Exploits

[Zorachus99]

I consider this problem loose change compared to a Multiplayer game where Russia can *nearly always* prevent Barb by declaring war on Japan and buildig Militia.

[Skanvak]

I don't know how to tell it clearly. WiF does not let the player decide the policy of their nation, therefore you have to follow the historical goal of the war. That seems to be the design (when not playing with DoD). Therefore the game have a problem with limited war and unhistorical distortion.

I understand the exploit because the game rule is not fool proof. That will be a biger problem for the computer game as exploit cannot be prevented but I don't really see how to prevent two player to esclate a war they both want to fight?

I do think that this peace should only be a cease fire with unit staying where they are. The only hexes exchanged should be surrounded unsupplied hexes (and even that I am not sure). Because here we are (H.R. is) making supposition on what the Russian or Japanese would have accepted as a peace settlement. That we are not sure...

You can add a "lapse of war" too, to prevent player sitting in front of each other and not fighting.

A good argument for need for a free diplomacy option.

[hakon]

Zarachus: Obviously, stuffing is a bigger issue than the Russian-Japanese peace, arguing to me about that, is like kicking in an open door.....

But if the rule from the annual is to be implemented, they may as well get it right the first time. The way it is written is a bit too easy to abuse. At the very least, Japan should always get back Manchuria if Russia surrenders, while Russia should always get back all russian and mongolian hexes if Japan surrenders.

Skanvak: If you dont want to make suppositions about what the Russians or Japanese would have accepted as a peace settlement, you should not use the compulsory peace option at all. If you don't, then no suppositions are made, and everything is up to the players.

And kind of compulsory peace is in fact making a very concrete suppostion on what settlement each side would have accepted. Even a white peace/ceasefire woud have to be accepted by BOTH parties to have any effect. So regardless of who forces a peace treaty, they should only get to do so by giving up enough objectives that the (historical) strategic goals of the opponent are achieved.

The new version of the compulsory peace optional does this rather well as long as the side that is surrendering has not taken any territory from the opponent, but it seems that the rule writers have not considered situations where the surrenderin party has actually taken a lot of territory from the opponent before surrendering.

Cheers
Hakon

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: hakon

Zarachus: Obviously, stuffing is a bigger issue than the Russian-Japanese peace, arguing to me about that, is like kicking in an open door.....

But if the rule from the annual is to be implemented, they may as well get it right the first time. The way it is written is a bit too easy to abuse. At the very least, Japan should always get back Manchuria if Russia surrenders, while Russia should always get back all russian and mongolian hexes if Japan surrenders.

Skanvak: If you dont want to make suppositions about what the Russians or Japanese would have accepted as a peace settlement, you should not use the compulsory peace option at all. If you don't, then no suppositions are made, and everything is up to the players.

And kind of compulsory peace is in fact making a very concrete suppostion on what settlement each side would have accepted. Even a white peace/ceasefire woud have to be accepted by BOTH parties to have any effect. So regardless of who forces a peace treaty, they should only get to do so by giving up enough objectives that the (historical) strategic goals of the opponent are achieved.

The new version of the compulsory peace optional does this rather well as long as the side that is surrendering has not taken any territory from the opponent, but it seems that the rule writers have not considered situations where the surrenderin party has actually taken a lot of territory from the opponent before surrendering.

Cheers
Hakon

There is another thread where I think we have worked this out over the past couple of days. It includes screen shots of the map. If you get a chance I would be interested in what you think of that proposed solution.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: hakon

Zarachus: Obviously, stuffing is a bigger issue than the Russian-Japanese peace, arguing to me about that, is like kicking in an open door.....

But if the rule from the annual is to be implemented, they may as well get it right the first time. The way it is written is a bit too easy to abuse. At the very least, Japan should always get back Manchuria if Russia surrenders, while Russia should always get back all russian and mongolian hexes if Japan surrenders.

Skanvak: If you dont want to make suppositions about what the Russians or Japanese would have accepted as a peace settlement, you should not use the compulsory peace option at all. If you don't, then no suppositions are made, and everything is up to the players.

And kind of compulsory peace is in fact making a very concrete suppostion on what settlement each side would have accepted. Even a white peace/ceasefire woud have to be accepted by BOTH parties to have any effect. So regardless of who forces a peace treaty, they should only get to do so by giving up enough objectives that the (historical) strategic goals of the opponent are achieved.

The new version of the compulsory peace optional does this rather well as long as the side that is surrendering has not taken any territory from the opponent, but it seems that the rule writers have not considered situations where the surrenderin party has actually taken a lot of territory from the opponent before surrendering.

Cheers
Hakon

There is another thread where I think we have worked this out over the past couple of days. It includes screen shots of the map. If you get a chance I would be interested in what you think of that proposed solution.

Do you have the link to that thread?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: hakon

Zarachus: Obviously, stuffing is a bigger issue than the Russian-Japanese peace, arguing to me about that, is like kicking in an open door.....

But if the rule from the annual is to be implemented, they may as well get it right the first time. The way it is written is a bit too easy to abuse. At the very least, Japan should always get back Manchuria if Russia surrenders, while Russia should always get back all russian and mongolian hexes if Japan surrenders.

Skanvak: If you dont want to make suppositions about what the Russians or Japanese would have accepted as a peace settlement, you should not use the compulsory peace option at all. If you don't, then no suppositions are made, and everything is up to the players.

And kind of compulsory peace is in fact making a very concrete suppostion on what settlement each side would have accepted. Even a white peace/ceasefire woud have to be accepted by BOTH parties to have any effect. So regardless of who forces a peace treaty, they should only get to do so by giving up enough objectives that the (historical) strategic goals of the opponent are achieved.

The new version of the compulsory peace optional does this rather well as long as the side that is surrendering has not taken any territory from the opponent, but it seems that the rule writers have not considered situations where the surrenderin party has actually taken a lot of territory from the opponent before surrendering.

Cheers
Hakon

There is another thread where I think we have worked this out over the past couple of days. It includes screen shots of the map. If you get a chance I would be interested in what you think of that proposed solution.

Do you have the link to that thread?

It's the WIF Annual 2008 thread.

[darune]

Italy liberates baltic states ( Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), so it can use them as another home country if italy gets counquered.

In our games we veto'ed it out as too gamey (so italy cannot liberate the baltic states).

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: darune

Italy liberates baltic states ( Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), so it can use them as another home country if italy gets counquered.

In our games we veto'ed it out as too gamey (so italy cannot liberate the baltic states).

Yes that is an awful one. The newest rules set will not allow a move of the new home country of a major to a minor that was not aligned in 1939. This would also preclude Yugo as an Italian home country. It would not preclude the Netherlands having France as a home country, but a second change is that when a major power or minor country no longer controls its own or any home country aligned prior to 1939, it has been completely conquered.

I strongly recommend Steve add those to MWIF.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: darune

Italy liberates baltic states ( Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), so it can use them as another home country if italy gets counquered.

In our games we veto'ed it out as too gamey (so italy cannot liberate the baltic states).

Yes that is an awful one. The newest rules set will not allow a move of the new home country of a major to a minor that was not aligned in 1939. This would also preclude Yugo as an Italian home country. It would not preclude the Netherlands having France as a home country, but a second change is that when a major power or minor country no longer controls its own or any home country aligned prior to 1939, it has been completely conquered.

I strongly recommend Steve add those to MWIF.

It is difficult to hit a target that is constantly moving.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: darune

Italy liberates baltic states ( Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), so it can use them as another home country if italy gets counquered.

In our games we veto'ed it out as too gamey (so italy cannot liberate the baltic states).

Yes that is an awful one. The newest rules set will not allow a move of the new home country of a major to a minor that was not aligned in 1939. This would also preclude Yugo as an Italian home country. It would not preclude the Netherlands having France as a home country, but a second change is that when a major power or minor country no longer controls its own or any home country aligned prior to 1939, it has been completely conquered.

I strongly recommend Steve add those to MWIF.

It is difficult to hit a target that is constantly moving.

Yes, but this one is easy and very efficient in removing gamey behaviors.
Limiting lend lease between cooperating country is another.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: darune

Italy liberates baltic states ( Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), so it can use them as another home country if italy gets counquered.

In our games we veto'ed it out as too gamey (so italy cannot liberate the baltic states).

Yes that is an awful one. The newest rules set will not allow a move of the new home country of a major to a minor that was not aligned in 1939. This would also preclude Yugo as an Italian home country. It would not preclude the Netherlands having France as a home country, but a second change is that when a major power or minor country no longer controls its own or any home country aligned prior to 1939, it has been completely conquered.

I strongly recommend Steve add those to MWIF.

It is difficult to hit a target that is constantly moving.

I feel your pain. [X(]

Again, if the players agreed beforehand to abide by the new rule, nothing in the code would need to change. I don't know how difficult it would be to make the code enforce the recommended change. I don't even know how difficult it would be to check the code to see what would need modfication. [&:]

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Limiting lend lease between cooperating country is another.

Could you expand on what the exploit there is? I don't see a huge problem with A lending to B and B lending to C and C lending to A. Or do you mean something else?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Limiting lend lease between cooperating country is another.

Could you expand on what the exploit there is? I don't see a huge problem with A lending to B and B lending to C and C lending to A. Or do you mean something else?

Patrice doesn't like heavy lending between the CW and France in 1939 and 1940. Usually this is done to drain every possible advantage from the French before France falls but it can also work in reverse, where the CW pours resources into France early. Some kind of "gearing limits" for trade agreemtn amounts would seem to be the solution - not that I have any intention of coding this for the first release.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Limiting lend lease between cooperating country is another.

Could you expand on what the exploit there is? I don't see a huge problem with A lending to B and B lending to C and C lending to A. Or do you mean something else?

I was aluding to the rule that was published in the house of rules in the 2008 annual. This is a rule that limits lend lease of BP + RP to an amount linked to what you produced last turn. 50% IIRC. I don't remember the specifics, but that is the idea.

As Steve said, I don't like Germany filling in the Italian factories, and Italy in return lending ALL its production to Germany (producing 0 BP of Italian units), as I already saw once. same for CW / France. I think that no sane governement would have done this at any moment during any war, so I think that it is good if the game prevents that.

[brian brian]

I have a question about the new rule in the Annual. It says you can only lend up to 50% of your previous turn's production total. A rules lawyer could enforce this: Free France would thus never be able to loan resources it controls to the other Allies until it has it's own production. ?

We decided to skip that possibility in the Free French case.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I have a question about the new rule in the Annual. It says you can only lend up to 50% of your previous turn's production total. A rules lawyer could enforce this: Free France would thus never be able to loan resources it controls to the other Allies until it has it's own production. ?

We decided to skip that possibility in the Free French case.

Yes, this is it.
I think that it makes sense in both ways.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Limiting lend lease between cooperating country is another.

Could you expand on what the exploit there is? I don't see a huge problem with A lending to B and B lending to C and C lending to A. Or do you mean something else?

I was aluding to the rule that was published in the house of rules in the 2008 annual. This is a rule that limits lend lease of BP + RP to an amount linked to what you produced last turn. 50% IIRC. I don't remember the specifics, but that is the idea.

As Steve said, I don't like Germany filling in the Italian factories, and Italy in return lending ALL its production to Germany (producing 0 BP of Italian units), as I already saw once. same for CW / France. I think that no sane governement would have done this at any moment during any war, so I think that it is good if the game prevents that.

I can see this helping when Italy promises 1000 BPs to Germany the turn she knows she's likely to be conquered. Maybe just have it for BPs?