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  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/5/2009 9:55:00 PM   
Zorachus99


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

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Is your disappointment with the state of the game that you can't steamroll the Russians and win with the Axis every time? Or is it that as Germany, you can't DoW Russia when you want? These are two different kettles of fish.


Steamrolling Russia is something I have yet to see with the 2d10. My opinion is that the steamroll refer to happens more often with players of largely different skill; but that's a guess.

Answer: no

Am I dissapointed I can't DOW Russia when I want?

Answer: no, I'm not looking to DOW *whenever* I want.

However, when Germany has moved every spare unit to the Russian Front, and the rules say DOW is impossible primarily because your opponent has garbage units on the other side, I rebel. Germany can arbitrarily decalare on any country in the game except Russia... Why? I think there is some good logic to having a garrison to prevent gamey tactics (like just declaring war on russia to avoid suprize), but it doesn't justify a complete prevention of a '41 DOW.

The Soviet disposition did not prevent Germany declaring war historically, why should it in Wif? Because Russia gets blown out? I keep hearing 'russia gets blown out' as a defense of the idea that Germany shouldn't be allowed to attack Russia in '41. This is the worst reason I've ever heard.

In many years I've only seen the soviets conquered once, in '45. The weather was particularly abnormal. I've seen the russians mauled several times, pushed to the pacific several times, and also holding out until enough pressure is put on Germany/Italy to come back. We haven't even seen how the new map is going to affect war in the Urals etc...

*deep breath*

In the beginning, there were three stragies:
1) Sealion
2) Aligning or Fighting through Spain to Take Gibralter
3) Barb

As of the current ruleset only option #1 & #2 are really available when playing against a 'stuffer' like yourself. Making barb impossible ruins the game for me, others will have their own reaction.





_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 151
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/5/2009 10:47:21 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Maybe one solution could be to make an optional rule for different garrison values in regards to break neutrality pacts?

Maybe something like this?
ART, AT, AA: 1
Other divisions: 0.5
MIL, GAR: 0.5
HQ-A, ARM, MECH, SS unit: 3
HQ-I, MTN: 2
LND2, LND3: 1.5
Carrier plane unit: 0
other land or aircraft unit: 1

This gives a lower value to the cheap defencive units and units needed for an offence a higher value.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 152
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/5/2009 11:06:19 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline 		Orm

If it would work, it would be a good idea.

But have you calculated how it would affect the balance?

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 153
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/5/2009 11:37:00 PM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		A simple option could be to allow Germany to spend an Offensive chit to allow a DoW on Russia from M/J41 or perhaps J/A41 or later regardless of the garrison ratio.

Of course Germany could then just build an extra Offensive chit to use for this purpose but that would mean 15 BP of units less on the front so there is a real cost.

Lars

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 154
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/5/2009 11:43:09 PM   
BallyJ

 

Posts: 142
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline 		Please whatever you do it has to be an OPTIONAL RULE.
This is a fundamental untried change to a standard rule.
I thought we were waiting for WIFE.
Not some online version!
If this is soooooo bad why haven't ADG changed it?
Is it just possible that it is a case of the squeaky wheels getting the grease?
As you can tell I have concerns about this approach.
Before we change the game lets get it finished.
Sorry if this is a bit of a rant but I will say what I said before.
If the game is brocken (and I din't think it is) why do so many people love it so much?
Regards John

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 155
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 12:23:56 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: BallyJ

Please whatever you do it has to be an OPTIONAL RULE.
This is a fundamental untried change to a standard rule.
I thought we were waiting for WIFE.
Not some online version!
If this is soooooo bad why haven't ADG changed it?
Is it just possible that it is a case of the squeaky wheels getting the grease?
As you can tell I have concerns about this approach.
Before we change the game lets get it finished.
Sorry if this is a bit of a rant but I will say what I said before.
If the game is brocken (and I din't think it is) why do so many people love it so much?
Regards John

John,

I was quite clear that this would be an optional rule and it had to be easy to implement (5 minutes or less). My reasons for that parallel the concerns you stated.
---
Maybe the way to get around the uncertainty of untried solutions is make any change data driven. That is, a CSV (comma separated value) file would 'hold' the data related to the change. Then players could tweak that file as they desire.

A slightly more difficult to code change would be to have a form appear when this optional rule is chosen. The player would enter the 'numbers' he wants to use. I need to do the latter for the "Extended end of game" optional rule, which is why I haven't coded that yet. Once I have it done for extendeding the game, I'd just clone the form for the "Neutrality Pact restrictions" optional rule.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to BallyJ)
Post #: 156
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 12:25:33 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: hakon

Orm

If it would work, it would be a good idea.

But have you calculated how it would affect the balance?


I agree.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 157
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 1:17:25 AM   
BallyJ

 

Posts: 142
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline 		Thanks for the reply Steve.
Just had to put my 2 cents worth in.
Yes an optional (if it is really need is fine by me).
Keep up the good work.
Regards John

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 158
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 1:22:57 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		There are a lot of ideas out there on how to change the pact rules. Yet after all these years, none of them have been published by ADG.

The simplest one is this: an agreement before the game starts to not do this as the Russians. It can even be done before bidding if you are going that route. I for one, enjoy playing the Russians and am not afraid of a 1941 Barbarossa. In fact I find a 41 Barb to be a more enjoyable game as it is one featuring more mobile action and less solid lines for both sides. You really have to have faith in your western Allies to feel this way however. I am also one that feels the game overall favors the Allies slightly, and that Russia can survive a strong Barbarossa if all of the Allies are skilled players. Many would disagree with those points, particularly the second one.

I would suggest only this for MWiF: giving the players some control in this area. For the AI, a 'no-stuff' agreement should be something a player could pick. I can about guarantee that if the AI were to stuff the border against a brand new WiF player who has managed to subdue France on time on his first try and get everything ready in Poland and then that player were to learn how those pact braking rules he skimmed over really worked, that player would be pretty unhappy with his new wargame, kind of like how I felt playing Eastern Front:1941 on my Atari computer 20 years ago when I learned the computer player benefitted from perpetually increasing unit strengths, while mine stayed the same. I know Steve does not want to give the players ways to tie the AI's hands, and I agree with that, but as you can see from Zorach's first post today, this is a very important point among long-time players of the game. In an all-human-players game, I don't think anything would need to be done by the program, the players can work it out amongst themselves just as in table-top WiF.

Aside from that, I wouldn't suggest attempting to change this rule in the first computer edition of the game.


Zorach, it's too bad you don't have a player group that can make this issue work for you. Perhaps you could try playing the Russians a few times and agree not to stuff, to get some games in that way. If you are an "Axis Player" you really should try playing the Allies more anyway. It will improve your Axis play in the process.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 159
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 2:04:34 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1665
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline 		Wouldn't an easier/better tweek be to apply a %modifier to the garrison chits? That's an easy thing for the computer to do.

All you really have to do is get a hold of Harry and ask him: "Presuming the Russians and Germans are both maximizing their garrison values, and presuming average German casualties and time frame for the fall of France and the Balkens, what percentage chance should the Germans have of breaking the pact in M/J '41, and in J/A '41?

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 160
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 2:24:01 AM   
Zorachus99


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

ORIGINAL: brian brian

There are a lot of ideas out there on how to change the pact rules. Yet after all these years, none of them have been published by ADG.

The simplest one is this: an agreement before the game starts to not do this as the Russians. It can even be done before bidding if you are going that route. I for one, enjoy playing the Russians and am not afraid of a 1941 Barbarossa. In fact I find a 41 Barb to be a more enjoyable game as it is one featuring more mobile action and less solid lines for both sides. You really have to have faith in your western Allies to feel this way however. I am also one that feels the game overall favors the Allies slightly, and that Russia can survive a strong Barbarossa if all of the Allies are skilled players. Many would disagree with those points, particularly the second one.

I would suggest only this for MWiF: giving the players some control in this area. For the AI, a 'no-stuff' agreement should be something a player could pick. I can about guarantee that if the AI were to stuff the border against a brand new WiF player who has managed to subdue France on time on his first try and get everything ready in Poland and then that player were to learn how those pact braking rules he skimmed over really worked, that player would be pretty unhappy with his new wargame, kind of like how I felt playing Eastern Front:1941 on my Atari computer 20 years ago when I learned the computer player benefitted from perpetually increasing unit strengths, while mine stayed the same. I know Steve does not want to give the players ways to tie the AI's hands, and I agree with that, but as you can see from Zorach's first post today, this is a very important point among long-time players of the game. In an all-human-players game, I don't think anything would need to be done by the program, the players can work it out amongst themselves just as in table-top WiF.

Aside from that, I wouldn't suggest attempting to change this rule in the first computer edition of the game.


Zorach, it's too bad you don't have a player group that can make this issue work for you. Perhaps you could try playing the Russians a few times and agree not to stuff, to get some games in that way. If you are an "Axis Player" you really should try playing the Allies more anyway. It will improve your Axis play in the process.



I agree on pretty much everything you said.

Playing USSR and agreeing to not stuffing, whilst my oppenent continues to do so... not so fun IMO. Thanks for the words of wisdom.

Tinkering with garrison values of the actual units may not be a decent solution either way you look at it, because it either
a) forces the USSR to DOW to build it's militia.
or
b) makes it too easy to DOW early with Germany.

I don't think you should be cornered in either case. Clearly barbarossa was a conditional affair, pre-planned, but delayed for a variety of reasons. I just can't rationalize the fact that with the entire European continent subdued, Germany should be prevented from DOW'ing USSR...

Make the optional easy on yourself Steve.

Cheers

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 161
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 11:13:16 AM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline 		After sleeping on this, I agree that the best way to introduce an optional, is to keep it as simple as possible.

Option 1: Lebensraum
Rule text: Starting in JF41, Germany can break the Molotov-Riebentropp pact at any time, provided they hold Paris.

If flavour text is needed, it could be based on a short summary from the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

For those who think that Russia is too much of a pushover when playing with the option above, and that also think that it was because of the German aggression that Stalin managed to motivate his population to the level that he did, one could add this option:

Option 2: The Great Patriotic War
Rule text: If Germany declares war on the USSR, the USSR gains an additional PM modifier of +0.25 for the remainder of the war, on top of all their other modifiers, such as city bonuses, enemy in home country and attack in home country.

Flavour text could be collected from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War_(term)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

The rules above could be seen in relation to each other, but should be selectable individually.

Cheers
Hakon

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 162
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 11:22:04 AM   
darune

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/25/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		In sommer of 40 hitler, at one point, wanted to start Barbarossa in the fall of 40, but this plan was rejected as "unrealistic".

It is the only logical argument i can see why germany shouldn't be allowed to break the pact whenever it wants (ie. the german high command deeming it "unrealistic").

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 163
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 1:26:37 PM   
darune

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/25/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Maybe one solution could be to make an optional rule for different garrison values in regards to break neutrality pacts?

Maybe something like this?
ART, AT, AA: 1
Other divisions: 0.5
MIL, GAR: 0.5
HQ-A, ARM, MECH, SS unit: 3
HQ-I, MTN: 2
LND2, LND3: 1.5
Carrier plane unit: 0
other land or aircraft unit: 1

This gives a lower value to the cheap defencive units and units needed for an offence a higher value.


I like this idea, although i can see how it becomes more difficult to count in the boardgame version and you have an extra litlle table to look up.

Alternatively it could be based on simply the BP cost or as maybe a simpler(better?) the production time (pilots not counting then, SS counting 6).

That way one could at least avoid the somewhat gamey thinking that goes into how much garrison do i get per BP (realistic or not).

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 164
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 1:37:05 PM   
Bibs

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 7/11/2001
From: Cincinnati
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: darune

In sommer of 40 hitler, at one point, wanted to start Barbarossa in the fall of 40, but this plan was rejected as "unrealistic".

It is the only logical argument i can see why germany shouldn't be allowed to break the pact whenever it wants (ie. the german high command deeming it "unrealistic").


Executing the plan was unrealistic because the Germans couldn't actually get all of the units/supplies in place, but they still could have attacked. In game terms, that is irrelevant since it's not a political reason. As players we are allowed to launch campaigns no matter how unwise or unprepared we are to execute them

_____________________________

John Bibler

(in reply to darune)
Post #: 165
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 2:02:13 PM   
morgil


Posts: 114
Joined: 5/9/2008
From: Bergen, Norway
Status: offline 		I honestly dont see the problem. Then again I have never played against nor with someone that stuffs.
But still, Im failing to see the problem.
You want to destroy the opponent when you feel like it, but he doesnt want to be destroyed, and can prevent it, so the game is ruined ?

There should be ways to circumvent this, like breaking the pact early, or countering it with a Sitzkrieg. If you dont wanna play the game if you cant rape the russians, i suggest you play another game, like GTA or something more suited to you.

Making it harder for USSR to get the stuff in, by changeing the garison factors of units, is partly lame, but also has a direct effect on the Conquest of Italy.
Remember that if USSR fails to stop the war from happening, hes got his entire army within Stuka range.. Not a good place to be.

If you want to take away the ability to stuff i would suggest going with Hakon's option 1: Lebensraum, atleast it makes sense.

< Message edited by morgil -- 11/6/2009 2:05:17 PM >

_____________________________

Gott weiss ich will kein Engel sein.

(in reply to darune)
Post #: 166
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 2:39:10 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

3) Setting the ration to 3:2 could be a good solution, imo. To the allies' advantage, it would increase the number of units needed by germany to hold the garrison vs Russia in 1940. It would also make it easier for Russia to DOW later on. (all good, imo, though some sea lion fans may disagree).

Cheers
Hakon


I like this one, setting the garrison ratio to 3:2 in JA41 for example.


_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 167
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 3:00:53 PM   
Bibs

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 7/11/2001
From: Cincinnati
Status: offline 		Was the original intent of the Pact rule to try and

1) force the Russians to deploy towards the border (or give them a reason to), or

2) Keep the Germans from totally stripping Poland of units under threat that the USSR could break the pact in 1940?

3) Keep the Germans from doing a 1940 Barbarossa (or allow the Russians to prevent one)

4) A general rule for all pacts that has been applied to the N-S pact.



It doesn't seem like there could ever be a rule that achieves #1 except to force it directly. No sane Russian player is going to deploy near the border unless there is an overwhelming chance to prevent a German attack. I also can't see a Russian player breaking the pact (#2) in 1940 for similar reasons unless there are really unusual circumstances.

Is a 1940 Barbarossa an issue? Even in the last game I played where the N/D and J/F turns had lots of decent weather it was M/J 40 before France fell so getting the units back east to attack in good weather would require some lucky weather rolls. Has anyone ever just gone right from Poland into the USSR in early 1940?

If you read the USSR synopsis in the scenario booklet, it states.

Even excluding entry markers, you should be able to get a defensive garrison total of 60 by May/Jun 1941. With the inclusion of Axis minor allies, the Germans can only get an offensive garrison total of around 110. Unless you are unlucky, you probably have sufficient forces to keep the Germans below that vital 2:1 throughout 1941.

It clear that this it is design intent for the USSR to be able to prevent a 1941 Barb. I find this odd in that it makes the game like WIF5 where it was always better to spend 1941 beating the CW to death and then go to Russia in 1942. I found the WIF5 42 Barb to usually be successful and it seems FE has gone the route of keeping this flow, but making the Russians better equipped to deal with it.

What makes this frustrating for some players is that in most of the rest of the game we have freedom to do things that our real-life counterparts could never have done. I use as an example, if the Germans declare war on Holland, Belgium stays completely neutral. It’s what they might have done, but they might not and Hitler couldn’t (or wouldn’t) take the risk that Belgium (or Holland in reverse) might allow the Allies in if the other was attacked. In WIF you know with 100% certainty that they will do nothing if the other is attacked, and furthermore Belgium will be surprised by a German attack despite seeing Holland get pummeled a day earlier. Another example is that politically, the British govt. had to deploy a BEF to France. But many players will skip a BEF and declare war on Italy in addition.

But for the USSR, the German does not have the freedom to attack them based on a Pact that is imposed on the player and in the midst of all the freedom, we are unable to do one thing that happend historically.

_____________________________

John Bibler

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 168
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 3:29:36 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		I'll preference this with that I've never played WiF.  I didn't know that such an animal existed until about a year ago when I stumbled across a reference to it and to Matrix's computer version of it.  I do enjoy this historical period and did play a lot of AH's 3rd Reich in the late 70's through the mid 80's.  I'm now involved in a number of Commander Europe at War (CEaW) games.  So I do have experience with strategic level WW-II games; but nothing at this level of complexity or depth.  I'm very impressed and overwhelmed with it all.

With all that said ... my objective in looking for a WW-II level strategic game is one that plays out either historically or historically possible.  In reading this thread and trying to understand the "stuff" it seems to me that this rule is about forcing a situation where the Russians deploy troops forward to defend against the threat of a German invasion versus building their defenses deeper in and in more favorable terrian.  To me the rule seems to try to contrive a desired results (i.e., the Russians defend forward) but at the expense of not allowing the German player to attack Russia when they're ready.  In AH's 3rd Reich and CEaW the German player is free to attack Russia at any time.  Maybe a historical argument could be make that Hilter's generals would have successfully convinced him with France still in the war that an invasion of Russia was not a wise thing.  However; I have a hard time seeing how they could have convinced him not to invade after France was conquered if that is what he wanted to do.  It's not like the US where it took a Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor to get them into the war.  And even after that Roosevelt was saved the effort of having to go to the US Congress and ask them for a declaration of war against Germany and Italy only by the fact that Germany declared war on the US.


< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 11/9/2009 7:13:05 PM >

(in reply to Bibs)
Post #: 169
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 4:31:20 PM   
lavisj

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bibs
Even excluding entry markers, you should be able to get a defensive garrison total of 60 by May/Jun 1941. With the inclusion of Axis minor allies, the Germans can only get an offensive garrison total of around 110. Unless you are unlucky, you probably have sufficient forces to keep the Germans below that vital 2:1 throughout 1941.

It clear that this it is design intent for the USSR to be able to prevent a 1941 Barb. I find this odd in that it makes the game like WIF5 where it was always better to spend 1941 beating the CW to death and then go to Russia in 1942. I found the WIF5 42 Barb to usually be successful and it seems FE has gone the route of keeping this flow, but making the Russians better equipped to deal with it.


I should have read the scenario booklet
I am amazed that this was the designer intent to put the decision of a 1941 Barbarossa solely in the hands of the Russian player.
I wonder why the designer would want to force the game to go into one specific strategic route, which is an anti-CW first route? That would explain though, why ADG never changed the N-S pact rules (or why it was introduced in the first place, as I know it did not exist in the 4th edition).

I am also not convinced that all 1941 Barbarossa will result in an Axis win 90% of the time. Sure Russia may be pushed on to the Asian map, but that does not mean they are doomed.

I have asked for statistic on the issue on the yahoo WIF list. So if you have done 1941 Barbarossa, please you can go there and sent me an email with your experience. So, far, I have only had a few responses (less than 10) and there were no blow outs.

Jerome

(in reply to Bibs)
Post #: 170
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 5:20:00 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline 		I'm taken aback. Haven't read the scenario booklet for years. How could you make a WWII game and intend for Barbarossa to be impossible?

Do the German Scenario notes discuss the fact that if USSR decides to prevent Barbarossa, they can?

I'm absolutely baffled that the intent is for Germany to do either Sealion, Med, or 'Nothing' as Germany for all of '41.

Baffled.



_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to lavisj)
Post #: 171
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 5:38:15 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bibs

Was the original intent of the Pact rule to try and

1) force the Russians to deploy towards the border (or give them a reason to), or

2) Keep the Germans from totally stripping Poland of units under threat that the USSR could break the pact in 1940?

3) Keep the Germans from doing a 1940 Barbarossa (or allow the Russians to prevent one)

4) A general rule for all pacts that has been applied to the N-S pact.



It doesn't seem like there could ever be a rule that achieves #1 except to force it directly. No sane Russian player is going to deploy near the border unless there is an overwhelming chance to prevent a German attack. I also can't see a Russian player breaking the pact (#2) in 1940 for similar reasons unless there are really unusual circumstances.

Is a 1940 Barbarossa an issue? Even in the last game I played where the N/D and J/F turns had lots of decent weather it was M/J 40 before France fell so getting the units back east to attack in good weather would require some lucky weather rolls. Has anyone ever just gone right from Poland into the USSR in early 1940?

If you read the USSR synopsis in the scenario booklet, it states.

Even excluding entry markers, you should be able to get a defensive garrison total of 60 by May/Jun 1941. With the inclusion of Axis minor allies, the Germans can only get an offensive garrison total of around 110. Unless you are unlucky, you probably have sufficient forces to keep the Germans below that vital 2:1 throughout 1941.

It clear that this it is design intent for the USSR to be able to prevent a 1941 Barb. I find this odd in that it makes the game like WIF5 where it was always better to spend 1941 beating the CW to death and then go to Russia in 1942. I found the WIF5 42 Barb to usually be successful and it seems FE has gone the route of keeping this flow, but making the Russians better equipped to deal with it.

What makes this frustrating for some players is that in most of the rest of the game we have freedom to do things that our real-life counterparts could never have done. I use as an example, if the Germans declare war on Holland, Belgium stays completely neutral. It’s what they might have done, but they might not and Hitler couldn’t (or wouldn’t) take the risk that Belgium (or Holland in reverse) might allow the Allies in if the other was attacked. In WIF you know with 100% certainty that they will do nothing if the other is attacked, and furthermore Belgium will be surprised by a German attack despite seeing Holland get pummeled a day earlier. Another example is that politically, the British govt. had to deploy a BEF to France. But many players will skip a BEF and declare war on Italy in addition.

But for the USSR, the German does not have the freedom to attack them based on a Pact that is imposed on the player and in the midst of all the freedom, we are unable to do one thing that happend historically.

Your reference to the designer notes was a real eye-opener!

There seems to be a significant number of players who disagree with that design decision: the USSR can prevent a DOW by Germany in 1941 with reasonable certainty.

===

While changing the values for the garrisons has a lot of attraction to me personally, it seems too fine grained. Getting the values correct might require several passes and any changes in the unit composition of the force pools for either side could affect this substantially.

I like the taking of Paris as a criterion. One of Germany's primary concerns throughout WW II was the two front war which caused them so much grief in WW I. I am not as convinced about the need to conquer the Balkans, or Greece in particular.

Using Paris as a binary condition seems too abrupt: one turn Germany can not DOW the USSR and the next turn it can. How about:
#1
the taking of Paris increases the offensive garrison value of the German units by 20%?. This requires Germany to transfer the bulk of its units from the west to the east before it can DOW the USSR. The delay gives the USSR time to reposition its units away from the front line.

===

Here is a refinement of another idea I proposed that has met with some positive replies. As background it is useful to state the current rule (in summary).

Garrison conditions for Germany to DOW the USSR:
1939 - not possible.
1940 - 2:1 ratio but defenders are doubled (2X)
1941 - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X)
1942 - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/2)
.
.
.

I propose:
#2
1939 - not possible.
1940 - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 2X)
1941 (1st 6 months) - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X)
1941 (2nd 6 months) - 3:2 ratio (defenders are X)
1942 - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/2)
.
.
.

===

And a combination of #1 and #2:
#3
the change in required ratio only occurs in Paris has been taken.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Bibs)
Post #: 172
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 6:07:01 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline 		I wonder how many people have left wif because of or partly because of the stuffing rule.....

I know that I would have, if my group hadn't usually agreed to play with a rule similar to the Lebensraum option above. Even when I play, or intend to play Russia, I always suggest such a rule (preferably before bidding).


(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 173
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 6:11:39 PM   
Bibs

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 7/11/2001
From: Cincinnati
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I'm taken aback. Haven't read the scenario booklet for years. How could you make a WWII game and intend for Barbarossa to be impossible?

Do the German Scenario notes discuss the fact that if USSR decides to prevent Barbarossa, they can?

I'm absolutely baffled that the intent is for Germany to do either Sealion, Med, or 'Nothing' as Germany for all of '41.

Baffled.



It has this gem

Irrespective of your strategy, you need to build aircraft from the start of the game. Your first turn production is at least 17 (22 x 0.75), less the 2 you must give to Stalin, leaving you 15, enough for 2 aircraft and 5 pilots (and you thought you were short of money). The next turn you can build 3 aircraft and 3 pilots, and in Jan/Feb, 4 aircraft and 2 pilots giving you 8 additional aircraft by May/Jun 1940. 21 German aircraft should dominate the skies over France in summer.

Seems like with all those planes breaking the garrison is pretty much gone. 8 additional planes seems excessive to me.

Othewise it's a bit schizophrenic

a 1941 Operation Barbarossa is superior to a 1942 attack, even if the 1942 attack is combined with a drive through Iraq and Persia.

The advantage a 1942 assault does have is that it gives you all of 1941 to take Gibraltar and Suez and advance on the Soviet Union via Persia.

Nowadays (unfortunately for you), if you go for the Gibraltar option, you will pay a real military cost (unless you can do over France in early 1940, Gibraltar by late 1940, and back to the eastern front for a Jul/Aug 1941 Barbarossa. Ahhhh.....now we’re talking).

If you don’t get lots of summer weather in 1941, don’t despair, 1942 should still see you with 50 to 60 corps in Russia (far stronger than the Russians) and open terrain for an offensive that may yet topple them (unless the Allies are near Paris or Rome).

So it really doesn't address that other than to say a 1941 Barb is better, but don't worry you kick him around in 42 anyway.

_____________________________

John Bibler

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 174
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 6:28:56 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline 		Steve

My proposal was that holding Paris would be sufficient in 1941 and on (to prevent 1940 barbs after a France First.). Using Paris (or alternatively conquest/vichification of France) as a condition is easy to defend based on the German fear of having to fight a two front war, as well as on the confidence boost that was for the Germans to beat their old enemy.

As for your proposal, it seems a bit unstructured. Would it apply to other pacts, such as between Japan and Russia, for instance?

Maybe modifiy it like this:
#4
Year0 - not possible.
Year1 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 2X)
Year1 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 3X/2)
Year2 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X)
Year2 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are 3X/4)
Year3 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/2)
Year3 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/3)
Year4 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/4)
later - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/5)

Being somewhat continous, this is reasonably easy to remember, can be applied to all pacts, and ensures that a historical Barb is possible. Since its still hard to break the garrison in 1940, I don't think including France in it makes any sense, since a player will rarely want to DOW Russia while being at war with France anyway.

But I still think that the Lebensraum option has the advantage of being simpler.

Cheers
Hakon

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 175
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 6:49:26 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: hakon

Steve

My proposal was that holding Paris would be sufficient in 1941 and on (to prevent 1940 barbs after a France First.). Using Paris (or alternatively conquest/vichification of France) as a condition is easy to defend based on the German fear of having to fight a two front war, as well as on the confidence boost that was for the Germans to beat their old enemy.

As for your proposal, it seems a bit unstructured. Would it apply to other pacts, such as between Japan and Russia, for instance?

Maybe modifiy it like this:
#4
Year0 - not possible.
Year1 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 2X)
Year1 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 3X/2)
Year2 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X)
Year2 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are 3X/4)
Year3 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/2)
Year3 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/3)
Year4 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/4)
later - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/5)

Being somewhat continous, this is reasonably easy to remember, can be applied to all pacts, and ensures that a historical Barb is possible. Since its still hard to break the garrison in 1940, I don't think including France in it makes any sense, since a player will rarely want to DOW Russia while being at war with France anyway.

But I still think that the Lebensraum option has the advantage of being simpler.

Cheers
Hakon

I was trying to leave the rule unchanged for all pacts except for the German (offensive) side of the USSR-Nazi pact. And then I was just changing it in one place. Actually, in the last couple of hours I thought that having the 3:2 ratio kick in in May/June would be better that July/August.

To repeat myself, I was looking at a single point change to the rule, not a global rewrite.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 176
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 6:50:55 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline 		Clearly these notes are next to worthless when deciding grand strategy. The language assumes you 'can' be at war in '41, and even encourages you if you get poor weather in the summer of '41.

Very counter-intuitive for a game that is designed for the Russian player to prevent Barb.

I'm in shock that the game was re-designed to prevent the historical option.... flabbergasted even.


(in reply to Bibs)
Post #: 177
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 6:51:49 PM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4774
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline
I don´t see the need for any changes ..

if the players want to stuff the border. there is alot of thing he can´t do. like Persia, Finland, Turkey or something agianst japan ....if the player want to stuff, he have to be passive. if he takes alot of losses early or get bugged down somewhere he can´t stuff.

historicaly Russia had a large part of the army in the East.


_____________________________

the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 178
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 7:01:18 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I like the taking of Paris as a criterion. One of Germany's primary concerns throughout WW II was the two front war which caused them so much grief in WW I. I am not as convinced about the need to conquer the Balkans, or Greece in particular.



Little parenthesis :

Greece was invaded by Mussolini, he did ask the help of Germany when he saw things turning bad for the italian army and the germans did intervene, but it was not the original plan and it had nothing to do with USSR directly. Nevertheless, many sources confirm that the invasion of Greece did delay Barbarossa.

Balkan was invaded in 1941 if I am not mistaken, the government there changed alignment. At first being proAxis and later being proBritish, I think after a coup. The austrian caporal was therefore concerned about a possible british intervention in Yugoslavia and did decide to invade the country.

< Message edited by micheljq -- 11/6/2009 8:15:39 PM >

_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 179
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 7:03:08 PM   
Zorachus99


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

Steve

My proposal was that holding Paris would be sufficient in 1941 and on (to prevent 1940 barbs after a France First.). Using Paris (or alternatively conquest/vichification of France) as a condition is easy to defend based on the German fear of having to fight a two front war, as well as on the confidence boost that was for the Germans to beat their old enemy.

As for your proposal, it seems a bit unstructured. Would it apply to other pacts, such as between Japan and Russia, for instance?

Maybe modifiy it like this:
#4
Year0 - not possible.
Year1 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 2X)
Year1 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are doubled = 3X/2)
Year2 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X)
Year2 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are 3X/4)
Year3 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/2)
Year3 JA-ND - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/3)
Year4 JF-MJ - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/4)
later - 2:1 ratio (defenders are X/5)

Being somewhat continous, this is reasonably easy to remember, can be applied to all pacts, and ensures that a historical Barb is possible. Since its still hard to break the garrison in 1940, I don't think including France in it makes any sense, since a player will rarely want to DOW Russia while being at war with France anyway.

But I still think that the Lebensraum option has the advantage of being simpler.

Cheers
Hakon

I was trying to leave the rule unchanged for all pacts except for the German (offensive) side of the USSR-Nazi pact. And then I was just changing it in one place. Actually, in the last couple of hours I thought that having the 3:2 ratio kick in in May/June would be better that July/August.

To repeat myself, I was looking at a single point change to the rule, not a global rewrite.


I would say May/Jun is probably very close to correct for a ratio of 3:2. Theoretically, many historians have pondered what would have happend to the USSR if the Greek escapade had not happened.

However, on the flip side, there should be a cost to not DOW'ing Greece, perhaps a guaranteed US entry chit if Athens isn't Axis controlled, and perhaps even a second one if Belgrade isn't axis controlled. Most of the non-historical activities in the game have a large US entry cost. Not attacking Greece shouldn't be an entirely upside affair for the Axis. While Greece is neutral it's quite a bit more difficult to bomb Ploesti from Africa for example, which is a historical deviation.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: 'stuffing' the border Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

1.797