allies to play more aggressively (or more conservatively with high chits). The USSR with probably some face down defensive chits has their own information to make decisions on. With a lot of German offensive chits face-up, everyone can look at those for some more information, particularly the Japanese player. Changing to an infinite pool would change the tempo of the necessary Allied decisions - with a lot of low USE chits, the Allies need to make their decisions on DoWs on Itay or Persia (two most common examples) and perhaps some initial US Entry option decisions, based on the finite pool, i.e. make the decision before the US draws some better chits, which is increasingly likely in a finite pool. With an unlimited pool, a low or high chit could appear at any time and this is a big change to how the system works. It would also have quite an impact on how the Japanese view the face-up offensive entry chits and the chits revealed as entry options are selected. I can see Steve's point about no limit on electronic counters, but the best comparison I've seen above is the idea about the deck of cards. Changing the deck is a definite change to the game.


Going back to the 'stuff' question, I started working on those build plans a long time ago in response to the idea that Russia can't survive a full 1941 Barbarossa. I disagree on that, I think it is not a slam-dunk either way, it is nail-biting wargame action. If you don't think Russia can do it it is your choice to deny the option to the Axis, and that is a lot less nail-biting actually. I think that if the Germans don't launch some sort of Balkan campaign concurrent with a French campaign, the probability the Russians can deny it is higher than 75%. (If the Germans go into Yugoslavia and get the Italians to supply the bulk of the garrison they could boost their garrison number quite a bit, at the risk of probably speeding up the progress of the CW campaign against Italy, especially for a CW smart enough to build AMPHs early on). As the Germans draw twice as many chits (and are face-up), their chits should trend more towards the average than the Russians. So the bigger variable is the Russian chits and if they draw a lot of unlucky low ones they will know this by late 1940 and can act accordingly (in 1941 the odds of low chits decrease significantly). Remember that the maximum numbers the Germans can generate are drawn from the Germans putting perhaps 95% of their units and BPs on the eastern front, without losses in 39 & 40, and they still can't match the Russian numbers based on average chits.

I also posted that information so the 'stuff' can be a valid Russian AIO choice. Many players have never seen it done, or just house-rule the pact-breaking entry system out of existence, so it could be a good way for the AI to vary the human players WiF experience. It would probably draw some criticism when the AI does it succesfully; many WiF players feel nothing could have prevented Hitler from this decision, but Harry has made this part of the game and it is not even an optional rule.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 38
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/13/2007 11:13:46 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Poster formerly known as trees... (sorry, couldn't resist)

You've got your chits inverted: It's offensive pact chits that are face-down, and defensive chits that are face-up. So everyone can see what the USSR has when it's trying to hold the pact in 40-41, but not what Germany has.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 39
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/14/2007 12:09:49 AM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
Anyhow, I have never seen the USSR/German use of chits impact US entry as I've never seen anyone try and stuff the border in a dozen+ games of WiF. Most people think it is impossible and/or too scary. When I have tried it it has become moot as the Axis selected a 1942 Barbarossa regardless of what the Russians were doing.


That's what I meant when I earlier said some players never stuff, or even try to stuff the border.

"most people think it is impossible" is relevant for those who never ever tried. Everytime I've stuffed the border (be it as Germany or Russia) it has worked.

Daniel

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 40
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/14/2007 12:13:27 AM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think that if the Germans don't launch some sort of Balkan campaign concurrent with a French campaign, the probability the Russians can deny it is higher than 75% (...)

As the Germans draw twice as many chits (and are face-up), their chits should trend more towards the average than the Russians. So the bigger variable is the Russian chits and if they draw a lot of unlucky low ones they will know this by late 1940 and can act accordingly (in 1941 the odds of low chits decrease significantly).


At this stage, we need to be fact-based and run the numbers. Qualitative comments don't help as much, IMHO.

Daniel

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 41
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/14/2007 12:16:30 AM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

Many players ... just house-rule the pact-breaking entry system out of existence...many WiF players feel nothing could have prevented Hitler from this decision, but Harry has made this part of the game and it is not even an optional rule.


This can turn into a highly-debated discussion, and we'd better not get there.

"many WiF players" is again relevant to some circles only. Among the 15+ players I've played with the last 5 years, none thought it an issue.

As I have kept saying for a while, the only way out of this one is to ask Harry.

Cheers,

Daniel

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 42
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/15/2007 7:32:23 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		btw, thanks for the poster way at the top who pointed out that neutrals can't advance build. I've built the 1942 8-1 GARR in advance many times as Russia and no one has ever mentioned that to me. You learn a tiny bit of WiF every time you dive into it.

and yeah I had the offensive/defensive face-up/face-down reversed up there. It usually takes me until about Mar/Apr 1940 in any given game to get that straightened out.

I don't think anyone will ever be able to come up with a hard probability # for chances to break the pact, there are just too many variables. As I am fond of saying, the outcomes in the Balkans are truly Byzantine.

I've personally known a few people who scrap parts of the pact rules. Whether that is 'many' or not I can't say. We don't change them in my regular face-to-face game.

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 43
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/15/2007 3:40:34 PM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

I don't think anyone will ever be able to come up with a hard probability # for chances to break the pact, there are just too many variables.


I've observed that for a while.

Should you split USE from Ge/Ru pact, and have an infinite pool, probabilities would be veryeasy.

However, handling maths for a finite pool of chits & taking USE into account makes it extremely difficult to compute probabilities. (the closest I've seen is the Monte Carlo simulation posted by a geek on the WiFFE mailing list some months ago. But then again, it did not have any practical use)

This complexity might well be the rationale behind the system: make sure it stays a black box.

Daniel


(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 44
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/15/2007 10:15:07 PM   
coregames


Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline 		It's interesting when the US enters the war before the USSR does. This tends to dump lower quality chits back into the pool and affects the probability in chit draws.

_____________________________

"The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie." -- Lasker

Keith Henderson

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 45
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/16/2007 7:59:26 PM   
coregames


Posts: 470
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

It's interesting when the US enters the war before the USSR does. This tends to dump lower quality chits back into the pool and affects the probability in chit draws.

I guess it works both ways, if the German and Russian garrison markers are returned to the pool before the US comes in.

_____________________________

"The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie." -- Lasker

Keith Henderson

(in reply to coregames)
Post #: 46
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/17/2007 1:12:05 PM   
sw30

 

Posts: 410
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: San Francisco, CA
Status: offline 		For this analysis, why even bothering about chits?  Chits additions come after the modified garrison value  If you're doing statisitcal analysis, even with infinite pools, the German vs Russian expected average is exactly 2:1, therefore, they do not mathematically matter.

Do a search on the yahoo groups for this, I did an analysis earlier that covered roughly the same points, but came out a lot closer than you have it.  It's a lot riskier than you think it is.

Jeff


_____________________________


(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 47
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/17/2007 6:13:43 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Why would they not matter? If the Germans do not have quite a 2:1 superiority in unit garrison value when they are trying to break the pact, there is always the possibility that they will manage, with a higher than average chit value, to make the cut.

By contrast, if the USSR has a higher average defensive chit value than Germany has an average offensive chit value, then it's a stuffed border.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to sw30)
Post #: 48
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/17/2007 8:29:04 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Why would they not matter? If the Germans do not have quite a 2:1 superiority in unit garrison value when they are trying to break the pact, there is always the possibility that they will manage, with a higher than average chit value, to make the cut.

By contrast, if the USSR has a higher average defensive chit value than Germany has an average offensive chit value, then it's a stuffed border.

I believe Jeff's point here was that if the chits are perfectly equal, then the calculation for stuffing the border might show it as a 'certainty'. While in reality, the variation in the chit values might give the Germans a (totally hypothetical number here) 40% chance of declaring war. Even if it were only 25%, that is a very high risk for the USSR to take given the consequences of the stuff failing.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 49
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/17/2007 10:40:48 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sw30

For this analysis, why even bothering about chits?  Chits additions come after the modified garrison value  If you're doing statisitcal analysis, even with infinite pools, the German vs Russian expected average is exactly 2:1, therefore, they do not mathematically matter.



excellent idea, thanks! I'll take another look.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sw30

Do a search on the yahoo groups for this, I did an analysis earlier that covered roughly the same points, but came out a lot closer than you have it.  It's a lot riskier than you think it is.

Jeff



how did it come out closer? The Russians could build 5 pilots right off the bat and delay their HQ-I's if they want a stronger garrison #. I think Harry wants it to be close and risky, but how much risk is present is difficult to determine.

(in reply to sw30)
Post #: 50
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/18/2007 4:37:17 AM   
sw30

 

Posts: 410
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: San Francisco, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
Why would they not matter? If the Germans do not have quite a 2:1 superiority in unit garrison value when they are trying to break the pact, there is always the possibility that they will manage, with a higher than average chit value, to make the cut.


For the Analysis, it does not matter (unless you want to deliberately skew the results one way or the other.) During the game, it does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
how did it come out closer? The Russians could build 5 pilots right off the bat and delay their HQ-I's if they want a stronger garrison #. I think Harry wants it to be close and risky, but how much risk is present is difficult to determine.


I don't actually remember if I posted my last analysis before I left the yahoo groups list. But I think the difference was that I did build 5 pilots. (I don't really care about pre-war Russian FTR2s anyways. LND2s FTW!) I also assumed that all HQs were built (can't imagine either attacking or defending a barbarossa without ALL HQs...) Don't remember what else was different. You can also get some BPs by limited breakdowns of Inf, I think that was much of the difference.

_____________________________


(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 51
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/18/2007 5:20:08 PM   
ptey

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 9/25/2006
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: offline 		Great analysis, I dont agree with one of the initial premises though, namely that its not worth it for Russia to do anything else. Its imo well worth it for Russia to deploy on the manchurian border, to put some pressure on the japanese. This will take some pressure of China, by forcing Japan to deploy a fair amount of troops against a possible Soviet invasion. Russia dont even have to declare war to get the desired effect, and should Germany show that they want to do something else than barb in 41, Russia will be ready to exploit this by definently going to war with Japan.
If Japan dont take Russia seriously when Russia is starting the deployment against them, Russia should definently punish Japan. It shouldnt be problem to do this, and still have the army back in Europe to face Adolf in 41.
With that said, Russia should still maintain a garrison in Europe so Adolf wont be able to do a 40 Barb if France falls quickly.

If Russia do follow a stuff strategy. There is a good chance that Japan can kill China or atleast cripple her badly. At the same time Germany will have to choice of either also stuffing or just do something else in 41. If Germany decides to also stuff and manages to break the pact, the axis have most likely won the game - China is going to die and so is the Red Army. If Germany decides just to do something else than Barb in 41, Russia will have sat around doing nothing for the first 2½ years of the war. Meaning that chances are that China is dead or close to it and a good chunk of the mid-eastern oil is now axis controlled.


< Message edited by ptey -- 7/18/2007 5:23:26 PM >

(in reply to sw30)
Post #: 52
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/19/2007 2:23:32 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		I agree Ptey, I did say you don't need the garrison points from Asia until 1941, so you might as well use them for pressure on the Japanese.

I don't find China all that fragile though. With good defensive tactics (staying double stacked in the mountain line), Japan can't get the greatest of attacks and unless they roll really good each and every time their progress will be slow.

I didn't say stuffing is the only thing the USSR should do. I'm just saying it is a very viable choice for them. I have played the Russians and not crossed any international borders nor 'stuffed' the German border. I think that is a good strategy if you have confidence in your other two Allied teammates. But against a lackadaisical Axis that obviously has no other ideas than a Summer '41 Barbarossa, it can be quite a gain for the Allies. I do think it is best for the Russians not to be generating -9 and -17 US Entry chit hits though.

I looked at the numbers without chits and it still looks pretty good for the Russians. Given a static situation in the Balkans I just can't see the German economy generating enough garrison points against a Russian economy dedicated solely to creating them. That is because the Germans have to have a few bare minimums on the map in areas other than within three hexes of the Russians, and they are likely to lose at least a few corps along the way in 39-40. Of course if the CW is busy building the ultimate convoy lines ever with both Sunderlands and lots of new SCS and CV and nary an AMPH, MAR, or PARA, perhaps Germany can get away with no garrison in France.

(in reply to ptey)
Post #: 53
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/20/2007 5:28:26 AM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I agree Ptey, I did say you don't need the garrison points from Asia until 1941, so you might as well use them for pressure on the Japanese.

I don't find China all that fragile though. With good defensive tactics (staying double stacked in the mountain line), Japan can't get the greatest of attacks and unless they roll really good each and every time their progress will be slow.

I didn't say stuffing is the only thing the USSR should do. I'm just saying it is a very viable choice for them. I have played the Russians and not crossed any international borders nor 'stuffed' the German border. I think that is a good strategy if you have confidence in your other two Allied teammates. But against a lackadaisical Axis that obviously has no other ideas than a Summer '41 Barbarossa, it can be quite a gain for the Allies. I do think it is best for the Russians not to be generating -9 and -17 US Entry chit hits though.

I looked at the numbers without chits and it still looks pretty good for the Russians. Given a static situation in the Balkans I just can't see the German economy generating enough garrison points against a Russian economy dedicated solely to creating them. That is because the Germans have to have a few bare minimums on the map in areas other than within three hexes of the Russians, and they are likely to lose at least a few corps along the way in 39-40. Of course if the CW is busy building the ultimate convoy lines ever with both Sunderlands and lots of new SCS and CV and nary an AMPH, MAR, or PARA, perhaps Germany can get away with no garrison in France.


If a partisan shows up in France, an allied player can simply air transport reinforcements onto it. Out of supply hexes can be invaded by SCS because they have 0 defense value.

No garrison is unfeasible IMO. I leave a scrub & wash force behind that can slow a large effort, and can stymie anything less.


< Message edited by Zorachus99 -- 7/20/2007 5:29:08 AM >

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 54
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/20/2007 12:59:20 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline 		I would like to chime in to correct a few things I think are wrong by RAW7aug04 :
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
If a partisan shows up in France, an allied player can simply air transport reinforcements onto it.

Not all that simple. Only Free French or French units cooperate with Free French PART in France, so CW or US units could not be air transported onto those PART.

quote:

Out of supply hexes can be invaded by SCS because they have 0 defense value.

Not all that simple neither. Now notional only have -1 if they cannot trace an infinite supply line. So basicaly what is needed is for the notional to be isolated, being out of supply is not enough anymore.


< Message edited by Froonp -- 7/20/2007 1:00:39 PM >

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 55
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/20/2007 5:12:27 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		The point is that leaving a country with a 15 partisan value defenceless is asking for trouble, even if the Allies aren't up to invading in 1941.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 56
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/20/2007 9:57:23 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
The point is that leaving a country with a 15 partisan value defenceless is asking for trouble, even if the Allies aren't up to invading in 1941.

Enormous problems.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 57
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/21/2007 5:31:43 AM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Not all that simple neither. Now notional only have -1 if they cannot trace an infinite supply line. So basicaly what is needed is for the notional to be isolated, being out of supply is not enough anymore.


EH?

What's this? Did I miss some updated rule? OH MY GOD!!! AUUGGHHH!!!! NOOOOOOOOO.......

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 58
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/21/2007 5:57:06 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Not all that simple neither. Now notional only have -1 if they cannot trace an infinite supply line. So basicaly what is needed is for the notional to be isolated, being out of supply is not enough anymore.


EH?

What's this? Did I miss some updated rule? OH MY GOD!!! AUUGGHHH!!!! NOOOOOOOOO.......

If you are losing your current WIF FE game-in-progress, this is an excellent reason for why you have to "start over". If you are ahead, don't mention it, and hope your opponent doesn't notice the error in how you have been playing the game.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 59
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/23/2007 8:20:37 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		I think the change to the notional rule is at least three years old... that said, given the sheer number of rules in the game, missing one or two is inevitable. Indeed, my fellow Allies insisted on stuffing the UK with Brazilians & Mexicans, even though they can't because we don't cooperate and they don't have any HQ's for foreign troop commitment.

We're banking on our opponents not noticing while we quietly extricate them.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: 'stuffing' the border Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.969