RE: 'stuffing' the border (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

rkr1958 -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/23/2009 6:06:32 PM)

I have to admit that I keep being swayed back and forth by good arguments on both sides.  Being a person who has never played WIF and have never read through the rules I don't have the slightest idea of whether or not stuffing the border is a good thing or not based on what I've read in this thread.  One thing though is that I'm thoroughly enjoying the articulate arguments made by both sides.



Froonp -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/23/2009 8:49:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
- Introduce individual victory conditions for each power, to try to draw the Italians south. A system simmilar to the one in Britannica (the board game) could be effective.

Individual victory conditions already exist Hakon. With bids of 0 :
Italy : 0
Japan : 5
Germany : 10.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/23/2009 10:14:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I have to admit that I keep being swayed back and forth by good arguments on both sides.  Being a person who has never played WIF and have never read through the rules I don't have the slightest idea of whether or not stuffing the border is a good thing or not based on what I've read in this thread.  One thing though is that I'm thoroughly enjoying the articulate arguments made by both sides.

What makes me happiest is that the discussion is both polite and pleasant.[:)] From my point of view we all are seeking a common goal.



paulderynck -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/23/2009 10:42:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
- Introduce individual victory conditions for each power, to try to draw the Italians south. A system simmilar to the one in Britannica (the board game) could be effective.

Individual victory conditions already exist Hakon. With bids of 0 :
Italy : 0
Japan : 5
Germany : 10.

A lot of games are 2-player games with the magic number for the Axis = 15. I think what Hakon means is that as the Axis player you would lose VPs with Italy if you did not meet certain of her (historically announced) wartime objectives. In his DoW speech, Musolini talked more about freedom fo the sea lanes than he did about land aspirations. This may have just been his casus belli and he really wanted to be Julius Caesar reincarnated, but in any event a set of conditions could be defined for Italy that are divergent from "lebensraum" and would cost VPs if not pursued.

Something like the US aligning Brazil costing an extra VP - but on a much wider and country-specific scale. Then even in a 2-player game, you would have to evaluate the risks of an Italian over-committment to the Russian Front.



brian brian -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/23/2009 11:28:06 PM)

There are two ways to stuff the border ... with Russia going active via a DoW of some sort and building the MIL, and without access to the MIL. Keep that in mind. What Hakon said about their builds is exactly right...the best no-MIL Russian build plan is also their best build plan to defend the country in general. The only tough decisions there are the 40 & 41 HQ's and maybe some Forts and some extra CP for the Caspian. I don't even start building their FTR until the 1941 Force Pool additions.

A full-on Japanese<>Russian war can easily become a Tar Baby for each side with disastrous consequences. The Russians making that mistake probably loses more games for the Allies than anything else I've ever seen and has no bearing on discussing Barbarossa. If the Axis is getting ready to cross the Russian border in 1941 the Russians should leave at most a GARR in each Siberian city and leave their weakest couple CAV hanging around over there and nothing else. If you neglect the seriousness of the main campaign of the game then it is your own fault for losing the game, not the design.

The 'game is broken' crowd still has a long way to go to prove their case that the game needs much changing. The Allies can beat the Axis even during a kitchen-sink-and-a-bag-of-chips Barbarossa and the design works just fine as it is.



paulderynck -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/23/2009 11:57:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Breunor

But my (potentially flawed) reading was that some posters felt the issue was more serious, that it was an actual game breaker. When I mentioned that 42 Barbarossas seem to me to be slightly more common than 41 Barbarossas, the comment was that it was to avoid the stuffing issue. Guys, that is just crazy. This has NOT been the defining rule issue dominating tournament WIFFE for years.

I hope we are coming to some common ground here. As I've said, I like the option. Will you guys agree that WIFFE isn't broken without it? I was especially worried about the impression of people who read the boards but haven't played a lot of board WIFFE.

Ultimately, to me the question is:

Should we change a rule that allows the USSR to play poorly but forces Germany out of their preferred strategy? My conclusion: well, why not allow it as an option?


Good gaming,

Breunor

I know of only one poster here that said the game is broken. Personally I like playing the game too much to claim that. But I am very familiar with the mechanics of the Stuff strategy and reported on two games I've played recently where it took place, with Germany attacking in JF42. I did ask the question: Are there more 42 Barbs then 41s because long time players have figured it out and know their chances are better racking up Axis accomplishments elsewhere in 41 as opposed to wasting 4 turns trying to get enough on the border to break a Stuff? It is a legitimate question, but not a claimed explanation.

There have been posts (here, Yahoo? can't remember) about WiFCon games being "different", because players go to a Con to play, not to sit idle for half the game. What I see in the game reports from the Cons are some pretty weird strategies, like Japan conquering Portugal or the "No USA in Europe/Pacific" gambits. It is difficult to judge if the Cons are the best benchmark for a "typical" basement game where a player can patiently try a particular strategy that takes maybe months of real time to mature.

I don't know from reading your recent eloquent posts if the two of us vary all that much in our views. I'd say we have some common ground:
- Germany should be able to do a 41 Barb in a WWII game (but IMO the Russians need to have an improved chance of surviving an all-out 41 Barb)
- the option that Steve added (not at the insistence of some posters, IMO, but out of concern for the bullet point above) is a good thing, but nobody has to use it.

If a player chooses not to Stuff in MWIF, the game will work fine because the NS ratio won't mean anything anyway, so people who want to play that way will certainly enjoy it, and they will have no need for the added option.

If somebody wants to use the Stuff to beat up on the AI then they will have an enjoyable game with themselves and no one is hurt (unless an artifically inflated ego is harmful to oneself). I guess the possibility that the AI will use the Stuff to beat up on an Axis player is there and that may be a huge turn-off for a newbie player. It might be solvable by having a level of difficulty setting that doesn't use it or having an option to play without it.

But I maintain MWIF will always be far more competitive and enjoyable when played against other humans, so maybe it comes down to being aware that the tactic is out there and is the kind of thing players may want to discuss before starting a game.




Breunor -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/24/2009 1:35:48 AM)

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



paulderynck -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/24/2009 3:11:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Breunor
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

I view wargaming as a "science of optimization". So if I am going to stuff, I naturally consider the ramifications of it not working. The big problems I have as the Soviets are:
1. How sure am I the garrison cannot be broken?
2. If it all starts to go sideways, or better yet when ND41 comes, how do I transition to a non-forward defence, taking only Combineds?

From this perspective, ADG has given me a huge advantage. DoW Japan, build my Militia and by being Active, take all the Land impulses I want. All at the cost of a point 7 increase in US Entry.

That's pretty effective. (Let's lay aside for a moment all the even gamier potential Axis antidotes.)

So why should I gamble with a rear defence that "might" hold through 41 given average to poor weather, when I can optimize a guarantee that about 50% of the time I can execute an orderly withdrawal in ND41 or first impulse of JF42; and the other 50% of the time the Germans not only have to move first but have to have the balls to attack in winter? (And even then, to attack a much stronger forward defence than I would have in MJ41.)




Breunor -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/24/2009 3:33:18 AM)

Paul,

Well, it sounds good. I don't think I have any more to add. If you think it works, go for it!

Best wishes,

Breunor



Skanvak -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/24/2009 6:13:48 PM)

quote:

From this perspective, ADG has given me a huge advantage. DoW Japan, build my Militia and by being Active, take all the Land impulses I want. All at the cost of a point 7 increase in US Entry.


The problem is that WiF makes no difference between limited war and total war. the Japan-Russia clash was only a limited war, as the Finnish war. They should not give Russian the full benefit of Total war (ie no call of reserve, only combined and so on). But I don't think we will all agree on how to implement that...



composer99 -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/24/2009 8:06:37 PM)

USSR DoW on Japan is much higher USE cost than -7 (Ja). I believe it's -17 or -18 (i.e. you lose a chit and stand a good chance to lose another). Japan DOW on USSR is 7 (Ja). Also, a Japan-USSR non-aggression pact is a US entry action, but it penalizes Japan no matter who triggers it.

While the USSR and Japan fought two limited border wars in the '30s (one of which was shortly before the start of the war in Europe), there is no reason in WiF why they must fight a limited war in lieu of a full-scale war (although there is no reason why a full-scale war between USSR-Japan must needs be a total war, ending with complete victory or defeat, either).



Skanvak -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/24/2009 8:34:02 PM)

quote:

there is no reason in WiF why they must fight a limited war in lieu of a full-scale war


Potential abuse by the USSR as far as I understand the debate on stuffing. We can have an infinite debate on the political reason for waging a pseudo full war against Japan, but it did not happened. I remember that limited war was mandatory between Japan and China in one version of WiF.

The point is that Stalin cannot turn its country in a production dynamo or call reserve without political consequences. So as long as USSR is not at war with Germany, I feel it wrong for USSR to go to full war against Japan (limited ok). Once USSR is at war with Germany, well I agree with you, nothing prevent full-scale war betwen Japan and USSR.



Breunor -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/25/2009 1:05:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

quote:

there is no reason in WiF why they must fight a limited war in lieu of a full-scale war


Potential abuse by the USSR as far as I understand the debate on stuffing. We can have an infinite debate on the political reason for waging a pseudo full war against Japan, but it did not happened. I remember that limited war was mandatory between Japan and China in one version of WiF.

The point is that Stalin cannot turn its country in a production dynamo or call reserve without political consequences. So as long as USSR is not at war with Germany, I feel it wrong for USSR to go to full war against Japan (limited ok). Once USSR is at war with Germany, well I agree with you, nothing prevent full-scale war betwen Japan and USSR.


I promised not to talk about stuffing any more and I won't. However, the ability of the USSR to get a full war benefit by having a limited war with Japan may indeed be an exploit. It clearly has been discussed for years.

Indeed, these have been vetted at tournaments, discussed in forums, written in articles (meeting my 'proof' of an abuse), and ultimately had rules' adjustments applied.

Soviet 'tricks' included the 'Denmark gambit' which was nasty until the rule changed so that the USSR moving into Denmark allows Germany to break the pact. At points there were games with Soviet units in France in 1940. Real bad abuses came form the USSR declaring war on Japan, building MiL, fighting Japan, getting lend-lease to replace losses so that they are still at full strength when Germany hits, and taking full actions. The worst part was the USSR would never 'win' by enough to let Japan out of the war.

The Denmark abuse was closed, the lend-lease abuse was closed; optional surrender rules let Japan stop the war at any time.

Whether it is still too good a strategy for the USSR remains an open question, it may be. These can be abuses whether the USSR uses a forward or a rear defense. Personally I think this is potentially a much greater abuse than a forward defense.


Good Gaming,

Breunor



paulderynck -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/25/2009 2:51:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

USSR DoW on Japan is much higher USE cost than -7 (Ja). I believe it's -17 or -18 (i.e. you lose a chit and stand a good chance to lose another). Japan DOW on USSR is 7 (Ja). Also, a Japan-USSR non-aggression pact is a US entry action, but it penalizes Japan no matter who triggers it.

While the USSR and Japan fought two limited border wars in the '30s (one of which was shortly before the start of the war in Europe), there is no reason in WiF why they must fight a limited war in lieu of a full-scale war (although there is no reason why a full-scale war between USSR-Japan must needs be a total war, ending with complete victory or defeat, either).

My goof - yes 17. Still a very acceptable cost/benefit ratio.



paulderynck -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/25/2009 2:53:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Potential abuse by the USSR as far as I understand the debate on stuffing. We can have an infinite debate on the political reason for waging a pseudo full war against Japan, but it did not happened.

If you want the game to replicate everything that happened - why bother playing? We know what happened.



Breunor -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/25/2009 3:11:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Potential abuse by the USSR as far as I understand the debate on stuffing. We can have an infinite debate on the political reason for waging a pseudo full war against Japan, but it did not happened.

If you want the game to replicate everything that happened - why bother playing? We know what happened.



I think what Skavnak is saying that some people (like me) view that a war by the USSR on Japan that is a 'mini' war but gives the USSR full at war benefits is an exploit. If people are basing their 'stuffing breaks the game' argument on this, it is relevant. Yes, it is overpowered (my opinion) - but it isn't stuffing that is broken, it is this strategy that overpowered so we ought to get to the heart of the matter.

I think this point is 'on-topic' for this discussion.

Good gaming,

Breunor



paulderynck -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/25/2009 7:58:30 AM)

Breunor,

There is no way for the game to know what kind of a war you are going to fight when you make a DoW. Would you like to take a crack at writing the rule about how a power prosecutes a limited war and what the ramifications are for doing so? Oh, and don't forget to lower the US Entry cost while your at it. (Hey! maybe that's why I thought it was 7 instead of 17 - I only wanted a limited war!) [;)]

Yes it's an exploit, like combining action limits between cooperating major powers, but not an abuse. It comes with pros and cons. Plus as the game develops, who says it will stay a limited war? It takes two to party.

There was an old rule in previous versions called "Lapse of War" or something like that. But Harry (who BTW also knows the game is not broken) removed it.






darune -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/25/2009 10:39:27 AM)

I only think one person in here said the game was broken. It would take a lot more than the ability of the USSR to 'stuff' to say that the game is broken.

I have to say im being swayed back and forth on this subject.

I think there have been many good arguments so far about the reasons as to why we are not seeing more 'stuffing' going on and ill try to summerize as i see them.

1. 42 barb. is the mostly widespread so why bother ? when a backward defence can also be good against 41 barb and it is what you want to setup for 42 barb. anyway
2. Not regarded as a good strategy (mistakenly or not), it requires some calculation to realize the percentage of success.
3. USSR players want to get in the game and not just feel they have their turn in the production phase.
4. Pretty big entry hit by DOW on italy (percieved as big at least), this will only really be needed in ~20% of the times to build milits and get reserves.

So i speculate, if the metagame evolved into GE/italy prefering 41 barb. then if the 'stuff' would be more widely used we would go back to 42 barb.

No one still haven't tried to come up with an answer of how it much it changes the OPs ananlysis if GE goes yugoslavia, and aligns rumania and hungary on the first turn. Which seems to me at least as a good play if you are doing 41 barb.



Skanvak -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/25/2009 4:48:58 PM)

quote:

If you want the game to replicate everything that happened - why bother playing? We know what happened.


This is specious and off topic. I could take offense of such answer.

The WiF Diplomatic model does not allow people to be free to go far from history. The whole Pact thing is about that. So letting USSR go to full war against Japan before 1942 does not fit in the WiF diplomatic setting (as do free German DoW on Spain...).

Contrary to what you think, I would like a far more open diplomatic game.

quote:

There is no way for the game to know what kind of a war you are going to fight when you make a DoW. Would you like to take a crack at writing the rule about how a power prosecutes a limited war and what the ramifications are for doing so?


Once I will be sure that my model will be tested (and play some game again), I will. You can look at Totaler Krieg that have a lot of non-historical strategic choice that are not present in WiF at all (like hilter assassination plot, limited war between Turkey and USSR...). They have a limit war / Total war distinction for each country.



composer99 -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/25/2009 5:54:28 PM)

I'm not sure how it can be argued that USSR is getting a full war benefit for engaging in a limited war against Japan in WiF. A USSR-Japan war is only as limited as both parties let it be. If the USSR declares war on Japan without much intention of doing anything (i.e. just to enhance a border stuff), the Japanese can and should make them pay (preferably by taking Vlad and 2-3 resources).



Zorachus99 -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/25/2009 7:24:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
The rule is broken. Germany cannot go historically into USSR without some crazy gaminess, unless the USSR decides to let them.


I don't recall saying the game is broken... perhaps I did while not thinking a lot about it. Several people did seize on that wording...

When I find a group that agrees that '41 barb should be one of the possible strategies Germany can focus on, my issue will be resolved.

The irony is with RAW you are channeled into Spain/Gib, Sealion, or Sitzing until '42 or later. It requires good USSR strategy, but quite doable. If I were the rear-end of a donkey you might see a stuff from me; but I try to stay out of the equine family.[:)]

Cheers



WarHunter -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/25/2009 8:44:13 PM)

Zorachus99 said,
quote:

I don't recall saying the game is broken... perhaps I did while not thinking a lot about it.

quote:

Post #: 140 IMO Barb is broken. IMO game is broken.
Its one of those hard to forget quotes, when you don't think the game is broken.

Though i don't agree an option was needed. (not broken) I do agree that Steve's option is the best way to resolve this topic. Only when the game is released and being played by thousands of people, will we see the fruits created. 



Breunor -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/25/2009 10:36:52 PM)

I don't totally disagree with you, coomposer99.  I guess it is a matter of degree.  I think it comes down to EXACTLY what we are talking about and what rules we play.
 
For instance, if the USSR has rolled over Japan but intentionally doesn't control one of the resources (assuming they are using option 50), even though it is well within the USSR ‘s power to do so, and then uses the advantages of being at war (full impulse choice, can build MIL, etc.) then this appears to be an exploit.  That is, we all know that the USSR ‘really’ controls the resource even though they haven’t moved into the hex.  To me it is similar to the old exploit of Germany not taking Paris until after being in Spain. 
 
We now have optional rules allowing either player to surrender at any time.  Not everyone plays with all of these optionals so how powerful the potential exploit is and also depends on rule choice.  Indeed I suspect most people played with option 50 but we can’t be sure everyone does. 
 
Of course, I agree with you a 'real' limited war is not an exploit.  Indeed, we need to have the ability for the USSR to attack Japan if, say, they strip their defenses on the Soviet border to make stronger attacks in China or in the Pacific.  Clearly the USSR can be hurt by a tough war in Asia.  Indeed, we have to allow the USSR to fight a ‘real’ war with Japan in any case; it is an important strategic option.
 
So, philosophically, I think it is an 'exploit' if a strategy or tactic is pursued that wasn't the intent of the game designer, especially when it exploits wording of a rule. My view is that some of these 'limited wars' sometimes give the USSR more benefit than they were intended to get.  The problem is that sometimes the war works out as it should, sometimes they get extra benefit.  It can be hard to make rules to cover all potential situations.
 
Fundamentally, my position is that a war between Japan and the USSR should hurt the USSR militarily to the extent of losses suffered; it should not improve their position in the west or their mobility between the fronts or the forces available to fight in the west. 
 
Paul, I don’t have an easy fix to the exploit, but nonetheless, I think it is a problem, abuse, exploit, whatever you want to name it.  Alas, rule writing is not a strong suit of mine.  But saying that I’m not allowed to have this opinion because I can’t fix the exploit isn’t fair.  We house rule it away because we think it is overpowered in my group. As I said before, this issue has been discussed for years and many people think it is overpowering - many do not.  Such is the nature of WIFFE.   
 
One non-original idea is to play that a Japan/USSR pact exists at the start of the game, an extremely common house rule.  I don’t think it is the best solution, it limits options to all players, and it does allow the Soviets more of a free hand in the West, but there is some justification for it (given that there was a cease-fire over the Khalkin Gal fighting around Sept 16 or so). 
 
I think that ‘fixing’ it properly will be hard; as was said above, WIFFE is game in where squeezing somewhere has something pop up elsewhere.  The optional allowing Japan to surrender at any time helps, it gets rid of the issue of the USSR intentionally avoiding a resource hex.  (Anyone relying on MIL in their stuffing strategy sees them disappear ....)   But I still think the USSR gets too much by a gratuitous war and that a -17 US entry hit isn’t going to cover the USSR’s benefit.  However, raising the US entry hit isn’t the answer either, because we need to allow a ‘real’ war where the USSR attacks Japan.
 
I’m a little surprised by the reaction to this view.  After all, we have a thread about the game being ‘broken’ by Soviet a forward defense.  (I know some have said ‘nobody is saying the game is broken’ – sorry, I don’t read it that way). 
 
And I’m actually agreeing!  A forward defense may be too strong IF the Soviets can be at full war and build all of their MIL, can move with full land impulses, etc.  My view is that the forward defense is SUPPOSED to be limited by taking combined impulses while neutral.  (I say that because I remember when it was analyzed in some details years ago that was the assumption being made and because of my general principal here about the Eastern war shouldn’t help the Soviet position in the west.)
 
However, my view is that forward defense works fine but the problem is that an ongoing war with Japan is too beneficial and that USSR players are getting unfair and unintended benefits.  And I think that people are seeing this as aiding a forward defense, that it just makes the Soviets too strong whether they use a forward or a rear defense.  How well does the forward defense work, if, say, we imposed a rule that did force the USSR only to take combined impulses and make builds as if neutral (or as I said starts with the pact in place, which should be beneficial since the Pacific needs a smaller garrison)? 
 
Now, I’m sure there are people who think the mechanic is working fine, and that his isn’t an exploit or abuse.  Allowing Japan to surrender at any time should help.  Whether it is enough is probably going to be an open question for the WIFFE community for some time. 
 
Nonetheless, I thought the idea of this thread was to try to make WIFFE or computer WIFFE better because of a perceived abuse.  I think people are concentrating on the wrong abuse!  For instance, I think starting with a Soviet-Japanese pact in place, is better for the game than saying Germany can break the pact any time they want.  Isn't the point of this forum to discuss these issues?
 
 
Good gaming,
 
Breunor

 



Neilster -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/26/2009 12:30:08 AM)

Have we had to go to large text because everyone's eyesight is failing from the long wait for MWiF? [:D]

Cheers, Neilster



Breunor -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/26/2009 1:38:51 AM)

Well, if you knew my age .....
[:)]





Zorachus99 -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/26/2009 2:17:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

Zorachus99 said,
quote:

I don't recall saying the game is broken... perhaps I did while not thinking a lot about it.

quote:

Post #: 140 IMO Barb is broken. IMO game is broken.
Its one of those hard to forget quotes, when you don't think the game is broken.

Though i don't agree an option was needed. (not broken) I do agree that Steve's option is the best way to resolve this topic. Only when the game is released and being played by thousands of people, will we see the fruits created. 


I agree, a few posts were too impassioned regarding the subject.

I wonder how many people think Barb should be allowed? The speculation regarding the '41 blowout is speculation for me ATM. There are many key places in USSR that allow a comeback.

For now I think I'll stop playing Axis to add perspective, not to mention defending USSR is quite a bit of fun. I have a different perspective I admit, from not playing WifCon and such, but have taken lessions back from Wif 5.

It all makes for bizarre rules discussions. The newbies have it easy, compared to those of us who have gotten 4-5 official revisions since discovering the game.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/26/2009 2:58:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99


quote:

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

Zorachus99 said,
quote:

I don't recall saying the game is broken... perhaps I did while not thinking a lot about it.

quote:

Post #: 140 IMO Barb is broken. IMO game is broken.
Its one of those hard to forget quotes, when you don't think the game is broken.

Though i don't agree an option was needed. (not broken) I do agree that Steve's option is the best way to resolve this topic. Only when the game is released and being played by thousands of people, will we see the fruits created. 


I agree, a few posts were too impassioned regarding the subject.

I wonder how many people think Barb should be allowed? The speculation regarding the '41 blowout is speculation for me ATM. There are many key places in USSR that allow a comeback.

For now I think I'll stop playing Axis to add perspective, not to mention defending USSR is quite a bit of fun. I have a different perspective I admit, from not playing WifCon and such, but have taken lessions back from Wif 5.

It all makes for bizarre rules discussions. The newbies have it easy, compared to those of us who have gotten 4-5 official revisions since discovering the game.

So there is money to be made by those who have devoted their lives to this game?[&:] [:D]



WIF_Killzone -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/26/2009 3:43:16 AM)

I am a little confused. I havn't played with the updated rules, in fact it's been 10 years since I played (my god how have I survived). Anyways, am I hearing correctly that if you attack a unit and they survive, they get stronger? Under what conditions?

How does that model reality when there is sure to be a loss of men from the attack. Assuming they get re-inforced for losses of men and equipment from the attack (perhaps with green troops or conscripts), how do they become a better corps from the experience? Maybe, just from the experience itself? Like I said I'm confused.



paulderynck -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/26/2009 3:43:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Breunor
Now, I’m sure there are people who think the mechanic is working fine, and that his isn’t an exploit or abuse.  Allowing Japan to surrender at any time should help.  Whether it is enough is probably going to be an open question for the WIFFE community for some time. 

I'm still trying to figure out the rationale for how this helps against an all-out Stuff strategy. I agree it ends the abuse of a successful "non-limited" Russian war on Japan accompanied by Russia refusing to walk into that last undefended Manchurian resource.

But the idea of the all-out Stuff strategy is for Russia to DoW Japan and then to "hunker down". They will eventually lose all four Siberian resources. They want to have actually less forces committed in the Far East then they start there with. So now, after taking advantage of all this, Japan must surrender to Russia and give all that up, just so the Russian Militia wil go poof ??? It's hard to imagine in a multi-player game, what self-respecting Japanese player would be willing to "take one for the gipper (Fuhrer)". In a 2-player game... maybe, but setting up a situation where Japan must suffer to allow Germany a 41 Barb seems a convoluted solution to me.

This may be why some other posters are saying it is Italy that Russia needs to DoW, for an all-out Stuff.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Breunor
Nonetheless, I thought the idea of this thread was to try to make WIFFE or computer WIFFE better because of a perceived abuse.  I think people are concentrating on the wrong abuse!  For instance, I think starting with a Soviet-Japanese pact in place, is better for the game than saying Germany can break the pact any time they want. 

I disagree. There have been lots of suggestions for a house rule to allow the game to start with a USSR-JP pact in place. Usually the deal involves some trade of resources/BPs.

We tried this once and found it was wonderful for Russia - not great for Japan, and horrid for the Axis overall. The deal was an oil for Japan a turn and 2
resources for the USSR a turn (or maybe a BP, I can't recall).

But with a pact in place between Russia and Japan, Russia immediately attacked Persia and although Japan sent peacekeepers and got a couple oil for one turn, as soon as Tehran fell, the Japanese got teleported out.

With the extra goodies, Russia had enough production to stuff with no difficulty.





Breunor -> RE: 'stuffing' the border (11/26/2009 5:10:25 AM)

Paul,

Yeah, I think your last post is correct. The 'surrender' really only stops the 'I intentionally don' take the resource' issue which is clearly an exploit, otherwise you give up a LOT. The pact may well help the USSR more than Japan, I know a lot of people are on opposite sides here. The USSR can take Persia and Iraq, Japan gets a free hand in China, it can be complex.

A real 'fix', if needed, I think would have to be a lot harder. As I said, it also isn't good gaming, it is more interesting to have the tension (At least my opinion.)

Good gaming,

Breunor



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 11 [12] 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625