House Rules

[Ed Cogburn]

Hello everyone!


I took a look recently at the House Rules on Dave's site because someone had asked me to clarify one of the rules.

I decided to rewrite the rules to make them easier to comprehend, hopefully. While I was at it, I kinda cleaned up the whole html document some.

You can see it here:
http://pages.xtn.net/~ecogburn/HouseRules.html

The only major change to the rules was the rule for Finland and Leningrad. I have made that rule the last one, #10, and I've labeled it as optional, because I understand many want to play the game with a more aggressive Finland. The original rule allowed air attacks but not ground attacks. This makes no sense, as the Finns never attacked Leningrad in any concentrated way, by ground or air. In fact they even deliberately chose not to sever Leningrad's tenous supply line which was vulnerable to Finnish action from the north.

If anyone has a problem with the wording of this rule, post your concerns here, and lets solve this thing once and for all, in a friendly manner.

Dave, if no one objects, would you put this up as the replacement for the one you have on the WIR site now?

Also, if no one objects, I'll act as pseudo maintainer of this file, unless someone else wants it So if anyone has any strategy tips for the game they think should be in this document send'em to me, so we can improve this thing.

Comments and concerns and discussions over the existing contents are welcome as well.


See ya,

[CRAZY_HORSE007]

I have try another house rule, in order to have a more balanced game.


11. German can not use Interdiction mission with his airforces until 1943


I think as German you have always the chance of winning the game in 41 or 42 and in later in the game you can use your airforce at full strenght to balance your increasing lack of troops.


And as Soviet your defend line can hold a little more longer in 41 and 42 and the frustration for Russian is less to see his well dug in position blown up by intensive interdictions missions.

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
Dave, if no one objects, would you put this up as the replacement for the one you have on the WIR site now?

Done, Sir!

Nice editing, BTW.



It seems the interdiction rule is still being discussed, or am I wrong about that?

[Micha]

Crazyhorse, I can understand how such an (no) interdiction rule could help balancing the game.
But I'd have big problems with such a house rule because it, unlike the other house rules, would be highly unhistorical.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by davewolf

Done, Sir!

Nice editing, BTW.

Thank you!

It seems the interdiction rule is still being discussed, or am I wrong about that?

We already have the house rule limiting interdictions from a single HQ to one target to two attacks, and as Micha says allowing no attacks at all would be ahistorical. I don't see a real need for an extra rule about this, but lets see what the others say.

[CRAZY_HORSE007]

Originally posted by Micha
Crazyhorse, I can understand how such an (no) interdiction rule could help balancing the game.
But I'd have big problems with such a house rule because it, unlike the other house rules, would be highly unhistorical.

Micha,

You are right about unhistorical, I only think about the game himself.

Maybe we can add at the house rule a section like "Challengings Options", where we can put any good ideas in order to have a more exciting game for both sides.

BTW. Sorry, Ed I forget to congratulate you for the nice job; that is done now.

Marc

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by CRAZY_HORSE007


Micha,

You are right about unhistorical, I only think about the game himself.

Maybe we can add at the house rule a section like "Challengings Options", where we can put any good ideas in order to have a more exciting game for both sides.

BTW. Sorry, Ed I forget to congratulate you for the nice job; that is done now.

Marc

Thank you.

As for interdiction, I think the better way to solve this is to bring this issue up again after the release of the next version of WIR. The power of interdiction has been an issue of the beta team before, and apparently should be again. This is on the issues list now.

Question for all: Should the Finn rule include a requirement that the Soviets keep Leningrad garrisoned by a full corps even though the Finns won't attack? The Soviets didn't trust the Finns, and tried to make them out to be Nazi sympathizers, blaming them for the previous fighting.

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by CRAZY_HORSE007

11. German can not use Interdiction mission with his airforces until 1943

Crazy

I obviously only speak for myself here, but i feel many might agree.
I would not play as Axis with such a rule, it turns a 'simulation' into a 'game'.

Loki

PS Nice work Ed.

[Preuss]

house rules, shmouse rules. The Finns have trouble getting to Leningrad because of a lack of supply. They've never been a direct cause to my losing Leningrad (and I've lost it more than a few times), since it only takes one Corps to keep them at bay. Even with an opponent devoting air supply missions to the Finns, they are crippled elsewhere.
As for air power...the more missions you fly, the more OP points you lose which eventually erode your ability to attack successfully. The Red air force was made to lose large numbers. Sitting cozily on the eastern edge of the map and then hobbling your opponent isn't exactly right in my eyes.

[Micha]

Originally posted by Preuss
The Finns have trouble getting to Leningrad because of a lack of supply. They've never been a direct cause to my losing Leningrad

It's true, the Finns are pretty useless in summer 1941, but when the rails start to convert in Finland, too (from September on) there's almost no chance of stopping them. They could probably take an isolated Leningrad even without any German help. Therefore I think the Finland rule is really sensible. In 1941 campaigns the Germans will probably capture the city anyway, but I don't really like to see Leningrad fall easily in 1942 or 1943 campaigns.

[Stefdragon]

I think Ed did a "bang up job" (British?) on the revising of the "House Rules".

His perspective on the Finnish/Leningrad Question shows a true depth of historical perspective and maturity that almost virtually outshines anything I've ever seen posted on any thread here.

(Ed: the S.B.A. # is 777-876-9993, thanks again, a deal is a deal)

Seriously, you all have very valid points regarding the logistical
problems the Finns were faced with....let alone the POLITICAL ones. In essence they were "the Wolverine that the Kodiak Bear
dare not stick his nose into the burrow of", and that says it in a nutshell.

Subsequently, Ed's #10 Rule makes a whole hell of a lot of sense,
not only from a Political/Military view, but from a gameplay standpoint. Why allow Finnish Agression towards the Leningrad hex itself, when it wouldn't have and didn't happen historically, and only lends an absurd advantage to the Axis in taking Leningrad?

The Finns are tough, but they're not stupid. The Germans hardly gave them the rock solid confidence, from results they would have needed to see, to be more assertive than they actually were.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Preuss
house rules, shmouse rules. The Finns have trouble getting to Leningrad because of a lack of supply. They've never been a direct cause to my losing Leningrad (and I've lost it more than a few times), since it only takes one Corps to keep them at bay. Even with an opponent devoting air supply missions to the Finns, they are crippled elsewhere.

I wouldn't underestimate the importance of the Finns. While its true that the times I've been able to take Leningrad were by cutting it off by taking 44,6, having an extra square from which to attack 41,6 doubles the danger to Leningrad even with 44,6 still controlled.

As for air power...the more missions you fly, the more OP points you lose which eventually erode your ability to attack successfully.

Air missions are only 1 point per mission, it doesn't add much to the cost of attacking. Plot movement is where you'll spend most of your OPs I believe.

The Red air force was made to lose large numbers. Sitting cozily on the eastern edge of the map and then hobbling your opponent isn't exactly right in my eyes.

I don't understand you here. What do you mean by sitting cozily on the eastern edge of the map? Are you talking of rule #6? Soviet air units along the eastern edge of the map can only train, and there is plenty of room to the east where these units could have gone. An "off map" box makes perfect sense for this. This is far from hobbling the Germans. What you are implying is that the there should be a rule that says the Soviets must keep their airforce engaged rather than withdraw it. However, despite the arguments I've had with people over simulation versus game, allowing the Soviet player to have the choice to remain engaged or withdraw east is legitimate, no matter how unlikely it was historically. I believe the Soviets did hold back some of their new Yak planes for the fighting during the winter.

[Mikser]

Perhaps we could implement an optional rule... If the Germans manage to destroy X amount of squads prior to the snow falling and manage to capture and hold, say, Moscow prior to and up to date Y, the Finns see German victory as "inevitable" and decide to take a piece of the cake for themselves.
Obviously the optional rule as such would be vague and the players would agree on the limits mutually. Simulating political choices is nearly impossible, but I feel that some dynamism should be attempted.

[Montenegro]

I still think that the topic of Finnish aggression in this game leads to some of the most rampant discourse on this board...

Finns: I agree with all historical slants on this topic. They shouldn't be attacking Lenningrad, merely drawing Stalin's paranoia. Furthermore, I also believe that if/when the city of Lennin falls, the Germans should garrison it only, with at least 3 inf div and some armor. Revisionist history would probably err on the side that this city would have been a hotbead for partisan/underground activity had the Wermacht taken it for any time. I don't buy Stalin's view of those citizens. They were patriotic. I think cannibalism over capitulation sums this up enough.

Red air: The only way a Soviet player will have any chance in this game is to rest his planes comfortably in the east, and also train them. Revolvling your air force is the only way to survive. I still feel, however, that the arguments about the weakness of the Red air force holds little water in this game. They didn't really surpass the Luftwaffe until Citadel, and in a large way, this has a lot to do with the vastness of air defence within and without the German Reich augmented even more by attrition and the Allied bombings. I'm not slighting skill here, but for arguments sake, the German pilots had mucho combat exp prior to Barbarossa and throughout the first 2 yrs, this showed in the east.

Interdiction: What exactly is wrong with the 2 hit rule from 1 HQ? Man, '41 wasn't the year for the Red Army, either in this game or in history. They got pounded in large part because Stalin's foolish orders to ground his air force early on and the fact that their anti-aircraft weapons were a little lacking in numbers.

I rant too much. Remember, a swamp is a good place to catch a Tiger.

Regards,

Montenegro

[Mark_BookGuy]

I thought WIR was a game. My usual PBEM opponent and I milk the game for all it's worth. If you want the Finns to be aggressive let them be aggressive. (Maybe they can beat up on the Swedes??).

I always prefer paying the Russians, and I hate the Finns in the game. But if my opponent can take Petrograd using Finns, let 'em. Heck, if the game can help them march into Moscow (what is a good Finn drinking/marching song?), let 'em.

I don't think WIR is a very good historical simulation. It's certainly fun, and killing off Huns and Commies can't be all bad. Watching a schwerpanzerableitung go up in smoke is always worth the price of admission. Nevertheless, WIR is to war what Monopoly is to finance.

Let the panzers rip and the T-34s crunch a few grenadiers. Besides, would Uncles Joe and Adolf abide by house rules?:D

[Montenegro]

Originally posted by Mark_BookGuy
I thought WIR was a game. My usual PBEM opponent and I milk the game for all it's worth. If you want the Finns to be aggressive let them be aggressive. (Maybe they can beat up on the Swedes??).

I always prefer paying the Russians, and I hate the Finns in the game. But if my opponent can take Petrograd using Finns, let 'em. Heck, if the game can help them march into Moscow (what is a good Finn drinking/marching song?), let 'em.

I don't think WIR is a very good historical simulation. It's certainly fun, and killing off Huns and Commies can't be all bad. Watching a schwerpanzerableitung go up in smoke is always worth the price of admission. Nevertheless, WIR is to war what Monopoly is to finance.

Let the panzers rip and the T-34s crunch a few grenadiers. Besides, would Uncles Joe and Adolf abide by house rules?:D

And a fine game it tis.

I think a lot of the house rules are geared to "help" the Soviet players in this game, and in some cases, rightly so. (ie '41). I'll bet my bottom dollar (do I even have that now..?) that the next update will be a bit tougher on the Wermacht than the previous two.

Adolf---a fair play for him would have been to leave his cousin alone.

Stalin---Boris Gudonov.

Regards,

Montenegro

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Montenegro

I'll bet my bottom dollar (do I even have that now..?) that the next update will be a bit tougher on the Wermacht than the previous two.

Since I've been on the beta team, we never introduced changes deliberately to effect play balance, we considered the changes based on historical factors and common sense. The last release wasn't meant to make the Soviet side harder, and the next release isn't "designed" to make the German side harder. We're aware of the play balance issue but it is not our top, or only, priority.

As for historical simiulation, sure WIR isn't a perfect historical simulation, no game is, but deliberately allowing ahistorical events to occur is a good way to make a game a bad historical simulation. We do what we can to make things right, this is the objective IMHO behind the beta team and its the same objective behind the house rules. On the other hand, we know that exact historical simulation is not a requirement for everyone, many want to explore what-if situations, which is precisely why I labeled the Finn rule optional. I didn't label all the house rules optional because the rest IMHO meet the common sense requirement and are meant to prevent obvious ahistorical/impossible/illogical events. The Finn rule is optional because a legitimate what-if situation exists here. The role of Finland is an interesting what-if situation no matter how likely or unlikely you (or I) think an aggressive Finland is.