Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal

[Michael T]

Some people seem to think that I raised this issue so that the Germans have a 'I win' push button. I articulated my reasons quite clearly. I also claim no bias. I also clearly said on numerous occasions players would be under no obligation to use such a rule. But these facts are ignored. Again the main reason for the idea is to force players to conform more to the demands of Hitler and Stalin. Its that simple. At the moment this does not exist. We see both sides running at the first hint of trouble. This would not have been tolerated by Hitler or Stalin. The commander of the troops that did this would have been sacked, imprisioned or shot. Maybe all three.

You also need to consider the effect of removing the extra hex of rail conversion that will be in the next beta. It will make a difference.

FWIW when my current CG ends I will be doning my Soviet cap for a while.

[wadortch]

FWIW, I don't think you raised the idea based on an Axis bias. In my view, the goal is to try and create in the game the incredible tension and struggle of the first year of the conflict where all seemed to hang on a gossamer thread for both sides.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

This would not have been tolerated by Hitler or Stalin.

Well, Hitler would NOT have tolerated a different plan (Barbarossa)... The plan was about a strong center and the main goal was Moscow. Forget those extra panzers in the south, NO Lvov pocket...

Same thing about Leningrad, only send AGN...

And yet we see every German player has perverted the original plan... included those who blame the "run away" thing... Soooo...

In other words, every single time you modify Barbarossa you are IGNORING Hitler's orders... but the Red Army is apparently forced to obey Stalin's ultimate lunacy: do not run away... Can't you see the FLAGRANT contradiction?

[Michael T]

No one wants to be completely shackled by history. I have no problem with variant Barbarossa plans, thats part of the fun. But front wide retreats/digins by the German army in September is just as ludicrous as the Soviets running straight back to Moscow in July.

[entwood]

Optional in-game rules serve several purposes.  First and foremost, it protects the main game because if the optional rule is not working right the basic game still would, because we know that is a valid new development concern, messing up the main game with new changes, if optional rules were coded as a 'sub-routine' or what-have you. 

Secondly, players can use them at their discretion. 

Thirdly, Optional Rules could be used to help balance PBEM, where a stronger player could concede an optional rule not in their favor and the-like; a handi-capping aspect.  I think more games would get played ; all good.   Almost every old table top or computer wargame I have played had optional rules....This is what this game lacks.

Lastly, Heck, if the company wanted to charge a modest 10 dollars or so for an 'add-on'; we have yet another benefit.  buy it or not DLC.

[entwood]

ORIGINAL: wadortch

In my view, the goal is to try and create in the game the incredible tension and struggle of the first year of the conflict where all seemed to hang on a gossamer thread for both sides.

These words should be added to the Game Manual's Introduction.

[Kronolog]

Well, it would certainly be nice to feel the political pressure as the player (if one excludes the already included dismissals and executions of leaders). How this could be coded into the game though, I'm not exactly sure, but sudden deaths (representing coups against the head of state?) might be a good way of doing it.

[traemyn]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Again the main reason for the idea is to force players to conform more to the demands of Hitler and Stalin. Its that simple. At the moment this does not exist. We see both sides running at the first hint of trouble. This would not have been tolerated by Hitler or Stalin. The commander of the troops that did this would have been sacked, imprisioned or shot. Maybe all three.

I assumed this was the main reason and I am glad you said it specifically because I think Auto-Win points or an Auto-Win line or similar are NOT addressing the issue. The issue is that historically Hitler and Stalin both issued orders for no retreat. Isn't that ultimately the main driver behind why the Soviets fought so hard so forward (which cost them dearly from my understanding) and why ultimately the Axis did not retreat as we see every Axis in AAR's do during the first blizzard?

By crafting VP's or Auto-Win lines or whatever, its just making up different ways for the game to play the same as history. Well then why can't the "Optional" rule deal with the RETREAT issue instead?

Have this optional rule make leader checks on down the line through the Soviet command structure and if they 'pass' their movement points are spared. If they don't pass then they lose a chunk of MP's. You would have to take into a number of factors including the year, maybe multiple leader attributes, etc. Same thing for Axis whenever Hitler did the same. Wouldn't be a small thing to code but at least it feels like it gets to the heart of what this VP or Auto-Win is really trying to do.

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: traemyn
...

Have this optional rule make leader checks on down the line through the Soviet command structure and if they 'pass' their movement points are spared. If they don't pass then they lose a chunk of MP's. You would have to take into a number of factors including the year, maybe multiple leader attributes, etc. Same thing for Axis whenever Hitler did the same. Wouldn't be a small thing to code but at least it feels like it gets to the heart of what this VP or Auto-Win is really trying to do.

+1

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Michael T

This would not have been tolerated by Hitler or Stalin.

Well, Hitler would NOT have tolerated a different plan (Barbarossa)... The plan was about a strong center and the main goal was Moscow. Forget those extra panzers in the south, NO Lvov pocket...

Same thing about Leningrad, only send AGN...

And yet we see every German player has perverted the original plan... included those who blame the "run away" thing... Soooo...

In other words, every single time you modify Barbarossa you are IGNORING Hitler's orders... but the Red Army is apparently forced to obey Stalin's ultimate lunacy: do not run away... Can't you see the FLAGRANT contradiction?

I'm not sure Hitler was so set on the details of Barbarossa. He was always doing about turns. The issue was securing an economic base to continue the war, but this strategic perspective was modified according to the nature of the war or perception of the war, Germany was facing.

The Moscow or Ukraine/Caucasus tension was the most pronounced. As long as they thought Russia could be knocked out in the first year, Moscow was target #1. When this objective appeared less attainable, and doubts were intermitently surfacing summer 1941 (Halder IIRC), economic considerations became primary. Hence we have priorities changing Moscow-Ukraine-Moscow even in 1941.

What I find lacking in so many games is the abstraction of war from its motives. It permits players to make decisions which, while they might make military game sense, bare no relation to the economic-political-military situation faced in reality. They also engender the most mindless conceptions of history in which invasions are made on the whims of individuals, their ideological pretexts are promoted to primary cause etc etc.


A game which used economic and logistical levers to face players with the situation of their historical counterparts would actually be highly educational. Players would begin to realise why so few options were actually available and why the various factions really did what they did.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Mehring
I'm not sure Hitler was so set on the details of Barbarossa. He was always doing about turns. The issue was securing an economic base to continue the war, but this strategic perspective was modified according to the nature of the war or perception of the war, Germany was facing.

And even if he was, we know he constantly changed his mind, right. Still, the point is that Barbarossa was written on a marble stone [;)] It's not like 5 minutes before the attack, some front commander decides to shift lots of troops from AGx to AGy... These changes radically change the essence of the whole plan... In fact it is a new plan. And by the way, I don't care about these opening variants, I don't care about the Lvov pocket. I don't care about the buildup spam. I will never say to my German opponent "hey, don't do that"... I expect the same: I don't want to be lectured about this run away thing.

Or make it rational: execute Barbarossa and ONLY Barbarossa (you can shift troops after turn 5 or 6 or 7 though, to simulate for example the AGC Panzers sent to Kiev), tell me exactly until what turn I am not allowed to run away. Didn't the Soviets RUN AWAY in the south after the Kiev disaster? [;)] If they didn't I would like to know how the Germans got to Rostov... Teleport thing?

EDITED: oh, and don't tell me "do NOT move (in the south) the units west of the Dnper (or Kiev)". The Soviets sent their Stavka Reserve Armies (located west of Kiev) to the center [;)]

[janh]

Nice post, TulliusDetritus. Quite on the point. Both sides should either be allowed to deviate from history as game engine (and house rules) allow, or both players must agree mutually on a fair trade.

Otherwise, I stand with Cannonfodder and others. Why would you want to quit the game before the fun for the opponent side even started? Not only not fair, but: Chances that the Soviet would have fallen apart even if Moscow and Leningrad would have fallen, as well possible in game, are probably very small. Axis can perhaps have a tiny chance of a true campaign-ending victory, but it should come as a combination of terrain gains, and destruction of the Red Army.  If the Russians stood near the Urals, barely able to counterattack in mid-43, maybe there would have been a chance for a cease-fire?  For sure there would have been an additional boost in Lend-and-Lease, a dynamic effect which also ought to be taken into account once too many key cities fall.
However, perhaps an Axis player should get a VP bonus if he holds Moscow, Leningrad, and Rostov by end of 41, by end of 42, and by end of 43? That would honor at least his skills on the initial offensive?

The fun is much like with playing Japanse in WiTP/AE in the long-run: try to do better. Only that without the production system and inability to use AP to create
formations (or change withdrawals) as the Soviet has, something important has gotten lost compared to WiR. The administrative freedom in terms of production and research gives a Japanese player actually the feeling of having "sufficient" levers to effect anything. It would be awesome if even a primitive production system could be put in place for the Axis, just tuned to be a bit less forgiving than in WiR. A lot of code basics and ideas from WitP could probably be transferred. Then one could choose between fixed production, and dynamic game setup like in WiTP.

[sajer]

Hi all,

I thought I would interject myself into this thread.  I don't post much here.  But believe me I do read all the new threads and comments everyday. I am permantly disabled (a long time ago).  So because of that I don't get out much..hehe.  I am now in my 50's and I am what could be deemed a pretty good expert on WW2.  It peaked my interest, to the point that I played every game/read every book I could get my hands on with that theme.  I play ALOT of computer games.  I started out playing board games.  I then played a vast amount of computer games/simulations since 1980!  Lots of changes since then, obviously.

So that being said I have thought about this game alot in the last few months.  I consider Gary Grigsby's games - the best on the market.  I doubt I would get very much argument there.

Being a somewhat expert on the history of WW2 I have a few suggestions on how to make the game better and most importantly - more FUN.  You see not having fun in a game is what I think turns off much people in this particular game - by the time 1943 rolls around.  If you are not playing this game for fun I suggest you play a good game of chess - as WOPR would have said in the movie "War Games"

I have been racking my brain for the name of a game I played that actually gave you a briefing on what was happening in the war on other fronts.  It was very cool to see that briefing after each turn.

You see WW2 was a War that had so many things that hung on the end of a razor - that could have tipped the balance in the Axis or Allied favor.

There are so many "what if's"!!  I will go through a few - I tend to be long-winded when I write - but bear with me - I think this will be an interesting post for some.

"What if" Germany had succeded in crippling England.  The Battle of Britain was sooo.. close to completely destroying Britain's Air capabilties.  All Goering had to do (in the opinion of experts in Britain's Air Force) was to keep bombing thier Airfields and Command/Control facilities for another week - instead of (on Hitler's orders) they began bombing population centers (i.e. London).  This had the effect of letting the British Air Force get up off it's knees and fight on.

"What if" the U-Boat campaign had succeded in strangling Britain's ability to wage war - because of lack of supplies - food/armaments etc..

"What if" Pearl Harbor had never happened?  That the Japanese were satisfied with thier empire's vastness and were satisfied with the oil that they had captured in the Dutch West Indies. Then they attacked the Soviet Union on it's Eastern border.  This definitely would have had the effect of keeping the 60+ divisions of Siberian troops in position - so they could not be railed West to help in the Russian Winter offensive against the Wermacht in '41?

"What if" The U.S. was not able to crack the Japanese JN-25 Naval Code prior to June 1942?  The battles of Midway would never have happened.  The  ambush at Midway by two U.S. Carriers would never have happened.  Japan would have taken Midway and thier six carriers would have been on the loose in the middle of the Pacific for who knows how long.

"What if" Rommel had taken the Suez canal?  As he was sooo...close to doing.  It certainly have tipped the balance in the Mediteranean - wouldn't it?  Then Rommel could strike East from there and capture some oil fields in the Middle East.

"What if" the German Navy was succesful in cutting of the Allied Shipping to the Soviet Union via Murmansk.  I many U-Boats and Tirpitz led surface groups made it untenable to continue to ship MUCH needed supplies, armaments..etc..  What effect would this have had on the way the Soviet Union conducted the war in 1942 onwards?

"What if" Hitler never thought of or approved the Ardennes offensive plan in December '44?  What affect would the introduction of 26 fresh divisions (including the 6th SS Panzer Army) have had on the Eastern Front.

"What if" Churchill had not insisted that the Allies attack the "soft" underbelly on the Axis in Italy.  It turned out to not so soft did it Winston??  What if those divisions that fought in Italy would have been available to fight on the Eastern front?

I was struck by this the other day by watching a program having to do with air war/bombing campaign over Germany by the Americans and British.  They had Albert Speer - the German armaments chief talking about it.  Of course this program was made in the 70's or so.  But I like the idea of watching programs that have the actual people talking about the war from thier perspective - rather than conjecture from so-called "experts". 

He said that "if" the Allies had continued to bomb the ball-bearing factories in Schweinfurt (in 1943) for a few more days that it would have had a "profound" effect on German plane manufacturing.  The Allies stopped the bombings because of heavy losses of Bombers.  He also said that he knew the day that Germany lost the war.  It was after repeated bombings of the Synthetic Fuel factories.  He said that in his mind that was a knockout blow and it was then just a matter of time before Germany lost the war.

OKAY... I know some are interested, but most of you are asking what point do countless what-if's have on WiTe??  Or what the hell am I reading this long post for anyway.

First - I think it would VERY cool to get an intelligence briefing on "War News" introduced into the game after each turn (week).

Also if alot of the the what-if's could be simulated in some way to be incorporated into the game.  Either by affecting the logistics/supply output - production etc.. of either side in this struggle.  It would bave the effect of an unbelievable Fog of War.

I think that the variants to the game should not only come from other "outside" variants based on key events, but from strict orders from Hitler and Stalin - who both ran the war and interjected themselves into it for good or ill.  The German 6th Army would maybe survive??  The Tiger tank would be available for the initial invasion?  Tanks, Planes that are set in stone in this game for production on certain dates could somehow become variable?  Or is that to much to hope for?

You see.. introducing outside events that were variable would eliminated so many "gamey" tactics (btw - which I totally abhore).  I think taking advantage of the 1's and 0's of a computer game system is in extremly bad taste.

The intruduction of variable outside events and orders from Stalin and Hitler (which have to be obeyed) would eliminate alot of "gamey" tactics. 

Besides it makes the game a whole lot more uninteresting if you absolutely know the whole future.  I remember a watching a program where a German General talked about how furious Hitler got when his Generals told him in 1943 that they estimated that the Soviet Union had 20,000 tanks.  He said that was "impossible"!!  After all he had said (before the invasion, referring to the Soviet Union) that all you had to do was "Kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure would come tumbling down".
 
IF! these variables and randomly picked events could somehow be simulated. It would make the game 10 times more fun to play.  It would also totally eliminate any need for ammended victory conditions.  Besides that guys - it would be FUN!!
 
I'm very sorry for the length of this post, but for those who have stuck around to the end - try to roll this idea in your head awhile and see if it makes any sense.  If I have repeated some things - sorry - it's the morning!  LOL!

One funny true story from WW2.

I was recently talking to a big-time collecter of WW2 memorabilia on the phone.  He's a bit older than me and said that in the early 70's he actually met and had a conversation with Adolph Galland - the famous fighter ace of the Luftwaffe.  He said that shortly after Hitler had awarded him the Knights Cross with oak leaves, swords and diamonds - a rare and big honor for fighter jocks.  Goering had come up to him and said that "Agghh - as usual the Fuehrer has played his joke with you.  You see, the diamonds are NOT real.  Give me that medal and I will get you a REAL one."

He never got a new medal or response from Goering for the rest of the war.  He said that fat Hermann had kept his diamonds along with all his other plunder!..hehe..

Well, thanks for reading this and tell me if my ideas are "full of it" - "impossible to simulate" - "or that it might make a difference"

Happy Hunting!!
 

[mmarquo]

Random = Fun for some, Hell for others.

[Mehring]

Sajer, for a self-proclaimed expert you do repeat a lot of propaganda and fiction uncritically and as fact. I too have argued that U-boats could have defeated Britain, but have to concede the statistics in fact show they never came close to it and never could have given the time it took to make a U-boat. Likewise, the Siberian divisions are a propaganda fiction a fact mentioned in at least two threads in this forum.

Yes, there was a load of 'what if' in WW2, but the only one that could concievably have changed anything but the war's length would be had Lord Halifax succeeded in leading a team to negotiate peace with the Nazis. Even there, the odds were so stacked in favour of the historical turn out the 'Halifax option' really belongs in The Outer Limits. Nevertheless, closure of the western front would not only have freed divisions up for the east but, more importantly it would have ended the crippling blockade of western Europe, a far more effective blockade than the U-boats ever achieved.

[darbycmcd]

Personally, I like the idea of optional rules for those players that need some outside factor to make them play in a more historical way. I would not use them, but they are good for some players, so this is a useful discussion.

I do however feel that too many people are missing the point that the game runs until the 45! or until Berlin falls. Which is really what the entire campaign is about, when does Berlin fall. From the first turn, the German player is really working toward doing better than historical. That is 'wining' for them. For any game which is designed around the historical parameters, there is no other realistic end-game. I think people should stop looking for German 'wins' in the early war phase, it is completely distorting to the analysis of game mechanics. Any 'fix' that is not looked at through the entire war period is going to be prone to breaking as much as it fixes.

The game ends when Berlin falls, victory is determined from that point.

[Schattensand]

To go back to the original tread.

You already have a sudden death. The moment one player says I have enough. Congratulations, you won. That is sudden death - HP against HP.
And if I play the AI I dont need it anyway.

[Peltonx]

Its an option poeple take a chill pill, you would think it was the end of the world, lol.

If you don't have something to say thats not about the OPTION then stop spamming thread with retard comments.

The option that should be coded in is that the poeple playing each other set the VP for German and runnsian sides.

Its 290 now.

If you choose the option it could be set at 250 for GHC and 150 SHC ect ect.

Its an option, which for the slower poeple replying to this thread means you DON'T have to choose it

Hopefully someone learnt something.

Pelton

[Klydon]

I have been sort of considering my own plan for coming up with some varient that introduced VP's etc within the limits of the current game engine.

There are a lot of things that could be added from "outside" influences, but I would not want that from the simple reason I know that WITW and other games in the series are coming and then it will hopefully all tie together. It is a question of spending time for something short term, vs getting the overall project done sooner.

I do think VP locations would be helpful to add in some extra dimensions to the game like making the Crimea more important than it currently is. Right now, I don't see any reason the Germans should overextend themselves by taking it when in reality, it was considered to have a huge influence in securing the western Black Sea and also having political influence with Turkey.

One mechanic I was thinking of for "sudden death" was to have some locations have a big "one shot" VP value. Unfortunately, this makes them susceptable to "raiding" or to a sudden lunge to collect the bonus VP and then withdraw only to do it again someplace else. I still need to puzzle that part of things out.

The Russian Campaign was mentioned with its sudden death victory conditions earlier in the thread. I was a avid fan of this game and played it a lot back in the day. I never lost as the Russians and had 1 loss as the Germans along with a tie. (3 turn 1941 winters will do that to a German tho.). Perhaps instead of TRC, another old Avalon Hill classic may pave the way. Stalingrad. In order to "win" at that game, the Germans must occupy Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad before sometime in 1943 or lose. I think this sets the bar pretty high in WITE and a Axis player able to pull this feat off does indeed deserve a "victory" under an agreed optional victory condition.

As an aside (and a thread hijack) I wonder what sort of interest there would be for a non historical 1942 start featuring straighter lines, perhaps some static units, etc. The concept behind this is to produce a shorter game that gives players a chance to play the "meat" of the campaign in the east during the period where both sides were relatiavely equal (game would end during the first part of 1944). I think most everyone is agreed that it isn't a ton of fun for the Russians in 1941 and what games have gotten to 1944 have not been as enjoyable for the Axis for most of 1944 into 1945. I doubt much comes of it since the community has shown little or no interest in anything that is not "official".

[saintsup]

I think our problem is that we are mixing three debates:

1) Is the game a a good simulation/modelization of warfare at the time ?
- logistics is overly favorable for offensive side
- are political / economical constraints correctly modelized ?
- german entry/withdrawal schedule is mixing events coming from other war theaters (OK) and events coming from the eastern front even if the war is not following history (KO)
- air war is 'not perfect'
- strange and artificial rules were introduced over the top of the detailed simulation to compensate for flaws in the simulation
- ...

2) Assuming the game is a good simulation/modelization of warfare and with a clear understanding on what is the player 'position' (Hitler/Staline, OKH/Stavka,college of army group commanders) could have Germany won the war ?
- what is winning ? (force negociation, ...)
- which conditions could have trigger this win ?

3) Assuming the game is a good simulation of warfare and Germany could'nt have 'won the war' is it fun to play for hundreds of hours ?
- well I think not: I'm now in a PBEM as Germany in november 43. I have absolutly no hope since summer 42 and since spring 43 I cannot do anything more than plugging the gaps and retreating. I have absolutly no idea if I'm doing well or not and I must play a 100 turns more to know when Berlin will be taken
- players like me needs absolutly a VP system to know during the game if we are ahead of the curve or not