Exploits

Exploits (Full Version)

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

Message

gridley -> Exploits (10/25/2009 10:19:42 PM)
Hey Guys, With the release of MWiF getting closer my group has started playing again, to get back into WiF mode, and I have been surfing around some great WiF Sites to see how others play.[8D] One thing I can say is either my group just isn't very smart or we don't even look at doing certain things. Who am I kidding...we aren't very smart.[;)] Anyway, as we plan to hopefully play other groups via netplay I thought I'd like to get a list of possible rule exploits out there before going to war. Here is what I have found so far that I think are exloits. You can either agree or disagree, hopefully with a reason why. I. No Bessarabia. - Germany DoW on Yugo and align Romania on thier second impulse of game. seeing as Russia can't claim Bess on thier first impulse they never get to do so. II. Russian DoW on Bulgaria. - Russia Invades Bulgaria thus taking the one Bulg RP from the Germans and stopping the Turkish one from being railed. III. Stuffing the border. - This thread, just revived, is what got me looking for other, what I consider, exploit type strategies. On the surface it doesn't look like an exploit, but if it is almost a mathematical certainty, meaning it works more often than not, I think it should be included. If the German plans on a 41 Barb, the rules should not get in the way. There must be more??? By the way, I'm not saying any of the above can't be used or they are cheats. But I would like to have certain applications of the rules agreed upon before commiting to such a lengthy game as WiF. And of course, with MWiF, house rules that maybe rewrite certain rules the way we like can't be included.

paulderynck -> RE: Exploits (10/25/2009 11:22:16 PM)
Stuffing is not an exploit. Russia DoWing Italy or Japan to enhance a Stuff would be an exploit as would the Axis having Italy DoW Hungary or a Baltic State. All of the ones you list could be excluded from a game of MWiF, it just requires the players to agree beforehand not to do them. An exploit you have not listed is for Japan to surround but not take Vladivostok when at war with Russia. Then Russia cannot compel a Peace - other than surrendering if playing with the new rule from the Annual (unlikely to be in MWiF version 1).

gridley -> RE: Exploits (10/26/2009 4:49:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck Stuffing is not an exploit. Russia DoWing Italy or Japan to enhance a Stuff would be an exploit as would the Axis having Italy DoW Hungary or a Baltic State. True, stuffing is not an exploit. However, if it means for Germany to do a 41 barb Italy has to do this or that...etc (the "stuff" thread lists many ways for the Axis to increase thier chances of beating the "stuff"). I guess what I want to avoid in my MP MWiF games is it turning into a Fantasy Game set in WWII, like MP HoI games that I played. Don't get me wrong, I love it when the game goes ahistorical...I like to try different strategies too. But as I said HoI, a game that I like, very rarely resembled a WWII game in MP. If any others have played HOI MP they will know what I mean...and I don't think many of us old boardgamers want that to happen to our WiF. And trust me, once this community expands when the game hits the street, MP games without house rules will not be the WiF we are used to.

Cheesehead -> RE: Exploits (10/27/2009 9:17:00 PM)
I think stuffing is an acceptable strategy in the Face-to-face version where the GE pact chits are secret. However, if you are playing online where the chits are known to all, the stuff should not be allowed because the GE players ability to bluff is removed. Cheers John

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Exploits (10/27/2009 10:17:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cheesehead I think stuffing is an acceptable strategy in the Face-to-face version where the GE pact chits are secret. However, if you are playing online where the chits are known to all, the stuff should not be allowed because the GE players ability to bluff is removed. Cheers John The chit values are hidden from all but the owner. MWIF follows WIF FE precisely in this regard.

Ullern -> RE: Exploits (10/27/2009 11:37:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck Stuffing is not an exploit. Russia DoWing Italy or Japan to enhance a Stuff would be an exploit as would the Axis having Italy DoW Hungary or a Baltic State. All of the ones you list could be excluded from a game of MWiF, it just requires the players to agree beforehand not to do them. An exploit you have not listed is for Japan to surround but not take Vladivostok when at war with Russia. Then Russia cannot compel a Peace - other than surrendering if playing with the new rule from the Annual (unlikely to be in MWiF version 1). Agree. About the USSR-Japan compulsory peace, the general surrender rules, the Vichy rules, and all other rules that force you to loose control or not on the other players whim, can be used for exploits. Often by both sides. To continue paulderynck example above: Say the kind of opposite situation: Japan did play fair and took Vladivostok early. But then the USSR starts winning, but the USSR refuses to take Vladivostok back. In that situation the USSR can use the enemy controlled Vladivostok as a security for bad luck, or until he simply wants to turn his attention to Europe. Another way for the USSR to abuse this rule is when the USSR already lost all, but speculates that Japan wont be able to take the next city for a year so better wait a year, till Barbarossa starts, to force the peace, so the USSR can stay active in the meantime.

micheljq -> RE: Exploits (10/28/2009 2:19:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ullern Another way for the USSR to abuse this rule is when the USSR already lost all, but speculates that Japan wont be able to take the next city for a year so better wait a year, till Barbarossa starts, to force the peace, so the USSR can stay active in the meantime. I do not see that as an exploit, I see this as a long term a strategy, personally I have no issue with this. And the Japan player should be aware that this can happen. Stalin is in no obligation to sign a peace with Japan even if a good portion of Siberia is occupied. Would Stalin have to sign a peace if Moscow and all Ukraine would be occupied? This is far worst than having Siberia occupied. Did Tsar Alexander sign a peace with Napoleon when the french were occupying Moscow?

brian brian -> RE: Exploits (10/28/2009 2:52:24 PM)
I like that exploit where when you make a successful river crossing, you get to place a 'Bridgehead' counter and during the exploit movement phase, stack up to five Armor units and a Paratrooper on it to make it 1000% invulnerable during the next enemy move. Oh, wait, sorry, wrong game. As the USSR, I see no reason to ever surrender voluntarily to Japan until they are threatening to have a _supplied_ unit near Irkutsk, and that is pretty unlikely. Until then, just keep a couple weak CAV somewhat near their point hex to harass them.

rkr1958 -> RE: Exploits (10/28/2009 5:21:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian I like that exploit where when you make a successful river crossing, you get to place a 'Bridgehead' counter and during the exploit movement phase, stack up to five Armor units and a Paratrooper on it to make it 1000% invulnerable during the next enemy move. Oh, wait, sorry, wrong game. I employ that tactic (or exploit) when I attack Paris to take out France. I attack with all ground units across the river and drop my paratrooper to nullify the x3 defensive multiplier (from attacking across a river) and get the normal x2. Then when Paris falls I place a bridgehead counter in Paris, since all ground units attacked from across a river, and fill it up with five ground units (either post combat or exploitation) and the paratrooper. This practically ensures that the French (and UK) won't be able to get 1 to 2 odds for a counterattack against Paris.

Ullern -> RE: Exploits (10/29/2009 12:11:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: micheljq quote: ORIGINAL: ullern Another way for the USSR to abuse this rule is when the USSR already lost all, but speculates that Japan wont be able to take the next city for a year so better wait a year, till Barbarossa starts, to force the peace, so the USSR can stay active in the meantime. I do not see that as an exploit, I see this as a long term a strategy, personally I have no issue with this. And the Japan player should be aware that this can happen. Stalin is in no obligation to sign a peace with Japan even if a good portion of Siberia is occupied. Would Stalin have to sign a peace if Moscow and all Ukraine would be occupied? This is far worst than having Siberia occupied. Did Tsar Alexander sign a peace with Napoleon when the french were occupying Moscow? Why would Japan accept a USSR surrender for no compensation after Japan already have crushed all resistance?

micheljq -> RE: Exploits (10/29/2009 2:49:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ullern Why would Japan accept a USSR surrender for no compensation after Japan already have crushed all resistance? Of course this could be taken the reverse way. Japanese player could have many good reasons for not wanting a peace with USSR. They could want a peace however, if their is a possibility that USSR returns in strenght in Siberia later for example. One does not preclude other.

Bibs -> RE: Exploits (10/29/2009 2:54:06 PM)
13.7.3 Option 50 If Japan controls Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the Japanese player must agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one. The USSR may surrender at any time during its first war with Japan. In addition to hexes given up as described above, all hexes on the Pacific map are surrendered to Japan. Japanese player has no choice. If the Japanese take Vladivostok, I would see no reason to ask for a peace until J/F 41 to assure I can get by with no garrison in 41 and a minimal one in 42. Even if they bypass Vlad, you can still force a 41 peace and if you've lost the resoureces on the Pacific map it may still be worth it.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Exploits (10/29/2009 7:36:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bibs 13.7.3 Option 50 If Japan controls Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the Japanese player must agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one. The USSR may surrender at any time during its first war with Japan. In addition to hexes given up as described above, all hexes on the Pacific map are surrendered to Japan. Japanese player has no choice. If the Japanese take Vladivostok, I would see no reason to ask for a peace until J/F 41 to assure I can get by with no garrison in 41 and a minimal one in 42. Even if they bypass Vlad, you can still force a 41 peace and if you've lost the resoureces on the Pacific map it may still be worth it. MWIF has this as the following optional rule. This text is from the Players Manual. === 9.8.6 USSR-Japan Compulsory Peace This optional rule reflects the willingness of both the USSR and Japan to remain at peace with each other during WW II. Though they had been fighting a mostly unreported little war along the Manchurian border for some time prior to Germany's invasion of Poland, they both felt a lot of pressure on other fronts: from Germany for the USSR and from the USA and the Commonwealth for Japan. Agreeing to peace with each other was in both of their self-interests. If Japan controls Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the Japanese player must agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one. Similarly, if the USSR controls 3 or more resources that were Japanese controlled at the start of the war, the Soviet player must agree to a peace if the Japanese player wants one. In either case, the new Russo-Japanese border is established by the hexes each controls at the time of the compulsory peace. Any pocket of non-coastal hexes wholly surrounded by hexes controlled by the other major power becomes controlled by the major power whose hexes surround them.

lomyrin -> RE: Exploits (10/29/2009 8:15:32 PM)
I thought the 2008 April errata which included the alternative Russo-Jap peace where either can surrender at any time with the loss or all PAcific Map area to Japan or all of Manchuria to Russia waas to be included. Lars

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Exploits (10/29/2009 10:18:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lomyrin I thought the 2008 April errata which included the alternative Russo-Jap peace where either can surrender at any time with the loss or all PAcific Map area to Japan or all of Manchuria to Russia waas to be included. Lars Ah, that is why the discussion of which USSR hexes are on the Pacific map took place. I had a vague recollection of that, Yes, I do intend for MWIF to include the rule change you mention. The Players Manual section on the Optional Rules was written before then and I never went back and revised it concerning this point.[:(] Can someone find the text in the fourm on how that rule was to be implemented?[&:] I recall that we decided on a certain hex column as the demarkation line. But which one precisely, eludes me at the moment.

Froonp -> RE: Exploits (10/29/2009 10:41:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Yes, I do intend for MWIF to include the rule change you mention. The Players Manual section on the Optional Rules was written before then and I never went back and revised it concerning this point.[:(] Can someone find the text in the fourm on how that rule was to be implemented?[&:] I recall that we decided on a certain hex column as the demarkation line. But which one precisely, eludes me at the moment. I don't recall that we decided on a certain hex column as the demarkation line... Humm maybe now you say it... The rule in the Annual says that the Russian looses all Pacific Map area to Japan. The Pacific map ends up about 1 pacific scaled hex north of Nikolayevsk and 1-2 hexrows west of Blago. I'd say that this convert to column 152 and line 42, including the Shantarskie islands and Sakhalin, but not Kamchatka.

Froonp -> RE: Exploits (10/29/2009 10:48:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp I don't recall that we decided on a certain hex column as the demarkation line... Humm maybe now you say it... The rule in the Annual says that the Russian looses all Pacific Map area to Japan. The Pacific map ends up about 1 pacific scaled hex north of Nikolayevsk and 1-2 hexrows west of Blago. I'd say that this convert to column 152 and line 42, including the Shantarskie islands and Sakhalin, but not Kamchatka. Indeed we did, it's all there : http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1779398&mpage=2 (WiF Annual 2008 thread, second page) Looks fine, except for Kamchatka that I would not give. It is not part of the area invaded by Japan, so there is no reason to give it for free.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Exploits (10/30/2009 12:27:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lomyrin I thought the 2008 April errata which included the alternative Russo-Jap peace where either can surrender at any time with the loss or all PAcific Map area to Japan or all of Manchuria to Russia waas to be included. Lars Here is today's rewrite of that optional rule for the Players Manual: ==== 9.8.6 USSR-Japan Compulsory Peace This optional rule reflects the willingness of both the USSR and Japan to remain at peace with each other during WW II. Though they had been fighting a mostly unreported little war along the Manchurian border for some time prior to Germany's invasion of Poland, they both felt a lot of pressure on other fronts: from Germany for the USSR and from the USA and the Commonwealth for Japan. Agreeing to peace with each other was in both of their self-interests. If Japan controls Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the Japanese player must agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one. Similarly, if the USSR controls 3 or more resources that were Japanese controlled at the start of the war, the Soviet player must agree to a peace if the Japanese player wants one. In either case, the new Russo-Japanese border is established by the hexes each controls at the time of the compulsory peace. Any pocket of non-coastal hexes wholly surrounded by hexes controlled by the other major power becomes controlled by the major power whose hexes surround them. If Japan surrenders, in addition to hexes given up per the above paragraph, Japan also cedes Manchuria to the USSR. If the USSR surrenders, in addition to hexes given up per the above paragraph, all hexes on the Pacific Map are surrendered to Japan. In MWIF, �all hexes on the Pacific Map� translates as all hexes in the USSR whose column number is greater than 153 and whose row number is greater than 41.

Zorachus99 -> RE: Exploits (10/30/2009 3:53:57 PM)
The way this is written implies: If the soviets dance around the Japanese resources peace is denied. If the Japanese dance around the Russian city of Vlad peace is denied. Both of these dances are highly unrealistic and are quite gamey (or exploitative in some eyes).

hakon -> RE: Exploits (10/30/2009 5:19:31 PM)
The Russian-Japanese compulsory peace from the annual has one major loophole. Say for instance, that Russia declares war on Japan in 1940, then pushes agressively into Manchuria, taking most of the hexes there, including all the resources and the factories. Maybe they even take some hexes in China. Japan then redeploys, and lands on the eastern coast of USSR, taking out the resources and Vladivostok. Then 1941 comes, and it seems like Germany is about to lauch a major Barbarossa. The Russians, seeing this, now with the new optional rule, can just "surrender", and only give away whatever is on the pacific map, which means that they keep what is most important in Manchuria, as well as anything they may have taken in China, etc. If they've already lost the east coast, this basically means that they can force a white peace at little net cost to themselves, while gaining immunity from war with Japan for at least a year or two. In the same situation (excapt that Russia has nothing in China), but where Germany is turning to the Med in 1941, Japan can surrender, achieving the same white peace, while being safe from attacks from Russia until 1942 or 1943, when Germany would probably come into the game, anyway. To believe that Russia would accept a Japanese surrender if Japan demanded to hold on to the east coast, is bollocks. And the same goes for saying that Japan would have accepted a Russian surrender if Russia demanded to keep Manchuria. And what makes this really bad, is that it is not the one winning the war that has to choice, but the loser. Even if the old surrender rule was a bit unlogical, at least it allowed Japan to just bypass Vald, while Russia could just avoid to to take the resources. Personally, I would simply not accept to play with the rule this way. I think that in order for such a rule to be included, it should also be required that the surrendering party give back all hexes they have taken from the winner, either based on what they controlled at the beginning of the game, or what they controlled at the beginning of the war. Cheers hakon

Zorachus99 -> RE: Exploits (10/30/2009 7:22:59 PM)
I consider this problem loose change compared to a Multiplayer game where Russia can nearly always prevent Barb by declaring war on Japan and buildig Militia.

Skanvak -> RE: Exploits (10/30/2009 7:27:40 PM)
I don't know how to tell it clearly. WiF does not let the player decide the policy of their nation, therefore you have to follow the historical goal of the war. That seems to be the design (when not playing with DoD). Therefore the game have a problem with limited war and unhistorical distortion. I understand the exploit because the game rule is not fool proof. That will be a biger problem for the computer game as exploit cannot be prevented but I don't really see how to prevent two player to esclate a war they both want to fight? I do think that this peace should only be a cease fire with unit staying where they are. The only hexes exchanged should be surrounded unsupplied hexes (and even that I am not sure). Because here we are (H.R. is) making supposition on what the Russian or Japanese would have accepted as a peace settlement. That we are not sure... You can add a "lapse of war" too, to prevent player sitting in front of each other and not fighting. A good argument for need for a free diplomacy option.

hakon -> RE: Exploits (11/1/2009 5:35:51 PM)
Zarachus: Obviously, stuffing is a bigger issue than the Russian-Japanese peace, arguing to me about that, is like kicking in an open door..... But if the rule from the annual is to be implemented, they may as well get it right the first time. The way it is written is a bit too easy to abuse. At the very least, Japan should always get back Manchuria if Russia surrenders, while Russia should always get back all russian and mongolian hexes if Japan surrenders. Skanvak: If you dont want to make suppositions about what the Russians or Japanese would have accepted as a peace settlement, you should not use the compulsory peace option at all. If you don't, then no suppositions are made, and everything is up to the players. And kind of compulsory peace is in fact making a very concrete suppostion on what settlement each side would have accepted. Even a white peace/ceasefire woud have to be accepted by BOTH parties to have any effect. So regardless of who forces a peace treaty, they should only get to do so by giving up enough objectives that the (historical) strategic goals of the opponent are achieved. The new version of the compulsory peace optional does this rather well as long as the side that is surrendering has not taken any territory from the opponent, but it seems that the rule writers have not considered situations where the surrenderin party has actually taken a lot of territory from the opponent before surrendering. Cheers Hakon

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Exploits (11/1/2009 5:50:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hakon Zarachus: Obviously, stuffing is a bigger issue than the Russian-Japanese peace, arguing to me about that, is like kicking in an open door..... But if the rule from the annual is to be implemented, they may as well get it right the first time. The way it is written is a bit too easy to abuse. At the very least, Japan should always get back Manchuria if Russia surrenders, while Russia should always get back all russian and mongolian hexes if Japan surrenders. Skanvak: If you dont want to make suppositions about what the Russians or Japanese would have accepted as a peace settlement, you should not use the compulsory peace option at all. If you don't, then no suppositions are made, and everything is up to the players. And kind of compulsory peace is in fact making a very concrete suppostion on what settlement each side would have accepted. Even a white peace/ceasefire woud have to be accepted by BOTH parties to have any effect. So regardless of who forces a peace treaty, they should only get to do so by giving up enough objectives that the (historical) strategic goals of the opponent are achieved. The new version of the compulsory peace optional does this rather well as long as the side that is surrendering has not taken any territory from the opponent, but it seems that the rule writers have not considered situations where the surrenderin party has actually taken a lot of territory from the opponent before surrendering. Cheers Hakon There is another thread where I think we have worked this out over the past couple of days. It includes screen shots of the map. If you get a chance I would be interested in what you think of that proposed solution.

rkr1958 -> RE: Exploits (11/2/2009 4:05:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: hakon Zarachus: Obviously, stuffing is a bigger issue than the Russian-Japanese peace, arguing to me about that, is like kicking in an open door..... But if the rule from the annual is to be implemented, they may as well get it right the first time. The way it is written is a bit too easy to abuse. At the very least, Japan should always get back Manchuria if Russia surrenders, while Russia should always get back all russian and mongolian hexes if Japan surrenders. Skanvak: If you dont want to make suppositions about what the Russians or Japanese would have accepted as a peace settlement, you should not use the compulsory peace option at all. If you don't, then no suppositions are made, and everything is up to the players. And kind of compulsory peace is in fact making a very concrete suppostion on what settlement each side would have accepted. Even a white peace/ceasefire woud have to be accepted by BOTH parties to have any effect. So regardless of who forces a peace treaty, they should only get to do so by giving up enough objectives that the (historical) strategic goals of the opponent are achieved. The new version of the compulsory peace optional does this rather well as long as the side that is surrendering has not taken any territory from the opponent, but it seems that the rule writers have not considered situations where the surrenderin party has actually taken a lot of territory from the opponent before surrendering. Cheers Hakon There is another thread where I think we have worked this out over the past couple of days. It includes screen shots of the map. If you get a chance I would be interested in what you think of that proposed solution. Do you have the link to that thread?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Exploits (11/2/2009 5:03:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rkr1958 quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: hakon Zarachus: Obviously, stuffing is a bigger issue than the Russian-Japanese peace, arguing to me about that, is like kicking in an open door..... But if the rule from the annual is to be implemented, they may as well get it right the first time. The way it is written is a bit too easy to abuse. At the very least, Japan should always get back Manchuria if Russia surrenders, while Russia should always get back all russian and mongolian hexes if Japan surrenders. Skanvak: If you dont want to make suppositions about what the Russians or Japanese would have accepted as a peace settlement, you should not use the compulsory peace option at all. If you don't, then no suppositions are made, and everything is up to the players. And kind of compulsory peace is in fact making a very concrete suppostion on what settlement each side would have accepted. Even a white peace/ceasefire woud have to be accepted by BOTH parties to have any effect. So regardless of who forces a peace treaty, they should only get to do so by giving up enough objectives that the (historical) strategic goals of the opponent are achieved. The new version of the compulsory peace optional does this rather well as long as the side that is surrendering has not taken any territory from the opponent, but it seems that the rule writers have not considered situations where the surrenderin party has actually taken a lot of territory from the opponent before surrendering. Cheers Hakon There is another thread where I think we have worked this out over the past couple of days. It includes screen shots of the map. If you get a chance I would be interested in what you think of that proposed solution. Do you have the link to that thread? It's the WIF Annual 2008 thread.

darune -> RE: Exploits (11/10/2009 7:31:45 PM)
Italy liberates baltic states ( Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), so it can use them as another home country if italy gets counquered. In our games we veto'ed it out as too gamey (so italy cannot liberate the baltic states).

paulderynck -> RE: Exploits (11/10/2009 8:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: darune Italy liberates baltic states ( Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), so it can use them as another home country if italy gets counquered. In our games we veto'ed it out as too gamey (so italy cannot liberate the baltic states). Yes that is an awful one. The newest rules set will not allow a move of the new home country of a major to a minor that was not aligned in 1939. This would also preclude Yugo as an Italian home country. It would not preclude the Netherlands having France as a home country, but a second change is that when a major power or minor country no longer controls its own or any home country aligned prior to 1939, it has been completely conquered. I strongly recommend Steve add those to MWIF.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Exploits (11/10/2009 8:25:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: darune Italy liberates baltic states ( Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), so it can use them as another home country if italy gets counquered. In our games we veto'ed it out as too gamey (so italy cannot liberate the baltic states). Yes that is an awful one. The newest rules set will not allow a move of the new home country of a major to a minor that was not aligned in 1939. This would also preclude Yugo as an Italian home country. It would not preclude the Netherlands having France as a home country, but a second change is that when a major power or minor country no longer controls its own or any home country aligned prior to 1939, it has been completely conquered. I strongly recommend Steve add those to MWIF. It is difficult to hit a target that is constantly moving.

Froonp -> RE: Exploits (11/10/2009 8:43:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: darune Italy liberates baltic states ( Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), so it can use them as another home country if italy gets counquered. In our games we veto'ed it out as too gamey (so italy cannot liberate the baltic states). Yes that is an awful one. The newest rules set will not allow a move of the new home country of a major to a minor that was not aligned in 1939. This would also preclude Yugo as an Italian home country. It would not preclude the Netherlands having France as a home country, but a second change is that when a major power or minor country no longer controls its own or any home country aligned prior to 1939, it has been completely conquered. I strongly recommend Steve add those to MWIF. It is difficult to hit a target that is constantly moving. Yes, but this one is easy and very efficient in removing gamey behaviors. Limiting lend lease between cooperating country is another.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.5625