Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
Anyway --That’s why I said—hey just look around at some other WWII games because they pretty much all have some kind of peace or exit rule for every major power. It’s not a really super controversial concept as it is to the moderators here...

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Its funny you should mention WiF (the boardgame by Australian Design Group). While I never played HoI I most certainly did play WiF - probably in excess of 1000 hours across several versions.

In terms of Russia there is no special surrender rule in WiF - only a generic one that requires that you control every single (printed) factory in Russia - including a couple in the Urals and Vlad. So in terms of AWD thats basically the same as controlling every single area in Russia. As such WiF most certainly does not provide an example of what you are asking for - not with respect to Russia atleast. Personally I dont recall ever seeing Russia surrender in WiF though the player may have done so in a game where it could eventually have happened.

Concerning HoI it sounds to me like what I and others have heard could be from the stock version which has later been patched and you are referring to the patched game where those issues have been fixed. In that case we may both be right.

Its not that I find the issue in any way controversial - I just disagree with you that it would improve AWD in a meaningful manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
The rule you have highlighted concerns itself with volountarily surrendering though - as opposed to forced surrender = conquest. I highly doubt you intend for AWD to include volountarily surrendering so I fail to understand why you refer to that concept. The WiF rule you should be looking at is the one about conquest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
The rule you have highlighted concerns itself with volountarily surrendering though - as opposed to forced surrender = conquest. I highly doubt you intend for AWD to include volountarily surrendering so I fail to understand why you refer to that concept. The WiF rule you should be looking at is the one about conquest.

In the context of the WiF game, why would you voluntarily surrender a nation? Does it provide some benefit your side?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
Anyway --That’s why I said—hey just look around at some other WWII games because they pretty much all have some kind of peace or exit rule for every major power. It’s not a really super controversial concept as it is to the moderators here...

I don't know that it is all that controversial, I just think that people have different preferences, particularly on AV versus slugfest to the death. And 2by3 has made their decisions long ago, which is fine.

2by3 will never actually incorporate such rules, the most that would happen is that something be supported for modders to implement.

BTW - it could be that slugfest to the death can never be modelled all that well in WAW. Think what it takes for approximate realism in a 10 year war. Population limits, economic issues, local politics, intra-Alliance politics could be very hard/impossible to model accurately enough to even feel real. In slugfest mode one player can conquer the entire world in the game, but that in itself is clearly unreasonable. Look how hard it is to get a national commitment just to stay in Iraq (USA). Or Vietnam (France, USA). Or Afganistan (USSR, USA). Or Algeria (France).

There are occupation costs that are simply not modelled in WAW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GKar

Come on guys, I think it's safe to say that there won't be such a change in AWD. Hence it seems pointless to keep arguing about it or how other games model surrendering or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer

I was going to play in the tournament but I am seriously reconsidering that now if the game isn’t going to grow or change. The last 10 or so games of AWD I have played have gotten really stagnant and all unfold essentially the same way. It is starting to become clear from 1-2 of the posters who I think have a large say in where the game goes (or doesn’t go) that the potential for new ideas or even discussion of them is going to be confined and or restricted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargameplayer
I didn't realize that until now. I saw the posts by wandering head asking for potential new rules so I thought there was hope.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
The rule you have highlighted concerns itself with volountarily surrendering though - as opposed to forced surrender = conquest. I highly doubt you intend for AWD to include volountarily surrendering so I fail to understand why you refer to that concept. The WiF rule you should be looking at is the one about conquest.

In the context of the WiF game, why would you voluntarily surrender a nation? Does it provide some benefit your side?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
The rule you have highlighted concerns itself with volountarily surrendering though - as opposed to forced surrender = conquest. I highly doubt you intend for AWD to include volountarily surrendering so I fail to understand why you refer to that concept. The WiF rule you should be looking at is the one about conquest.

In the context of the WiF game, why would you voluntarily surrender a nation? Does it provide some benefit your side?

That mostly has to do with WiF being a hex game. If the enemy took most of the nation but left a string of hexes as a buffer say in Russia to make it harder for US troops to intervene you could surrender. Then all the hexes would turn Axis making an attack easier.