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  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 7:15:59 PM   
lavisj

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline 		Here is a possible, simple process that could work for all pacts.

1. During Production, a country with a neutrality pact can buy a maximum of one pact chit for the cost of 2BP (or 3 BP if deemed 2 BP is too cheap), provided it drew at least one pact chit during the appropriate phase this turn. That pact chit must be placed and must remain offensive (place it deparately from the other offensive chits). This could translate in the extra planing and coordination of supply and such that would have to be invested by the military in the preparation of what would be seen as a more difficult campaign.

Now for some nation specific.

1. Upon the vichification or incomplete conquest of France, Germany gains 1 pact chit that must be placed offensively.
2. Upon the capture of Manchouria, Russia gains an extra pact chit to be placed offensively.

But in essence it allows Germany to force the war in 1941 for an investment cost. And it also allows Russia to break a sitz for an investment cost.

What do you guys think?

Jerome

< Message edited by lavisj -- 11/6/2009 7:22:40 PM >

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 181
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 7:35:34 PM   
Cheesehead

 

Posts: 418
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline 		Ken C. had a good proposal on the WiFlist a few days ago. Here is a simplified version of Ken's idea... GE decides by SO40 if it wants a guaranteed '41 Barb to begin no earlier than JA41...then (this is my idea)...US gets a USE roll of 15. Once the USE roll is made, GE is guaranteed to break the pact JA41 (but no sooner), the USSR now has plenty of time to move safely off the border, the USSR has a better surival chance because they will not have to suffer any damage in MJ41 (which is actually more historical) and the US gets 1 or 2 extra chits in 1940 which speeds up their involvement.

I think tying USE into the equation is important because one of the reasons I don't like to go the Spain/Gib strategy route as Germany is because of the extra USE chits generated by DOWing Spain, occupying Gib (and sometimes it is necessary to collapse Vichy). This makes a '41 Barb more appealing to GE from that perspective because there won't be as much of a difference in USE chit generation with the above idea.

Cheers

John

_____________________________

You can't fight in here...this is the war room!

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 182
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 7:35:44 PM   
Zorachus99


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

ORIGINAL: lavisj

Here is a possible, simple process that could work for all pacts.

1. During Production, a country with a neutrality pact can buy a maximum of one pact chit for the cost of 2BP (or 3 BP if deemed 2 BP is too cheap), provided it drew at least one pact chit during the appropriate phase this turn. That pact chit must be placed and must remain offensive (place it deparately from the other offensive chits). This could translate in the extra planing and coordination of supply and such that would have to be invested by the military in the preparation of what would be seen as a more difficult campaign.

Now for some nation specific.

1. Upon the vichification or incomplete conquest of France, Germany gains 1 pact chit that must be placed offensively.
2. Upon the capture of Manchouria, Russia gains an extra pact chit to be placed offensively.

But in essence it allows Germany to force the war in 1941 for an investment cost. And it also allows Russia to break a sitz for an investment cost.

What do you guys think?

Jerome


If I had a choice of building non-units that dissapear with DOW, I'd probably still decide to do Med or Sealion; at least the PP have on-map value. The actual number of chits need to break the pact in '41 is quite large, and I doubt I'd take the chance of spending BP for a chit potentially worth zero.

(in reply to lavisj)
Post #: 183
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 8:00:57 PM   
lavisj

 

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

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99


quote:

ORIGINAL: lavisj

Here is a possible, simple process that could work for all pacts.

1. During Production, a country with a neutrality pact can buy a maximum of one pact chit for the cost of 2BP (or 3 BP if deemed 2 BP is too cheap), provided it drew at least one pact chit during the appropriate phase this turn. That pact chit must be placed and must remain offensive (place it deparately from the other offensive chits). This could translate in the extra planing and coordination of supply and such that would have to be invested by the military in the preparation of what would be seen as a more difficult campaign.

Now for some nation specific.

1. Upon the vichification or incomplete conquest of France, Germany gains 1 pact chit that must be placed offensively.
2. Upon the capture of Manchouria, Russia gains an extra pact chit to be placed offensively.

But in essence it allows Germany to force the war in 1941 for an investment cost. And it also allows Russia to break a sitz for an investment cost.

What do you guys think?

Jerome


If I had a choice of building non-units that dissapear with DOW, I'd probably still decide to do Med or Sealion; at least the PP have on-map value. The actual number of chits need to break the pact in '41 is quite large, and I doubt I'd take the chance of spending BP for a chit potentially worth zero.


Actually the number of chit is not that large. And Germany will have a better idea.of the chits anyway.
Garrisons points (with minors) alone create a differential of around 10 points. So Germany needs around 10 extra points worth of chits. With an average of 2 points per chit and considering the one gained for Paris, this is overall, 4 more chits (8BP) to give Germany a 50% chance of breaking the stuff in MJ.... and it increases everyturn after that.
Also remember that you can pretty much wait until SO to make your decision wether to buy or not, depending on what your chits, and Russia's chits are.

Jerome

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 184
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 8:24:40 PM   
Nikolai II

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 10/14/2009
Status: offline 		How about "If France has been Vichified Germany gets to use next years garrison comparision value" So while Russia is looking at 2:1, Germany is satisfied with 1:1 (seeing as how the combat factors will probably have 2:1 even then)

(Add control of Athens/Oslo to taste)

(in reply to lavisj)
Post #: 185
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 8:44:07 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline 		Hi, Jerome

Germany really can't wait until SO40 if they want to buy the most useful things for an anti-UK campaign in 1940. They really should start building subs and maybe some SCS in 1939 or early 1940 in that case, and often it is a good idea to lay down an amph in 1939 as well, just to keep the UK guessing. And they definitely want to start thei condors and ftr3 as soon as possible.

This is of course all impossible if they want to break the garrison vs Russia, of course.

Germany can still make a dash for Gibraltar through Spain, even without these things, but will not be nearly as effective as they can be if those units come out early. They could have trouble setting Gibraltar and Morocco out of supply for instance. Besides, they usually will have to have installed Vichy by this time, if they want to be in a position for a Barb, which is not so good if they suddenly need to go to Spain instead.

As they have not challenged the CW at sea, the CW will have been in a position to build a lot of land forces for Spain and or Morocco, and the general lack of a sealion threat (amph and trs) will enable the UK to send more forces abroad.

While Germany still has a good shot at taking Gibraltar, it will be far from as automatic as if they had planned for it from the beginning, especially if US entry is high (which it is likely to if Germany has to collapse Vichy to get into Spain). In any case, Gibraltar will hold longer (usually), which leaves less time for finishing up in the med, by taking Suez, Morocco and Greece. If the allies can hold on to Er Rif, Spain is only partially conquered, while the allies still have access to the western med, something that significanlty reduces the benefit for Germany and Italy of holding Gibraltar. If the allies can also hold Egypt, they are in a really good position.

RUSSIA, on the other hand, is free to wait until SO40 before they switch from building to maximize garrison, to building units better suited for fighting a defenisve war. If they start to build in SO/40, they can build 3 artillerists, their HQ-I's and 6 fighters that will arrive in time for Barb, and also any divisions that they want. In fact, it can be argued that Russia loses no flexibility whatsoever by waiting this long to decide. (Except for the ability to attack Japan aggressively, but this is something they should probably never do, anyway, until they are sure that Germany is heading west.

Cheers
Hakon

(in reply to lavisj)
Post #: 186
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 9:03:12 PM   
lavisj

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline 		Hakon,

Yes I understand that. But I was refering to waiting until SO in the context of the House rule I proposed which allows Germany to buy chits. Thinking that it can probably wait until SO40 to decide wether it will need to buy chits or not.

Of course Germany could start buying chits from the start.

Jerome

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 187
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 9:36:23 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline 		Zorachus: If you want to encourage historical Italian behavious vs Greece, you could add the following optional:

Option 3: Mare Nostrum, OUR sea!
Rule text: Italy gains 1 additional victory point for each of the following victory cities that they manage to gain control of at any time in the game: Athens, Beograd, Istanbul, Jerusalem, Suez and Gibraltar, even if they later lose them.

(simmilar nation specific objectives could be given to all nations)

Cheers
Hakon

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 188
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 9:44:43 PM   
hakon

 

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

Ok, thought you assumed that they would go west in SO40. In any case, even a 50/50 chance is not all that impressive, and Russia is still likely to have 1-2 chits face down at this time, which can be anything from a 5 and a 4 to two zeroes. (The difference being equal to 18 extra German points.) And as I wrote above, a desperate Russian can gain 20 german points worth of garrison by declaring war on Italy.

In total, that is a maximum uncertainty of up to 38 points for Germany. With a chit average of 2.5, that's about 15 German chits.....

Cheers
Hakon

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 189
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 10:33:11 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Okay, ..., let me bring this back on track.

The question was about stuffing the border and thereby preventing a 1941 Barbarossa - which would be ahistorical.

While I am open to a 'slight' rules change to affect the probability so it isn't so likely that the USSR will succeed in preventing the 1941 Barbarossa, I have little or no interest in complicated rule changes.

a - When build points become involved, regardless of how they become involved, the entire balance of the game is at risk. For instance, havnig Germany spend some of its BPs on X so it can DOW the USSR in 1941 affects what Germany can otherwise build with those BPs.

b - Likewise, I see any change that affects US entry chits as an excessive risk of imbalancing the game. There are way too many consequences when USE is modified.

From my point of view, any change would have to be focused on solving the specific problem given above, without introducing a host of other possible unforeseen consequences.

EDIT: Hey, I'm at 11111 posts!

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 190
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/6/2009 11:00:05 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline 		The 3:2 Ratio in M/J is probably the easiest adjustment.

All the on-map units will be sufficient to break the pact. It may even leave a few on other fronts to actually defend with, which is pretty realistic. Additionally it works against the *dreaded super-balbo* as well because it must be German units to break the pact. Germany can't just use all it's fighters and land units to defend Italy while romping in Russian with the estimated 10-14 aircraft the super balbo promises.

It will still require the majority of the German units to DOW which will prevent the *phony war* possibility to remove USSR surprise.

However, the ratio should apply to Russia too, which will make it easier to break the pact if Germany tries too much funny business in the West or South. Russia was only a few months behind Germany based on comments from several historians I've read. The Soviets were re-orienting their military industrial strength during '41. The autobiography I read by Hans Rudel clearly discussed the enormous fortifications and airbases being constructed along the German/Soviet border that they overran during the beginning of the campaign.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 191
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/7/2009 1:54:10 AM   
BallyJ

 

Posts: 142
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline 		If nothing else this thread shows the power of a dedicated lobbying!
We are now talking seriously about changing the structure of the game.
The game's designer has specifically adressed this issue in his notes.
As I said before"PLEASE MAKE SURE THIS IS AN OPTIONAL RULE' so that when this game comes out I can ignore it.
Also can people please stop saying "the game is broken" just because they disagree with one part of it.
For those on the forum who have not had the pleasure of playing this game.
It is the best ww2 game I have ever played in 35 years of gaming.
It is NOT brocken.
Some people disagree with some aspects of the rules.
Thats the end of my second rant.
Regards John

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 192
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/7/2009 2:57:07 AM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		What if Germany could expend an Offensive chit in 41 and get 15 garrison points for it so they were able to break the present garrison requirements.


(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 193
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/7/2009 3:21:40 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

What if Germany could expend an Offensive chit in 41 and get 15 garrison points for it so they were able to break the present garrison requirements.



But that is 15 BPs that Germany loses from it total BPs for the war. Poof, gone! That has to have an effect on overall operations. For example, say they had given those 15 BPs to Italy to use. I am sure Italy could find some good use for them. I do not want a rules change that would affect the rest of the war that much.

===

I am coming back to thinking that changing the ratio to 3:2 in July/August might be better - aesthetically having it be a 6 month instead of a 4 month transition point is more pleasing. That way the USSR could 'stuff' the border through May/June as designed by ADG, but would have to suffer the consequences in July/August of their forward deployment. Now that's pretty close to historical accuracy. If Germany engages in adventures in England or the Med, then the USSR would still have a reasonable chance of preventing the 1941 Barbarossa.

===

John,

Some ~expert players have stated that the USSR can prevent the 1941 Barbarossa by exploiting the rules on neutrality pacts. I have not reevaluated their numbers/calculations but I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of same. Being able to prevent Germany from DOW the USSR in 1941, regardless of what Germany does, is a hard pill for me to swallow.

While saying the game is 'broken' is too extreme, this does strike me as a marked weakness in playability. I own dozens of board war games that we stopped playing because one side was able to make the same decisions every time and thereby dictate the course of events in the game - usually resulting in some kind of a stand-off draw, a Sitzkreig, if you will. Having an optional rule that would enable this outcome to be avoided is a good idea, in my opinion.

Most players will not be at the 'expert' level, but if they are interested enough, they can usually glean tactical, operational, and strategic tips from more experienced players. And then there you are facing an Allied player who always goes for stuffing the border for the USSR, and the game becomes less attractive to play.

Oh, and if it wasn't blatantly obvious, playability is important to me since it translates as saleability.


< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 11/7/2009 8:13:08 AM >

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 194
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/7/2009 4:26:28 AM   
lomyrin


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

What if Germany could expend an Offensive chit in 41 and get 15 garrison points for it so they were able to break the present garrison requirements.



But that is 15 BPs that Germany loses from it total BPs for the war. Poof, gone! That has to have an effect on overall operations. For example, say they had given those 15 BPs to Italy to use. I am sure Italy could find some good use for them. I do not want a rules change that would affect the rest of the war that much.

===


If Russia knows that Germany can spend an O-chit to start the war, then Russia would be much more hesitant to place all their units in harms way which in turn would make Germany able to start the war without actually spending the O-chit. A game of chicken...


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 195
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/7/2009 8:31:00 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		If there is an optional rule changing the German-USSR pact I would like the change to be the same for both Germany and USSR. It is not like Stalin would have needed to go to congress to declare war either.

Ex: If Germany is allowed to spend an offencive chit to declare war on USSR at any time then USSR should be allowed to spend an offencive chit to declare war on Germany at any time.

_____________________________

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 lomyrin)
Post #: 196
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/7/2009 9:42:05 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


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.


I have not yet calculated how it would make the possibility to stuff the border change during 1941. I would love to see the force composition of a stuff game to make some calculations.

It was a long time since I was in a game where the border was stuffed to prevent a German 41 declaration of war. I made this suggestion because there was claims that I found belivable that if USSR enters a war with Japan USSR could stuff the border with close to 100% certainty. My thoughts was then that giving the reserves that USSR then gets and the MIL that Soviet then can build should get lower value. At the same time you can give offencive units higher value because I find it bad to force Germany to build MIL and GAR in order to be able to declare war.

The purpose behind this rule, as I understand it, is to give USSR incentive to deploy close to the German border. You will not get this incentive if Germany most likely can declare war at will. A change to lower ratio needed for Germany to declare war would remove all stuff attempts all together and hence remove all chance of a historical Barbarossa with the Soviet Union defending the border.

Now. My only calculations I did before suggesting the change in the garrison values was on the Global War setup. The maximum garrison value you can get from the starting units including prebuilt reinforcements is as follows.

USSR (original value): 23.5
USSR (my change): 29.5
Germany (original value): 48
Germany (my change): 61

As you can see the ratio between Germany and USSR, with the starting units from Global War, is a bit more than 2-1 to Germany with both suggestions.

My hope is that by tinkering with the garrison values is that if The Soviet Union declares war on Japan and then stuffs the border there would still be a possibility for Germany to declare war on USSR 1941. And that if USSR does so that he can't stuff the border with only cheap units. That he would need to use regular units as he did historically.

---
I just calculated the garrison values in Lebensraum.
USSR (all units - original value): 59
USSR (all units - my change): 70.5
Germany (units close to USSR - original value): 82.5
Germany (units close to USSR - my change): 100
Germany (all units - original value): 108.5
Germany (all units - my change): 128.5

As you can see the odds ratio is about the same with both sets and with a full stuff in this scenario Germany would not be able to declare war. This seems to have been the designers intent with this scenario!?

Cut from Players' notes, Lebensraum:
If you don’t immediately have the required 2:1 garrison ratio, build up your MIL quickly and mass them in East Prussia and Poland to break the garrison ratio. Alternatively, postpone the invasion and focus your production on HQs, other land units, and LND bombers. Towards the end of 1941, you should start squeezing out at least another 2 offensive chits for 1942.

_____________________________

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 Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 197
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/7/2009 9:52:14 PM   
Ullern


Posts: 1837
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline 		Calculations depend on optional rules.
I am currently playing with optionals that makes Germany take heavy losses and makes France last till '41. Obviously with such a combination it would be easy to stuff the border for USSR. But that's a choice I made.

I agree that it's important to prevent a near to sure stuff strategy. But what optionals should we assume? It would affect the calculations.


What options affect losses you may ask. Well simply put:
More optional rules adding units or markers -> less German losses before Barbarossa



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 198
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/7/2009 11:42:02 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

As I said before"PLEASE MAKE SURE THIS IS AN OPTIONAL RULE' so that when this game comes out I can ignore it.
Also can people please stop saying "the game is broken" just because they disagree with one part of it.
For those on the forum who have not had the pleasure of playing this game.
It is the best ww2 game I have ever played in 35 years of gaming.
It is NOT brocken.

BallyJ, I am in complete agreement with your statement.

I also want to see suggestions that focus on the ability of German players to achieve the chance for a Historical Barbarossa, with the least amount of coding and possible ramifications of an option.

My suggestion, Just allow the axis player a one time free DOW on Russia, during the May/June 1941 turn regardless of values. After that its back to garrison ratios. The option is for players who want a historical invasion. Give them what they want.





_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to BallyJ)
Post #: 199
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/7/2009 11:47:12 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

quote:

As I said before"PLEASE MAKE SURE THIS IS AN OPTIONAL RULE' so that when this game comes out I can ignore it.
Also can people please stop saying "the game is broken" just because they disagree with one part of it.
For those on the forum who have not had the pleasure of playing this game.
It is the best ww2 game I have ever played in 35 years of gaming.
It is NOT brocken.

BallyJ, I am in complete agreement with your statement.

I also want to see suggestions that focus on the ability of German players to achieve the chance for a Historical Barbarossa, with the least amount of coding and possible ramifications of an option.

My suggestion, Just allow the axis player a one time free DOW on Russia, during the May/June 1941 turn regardless of values. After that its back to garrison ratios. The option is for players who want a historical invasion. Give them what they want.





Cute.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 200
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/8/2009 4:36:29 AM   
BallyJ

 

Posts: 142
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline 		[image]Ockam's razor[/image]
Love it

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 201
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/8/2009 8:09:51 AM   
morgil


Posts: 114
Joined: 5/9/2008
From: Bergen, Norway
Status: offline 		Historically USSR stuffed the border. They built airstrips, set up camps and deployed heavily. But they didn't go all out, and the result was like 2 million POW on day one. So we have learned that defending in front is bad, if you cant pull it off.
Fixing the rules so that Germany can declare war anyhow, or juggling with the garrison values, will only remove stuffing as an option, because a failed stuff = 150 BP worth of dead russians = Japan gets Vladivostok if they hurry. But if you add a rule that prevents stuffing, or makes it highly unlikely, what is to prevent the Russian from DOWing Denmark, or maybe Hungary -> Yugoslavia, preventing Germany from aligning Rumania until war, and forcing the Axis to transport the 3 vital oil in Rumania with Convois through the Med, thereby forcing an Italian DOW to make it active...


/sarcasm
While we are at it I suggest removing this silly USE aswell. Why cant USA do whatever they want, when other countries can ?
EDIT by moderator: political content removed./sarcasm off

And in opposition to Ockam's Razor I would like to insert Crabtree's Bludgeon:

"No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated."

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 11/8/2009 6:29:58 PM >

_____________________________

Gott weiss ich will kein Engel sein.

(in reply to BallyJ)
Post #: 202
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/8/2009 9:32:45 AM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		USSR were not stuffing, they were staging an attack on Germany. I told earlier that Hitler underestimated the strength of the red army because his information gave a lesser number of armours. My analysis is that Hitler turn east because this was his original plan to do it and he believed that he cannot achieve something else in the west. I have always seen the difference between USE and Germany free DOW because Hitler was the only one to decide such thing where as Roosevelt have to convince the Senate to vote the war. England and France are made more free than the US due to their colonial/WWI past and at war situation, but I do believe that they cannot do whoever they want. If we restricted Germany DOW on Russia, you can as well restrict Japan DOW on the US/NEI/CW (ie they should only declare war once the oil embargo is on).

That a very complicated question. I see that a lot of mathematical discussion are on the way. I would just say finish the game as it is as people play it this way and make an option for free diplomacy (actually just an option that don't check if condition are met before DOWing and why not USE) so people not happy could put Germany or US on a free DOW (may be for the tool box).

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to morgil)
Post #: 203
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/8/2009 9:30:16 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		For those who feel the stuff breaks Global War and perhaps Lebensraum, there are four other scenarios, starting with Waking Giant.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 204
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/8/2009 11:37:45 PM   
morgil


Posts: 114
Joined: 5/9/2008
From: Bergen, Norway
Status: offline 		I would say that adding an option, maybe have a set of predefined Houserules that players can tic, where both USSR and Germany can break the pact at will. As an example, Germany can break the pact anytime from 1941 and onwards, and USSR anytime from 1942 and onwards.

Ohh and sorry for going political, wont happen again


_____________________________

Gott weiss ich will kein Engel sein.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 205
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/9/2009 6:34:05 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Yes, Stalin must have been in a hurry to attack the country that had just beat down another major power (France) in mere weeks and whose army had demonstrated its supremacy over all comers in 1939-1941.

While I do not doubt that the USSR would eventually have gone to war with Germany, particularly if/when the US got into the war, I am pretty certain the evidence does not support a USSR attack in the summer of 1941. Certainly that appears to be the opinion of the majority of Second World War historians if Wikipedia is to be believed.

Historical debates aside, I think an optional rule that gives Germany a higher likelihood of breaking the pact against USSR as long as it doesn't take heavy losses or is still battling France in 1941 is not a bad idea if it is meant to prevent 'gamey' USSR play and gamier Axis counters (at least to keep players interested in the game). I do not think it should be a certain thing, but chances are, for the USSR, the risk of getting caught up front when playing with such an optional rule would be so high as to basically guarantee the USSR will deploy rear-ward, ensuring that the Germans can DoW when they want.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to morgil)
Post #: 206
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/9/2009 7:41:40 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Here is what I have decided upon. Although, shrieks of pain might change my mind. The text below is intended for the Players Manual to describe this new optional rule.
===
9.8.13 Breaking Neutrality Pacts
It can be very difficult for Germany to break the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941, if the USSR puts all of its resources into ‘stuffing’ the border with units. If you feel that it is too ahistorical for the USSR to be able to virtually prevent (90% probability) Germany to declare war on the USSR in 1941, then you can select this optional rule to make it somewhat easier.

In the third year of the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact (i.e., 1941), the value of the defenders units is a full 1.0 for the first six months (i.e., 3 turns) but drops to 0.75 for the second six months of the year. In all other regards, the rules for breaking neutrality pacts are unchanged.

This means:
∙ in 1939 the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact can not be broken.
∙ in 1940 the defenders units are doubled, so to break the pact, a ratio of 4:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, first 6 months, the defenders units are worth 1, so a ratio of 2:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, second 6 months, the defenders are worth 0.75, so a ratio of 1.5:1 is needed.
∙ in 1942, the defenders are worth 0.50, so a ratio of 1:1 is needed.
∙ and so on as per the WIF FE rules.

The only change is the bullet point in blue. Note that while this only affects the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact, it does ease breaking the pact for both sides, not just for Germany.


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 207
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/9/2009 8:06:38 PM   
micheljq


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is what I have decided upon. Although, shrieks of pain might change my mind. The text below is intended for the Players Manual to describe this new optional rule.
===
9.8.13 Breaking Neutrality Pacts
It can be very difficult for Germany to break the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941, if the USSR puts all of its resources into ‘stuffing’ the border with units. If you feel that it is too ahistorical for the USSR to be able to virtually prevent (90% probability) Germany to declare war on the USSR in 1941, then you can select this optional rule to make it somewhat easier.

In the third year of the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact (i.e., 1941), the value of the defenders units is a full 1.0 for the first six months (i.e., 3 turns) but drops to 0.75 for the second six months of the year. In all other regards, the rules for breaking neutrality pacts are unchanged.

This means:
∙ in 1939 the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact can not be broken.
∙ in 1940 the defenders units are doubled, so to break the pact, a ratio of 4:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, first 6 months, the defenders units are worth 1, so a ratio of 2:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, second 6 months, the defenders are worth 0.75, so a ratio of 1.5:1 is needed.
∙ in 1942, the defenders are worth 0.50, so a ratio of 1:1 is needed.
∙ and so on as per the WIF FE rules.

The only change is the bullet point in blue. Note that while this only affects the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact, it does ease breaking the pact for both sides, not just for Germany.



I am not a specialist, but I think this is a good idea, simple, and not affecting other rules. It allows Germany to do a Barbarossa in the historical dates, not too soon, not too late.

< Message edited by micheljq -- 11/9/2009 8:08:41 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 #: 208
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/9/2009 10:49:54 PM   
morgil


Posts: 114
Joined: 5/9/2008
From: Bergen, Norway
Status: offline 		I'm not gonna scream in pain, but in all modesty I thought that my idea (Post #205) was better.
Specially since it hasn't solved the problem of Sitzkrieg by Germany, the other side of this particular coin.
It would also make it a lot clearer to identify what this particular Houserule Option actually do.


_____________________________

Gott weiss ich will kein Engel sein.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 209
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 12:17:08 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: morgil

I'm not gonna scream in pain, but in all modesty I thought that my idea (Post #205) was better.
Specially since it hasn't solved the problem of Sitzkrieg by Germany, the other side of this particular coin.
It would also make it a lot clearer to identify what this particular Houserule Option actually do.


Usually I think of house rules as items that belong in a future MWIF product, which I refer to as a WIF Design Kit. I made an exception in this case (the first one if I am not mistaken), because I felt it was crucial. Your suggestion of a list of items to check felt to me to offer more flexibility, and therefore more appropriately belonged with other house rules.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to morgil)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: 'stuffing' the border Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

1.547