Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I know there is a difference between a beer and a cat as well. But how Yogi spells his name has any relevance with option 47 eludes me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Well I did point out opinions on Option 47 were polarized, so maybe someone thought...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am sorry Bo. I didn't mean to stop your fun. Please forgive me. I am just a grumpy, old bear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo
Very polarized paul, I trust your judgement in the game of WIF and MWIF. Is it good for the game rule 47 being in. I guess in other words if you had the option would you put it in. Not trying to put you on the spot, I have no opinion as I have never played a real game, and really never noticed whether isolated units were reorganizing at the end of the turn probably because I never left units in my rear area while I was testing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo
Very polarized paul, I trust your judgement in the game of WIF and MWIF. Is it good for the game rule 47 being in. I guess in other words if you had the option would you put it in. Not trying to put you on the spot, I have no opinion as I have never played a real game, and really never noticed whether isolated units were reorganizing at the end of the turn probably because I never left units in my rear area while I was testing.

Ideally I'd like to see it in MWiF as an option for people to use if they agreed to do so.

But I don't think MWiF is broken without it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo
Very polarized paul, I trust your judgement in the game of WIF and MWIF. Is it good for the game rule 47 being in. I guess in other words if you had the option would you put it in. Not trying to put you on the spot, I have no opinion as I have never played a real game, and really never noticed whether isolated units were reorganizing at the end of the turn probably because I never left units in my rear area while I was testing.

Ideally I'd like to see it in MWiF as an option for people to use if they agreed to do so.

But I don't think MWiF is broken without it.

+1

quote:

I'm relatively sure Zartacla would agree. My guess is he's moved on already, like I should.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo
Very polarized paul, I trust your judgement in the game of WIF and MWIF. Is it good for the game rule 47 being in. I guess in other words if you had the option would you put it in. Not trying to put you on the spot, I have no opinion as I have never played a real game, and really never noticed whether isolated units were reorganizing at the end of the turn probably because I never left units in my rear area while I was testing.

Ideally I'd like to see it in MWiF as an option for people to use if they agreed to do so.

But I don't think MWiF is broken without it.

+1

Another one of those posts with the beta testers patting themselves on the back. "We have the tool, we have what we want from the game, and we aren't dealing with any game-breaking bugs. We have the developer to fix them."

I'm relatively sure Zartacla would agree. My guess is he's moved on already, like I should.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo
Very polarized paul, I trust your judgement in the game of WIF and MWIF. Is it good for the game rule 47 being in. I guess in other words if you had the option would you put it in. Not trying to put you on the spot, I have no opinion as I have never played a real game, and really never noticed whether isolated units were reorganizing at the end of the turn probably because I never left units in my rear area while I was testing.

Ideally I'd like to see it in MWiF as an option for people to use if they agreed to do so.

But I don't think MWiF is broken without it.

+1

Another one of those posts with the beta testers patting themselves on the back. "We have the tool, we have what we want from the game, and we aren't dealing with any game-breaking bugs. We have the developer to fix them."

I'm relatively sure Zartacla would agree. My guess is he's moved on already, like I should.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I've been playing with a House Rule of Option 47 ever since my 2nd game of World in Flames, under 4th Edition rules in the year 1991. I've never heard anyone suggest not using it in pre-game optional rules negotiations, ever. It is probably common to use a House Rule to solve the problem of key units being "in jail" by simply allowing players to remove them from the map, rather than not use Option 47 at all. I would predict at least an 80% use rate if WiF players were polled on the question of using it.

The only reason that I can see that it wasn't included as a core part of MWiF was the 5th Edition perspective of the whole project, as if Final Edition was just a change from d6 to d10 but otherwise the same game.

World in Flames has a lot of playability fudges, particularly in logistics. The German Army could not advance it's logistic front into Russia by 400km in ten days the way the Manstein or Rommel HQ-A can do it in the game. The players of World in Flames itself (not just MWiF) are continually asked to ignore the fudges in the interests of simplicity for everyone else. Option 47 is somewhat of a help in reducing those, and I agree with Zartacia on this one. Option 47 changes play on the Russian Front. The WWII standard of bypassing enemy pockets with armor and mopping them up later is a lesser tactic when units cut off from their logistics for weeks at a time can still function at 100% combat effectiveness, unless you devote front line artillery and aircraft to reducing isolated enemy units that are unlikely to fight as well as units still supplied normally. These are not 19th Century infantry units that can raid farms for food and every soldier can physically carry enough ammunition for an entire day of combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
The only reason that I can see that it wasn't included as a core part of MWiF was the 5th Edition perspective of the whole project, as if Final Edition was just a change from d6 to d10 but otherwise the same game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

By 100% combat effectiveness I meant on defense. It is more than a little frustrating to successfully flip / disorganize two Soviet Infantry Armies of the Southwest Front on the plains of the Ukraine, bypass them with Panzer spearheads, and then have the turn end and have to start over on reducing the enemy pocket, which once again defends at full strength. The historical Germans took hundreds of thousands of prisoners in that situation, with weak resistance. The binary nature of the simple to play game World in Flames leads to realism problems, and Option 47 is of acute interest to players interested in realism, far more than any need to code Supply Units or Large ATR options. If the supply rules work it is really hard to understand why Option 47 can't work though I know it has been explained.

Continually being locked out of being able to control the software you purchase also seems to be a relic of the 20th century. Purchasing the game should give you access to the beta versions if you so desire and I can't understand that either. It's just a game, not a cutting edge mobile OS full of proprietary secrets that could be monetized by the competitors. And I know that has been explained too.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Larry Smith

I've been perusing a number of sites online that attempt to explain some of the inconsistencies with what the situation was between Germany and the Soviets in 1941. One site was even using a tagline that "Hitler saved Europe". The theory isn't new - that the Soviets under Stalin were building up to invade Europe. Why else were their forces bunched up so close to the frontier? Why else did they need so many paratroops [some reports claim they had 1 million trained, though it was doubtful they were properly trained]? What good was the BT tank design [it could shed its tracks to drive fast on proper roads] when Eastern Europe had such poor roadways? Yet something I had never considered was how the politics came into it. One site apparently mentioned a quote by Stalin, whereby he told junior officers at a military academy that the Nazi-Soviet pact was "merely a curtain behind which we may do our real work". The purges were not just to remove possible threats, but to make room for more aggressive juniors, and to remove those who were against invading the west. Just a few of the sites. Some of the articles posted appear to have been written almost a century ago, so not all of it is blessed with the perspective of post-war knowledge.
How this fits into this thread - well, there were many reasons why so many Soviet troops surrendered so readily in the early days of the invasion. They had not been properly trained for defensive fighting; they were not supportive of the Soviet regime; they didn't understand the real nature of the German leadership... Perhaps a House Rule wherein out of supply Soviet units have a chance of surrendering instead of fighting, at least before the winter hit. With the lack of shelter and food, and the Germans so short on winterized gear and clothing, the true nature of the Nazi beast would have been there for all to see.
Here are some of those links...
http://rense.com/general95/did.htm
http://www.2worldwar2.com/
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/welcome.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

By 100% combat effectiveness I meant on defense. It is more than a little frustrating to successfully flip / disorganize two Soviet Infantry Armies of the Southwest Front on the plains of the Ukraine, bypass them with Panzer spearheads, and then have the turn end and have to start over on reducing the enemy pocket, which once again defends at full strength. The historical Germans took hundreds of thousands of prisoners in that situation, with weak resistance. The binary nature of the simple to play game World in Flames leads to realism problems, and Option 47 is of acute interest to players interested in realism, far more than any need to code Supply Units or Large ATR options. If the supply rules work it is really hard to understand why Option 47 can't work though I know it has been explained.

Continually being locked out of being able to control the software you purchase also seems to be a relic of the 20th century. Purchasing the game should give you access to the beta versions if you so desire and I can't understand that either. It's just a game, not a cutting edge mobile OS full of proprietary secrets that could be monetized by the competitors. And I know that has been explained too.

warspite1

Yes, but a bit of context here (see post 108). When the Germans surrounded those Soviet pockets (and the same for the Soviets when coming back against the Germans later in the war) they did not just cut-off the enemy and then continue blithely on. Both sides still took much by way of time and resources to annihilate the trapped armies.

Remember we are talking 2-month turns. In real life the advancing armies could not simply continue on and ignore those surrounded. IF in MWIF a player chooses (unrealistically) to do so then, without Option 47, that surrounded army will have a chance to "re-organise" - albeit not re-supply or re-equip and so be unable to mount an attack.

I just do not see this as a deal breaker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

Or my question should be, can you handle it, in other words if there is no debug feature put into the main game by Steve [this means you could disorganize these units again at the end of every turn] how could this be handled by players assuming that you would ever let this situation even occur in the first place which I doubt you would.

Bo

You do what you'd do if Option 47 never existed. Ground strike them and kill them. If you miss the ground strike you leave units adjacent and keep them OOS. The best they can do next turn is "ooze" to somewhere and disorganize, knowing you can then probably kill them unless they try to time it with the turn ending. Also you place your units adjacent in a manner that if they do ooze, it is you who controls where they ooze to.

In the next turn you try to ground strike them again.

If Option 47 never existed this would just be standard play in WiF with no one knowing any different.

Sounds sensible paul but aren't you tying up ground units to keep them out of supply that could be used elsewhere? Also they still have a zone of control and can still disrupt supply lines and RR lines that are in their ZOC, right.

Bo

Yes they have a ZoC which can disrupt supply and rail lines. That's why you likely want to dispense with them.

Yes it ties up ground units. That's just how it is - there's no magic solution, just like there's no magic solution that will give you an AI opponent tomorrow. You kind of have to live with it.

quote:

ZOC

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The post you quote affirms the units that are isolated still have a ZoC. It did not claim that they needed to be kept in a ZoC by the side that isolated them in order for them to stay isolated.

quote:

If you miss the ground strike you leave units adjacent and keep them OOS. The best they can do next turn is "ooze" to somewhere and disorganize, knowing you can then probably kill them unless they try to time it with the turn ending. Also you place your units adjacent in a manner that if they do ooze, it is you who controls where they ooze to.

quote:

Sounds sensible paul but aren't you tying up ground units to keep them out of supply that could be used elsewhere? Also they still have a zone of control and can still disrupt supply lines and RR lines that are in their ZOC, right.

Bo

quote:


Yes they have a ZoC which can disrupt supply and rail lines. That's why you likely want to dispense with them.

Yes it ties up ground units. That's just how it is - there's no magic solution, just like there's no magic solution that will give you an AI opponent tomorrow. You kind of have to live with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The post you quote affirms the units that are isolated still have a ZoC. It did not claim that they needed to be kept in a ZoC by the side that isolated them in order for them to stay isolated.

Maybe I got it wrong but weren't you writing about " yes, it ties up ground units", in the context, I think we were referring to units left behind to impede restoration through blocking a possible supply line with their ZOCs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

In WitE you can create large pockets in the summer of '41. Some of which can take over a month to finally reduce using quite a few troops to do so. Which of course prevents then from helping the advance. So having to have units stay behind to do 'clean up' seems very realistic to me.

Also, many of the advances in '41 were very narrow against an opponent that was disorganized, poor leadership, etc. Unfortunately for players, these traits cannot be modeled in any game that will accurately recreate what actually occurred on the Eastern Front. If nothing else, we the players have the hindsight that the RL combatants did not. The same is true in ANY complex strategy game I have ever played on WWII. So saying the game cannot allow a player to recreate a specific result in a game like occurred in RL means the game is broken just does not mean much to me.

I do not hear anyone complaining about France lasting longer than RL. There are games where France has lasted past May/June '40 so that must mean the game is broken correct? So why do you think the Germans should be able to advance 400km in the game makes the game bad/unplayable. After all you are not playing a real life Stalin (or even the RL people under him). The Russian player is going to do everything they can to NOT have that happen. Again, to me, this is a function of using what we know today to impact game play.

Both sides try and optimize their play using min/max efforts. So saying one rule in a game with thousands makes or breaks it seems just a little over the top. Of course if you played the board version and used this rule a lot, then your play style is going to suffer in the computer game. But again that does not mean the game is 'unplayable'. It means it is not as much fun for you since you are used to that play style and like it.

But for those like me that never played the board game and/or never used that rule, then it does not have the same impact to us as it does to those on the other side. So for us, the game is perfectly fine without that rule. While for the other people the game is not.

So you can just stop playing until it is added at some point (if ever) or adjust your play style and learn new tricks to deal with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

In WitE you can create large pockets in the summer of '41. Some of which can take over a month to finally reduce using quite a few troops to do so. Which of course prevents then from helping the advance. So having to have units stay behind to do 'clean up' seems very realistic to me.

Also, many of the advances in '41 were very narrow against an opponent that was disorganized, poor leadership, etc. Unfortunately for players, these traits cannot be modeled in any game that will accurately recreate what actually occurred on the Eastern Front. If nothing else, we the players have the hindsight that the RL combatants did not. The same is true in ANY complex strategy game I have ever played on WWII. So saying the game cannot allow a player to recreate a specific result in a game like occurred in RL means the game is broken just does not mean much to me.

I do not hear anyone complaining about France lasting longer than RL. There are games where France has lasted past May/June '40 so that must mean the game is broken correct? So why do you think the Germans should be able to advance 400km in the game makes the game bad/unplayable. After all you are not playing a real life Stalin (or even the RL people under him). The Russian player is going to do everything they can to NOT have that happen. Again, to me, this is a function of using what we know today to impact game play.

quote:

Both sides try and optimize their play using min/max efforts. So saying one rule in a game with thousands makes or breaks it seems just a little over the top. Of course if you played the board version and used this rule a lot, then your play style is going to suffer in the computer game. But again that does not mean the game is 'unplayable'. It means it is not as much fun for you since you are used to that play style and like it.

But for those like me that never played the board game and/or never used that rule, then it does not have the same impact to us as it does to those on the other side. So for us, the game is perfectly fine without that rule. While for the other people the game is not.

So you can just stop playing until it is added at some point (if ever) or adjust your play style and learn new tricks to deal with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I dusted off my Fire the East manual just to illustrate the point of what most games do with Out-of-Supply units. The OOS units are destroyed.

Tracing supply in Fire in East is a bit difficult due to the fact that there are different rail gauges, as well as trucks supplying units near the front for the Germans.

However, it's pretty evident what the results of being out of supply, and being unable to trace supply are:

12D) Supply Effects
A unit out of supply has its abilities restricted, depending on the number of consecutive turns the unit is out of supply. Fire in the East turns are 1 week long.
On the first turn out of supply, a unit has it's attack strength halved
On the second and subsequent turns out of supply, a unit has it's attack, defense, AA, and movement rating are halved.
During each initial phase starting with the fourth turn out of supply (1 month), a d6 is rolled, and on a 4 or higher, the unit is eliminated.
Modified by:
-2 if the unit is in a fortress or major city,
+1 for frost weather
+2 during snow weather

So to summarize, surrounded units, which haven't even been attacked, start to be destroyed after being out of supply for 1 month? Wow, that seems sorta mean. Even in cities? Why would that rule be there?

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