'stuffing' the border

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Hakon, you're an optimizing player, and you got rid of that parameter by saying that you focus on side victory, but while cooperation and side victory are important elements of the game, each country can win including Italy / Japan, and I as an Italian player would not bow to the German player ambitions without fulfilling mine.

Focusing on side victory has been a tradition in my group since before I started playing there, I think. Norway is, after all, a socialist country.

Personally, I prefer to play with individual victory conditions, too, but for some reason, that hasn't really caught on.

In any case, we've been down this road before.

Within the WiF system, it is far from written in stone that Germany has to get all the victory cities in the east. And if Italy can just get Teheran, they are already ahead of scedulre. If they get 1-2 more, they are already doing very well.

Keep in mind that an uncooperative Italy will not get any victory cities at all, unless Germany lets him have them.

A player that ONLY plays italy, is very unlikely to win, anyway, of course, he is simply too small for that (unless the bid is very high). But a Japanese/Italian player can do very well in a super balbo, at least if the alleis do what they seem to be doing in 90% of cases, that is to focus almost exclusively on europe when russia is being crushed.

Compare this to a close the med/sitz game, where Germany is taking all victory cities around the med (unless italy can grab one before Germany can react). On top of this, it is pretty standard practice for Russia to attack Japan in 1940 or 41 in such a game, which can really affect the number of cities Japan can get. If not caring so much about team victory, Germany could also start pulling out of Spain in 1943 or 44, with the hope of channeling allied agression into the med at this time, to keep them from making gains in France or on the eastern front. Italy would have to garrison Gibraltar themselves (even if it would be german held). If Germany timed in perfectly, Italy would fall just in time for Germany to gain control of Milan and Rome in late 1945, so that they would be credited for the italian victory cities in italy. Germany could keep 10-20 victory cities this way, even with a conquered Italy, and a crushed Japan. (Individual victory will also tend to lure the Americans to the Pacific, to help the nationalist chinese gain as many red cities as possible.)

Cheers
Hakon

[warspite1]

Well, as someone who has not played WIFFE, but is keen to understand what this stuffing malarchy is all about, I must say that (apart from the unfortunate sniping at each other which ran through the series of posts), that was a thoroughly informative, thought provoking and enjoyable series of posts: Froonp, Hakon, Paulderynck and michelq in particular.....[&o]

I think(?!) I maintain what I said at the start re the importance of being able to do an historic Barbarossa, but otherwise cannot decide for sure which "side" I come down on. Additional thoughts anyone?

For what its worth, I think ultimately I would go with Froonp and his suggestion that any decision waits until the earlier of:

- ADG make an official rule change
- the game is about ready to launch (and nothing official has been heard)

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: hakon

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I suppose that if the pact rules were soooooo broken as to hastily devise a house rule in the computer adaptation, it would have wrecked havoc in the games that were players since 1996.

And it did not.

How do you know this? For all you know, these rules can already have wrecked havoc in loads of games, with the result that the affected players stopped playing WiF, and moved on to other games where Germany is actually allowed to stage the biggest campaign of the war (and of world history) at the historical time.

Already ruined a game for me. I resigned in disgust that my opponent knew about the stuff, thought it was a great way to win, and figured it was valid.

Certainly, I would not have been playing WiF today, if the rest of my group had considered stuffing to to be ok, and a valid way to play. It would simply take the game too far away from my view of what would be a WW2 game. Heck, I would probably prefer Axis and Allies for realism then.....

Now, assuming that the situation in my group is not that uncommon, ie that most players hold simmilar views, then there may still be a large number of groups where 'no stuffing' is the de facto rule already.

Not neccesarily true. I resigned from my group as my opponent obstinately rufused to acknowledge that the stuff was unrealistic. Considering I had built soley for Barb, and found out every unit on the map was insufficient in M/J 41, I became disgusted that this was allowed in WIF.

In groups where most games involve alternative strategies to a 41 barb, the whole issue is, of course, completely irrelevant.

But to release a computer game that claims to be based on WW2, I think it would be a huge risk to release the game with rules that allow Russia to unilateraly stop a 41 Barbarossa more often than not, partly because the would be many new players (most of which I think would expect a 1941 barb to be possible), and also because the ability to play over the net would take away most of the "common understanding" ways that local groups can develop to handle things like this.

Making this an optional rule, should solve the problem, since the players that can not accept (as Germany) to have their game decided by stuffing, can prevent this even before the game starts.

Now, if it should be that the current trend, ie that 1941 Barbs tend to be blow outs, does indeed carry over into MWiF, one could always implement something like my "Great Patriotic War" optional, or one could even add it front the release.

Cheers
Hakon

Hakon

I haven't seen many '41 blow-outs so I can't comment on it other than to say, a mis-match of player skill will usually decide the war in Russia.

I'm on a long term sabbatical from the game until I can find a new group who 'does' agree that the stuff makes no sense.

I'm quite bummed out.

So quick recap. I quit because of this retarded ability to prevent a '41 Barb. My previous opponents went on without me. No closure or even agreement on the subject. I'd say the bitter taste in my mouth has to do with the many hours spent to find out that my opponent was someone who thought Russia 'should' stuff.

I wonder how many people really said 'f*@# this game' and quit. Nobody is going to know. I'm sure many people house-rule it. Some probably (like Hakon and I) simply can't stomach the idea that the crucial war of WWII can be trivially prevented; and refuse to do such a thing once they learn of it (unlike my previous opponent).

I've got very little else to say about the issue. Control group of one.

[oscar72se]

Couldn't agree more, I've had exactly the same experience. Russia can so easily prevent a 41 Barbarossa that our group decided to houserule that Germany can declare war from 1941 onwards. Under normal circumstances, if Russia build "garrison point efficient" units there is no chance in hell that Germany is able to declare war against Russia in the summer of 1941. IMO this makes the game lose a lot of game dynamics.

Regards,
Oscar

[composer99]

I have not yet seen a WIF:FE game in Ottawa in which a Barb 41 has not resulted in USSR getting pushed to the Asian map (or worse). I do not have exact numbers but I can think of 4-5 games in which this took place. I also witnessed two games at WiFCon 2009 with similar results (one of which I was a participant of).

Thus, while I am on record suggesting an optional rule to disallow/reduce the potency of stuffing is reasonable, I personally would very unlikely to be willing to play as the USSR unless I either could stuff normally or it was agreed before bidding that the 'no-Bess' gambit would not take place (since the execution of the gambit is a sign to me as a USSR player that the patently ahistorical all-out Barb is on the way and that the Axis will clearly pursue gamey behaviour whether I do or not). Or I ended up with USSR at a very low bid. I'm all for increasing historical accuracy & plausibility in a game, but it has to go both ways.

[lavisj]

Chris,

I am not sure a Russia being pushed to the Asian map always result in a Russia that can not come back. I think the key is not wether they were pushed to the Asian map but wether they lost Baku or not.

Jerome

[brian brian]

today's installment of short internet span theater is this:

Italy can participate in Barbarossa and demand one of the objective cities as the price...or two...

[Skanvak]

First, I think that trying to prevent people to apply the rule as they are is not valid argument. A game is a game so telling someone not to do something you dislike is not acceptable, even very gamey trick.

Second, the politcal restriction are good for the 2 player games as it compel the player to play somewhat within historical restriction, but I don't see the reason to impose them in a multi-palyer game where each player have their own objectives. But, WiF is lacking in multi-player diplomacy. The multi-player game is just a team-play of the game that is wrong from my point of view. On this point I like Hakon suggestion of individual victory point (I don't agree an this actual VP).

Third, I believe that we won't agree what a good DOW system would be. Until we have a Tool box that allow for free diplomacy or custom design of the dow condition then I don't think that tinkering the rules is a good idea because it require extensive playtesting.

Fourth, this argument are made by group that play with a certain style. Some other play for other reasons and won't care about that, but will care about other things. Personnaly I didn't know stuffing or super balbo/alex was before reading this forum despite I have the WiF wargames. Because I have yet another approach of the game.

I should say that we see the big difference between a boardgame and a computer game : in a board game you can change the rules when you want it is easy, but you cannot change the map or the counter ; in a computer game it is just the opposite, editing counter and map is easy but changing the rules is very difficult. Given the fact that we are most likely to change the rules than the counters we will have this kind of argument a lot.

That why I think the free diplomacy option, while being totally un historical, is the best option as it is simple and let the players play the diplomatic model they want and can figure out of the game (Dod). It has the advantage to offer the possibility to try lots of what if.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

First, I think that trying to prevent people to apply the rule as they are is not valid argument. A game is a game so telling someone not to do something you dislike is not acceptable, even very gamey trick.

Second, the politcal restriction are good for the 2 player games as it compel the player to play somewhat within historical restriction, but I don't see the reason to impose them in a multi-palyer game where each player have their own objectives. But, WiF is lacking in multi-player diplomacy. The multi-player game is just a team-play of the game that is wrong from my point of view. On this point I like Hakon suggestion of individual victory point (I don't agree an this actual VP).

Third, I believe that we won't agree what a good DOW system would be. Until we have a Tool box that allow for free diplomacy or custom design of the dow condition then I don't think that tinkering the rules is a good idea because it require extensive playtesting.

Fourth, this argument are made by group that play with a certain style. Some other play for other reasons and won't care about that, but will care about other things. Personnaly I didn't know stuffing or super balbo/alex was before reading this forum despite I have the WiF wargames. Because I have yet another approach of the game.

I should say that we see the big difference between a boardgame and a computer game : in a board game you can change the rules when you want it is easy, but you cannot change the map or the counter ; in a computer game it is just the opposite, editing counter and map is easy but changing the rules is very difficult. Given the fact that we are most likely to change the rules than the counters we will have this kind of argument a lot.

That why I think the free diplomacy option, while being totally un historical, is the best option as it is simple and let the players play the diplomatic model they want and can figure out of the game (Dod). It has the advantage to offer the possibility to try lots of what if.

Insightful.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: lavisj

Chris,

I am not sure a Russia being pushed to the Asian map always result in a Russia that can not come back. I think the key is not wether they were pushed to the Asian map but wether they lost Baku or not.

Jerome

When i was Japan over the board, two games ago, Germany had chased the Russians from every hex of the European map except for Sevastipol, and I had Chita as well. We felt confident of victory, with Turkey aligned and the oil fields of the Caucasus firmly in our hands. Unfortunately, while the Germans were taking Moscow and Stalingrad, the CW invaded in the Netherlands, and with defensive shore bombardment, they held strong. Germany had no offensive chit to attempt to repel the beach head. When the U.S. entered the war, they skipped Italy and invaded the Balkans. Some inattention led to the Russians coming back to the European map with a vengeance, isolating a big pocket of Germans around Moscow. The Netherlands beach head was instrumental in their wedging into the lowlands early and liberate France in '43. Some tricky play gave them Copenhagen early in 1944. Japan and Italy were solid defensively but unable to make any desperate grabs for objectives during '45, their navies being sunk.

I'll cut to the chase and admit that we resigned to the Allies before playing the last turn, with Vienna the only objective they would need to claim victory. As Italy, I had an OC and armored strike force ready to take Vienna back should they take it, but there was no mathematcial possibility of the turn ending before they took it for good. We were amazed at their comeback, though of course mistakes on our part facilitated thier success.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I don't believe that this discussion is good for the game, on the contrary, because it is trying to design the wrong way. Look, I am not a game designer, neither do you nor no one here, so let's not pretend we know the job better than Harry Rowland.

If this discussion was happening on the playtest list of WiF FE, I would not be saying the same. Harry have a much deeper understanding of the intricacies of the rules, better than anyone here, so I'd rather trust his judgement.

In other words, I'd much prefer a rule change from him.

Of course, Harry Rowland must have the final word. But is he aware of the many discussions that did occur on this particular subject at least?

I think that he is as aware as a game designer can be.
There are discussions on the WiF Playtest list where Russia ability to resist 1941 Barbarossa and the Pact breaking are mentionned, but not as vehemently as here.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: hakon

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Hakon, you're an optimizing player, and you got rid of that parameter by saying that you focus on side victory, but while cooperation and side victory are important elements of the game, each country can win including Italy / Japan, and I as an Italian player would not bow to the German player ambitions without fulfilling mine.

Focusing on side victory has been a tradition in my group since before I started playing there, I think. Norway is, after all, a socialist country.

I claim that because of this biais, your experience is non representative.

Keep in mind that an uncooperative Italy will not get any victory cities at all, unless Germany lets him have them.

This is uterly wrong. I'm disapointed that you don't know this.

A player that ONLY plays italy, is very unlikely to win, anyway, of course, he is simply too small for that (unless the bid is very high). But a Japanese/Italian player can do very well in a super balbo, at least if the alleis do what they seem to be doing in 90% of cases, that is to focus almost exclusively on europe when russia is being crushed.

Wrong too. It looks like you have optimized German play too much, forgetting about Italy & Japan. Italy / Japan can win the game and beat Germany, and that's not going east.

I've had 2 big victories in games I was Italy / Japan, one with 15 victory cities & Germany had 13, and another with 21 victory cities and Germany had 14. A third game I was in was won by Italy / Japan with 9 objectives with Germany had 6.5. Tell me how many times you would have such scores for Italy / Japan when they go east ?

So I have the feeling that your habit of playing team victory and not individual victory is the reason why you allow the Super Balbo Strategy (and forbid the Stuffing the border strategy because it is the only thing that can screw the Super Balbo). Removing this bad habit you could again play a game cured from both problems.

[rkr1958]

Pardon my ignorance again but what is the "Super Balbo Strategy"?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Pardon my ignorance again but what is the "Super Balbo Strategy"?

In a nutshell, the Italian HQ Balbo is sent to Russia with as many Italian aircraft as possible. Those aircraft can perform ground strikes and ground support, then be reorganized by Balbo and do it all a second time, every turn. Since the Italians have their own Action, that can be an air action which gives the Germans the ability to take land actions. The reorganization cost of aircraft is halved if you take an air action.

The net result is that an enormous amount of additional air power is available to the Axis for the war in Russia. The down side is that Italy isn't capable of doing much else (too few BPs).

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Pardon my ignorance again but what is the "Super Balbo Strategy"?

In a nutshell, the Italian HQ Balbo is sent to Russia with as many Italian aircraft as possible. Those aircraft can perform ground strikes and ground support, then be reorganized by Balbo and do it all a second time, every turn. Since the Italians have their own Action, that can be an air action which gives the Germans the ability to take land actions. The reorganization cost of aircraft is halved if you take an air action.

The net result is that an enormous amount of additional air power is available to the Axis for the war in Russia. The down side is that Italy isn't capable of doing much else (too few BPs).

Thanks. Wow! Thank sounds kind of gamey.

[brian brian]

It is a strategy that can cause the Allies to fail a morale check and resign a game, to borrow a concept from another famous game, but it is not a guaranteed win for the Axis by any means.

[oscar72se]

I have never seen the Balbo strategy in action, sounds interesting but shouldn't CW be able to make minced meat out of the Italians in the Med when there are no Italian air available?

Regards
Oscar

[Bibs]

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

I have never seen the Balbo strategy in action, sounds interesting but shouldn't CW be able to make minced meat out of the Italians in the Med when there are no Italian air available?

Regards
Oscar

This strategy assumes the Italians don't even bother with North Africa, so really not much fleet to protect. The Italian/German NAV can be in the Med if needed. Since the CW can't get the first AMPH until J/F 41, it is difficult for them to do anything in the Balkans/Sicily/Italy until mid-1941 at the earliest.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: hakon

A player that ONLY plays italy, is very unlikely to win, anyway, of course, he is simply too small for that (unless the bid is very high). But a Japanese/Italian player can do very well in a super balbo, at least if the alleis do what they seem to be doing in 90% of cases, that is to focus almost exclusively on europe when russia is being crushed.

Because Italy's objective total is projected to be zero, they have as good a chance to win as anyone. The only game where i had the individual victory was playing as Italy alone (the second-place player was Japan). I still had Persia at the end of the game, and my objective total was 6 when all was said and done.

[Skanvak]

I have just read the rules of an old wargame (Totaler Krieg) that has an interesting way of dealing with the pact and the forward placement : Germany can go to war against soviet as they want but there is a rule that force soviet to not withdraw unit in border land which actually compel them to do what was done historically . Of course that have the side effect that the soviet player is not free of his strategy.

The game allow for politics, especially it deals with Hiltlers assassination, separate peace, political crisis... things that are not in Wif. Thought I think that WiF is globally a better game.