Breunor
Posts: 21
Joined: 11/19/2009 Status: offline
|
Hi Paul. Yes, I think we are on pretty common ground. I think having it as an option makes sense. Indeed, for beginners, I would usually tell them not to try the forward defense. In the board game the actual counting/assessing process is pretty involved; but mostly, it adds a lot of volatility - stuff and it works and Germans try to break the pact, it is bad for them, stuff and it fails and it is real bad for the USSR. By using a rear defense it is probably a 'tamer' game. In terms of whether Germany 'should' be able to do a 41 Barb, to me it is an issue of realism vs. game play. My impression is that it would be more realistic to say that Germany should be able to break the pact any time they want, although I'm sure we can get historians with all kinds of views on this topic. On the other hand, as a game mechanic, it may be better to allow the rules as they are now; as people have pointed out, the USSR player now can influence the Barb decision although with potential consequences. This rule gives the USSR player something to do and decide besides being smashed to bits. Seriously, though, it should allow more 'game types'. By using a forward defense, or even threatening a forward defense, we can get the currently common situation of a rear defense when Germany declares war. However, we WILL occasionally get the real life scenario of the Soviets being caught at the border. Although being caught at the border isn’t pleasant, it is NOT an automatic death sentence and it can be an interesting game. That is, by allowing the rule more kinds of games will emerge. Indeed, some players seem to like a modified forward defense just on defensive properties, viewing hte land gained as worth the cost. So personally I can go either way on this issue. Sorry if I misinterpreted the question about the 42 Barbs. My take has been that the Soviet forward defense hasn’t been a too much of an issue because the SOVIET player has been scared of it. I guess a way to think about it is a game of bluff – the Soviets are scared of the high risk consequences – but if they take the risk, the German player can also alleviate the risk by going for a 42 Barb. (I suspect people don’t want to take off a week and two weekends, travel to Lansing Michigan or the equivalent, set up, eat junk food, yell at teammates, sit there counting up garrison values {along with the inevitable ‘oh, you didn’t count that plane in the port underneath my 12 ships?’} and have a large part of the game decided if you beat the garrison requirement by 2). So, if you don’t mind my changing the subject, I think the discussion is interesting in that I thought forward defenses haven’t been used that much – but there are players here who advocate them (and also advocate banning them in effect). To be honest, as all-around WIFFE fan, I think it is great! That is, there is an interesting strategy issue here. Have people worked out the BEST way to use a forward defense? I think some of the ideas here went a little too far – but it would be interesting to see a more ‘conservative’ forward defense without giving up the Far East or doing some of the less usual ideas advocated. What if the USSR built all of their best units but a real good player (for better than I) worked out EXACTLY the number of troops that can hold the Japanese ‘just so right’ at bay? That would be a GREAT strategy discussion! Likewise, the common thread here comes to a statement I made earlier – the mechanic of a forward defense is SUPPOSED to be balanced. But is it? I think the crux of the argument revolves around how ‘quickly’ the two players’ can react to the other player’s strategy. What is easier – is it easier for the Soviets to go from what looks like a rear defense to a forward defense, and possibly catch Germany trying a 41 Bbrb and failing? Or can Germany adjust to ‘over-stuffing’ to make a 42 Barb even stronger? Each side has advantages here. For the Soviets, it is less of a change in builds and movement; but the USSR is limited by combined impulses. Germany may have to change its builds and overall strategy dramatically, but can take full actions and has a greater ability to move its troops around. Furthermore, Germany can adjust by seeing how it chit pulls look. If the USSR uses a forward strategy, be careful of an early Barbarossa – Germany can strike on earlier turns, I’ve even seen them attack in J/F (this idea obviously requires France to fall pretty fast)! For the USSR, the forward defense CAN hold (as I said, a little unpleasant). A rear defense can hold. Getting caught in the middle is a total catastrophe. So, who has the advantage in the ‘stuff strategy’? Well, I came on this forum to give my experience and wisdom, but I admit issue is beyond me. It is really, really tough! Those of you thinking that ‘stuffing’ is too good for the USSR, well, go for it! It would be good for the game as a whole to see forward defenses tried, to have these ideas tested. So, sorry, this is my typically long-winded argument as to why I think it may be good from a ‘gaming’ standpoint to not allow Germany to make the decision – all of these kinds of strategies are then lost. I’m such a WIFFE geek, I live for these types of topics and games around them. I think it is just great that I’ve played this game non-stop for over a decade but there are still ideas and strategies which are totally out of my experience, good ideas to try. Of course, no harm in it being an option (and realism vs. play are very common option choices.) Good gaming, Breunor
|