'stuffing' the border

[lavisj]

Breunor,

I do not believe anybody on this thread has argued that if Russia stuffs in 41, that Germany has not other options. Indeed a close the med followed by a 42 Barb is very powerfull.
The argument that was made, and where people think that the game present a major flaw, is that the decision on the major german strategic drive is actually in the hands of Russia, and not Germany, due the fact that Germany needs to prepare early for its strategy. And the fact that Germany has to make its decision before it knows wether Russia will stuff or not, means that a Germany is better off always going for a 42 Barb.... of course if the 80% probability is correct.

As for sporring, at least early on, all Russia has to do is build his units, which are always the same, unless it scraps some.... but does Russia really want to scaps units when a 41 Barb is coming..... it seems to me, that it needs all the units it can get. So, really, finishing the GAR and building all the INF does not seem like an indication of anything.
Agreed that building the pilots, is a better indication, but Russia can start those in late 1940, which would not help Germany for early warning..... again my impression.

Jerome

[Breunor]

Jerome,

I agree with everything you say! (Well just about. [:)])! I do think an optional rule, or rule change, may be good for the reasons you have said. Maybe the only difference is that I think it is a BAD strategy in that it makes 42 Barb VERY strong (with Siberia lost at no cost to Japan is, I think, a very bad result).

I also think I could easily spot what is going on and adjust and most of the 'tournament' players can also. This area is where we probably disagree - the strategy here does seem to use different builds and a way of using them. If the USSR has no tanks or mechs, is building pilots for its crap planes, I'll see it. (I think I even saw one post saying not to build the HQ!) So I don't think there will be a period where the USSR is 'hiding' this strategy and I think I can adjust fairly easily.

Similarly, if I am preparing for a 42 Barb, but the USSR and Japan get into a very heated land war with lots of casualties, I'll instantly change my strategy and go for a 41.

I suspect it the nature of the 'tournament' player - if my opponent uses a bad strategy I'll change mine to defeat him. I would agree that giving the choice is important especially for people who don't play so often.

Maybe there was some talking past each other here. I like the optional. My objection was to the implication that the game is 'broken' and if Matrix didn't fix it, the game was horribly flawed. Now, saying it is flawed from a 'strategic flexibility' standpoint, OK, no problem, I agree.

But I guess my feeling from reading the thread was different. I suspect that this comes form the fact that different people have disparate views on the importance here. If the thread was only about limiting German options when it shouldn't, then I clearly over-reacted and we are just talking flexibility.

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

[lavisj]

Breunor,

ORIGINAL: Breunor
I also think I could easily spot what is going on and adjust and most of the 'tournament' players can also. This area is where we probably disagree - the strategy here does seem to use different builds and a way of using them. If the USSR has no tanks or mechs, is building pilots for its crap planes, I'll see it. (I think I even saw one post saying not to build the HQ!) So I don't think there will be a period where the USSR is 'hiding' this strategy and I think I can adjust fairly easily.

Well, if Russia wants a forward defense it will have built all its ARM (3BP/GAR) all its MECH (2.5 BP/GAR) all its GAR (2BP/GAR) all its INF (3BP/GAR) all its HQ (There is only one in 40 anyway) and so the only difference is builing some pilots for the old planes. But those can be delayed until later in 40. And of course Russia can adjust production depending on what Germany has built and what they do.

Similarly, if I am preparing for a 42 Barb, but the USSR and Japan get into a very heated land war with lots of casualties, I'll instantly change my strategy and go for a 41.

I suspect it the nature of the 'tournament' player - if my opponent uses a bad strategy I'll change mine to defeat him. I would agree that giving the choice is important especially for people who don't play so often.

Yes that seems logical, and I think most players will adapt their strategies to the situation. The issue here is not wether it can be done or not.... it is an issue as you say, of flexibility.

Maybe there was some talking past each other here. I like the optional. My objection was to the implication that the game is 'broken' and if Matrix didn't fix it, the game was horribly flawed. Now, saying it is flawed from a 'strategic flexibility' standpoint, OK, no problem, I agree.

But I guess my feeling from reading the thread was different. I suspect that this comes form the fact that different people have disparate views on the importance here. If the thread was only about limiting German options when it shouldn't, then I clearly over-reacted and we are just talking flexibility.

Well, some people here, and I am one of them, consider that the removal of that flexibility IS a major flaw. The game is not broken in the sens that both side can still win and play the game, but it feels flawed in the sens that it put the choice of the German strategy in the hands of Russia for all practical consideration. Because IF Germany decides to pursue a 41 Barbarossa, they know when they start preparing for it, that they will have between 80 - 95% of failure depending on what Russia does and that Germany is putting its fate in the hands of the draw of pact chits.
Of course, Germany can still win even if foiled from starting its Barb in the summer of 41..... but I would think to be highly unlikely.

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.

Well, this is the very reason why I have yet to do a 41 Barbarossa with Germany. I have shyed away from it until then, just because I do not want to have Russia stuff the border and have to switch strategy mid course. And I do not believe I will ever attempt one unless I have an agreement with the Russian player that stuffing will not happen..... or I will have Italy conquer Hungary. I personnaly have no objection to a gamey tactic to cancel what I consider a gamey tactic itself.

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?

Well.... is stuffing the border bad play for Russia? I am not sure. To know that we would need a little more statistics....a good start would be how many 42 Barb result in Axis victory compare to 41 Barb.

Jerome

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: lavisj
Well.... is stuffing the border bad play for Russia? I am not sure. To know that we would need a little more statistics....a good start would be how many 42 Barb result in Axis victory compare to 41 Barb.

I would only stuff the border if the Germans were making dangerous progress against the CW, in an attempt to pull Axis forces away from that theater. The problem with trying to fend off a '41 Barbarossa is that pulling those forces back from the border before campaign season '42 using only combined impulses might leave the garrison denuded and the front chaotic during the winter, and the Germans might jump the gun even in bad weather to take advantate of this. I guess ultimately it's a matter of taste, but I prefer to leave only speed bumps and keep the quality forces behind the river lines to either side of the swamp. I don't like leaving Siberia weak, and stuffing seems to call for that.

[Breunor]

Jerome,

Nice post, I don't have a lot to add but I do want to clarify my (again personal) view here where I may not have been as clear as I want.

Specifically:

'Stuffing' is supposed to be a 'good' tactic. The idea (again, my understanding) is that the benefits from stuffing weighed with its drawbacks should be roughly equivalent to a rear defense. For a game as complex as WIFFE, it is pretty hard to say if it is working 'properly', but my guess is that stuffing is a reasonably good option.

However, when I say that, I'm talking about 'normal' stuffing. Reading through this thread, not surprisingly, people have different ideas on exactly what 'stuffing' entails - but with 'normal' forward defense, poorer units aren't purchased and usually Siberia isn't abandoned to Japan for free. In that case the chance that Germany can break the pact is much higher than 20%.

My take is that stuffing is 'poor' if you pursue your strategy to abandon Siberia and build weaker based on their garrison values and not their combat strength.

Your question about 41 Barb vs. 42 Barb, well, now, that is interesting, isn't it? [:)] That was probably the most debated strategic topic when the game came out, and it probably still is! To me, it is one of the concepts that makes WIFFE a fun game - this debate is effectively endless. Obviously, the options, rules, modules, and styles played can have a huge impact on this issue, so it is virtually impossible to get a 'right' answer. It may be like asking whether e4 or d4 is a better first move in chess, indeed, it is harder because of the variety of options. (Personally I'm a 41 guy; I also play e4.) [:)]

But my take is that if the USSR abandons Siberia to force Germany to a 42 Barb, then the 42 Barb swings to the 'much better' position. Germany gets a lot of advantages in a 42 Barb - but one major drawback is that the Soviets are stronger and can make trouble in the Far East and Japan has to be real careful. So, if we compare a 'normal' 41 Barb to a 'normal' 42 Barb, let's say they are dead even - but a 42 Barb where the USSR has abandoned the Far East giving Japan a free hand against China and developing for the war against the US is a bad option. Added to that the (at least in some of the posts here) USSR has made what I consider weak builds to use this strategy, I think the 42 Barb is now 'much much better'. Furthermore, by buying the weak units the ability to withstand the onslaught if stuffing fails is reduced.

I understand your last point. Indeed, I have usually seen the same logic on the opposite side. That is, I don't see forward defenses that often, because I think the Soviet player has the same thoughts. Say the probability of a 'normal' stuffing preventing the pact from being broken is a little over 50% - most Soviet players don't want a 50% chance of being destroyed matched with a 50% chance of a huge benefit (no doubt if Germany goes for a 41 Barb and fails to break the pact it hurts them.) Your point is the same from the German side.

From a competitive game point, it may be that the option, even though it is balanced, is just too important and game changing, and nobody wants to play a game for 100 hours and have one calculation decide it. This calculation/logic may be a little different for the veteran who has played the game 40 times than somebody new to the game trying to get his hands on the options and mechanics but I totally sympathize with this position. This kind of issue is why these threads can get off - kilter; somebody may say it is 'broken' because it is too important in an individual game while someone like me says it isn't a problem because it is fair ON AVERAGE.

One item here that may help a little bit is that you can often see how well you are doing as you pull your chits. That is, it isn't simply a matter of the odds when you get to M/J 41 - you kind of know how well it is going as you get your chits. So if I'm Germany and I'm getting bad chits, start for 42 Barb immediately and if I get good chits, well, then go for 41 and HOPE the Soviets try stuffing! (And old time players like me may have to be careful in the computer game because in the board game, if I get good chits it almost automatically means that he has bad chits - that mechanic appears to be different in the computer game.)


So, basically, I think I've seen what you are advocating done in practice by 'gentleman's agreement'. I usually see Soviet players NOT stuffing partly because the mechanic is so defining. If I understand you properly, your view is the same from the German side - you don't want the game decided by the stuffing percentage so choose a 42 Barb. In my mind, this view makes a very logical argument.

To be honest, (here I'm talking for myself only), if you want to make an optional, I think you should probably just let Germany break the pact any time they want. If you are going to make an option, I would advocate making it simpler and I think we can argue it is more realistic. If you use this option, then, you have to live with the fact that the strategic choice of a forward defense for the USSR is abandoned. If you simply increase Germany's chances of breaking the pact, then it becomes too risky for the Soviet player so you will get to the exact same place anyway.


Good gaming,

Breunor

[brian brian]

WiF is a great big water balloon. Squeeze one part of it and it just bulges out somewhere else. The pact rules are a good example of this. Both the Soviets and the Germans have to decide if they can forgo some things to do another thing.

Hitler may have been able to break the pact at will but we will never know for sure. What if the French had stationed DeGaulle and an armor concentration on the west side of the Ardennes (maybe even if not expecting an attack there maybe it could have been a handy place to hold some reserves or something)? Would Hitler have had the political capital amongst the army high command to do it then?

Stalin had some historical political constraints as well. The New Soviet Man could hardly defend the Motherland starting on the east bank of the Dnepr could he?

[hakon]

Breunor:

I think your argument against "stuffing" being a weak strategy vs a 1942 barb is very much flawed. (You even write that when stuffing, you will not build, mech....)

In fact, when preparing to stuff the border, I would build more or less exactly the same units early on as when preparing for a rear defense. Early on, I will build ARM, maybe a few pilots, garr and inf. If there is any difference, it will be in how many units I scrap pre game, when compared to preparing for a 1941 defense, but in a 1942 defense, I would not want to scap very many land units at all. Besides, when playing with the newest counter sheets, Mech in Flames no longer contains all those poor units that you may want to scrap in some games.

In mid 1940, I would build mostly inf and mech, and any remaining arm and gar. And this would be about the latest time when you are likely to be able to shift to a 1941 Gibraltar/42 Barb without sacrificing a lot.

So what would I have build unit this time?
3 ARM
all mech
all garr
0-3 pilots
the rest infantry

All the units above are very useful in a 1942 barb, imo, and all also happen to maximize the garrison ratio, even the 2-1 garr. If nothing else, these can be used as Garrison vs Japan. The lowest factor inf and mech can be broken down to divisions in 1942, if you dont want them. In fact, the 3-3 inf can even be built for 2 build points each if you abuse the break down/recombine divisions rules.

The main units that I'm missing, are the AT guns, their HQI's and some fighters. These can easily be built during 1941 if you stuff the border, especially if Germany is busy in the west.

So please tell me precisely what units you are thinking of when you claim that Russia is stuck with building lousy units if they want to be able to stuff the border? (Given that Germany goes west early enough for it to be effective.)

Because as far as I can tell, preparing to stuff at least until Germany commits to turning west, gives more or less exactly the same units that I would have wanted anyway.

Btw, if you'd followed the yahoo groups wifdiscussion list, you would have known that I've been posting much more on that forum, than here on the mwif boards, and that my opinions are based on quite a few WIFFE games.

And as for any experience prior to FE (or even prior to 2d10), it's not very relevant any more, imo, since the game has changed so much. Playing with 1d10, Barb was so weak anyway, that the Russians had no REASON to want to stop it, something that made the stuffing rule a non-issue. In my experience, it is actually often a lot easier to play against people who have played a lot of pre 2d10 WiF, since it seems that these tend to put too much trust in the tactical defensive, and are often not very good at waging the kind of mobile warfare that 2d10 allows. In other words, a lot of experience can even be a bad thing, if you try to apply experience that isn't valid any more.

Cheers
Hakon

[hakon]

Btw, I you want to see what can happen when Russia gets really entangled vs Japan in 1940 in the face of a 1941 barbarossa, you may search the mwif forums for my games vs Tobias Vinterheimer from this spring. I've probably never played any easier games than those two, and Tobias has been a con player.

As a matter of fact, I believe that it is much more realistic for Russia to be able to wage effective war vs Japan when starting out preparing to stuff the border, since that will make it less probably that Germany will actually try to go for a 1941 barb. And once it is clear that Germany is going elsewhere, Russia can turn around....

Cheers
Hakon

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: ullern

Actually. One of the cases I calculated in post 281 was Classic + PiF only + City Based Volunteers (so no SIF, no Mech in Flames Gar, no divs or artillery). But I still assumed the USSR DOWed Italy and produced MIL. With these options the results was pretty much the same as Haakons calculations. But I did assume no losses, and that would be different. Also if the USSR was not allowed to produce MIL, it would make a big difference.

When I was saying that classic (or most other options) wouldn't change much, I meant of course, that it would not make it EASIER to break the garrison, than when playing with deluxe, with most of the chrome.

I generally assume that CBV are used, when I present numbers, so playing Classic (ie without CBV), it is probably actually harder to break the garrisonf for Germany, making stuffing even easier. On top of this, comes the fact that all German pre-barb losses must be corps, aircraft without pilots, etc.

Cheers
Hakon

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: darune

However I think there should also/still be a mechanic that prevents germany from a big lend-lease to italy if it wants to do the 41 barb.

The chit and pact rules are good for that. Just the garrison should be changed so USSR, by itself, could not get more than around 40%-50% (maybe even 60% also ok since its very risky if fails) chance of a stuff in MJ 41.

As I've written time and time again, I don't think the pact rule is good for this purpose at all.

There are several problems with that approach:
- The number of garrison points that Germany loses by giving Italy 6 resources per turn from M/A 1940 is very low (only 4 or so points, compared to not giving a single resource).
- This difference is the difference between russia pulling a 1 or a 3 in ONE draw. The overall uncertainty in the chits is MUCH greater.
- The axis can achive a reasonable Super Balbo even without lending anything to Italy before Russia starts pulling back. (And if they can break the pact without Russia pulling back, they don't need it.), so not much is solved anyway.
- And imo, the Axis should not be forced to build exclusively for a Barb in able to get one. For instance, they should be able to build some fleet, send a few units to Africa and also build a synth plant or two and STILL be able to DOW Russia imo. Mixed strategies may not be the most effeictive ones, but to not even be able to try one, is too restrictive imo.
- It provides no help vs a 1942 Super Balbo strategy (regardless of what Germany does in 1941).

So, if you think that it is a problem that Italy participates much in the east, you should really try to find some other method ot stop it, than to rely on stuffing.

Ideas that have come up, are:
- Take away cooperation between Germany and Italy (maybe have Rommel being able to be a HQ for both).
- Reduce the Italian aircraft force pool.
- Change the impulse system, so that it doesn't lend itself so much to abuse.
- 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.

All proposals have pro's and con's. My favourite is the latest one (which also happens to be my idea).

Alternatively, one could just make Russia strong enough to withstand a Super Balbo strategy, for instance by using the Great Patriotic War option that I proposed further up in this thread.

Cheers
Hakon

[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.

[Froonp]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

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]

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]

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]

Hi Paul.
&nbsp;
Yes, I think we are on pretty common ground.&nbsp; I think having it as an option makes sense.&nbsp; Indeed, for beginners, I would usually tell them not to try the forward defense.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; By using a rear defense it is probably a 'tamer' game.
&nbsp;
In terms of whether Germany 'should' be able to do a 41 Barb, to me it is an issue of realism vs. game play.&nbsp; 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.
&nbsp;
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.&nbsp; This rule gives the USSR player something to do and decide besides being smashed to bits.&nbsp; [:)]
&nbsp;
Seriously, though, it should allow more 'game types'.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; However, we WILL occasionally get the real life scenario of the Soviets being caught at the border.&nbsp; Although being caught at the border isn’t pleasant, it is NOT an automatic death sentence and it can be an interesting game.&nbsp; That is, by allowing the rule more kinds of games will emerge.&nbsp; Indeed, some players seem to like a modified forward defense just on defensive properties, viewing hte land gained as worth the cost.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
So personally I can go either way on this issue.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Sorry if I misinterpreted the question about the 42 Barbs.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; (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).&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
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).&nbsp; To be honest, as all-around WIFFE fan, I think it is great!&nbsp;
&nbsp;
That is, there is an interesting strategy issue here.&nbsp; Have people worked out the BEST way to use a forward defense?&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; That would be a GREAT strategy discussion!
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Likewise, the common thread here comes to a statement I made earlier – the mechanic of a forward defense is SUPPOSED to be balanced.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; Or can Germany adjust to ‘over-stuffing’ to make a 42 Barb even stronger?
&nbsp;
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.&nbsp; Furthermore, Germany can adjust by seeing how it chit pulls look.&nbsp; 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)!
&nbsp;
For the USSR, the forward defense CAN hold (as I said, a little unpleasant).&nbsp; A rear defense can hold.&nbsp; Getting caught in the middle is a total catastrophe.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
So, who has the advantage in the ‘stuff strategy’?&nbsp; Well, I came on this forum to give my experience and wisdom, but I admit issue is beyond me.&nbsp; It is really, really tough!
&nbsp;
Those of you thinking that ‘stuffing’ is too good for the USSR, well, go for it!&nbsp; It would be good for the game as a whole to see forward defenses tried, to have these ideas tested.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
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.&nbsp; I’m such a WIFFE geek, I live for these types of topics and games around them.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Of course, no harm in it being an option (and realism vs. play are very common option choices.)
&nbsp;
Good gaming,&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Breunor

[paulderynck]

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]

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]

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...