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  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 4:53:32 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
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.


That's pretty good for situations where Germany is trying to do lots of things in several theaters in 1941. But, if she concentrates large forces against Russia, then Russia can't risk the garrison being broken and will drop back from the border. The problem is that it does not help Russia to withstand a 41 Barb, which the German can now almost guarantee with this change, and nothing is done to offset that other than the earliest attack probably being in JA.

But you might get some interesting force shifting in MA and MJ which would make one or the other party react - maybe in time, maybe not, maybe correctly maybe all a bluff.

Overall - I like it!



_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 211
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 5:06:25 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
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 just reread this and I'm not sure the wording is correct. Shouldn't it be:

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. You still require a 2:1 ratio to break a pact. Therefore:

∙ in 1939 the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact can not be broken.
∙ in 1940 the defender's defensive values are doubled
∙ in 1941, first 6 months, the defender's defensive values unmodified
∙ in 1941, second 6 months, the defender's defensive values are multiplied by 0.75
∙ in 1942, the defender's defensive values are multiplied by 0.50
When you want to break a neutrality pact, you increase your garrison value by the value of your offensive entry markers but you can’t more than double your garrison value. Similarly, you increase your defensive garrison value by the total of your defensive entry markers on the common border. Again, you can’t more than double your (modified) defensive garrison value.
∙ and so on as per the WIF FE rules.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 212
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 5:27:23 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

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 just reread this and I'm not sure the wording is correct. Shouldn't it be:

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. You still require a 2:1 ratio to break a pact. Therefore:

∙ in 1939 the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact can not be broken.
∙ in 1940 the defender's defensive values are doubled
∙ in 1941, first 6 months, the defender's defensive values unmodified
∙ in 1941, second 6 months, the defender's defensive values are multiplied by 0.75
∙ in 1942, the defender's defensive values are multiplied by 0.50
When you want to break a neutrality pact, you increase your garrison value by the value of your offensive entry markers but you can’t more than double your garrison value. Similarly, you increase your defensive garrison value by the total of your defensive entry markers on the common border. Again, you can’t more than double your (modified) defensive garrison value.
∙ and so on as per the WIF FE rules.

Yes. My wording could have been more precise: "defender's garrison values multiplied by 0.75".

I am not going to repeat the stuff about entry markers though. I believe the reference to all the other rules is sufficient. There is always the danger of confusing the reader by increasing the number of words in a rule. I want the rule to focus on what has changed and the implications of that change.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 213
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 6:12:06 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck





The problem is that it does not help Russia to withstand a 41 Barb, which the German can now almost guarantee with this change, and nothing is done to offset that other than the earliest attack probably being in JA.


Warspite1

Good. In a World War II game the Germans should be allowed to do a historic Barbarossa in my view. I had not appreciated this level of change in the rules meant that the Russians could almost guarantee the Germans could not do this.....v. strange.




_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 214
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 10:25:43 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
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.



I will try a shriek of joy.

A wise descision, as always, by a wise man.

I doubt that I will vote for this optional rule for the Global War scenario but at the same time I do not think I will object to it. But I do feel it will be a must for me to play the Lebensraum scenario.

_____________________________

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 #: 215
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 2:37:54 PM   
lavisj

 

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

The change to a 0.75 means roughly that the unit garrison value for the Russian will drop from around 60 to 45 from MJ to JA. Which means a difference of 30 German garrison points (not counting the chits). Since Germany was around 10 points short before, it is now 20 points over. That means it can dedicate an extra 20 units, mostly at 3 pts / units, so around 60BP to things other than Barbarossa. That allows Germany to wage a serious BoA, or absorb tremendous losses in France, and still be able to break the pact.

Basically it allows Germany to declare at will. This might very well be the intent.
Nevertheless, what that means, since Germany can pretty much break the pact in JA, even if having taken lots of losses and having built NAV's and subs..... that Russia should never even attempt to stuff in MJ, because it can not afford to be stuck on the border in JA.... it could lead to an interesting withdrawal I would think...... but I would venture a guess that unless Russia is active it will never defend forwards.

Just a note.... if it is the intent, then yes it would be good.

I also think that there should be the same thing in JA42 in order for Russia to increase Russia's ability to break a sitz.

Jerome

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 216
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 4:17:21 PM   
darune

 

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

The problem is that it does not help Russia to withstand a 41 Barb, which the German can now almost guarantee with this change, and nothing is done to offset that other than the earliest attack probably being in JA.


Without the rule it does not help russia either to withstand a 41 Barb, if ge/it uses an extremely gamey trick (already discussed) so war can be declared anyway.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 217
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 5:01:11 PM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		I still would rather have a free DOW option for every one.

< Message edited by Skanvak -- 11/10/2009 5:17:08 PM >

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 218
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 5:21:03 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: Orm


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.



I will try a shriek of joy.

A wise descision, as always, by a wise man.

I doubt that I will vote for this optional rule for the Global War scenario but at the same time I do not think I will object to it. But I do feel it will be a must for me to play the Lebensraum scenario.

The WIF FE rules for the Lebensraum scenario give Germany a one time opportunity to DOW the USSR in 1941 with a ratio of 1:1. That decision must be made by Germany in the first or second impulse of the scenario's first turn. If Germany does not DOW at that time, then the normal ratio of 2:1 is in effect.

Note that there are also special rules for the Japan-USSR neutrality pact in the Day of Infamy scenario (only the Pacific map is in use).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 219
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 5:37:42 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck





The problem is that it does not help Russia to withstand a 41 Barb, which the German can now almost guarantee with this change, and nothing is done to offset that other than the earliest attack probably being in JA.




Good. In a World War II game the Germans should be allowed to do a historic Barbarossa in my view. I had not appreciated this level of change in the rules meant that the Russians could almost guarantee the Germans could not do this.....v. strange.


I don't disagree with allowing the Germans a 41 Barb providing it doesn't always result in a Russian blow-out. That's the problem. Knowing this, a competitive Allied player has two choices:
1. Don't stuff and get crushed
2. Stuff, force a 42 Barb, or some other Axis strategy and have a chance for a victory.

So to guarantee a Stuff working you do absurd things like DoW Japan but withdraw to minimum frontage with cheap garrison units - in other words - declare war with no intent to fight or win (that's the absurd part). This in turn causes the Axis to DoW Hungary or Lithuania with the Italians !! ?

So absurdity is added to absurdity when the real problem is the game mechanics needed are a simplified garrison rule (like in WiF5) plus some mods to allow Russia to survive an all-out 41 Barb approximately 50% of the time. And by "survive", I mean fighting back from somewhere close to the historical Axis high-water mark, not from the three enclaves of Leningrad, Caucasus and the Urals.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 220
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 5:42:49 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

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 just reread this and I'm not sure the wording is correct. Shouldn't it be:

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. You still require a 2:1 ratio to break a pact. Therefore:

∙ in 1939 the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact can not be broken.
∙ in 1940 the defender's defensive values are doubled
∙ in 1941, first 6 months, the defender's defensive values unmodified
∙ in 1941, second 6 months, the defender's defensive values are multiplied by 0.75
∙ in 1942, the defender's defensive values are multiplied by 0.50
When you want to break a neutrality pact, you increase your garrison value by the value of your offensive entry markers but you can’t more than double your garrison value. Similarly, you increase your defensive garrison value by the total of your defensive entry markers on the common border. Again, you can’t more than double your (modified) defensive garrison value.
∙ and so on as per the WIF FE rules.

Yes. My wording could have been more precise: "defender's garrison values multiplied by 0.75".

I am not going to repeat the stuff about entry markers though. I believe the reference to all the other rules is sufficient. There is always the danger of confusing the reader by increasing the number of words in a rule. I want the rule to focus on what has changed and the implications of that change.

Rule writing is a very tricky business. The first draft implied a fundamental change to the need for a 2-1 ratio. Even now without reinforcing the way the chits work, a person reading the above will wonder if - with this optional - are the chits multiplied by the turn multiple as well?

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 221
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 6:49:28 PM   
Froonp


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

I never would have though that this thread would have resulted in a new optional rule.
I have not read the thread, but there is a lot more than what is meeting the eye behind the normal pact breaking rule, and merely discussing it here should not be enough to change the rule. Happily, this is an optional rule.

But I would like to bring in a couple of suggestions :
- First, please call it "Easier Breaking Neutrality Pacts" instead of "Breaking Neutrality Pacts", as Neutrality pacts can already been broken b regular rules.
- Then, please delete from the text in the manual and in the help text the bit about the 90% probability, because it is not true.

About this latest demand, as I have not read the thread entirely (at least since the last week) there may be something that proves me wrong (please point me to the point where it is demosntrated if this was done) but I never seen anyone able to calculate a percentage of this Russian strategy being sucessful. Each time I was in a discussion where it arose, the percentages cited as accurate by the people involved (who often said they had done "simulations" ~ that I still question the validity) ranged from 30% to 80%, so it never reached 90% and it is so variable that I would cite no number.


Also, maybe this was said already, but this rule serve a couple of needs in the game, and it is not only here to spoil's Germany's fun :

It is here firstly because this is what happened historicaly. The Russians were massed on the border in June 1941. Removing the ability to stuff (which is what this optional rule makes) thus removes the possibility that the game can recreate history, with the Russian caught on the border. No Russian player using this rule will try to stuff the border, so this rule is equivallent to removing the possibility.

It is here secondly so that Germany must build German material instead of building Italian material (maximum German lending to Italy) that will be used later with Italian HQ and Italian activity limits to crush Russian in a combined assault on Russia, nicknamed the "Super Balbo Strategy".

I'm not going to look for other uses about this rule, but for the people who think it is ahistorical, what about Hitler saying that if he had knew that the Russians had so many tanks, he would not have had declared war on the soviet Union ? It is not that ahistorical, and WiF is about possibilities about WW2, not about straightjacketing the players into the historical outcomes of the war.


The Gamey strategy (which one is it ?) that allows Germany to go around the breaking of the pact that Steve (was it him ?) aluded to saying that it was OK to have a new optional rule given this gamey strategy's existence, can be IMO delt about between players with Gentlemen's agreements before playing, with no need for an optional rule to deal with this. This gamey strategy (I'm not sure which one is aluded to) also have to proove it is really legal by RAW. All some I read about had flaws.


< Message edited by Froonp -- 11/10/2009 6:50:12 PM >

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 222
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 6:55:39 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: micheljq
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.

If you like to play a super balbo game, then this is good.
But I bet that when you'll have played that game, you'll be no more happy.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 223
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 7:01:15 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
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).

Indeed the game is already doing this.
Japan is compelled to attack the USA at the "right moment", the right moment being defined as follows :
- As late as possible (because when the USA are at war With Japan, they build a lot more, and once they are at war with Japan, they are going to be at war with all the axis soon, and produce like a behemot. The latter it happens, the better for the Axis).
- Before the USA DOWs them. The USA have the better chances to do this after playing option 34 (war appr bill), which is generally happening a couple of turns just after the oil embargo.

So you see, we can historicaly restric Germany from DoWing Russia, as the game already restricts Japan to DoW the USA.

(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 224
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 7:12:18 PM   
micheljq


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

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq
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.

If you like to play a super balbo game, then this is good.
But I bet that when you'll have played that game, you'll be no more happy.


Don't know what you are talking about. If you talk about Super Balbo, you talk to the wrong guy.

_____________________________

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 Froonp)
Post #: 225
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 7:30:59 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq
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.

If you like to play a super balbo game, then this is good.
But I bet that when you'll have played that game, you'll be no more happy.


Don't know what you are talking about. If you talk about Super Balbo, you talk to the wrong guy.

What was meant was if you like the optional and think its a good idea then expect Germany to take the extra BPs it no longer needs to have a bigger garrison and instead expend them on a large Italian air force and essentially accomplish a Super Balbo in JA 1941. Great if you are the Axis - not too much fun if you are the Allies.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 226
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 7:39:19 PM   
lavisj

 

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

ORIGINAL: Froonp
- Then, please delete from the text in the manual and in the help text the bit about the 90% probability, because it is not true.


Patrice, a few people before on this thread (me included, and Hakon in more details too) have calculated the following:
Under the following premises:
1. Traditional progression of the germans in Poland and the west
2. No heavy losses in France
3. CBV
4. Minimal Russian production
5. Maximum German production
6. Alignment of its minors.
7. No Lend Lease of Italian BP
8. Both Russia and Germany builds their most garrison efficient units
9. Germany has no units defending the West
10. USSR has 2-3 units defending the East

It was found that based on just the garrison value, that Germany was roughly 10 points short. This means that Germany needs to have better chits than Russia with an average of 10 points greater. Hakon calculated that to be 80%.

And If Russia really feels that it is about to loose the race, they can Declare war on Italy and get 4 more garrison units, as well as the ability to build Militias, which are more garrison efficient.

Now, to tell you the truth, I have seen the Russians attempt to stuff only 4 times.... but they succeeded easily those 4 times.

To tweak the garrison value of the Russians is good.... 75% might be too much. But it could still in theory avoid massive German LL to Italy, at least until the Russians decide to withdraw from the line (either in the winter, or in MJ).

But look at Hakon and Justin's posts for more details. I will redo the calculatation myself, just to make sure I did it right. It is easier to predict the Russian garrison value, much less the german.... All we can do for the German is calculate the Maximum possible. But you should do the math for yourself.... it is very enlightening.

Jerome

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 227
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 7:42:56 PM   
lavisj

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline 		Why not make it a change in Garrison value of 0.85%. This means that Russia looses roughly 10 points of Garrison, which would give Germany a 50-60% chance of breaking the pact if building garrison efficient.
This would mean that Germany could not afford to send massive LL to Italy to have them build a large air force. And therefore prevent a Super Balbo.. or at least diminish it?

Jerome

(in reply to lavisj)
Post #: 228
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 7:44:23 PM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline 		Froonp,

Though the game tend to push Japan to make an historical decision, but I have seen player declare war on the NEI alone very early (before Germany does). They have the option to do it if they want to experience other strategy. This is very different than making a rules that prevent player to declare war.

quote:

It is here firstly because this is what happened historicaly. The Russians were massed on the border in June 1941.


This is because the game does not give bonus to attack (entering Germany boost german production something noone want). The Russian, again, did not stuffed. Stalin did not think Hitler will attack (despite it's secret services told with obvious evidence the contrary) and he was preparing his own attack on an Europe exhausted by war. This is this thinking that is lacking in Wif (which exists more in DoD).

Of course the same can be said to Russian limitation to declare war on Germany and all mandatory declaration of war. That is why I advocate to have a free DOW option to try any what-if (or strict historical) option. One of the problem of computer game is that you cannot make house rule to them, I don't care for the military engine, but the diplomacy engine, as this thread show might raise a big wishes for house rules. Thought I am a fervent supporter of the implement the RaW as it is (and offer opition and later a tool box).

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 229
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 7:48:54 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Ouch....

I never would have though that this thread would have resulted in a new optional rule.
I have not read the thread, but there is a lot more than what is meeting the eye behind the normal pact breaking rule, and merely discussing it here should not be enough to change the rule. Happily, this is an optional rule.

But I would like to bring in a couple of suggestions :
- First, please call it "Easier Breaking Neutrality Pacts" instead of "Breaking Neutrality Pacts", as Neutrality pacts can already been broken b regular rules.
- Then, please delete from the text in the manual and in the help text the bit about the 90% probability, because it is not true.


Agreed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
About this latest demand, as I have not read the thread entirely (at least since the last week) there may be something that proves me wrong (please point me to the point where it is demosntrated if this was done) but I never seen anyone able to calculate a percentage of this Russian strategy being sucessful. Each time I was in a discussion where it arose, the percentages cited as accurate by the people involved (who often said they had done "simulations" ~ that I still question the validity) ranged from 30% to 80%, so it never reached 90% and it is so variable that I would cite no number.


Also, maybe this was said already, but this rule serve a couple of needs in the game, and it is not only here to spoil's Germany's fun :

It is here firstly because this is what happened historicaly. The Russians were massed on the border in June 1941. Removing the ability to stuff (which is what this optional rule makes) thus removes the possibility that the game can recreate history, with the Russian caught on the border. No Russian player using this rule will try to stuff the border, so this rule is equivallent to removing the possibility.

It is here secondly so that Germany must build German material instead of building Italian material (maximum German lending to Italy) that will be used later with Italian HQ and Italian activity limits to crush Russian in a combined assault on Russia, nicknamed the "Super Balbo Strategy".

I'm not going to look for other uses about this rule, but for the people who think it is ahistorical, what about Hitler saying that if he had knew that the Russians had so many tanks, he would not have had declared war on the soviet Union ? It is not that ahistorical, and WiF is about possibilities about WW2, not about straightjacketing the players into the historical outcomes of the war.


The Gamey strategy (which one is it ?) that allows Germany to go around the breaking of the pact that Steve (was it him ?) aluded to saying that it was OK to have a new optional rule given this gamey strategy's existence, can be IMO delt about between players with Gentlemen's agreements before playing, with no need for an optional rule to deal with this. This gamey strategy (I'm not sure which one is aluded to) also have to proove it is really legal by RAW. All some I read about had flaws.


If Russia DoWs Japan, she can build Militia and get the non-Ge Reserves. This then requires Germany to need about 26 more garrison points to get a 2:1, assuming the chits are around 2:1. Germany will have no chance to break the garrison unless the chits are ridiculously in her favor - and in a 2-player game the Allies know a LOT about the chits. Gamey Strategy #1. Now of course there is a US entry cost to do this but against Japan it is slight.

In response to this the Axis can have the Japanese surrender despite the fact they are not the aggressor and the Far East is woefully bereft of Russians. Gamey Strategy #2. (Also in a multiplayer game, what does the Japanese player get for his cooperation? The loss of Manchuria?) And the Russians can DoW Italy instead at much greater US Entry cost - and yet happily paid by some players to prevent a Barb 41. Especially since it prevents Counter Gamey Strategy #3.

Gamey Strategies #3, 4 and 5 are to find ways for Italy to involve itself against Russia in a manner that will reduce the Russian garrison value.

Rather than have all the gamey strategies - which indeed are rather distasteful - what is needed are some new game mechanics to allow the 41 Barb but reduce its deadliness.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 230
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 8:01:40 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Of course the same can be said to Russian limitation to declare war on Germany and all mandatory declaration of war. That is why I advocate to have a free DOW option to try any what-if (or strict historical) option. One of the problem of computer game is that you cannot make house rule to them, I don't care for the military engine, but the diplomacy engine, as this thread show might raise a big wishes for house rules. Thought I am a fervent supporter of the implement the RaW as it is (and offer opition and later a tool box).

If the players agree a gentleman's agreement not to Stuff, it will have zero impact on the game program. Everything will work fine. (Good luck with the present rules set to the Russians. Maybe a little less luck required if they also agree to somehow limit Super Balbo by the Axis, but that one is a bit difficult short of agreeing absolute limits on Italian involvement.)

If the players agree a gentleman's agreement to not employ the "Gamey Strategies", that too will have zero impact on the game program. Russia can choose to gamble and bluff with the garrison ratio and so can Germany - likely as was originally intended in the design. But likely Russia won't take the risk because the consequences of failure are disastrous.

Edit: I wonder how hard it would be to have a setting to keep a Russian AI from Stuffing?

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 11/10/2009 8:05:38 PM >

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 231
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 8:17:44 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: lavisj

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
- Then, please delete from the text in the manual and in the help text the bit about the 90% probability, because it is not true.


Patrice, a few people before on this thread (me included, and Hakon in more details too) have calculated the following:
Under the following premises:
1. Traditional progression of the germans in Poland and the west
2. No heavy losses in France
3. CBV
4. Minimal Russian production
5. Maximum German production
6. Alignment of its minors.
7. No Lend Lease of Italian BP
8. Both Russia and Germany builds their most garrison efficient units
9. Germany has no units defending the West
10. USSR has 2-3 units defending the East

It was found that based on just the garrison value, that Germany was roughly 10 points short. This means that Germany needs to have better chits than Russia with an average of 10 points greater. Hakon calculated that to be 80%.

And If Russia really feels that it is about to loose the race, they can Declare war on Italy and get 4 more garrison units, as well as the ability to build Militias, which are more garrison efficient.

Now, to tell you the truth, I have seen the Russians attempt to stuff only 4 times.... but they succeeded easily those 4 times.

To tweak the garrison value of the Russians is good.... 75% might be too much. But it could still in theory avoid massive German LL to Italy, at least until the Russians decide to withdraw from the line (either in the winter, or in MJ).

But look at Hakon and Justin's posts for more details. I will redo the calculatation myself, just to make sure I did it right. It is easier to predict the Russian garrison value, much less the german.... All we can do for the German is calculate the Maximum possible. But you should do the math for yourself.... it is very enlightening.

Jerome

I'm sorry Jerome, but these calculations are worthless.
There are counterstrategies to counter a stuff, no need for a rule to automaticaly make Germany able to DoW Russia.

These calculations are just saying, "If Russia tries to stuff the border, and the Axis let him do so, then Russia will succeed." I could also say "If Germany invades the UK and the CW let Germany do, then the UK will be conquered". So why not have an optional rule that the UK can never be conquered ??? After all, Britain won the Battle of Britain, and Germany never invaded the UK, so let's have a rule against that.

My point is that : this game has been in the business since 20 years (heu, indeed I don't know, maybe it is more), and there are a handful of people who scream that it is broken because of various reasons, this one being one, and the US Entry system being another, and the BoA yet another, etc... and I could cite a score of them (a few by myself ).

So : do we trust the system, or do we hastly patch it in an uncontrolled direction ?


As it is an optional rule, I really don't care, but I wanted to let this know anyway. I'm fed up with people wrongly complaining that the game is broken, if it is their opinion, then better let them drift away toward other games and continue enjoying playing the game without them around.

(in reply to lavisj)
Post #: 232
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 8:21:29 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'm sorry Jerome, but these calculations are worthless.
There are counterstrategies to counter a stuff, no need for a rule to automaticaly make Germany able to DoW Russia.

Care to share??

I trust none of them are "gamey".

If you can be so dismissive of the calculations, you can at least put a little flesh on the bone of the counter strategies.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 233
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 8:28:56 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline 		I do not think that you should focus on how to counter exploits or gamey strategies, this will never end. Anyway the majority of players probably do not know about your Super Balbo or do not care. This is the case of my group, we do not care. Only hardcore players are trying it no? And this is their darn right if they want to try other strategies. Please don't be more Catholic than the Pope itself.

I think that the intent here is that if Germany really wants a 1941 Barbarossa and puts the necessary build points to it, it will be able to do it in JA41 for sure.

Only my personal opinion of course. I am only an observer I can silence myself if you want.

< Message edited by micheljq -- 11/10/2009 8:29:06 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 paulderynck)
Post #: 234
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 8:35:22 PM   
micheljq


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

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

What was meant was if you like the optional and think its a good idea then expect Germany to take the extra BPs it no longer needs to have a bigger garrison and instead expend them on a large Italian air force and essentially accomplish a Super Balbo in JA 1941. Great if you are the Axis - not too much fun if you are the Allies.


Extra germans BPs spent on building crappy italian units, not so bad.

Large italian air force not in the Mediterranean, good for Commonwealth, early conquest of Italy ahead.


_____________________________

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 paulderynck)
Post #: 235
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 8:40:28 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'm sorry Jerome, but these calculations are worthless.
There are counterstrategies to counter a stuff, no need for a rule to automaticaly make Germany able to DoW Russia.

Care to share??

I trust none of them are "gamey".

If you can be so dismissive of the calculations, you can at least put a little flesh on the bone of the counter strategies.

Hey, I don't know, I've said that the game is in the business since 20 years, at least, so I beleive that these calculations are crap because if they were right 100% of the time, the game would have stoped to sell 10 years ago and we would not be speaking about a computerized version.

For example, from the top of my head when I read Jerome's assumptions, Japan can DoW the USSR.

And the fact that the most vehement advocate of the "stuff is bad" argument is Hakon makes me more confident that the stuff is not a problem, because I think that Hakon hates the stuffing the border strategy because it prevents him from using his own prefered strategy.


I've personaly seen a "stuff the border" strategy once and guess what ? It suceeded !!!! And you know why ? Because the German player was so confident that the pact could be broken (I suspect he did not even know that there was a rule about that) that he never counted any garrison nor any chit. He never tried to optimize his builts, never tried to not have less garrison in the west, never tried to give less RP to Italy, and the pact was broken for only 1 point of garrison. If he had been 1% more concentrated on the game (say lend 2 RP less to Italy for example), it would have failed, and the Russian was 100% dedicated to make it work, and he would have been caugnt on the border, as it happened historicaly.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 236
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 8:56:41 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: micheljq

I do not think that you should focus on how to counter exploits or gamey strategies, this will never end. Anyway the majority of players probably do not know about your Super Balbo or do not care. This is the case of my group, we do not care. Only hardcore players are trying it no? And this is their darn right if they want to try other strategies. Please don't be more Catholic than the Pope itself.

I think that the intent here is that if Germany really wants a 1941 Barbarossa and puts the necessary build points to it, it will be able to do it in JA41 for sure.

I don't know if it is addressed to me, but it looks like.
Well, you say that the "super balbo" strategy is a hardcore player strategy and that your group don't care, and I share your view.
But I also say that the "stuff always win" strategy is also a hardcore player strategy, and I also say that it never was a problem in my gaming group, and my group also don't care.
So indeed, I'd say that if we agree about these two opinions, then the result is that nothing have to be done to the game's rules, you just have to be carefull not to play with Hardcore players.

quote:

Only my personal opinion of course. I am only an observer I can silence myself if you want.

I hope you won't, and I'm sorry if you felt I was implying such things. I was not.
I was just answering what you wrote that the change was a good idea that had no impact on other rules, and I tried to tell you that it had consequences.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 237
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 9:10:11 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline 		What a discussion, so heuh how does it ends? Will the optional rule be there or not?

Just curious.

_____________________________

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 Froonp)
Post #: 238
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 9:14:09 PM   
lavisj

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Well, you say that the "super balbo" strategy is a hardcore player strategy and that your group don't care, and I share your view.
But I also say that the "stuff always win" strategy is also a hardcore player strategy, and I also say that it never was a problem in my gaming group, and my group also don't care.


Indeed, if your group does not care about the Super Balbo strategy (mine does not either) and therefore do not use it, and if your group does not care about the stuffing (your group does not attempt it), then all that discussion is a mute point for you.
But the stuffing can happen sometimes... and all it takes really is to try it one time to see how efficient it can be. I had to try it once because I gooffed up and the German took control of East Poland... and therefore I saw a 41 Barb as too deadly and thought stuffing was my best bet. Japan had attacked Russia and taken the 3 ressources in the far east, but it actually made stuffing even easier as I was able to build MIL.

All you actually need to do, is the math when playing Russia and you will figure out what your chances are.

quote:


I hope you won't, and I'm sorry if you felt I was implying such things. I was not.
I was just answering what you wrote that the change was a good idea that had no impact on other rules, and I tried to tell you that it had consequences.


If your group does not practice the Stuff or Super Balbo, this optional rule will have zero consequences, really.
It does have consequences on those who try to stuff (I typically do not.... only that one time), but I have seen it work many times.

But do not desepair I will redo my calculations for you..... so you can evaluate with some good hard numbers. After that, if you still feel this is not an issue for you I will not bother you with it anymore..... to all its own.

Jerome

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 239
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 11/10/2009 11:09:03 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Hey, I don't know, I've said that the game is in the business since 20 years, at least, so I beleive that these calculations are crap because if they were right 100% of the time, the game would have stoped to sell 10 years ago and we would not be speaking about a computerized version.

The game has changed a lot in 20 years. When was WiFFE brought out? I played WiF when it was Version 2 and we are up to what now? Version 7, soon to be 8? The latest garrison rule is a child of WIFFE so the track record prior to that is unjustifiable as evidence that "everything is perfect with the game". If you compared even WiF version 4 to the present WiFFE, it would be considerably different. We jointly participated in a project to get a 417 question FAQ published - many of which are annotated "needs rule change".

The discussion here is good for the game if it results in improvement. Your ostrich response is not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
For example, from the top of my head when I read Jerome's assumptions, Japan can DoW the USSR.

That makes things far better for Russia. Japan takes the US Entry hit, and the Russians build their stuffing strength while slowly withdrawing in the East. If the Japanese get greedy and take Vlad, then the turn after Barb starts, Russia compels a peace. I played a successful stuff with Russia just like this and it worked beautifully. My only mistake was waiting an extra turn after the Chicoms took back Ulan Bator. They could have then reverted all of Mongolia to Russia right after peace was compelled. That would have messed up Japan even more. Instead Japan took it back before the Peace the next turn and was able to keep driving the Chicoms back south.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
And the fact that the most vehement advocate of the "stuff is bad" argument is Hakon makes me more confident that the stuff is not a problem, because I think that Hakon hates the stuffing the border strategy because it prevents him from using his own prefered strategy.

It is not important who is most vehement or why, it is important there are so many who feel this aspect of the game needs to be improved big time. Hakon can defend himself (adroitly as always) but my reading of his posts is that the game needs better Russian survivability more than it needs more complicated, finangled garrison rules.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I've personaly seen a "stuff the border" strategy once and guess what ? It suceeded !!!! And you know why ? Because the German player was so confident that the pact could be broken (I suspect he did not even know that there was a rule about that) that he never counted any garrison nor any chit. He never tried to optimize his builts, never tried to not have less garrison in the west, never tried to give less RP to Italy, and the pact was broken for only 1 point of garrison. If he had been 1% more concentrated on the game (say lend 2 RP less to Italy for example), it would have failed, and the Russian was 100% dedicated to make it work, and he would have been caugnt on the border, as it happened historicaly.


And from this one game you can conclude nothing is wrong with the Stuff strategy enhanced by gamey maneuvers combined with gamey attempted antidotes?

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 11/10/2009 11:10:14 PM >

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: 'stuffing' the border Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   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

1.297