'stuffing' the border

[BallyJ]

Love it

[morgil]

Historically USSR stuffed the border. They built airstrips, set up camps and deployed heavily. But they didn't go all out, and the result was like 2 million POW on day one. So we have learned that defending in front is bad, if you cant pull it off.
Fixing the rules so that Germany can declare war anyhow, or juggling with the garrison values, will only remove stuffing as an option, because a failed stuff = 150 BP worth of dead russians = Japan gets Vladivostok if they hurry. But if you add a rule that prevents stuffing, or makes it highly unlikely, what is to prevent the Russian from DOWing Denmark, or maybe Hungary -> Yugoslavia, preventing Germany from aligning Rumania until war, and forcing the Axis to transport the 3 vital oil in Rumania with Convois through the Med, thereby forcing an Italian DOW to make it active...


/sarcasm
While we are at it I suggest removing this silly USE aswell. Why cant USA do whatever they want, when other countries can ?
EDIT by moderator: political content removed./sarcasm off

And in opposition to Ockam's Razor I would like to insert Crabtree's Bludgeon:

"No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated."

[Skanvak]

USSR were not stuffing, they were staging an attack on Germany. I told earlier that Hitler underestimated the strength of the red army because his information gave a lesser number of armours. My analysis is that Hitler turn east because this was his original plan to do it and he believed that he cannot achieve something else in the west. I have always seen the difference between USE and Germany free DOW because Hitler was the only one to decide such thing where as Roosevelt have to convince the Senate to vote the war. England and France are made more free than the US due to their colonial/WWI past and at war situation, but I do believe that they cannot do whoever they want. If we restricted Germany DOW on Russia, you can as well restrict Japan DOW on the US/NEI/CW (ie they should only declare war once the oil embargo is on).

That a very complicated question. I see that a lot of mathematical discussion are on the way. I would just say finish the game as it is as people play it this way and make an option for free diplomacy (actually just an option that don't check if condition are met before DOWing and why not USE) so people not happy could put Germany or US on a free DOW (may be for the tool box).

[paulderynck]

For those who feel the stuff breaks Global War and perhaps Lebensraum, there are four other scenarios, starting with Waking Giant.

[morgil]

I would say that adding an option, maybe have a set of predefined Houserules that players can tic, where both USSR and Germany can break the pact at will. As an example, Germany can break the pact anytime from 1941 and onwards, and USSR anytime from 1942 and onwards.

Ohh and sorry for going political, wont happen again

[composer99]

Yes, Stalin must have been in a hurry to attack the country that had just beat down another major power (France) in mere weeks and whose army had demonstrated its supremacy over all comers in 1939-1941.

While I do not doubt that the USSR would eventually have gone to war with Germany, particularly if/when the US got into the war, I am pretty certain the evidence does not support a USSR attack in the summer of 1941. Certainly that appears to be the opinion of the majority of Second World War historians if Wikipedia is to be believed.

Historical debates aside, I think an optional rule that gives Germany a higher likelihood of breaking the pact against USSR as long as it doesn't take heavy losses or is still battling France in 1941 is not a bad idea if it is meant to prevent 'gamey' USSR play and gamier Axis counters (at least to keep players interested in the game). I do not think it should be a certain thing, but chances are, for the USSR, the risk of getting caught up front when playing with such an optional rule would be so high as to basically guarantee the USSR will deploy rear-ward, ensuring that the Germans can DoW when they want.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is what I have decided upon. Although, shrieks of pain might change my mind. The text below is intended for the Players Manual to describe this new optional rule.
===
9.8.13 Breaking Neutrality Pacts
It can be very difficult for Germany to break the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941, if the USSR puts all of its resources into ‘stuffing’ the border with units. If you feel that it is too ahistorical for the USSR to be able to virtually prevent (90% probability) Germany to declare war on the USSR in 1941, then you can select this optional rule to make it somewhat easier.

In the third year of the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact (i.e., 1941), the value of the defenders units is a full 1.0 for the first six months (i.e., 3 turns) but drops to 0.75 for the second six months of the year. In all other regards, the rules for breaking neutrality pacts are unchanged.

This means:
∙ in 1939 the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact can not be broken.
∙ in 1940 the defenders units are doubled, so to break the pact, a ratio of 4:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, first 6 months, the defenders units are worth 1, so a ratio of 2:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, second 6 months, the defenders are worth 0.75, so a ratio of 1.5:1 is needed.
∙ in 1942, the defenders are worth 0.50, so a ratio of 1:1 is needed.
∙ and so on as per the WIF FE rules.

The only change is the bullet point in blue. Note that while this only affects the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact, it does ease breaking the pact for both sides, not just for Germany.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is what I have decided upon. Although, shrieks of pain might change my mind. The text below is intended for the Players Manual to describe this new optional rule.
===
9.8.13 Breaking Neutrality Pacts
It can be very difficult for Germany to break the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941, if the USSR puts all of its resources into ‘stuffing’ the border with units. If you feel that it is too ahistorical for the USSR to be able to virtually prevent (90% probability) Germany to declare war on the USSR in 1941, then you can select this optional rule to make it somewhat easier.

In the third year of the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact (i.e., 1941), the value of the defenders units is a full 1.0 for the first six months (i.e., 3 turns) but drops to 0.75 for the second six months of the year. In all other regards, the rules for breaking neutrality pacts are unchanged.

This means:
∙ in 1939 the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact can not be broken.
∙ in 1940 the defenders units are doubled, so to break the pact, a ratio of 4:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, first 6 months, the defenders units are worth 1, so a ratio of 2:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, second 6 months, the defenders are worth 0.75, so a ratio of 1.5:1 is needed.
∙ in 1942, the defenders are worth 0.50, so a ratio of 1:1 is needed.
∙ and so on as per the WIF FE rules.

The only change is the bullet point in blue. Note that while this only affects the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact, it does ease breaking the pact for both sides, not just for Germany.

I am not a specialist, but I think this is a good idea, simple, and not affecting other rules. It allows Germany to do a Barbarossa in the historical dates, not too soon, not too late.

[morgil]

I'm not gonna scream in pain, but in all modesty I thought that my idea (Post #205) was better.
Specially since it hasn't solved the problem of Sitzkrieg by Germany, the other side of this particular coin.
It would also make it a lot clearer to identify what this particular Houserule Option actually do.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: morgil

I'm not gonna scream in pain, but in all modesty I thought that my idea (Post #205) was better.
Specially since it hasn't solved the problem of Sitzkrieg by Germany, the other side of this particular coin.
It would also make it a lot clearer to identify what this particular Houserule Option actually do.

Usually I think of house rules as items that belong in a future MWIF product, which I refer to as a WIF Design Kit. I made an exception in this case (the first one if I am not mistaken), because I felt it was crucial. Your suggestion of a list of items to check felt to me to offer more flexibility, and therefore more appropriately belonged with other house rules.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is what I have decided upon. Although, shrieks of pain might change my mind. The text below is intended for the Players Manual to describe this new optional rule.
===
9.8.13 Breaking Neutrality Pacts
It can be very difficult for Germany to break the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941, if the USSR puts all of its resources into ‘stuffing’ the border with units. If you feel that it is too ahistorical for the USSR to be able to virtually prevent (90% probability) Germany to declare war on the USSR in 1941, then you can select this optional rule to make it somewhat easier.

In the third year of the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact (i.e., 1941), the value of the defenders units is a full 1.0 for the first six months (i.e., 3 turns) but drops to 0.75 for the second six months of the year. In all other regards, the rules for breaking neutrality pacts are unchanged.

This means:
∙ in 1939 the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact can not be broken.
∙ in 1940 the defenders units are doubled, so to break the pact, a ratio of 4:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, first 6 months, the defenders units are worth 1, so a ratio of 2:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, second 6 months, the defenders are worth 0.75, so a ratio of 1.5:1 is needed.
∙ in 1942, the defenders are worth 0.50, so a ratio of 1:1 is needed.
∙ and so on as per the WIF FE rules.

The only change is the bullet point in blue. Note that while this only affects the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact, it does ease breaking the pact for both sides, not just for Germany.

That's pretty good for situations where Germany is trying to do lots of things in several theaters in 1941. But, if she concentrates large forces against Russia, then Russia can't risk the garrison being broken and will drop back from the border. The problem is that it does not help Russia to withstand a 41 Barb, which the German can now almost guarantee with this change, and nothing is done to offset that other than the earliest attack probably being in JA.

But you might get some interesting force shifting in MA and MJ which would make one or the other party react - maybe in time, maybe not, maybe correctly maybe all a bluff.

Overall - I like it!

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is what I have decided upon. Although, shrieks of pain might change my mind. The text below is intended for the Players Manual to describe this new optional rule.
===
9.8.13 Breaking Neutrality Pacts
It can be very difficult for Germany to break the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941, if the USSR puts all of its resources into ‘stuffing’ the border with units. If you feel that it is too ahistorical for the USSR to be able to virtually prevent (90% probability) Germany to declare war on the USSR in 1941, then you can select this optional rule to make it somewhat easier.

In the third year of the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact (i.e., 1941), the value of the defenders units is a full 1.0 for the first six months (i.e., 3 turns) but drops to 0.75 for the second six months of the year. In all other regards, the rules for breaking neutrality pacts are unchanged.

This means:
∙ in 1939 the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact can not be broken.
∙ in 1940 the defenders units are doubled, so to break the pact, a ratio of 4:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, first 6 months, the defenders units are worth 1, so a ratio of 2:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, second 6 months, the defenders are worth 0.75, so a ratio of 1.5:1 is needed.
∙ in 1942, the defenders are worth 0.50, so a ratio of 1:1 is needed.
∙ and so on as per the WIF FE rules.

The only change is the bullet point in blue. Note that while this only affects the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact, it does ease breaking the pact for both sides, not just for Germany.

I just reread this and I'm not sure the wording is correct. Shouldn't it be:

9.8.13 Breaking Neutrality Pacts
It can be very difficult for Germany to break the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941, if the USSR puts all of its resources into ‘stuffing’ the border with units. If you feel that it is too ahistorical for the USSR to be able to virtually prevent (90% probability) Germany to declare war on the USSR in 1941, then you can select this optional rule to make it somewhat easier.

In the third year of the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact (i.e., 1941), the value of the defenders units is a full 1.0 for the first six months (i.e., 3 turns) but drops to 0.75 for the second six months of the year. In all other regards, the rules for breaking neutrality pacts are unchanged. You still require a 2:1 ratio to break a pact. Therefore:

∙ in 1939 the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact can not be broken.
∙ in 1940 the defender's defensive values are doubled
∙ in 1941, first 6 months, the defender's defensive values unmodified
∙ in 1941, second 6 months, the defender's defensive values are multiplied by 0.75
∙ in 1942, the defender's defensive values are multiplied by 0.50
When you want to break a neutrality pact, you increase your garrison value by the value of your offensive entry markers but you can’t more than double your garrison value. Similarly, you increase your defensive garrison value by the total of your defensive entry markers on the common border. Again, you can’t more than double your (modified) defensive garrison value.
∙ and so on as per the WIF FE rules.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is what I have decided upon. Although, shrieks of pain might change my mind. The text below is intended for the Players Manual to describe this new optional rule.
===
9.8.13 Breaking Neutrality Pacts
It can be very difficult for Germany to break the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941, if the USSR puts all of its resources into ‘stuffing’ the border with units. If you feel that it is too ahistorical for the USSR to be able to virtually prevent (90% probability) Germany to declare war on the USSR in 1941, then you can select this optional rule to make it somewhat easier.

In the third year of the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact (i.e., 1941), the value of the defenders units is a full 1.0 for the first six months (i.e., 3 turns) but drops to 0.75 for the second six months of the year. In all other regards, the rules for breaking neutrality pacts are unchanged.

This means:
∙ in 1939 the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact can not be broken.
∙ in 1940 the defenders units are doubled, so to break the pact, a ratio of 4:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, first 6 months, the defenders units are worth 1, so a ratio of 2:1 is needed.
∙ in 1941, second 6 months, the defenders are worth 0.75, so a ratio of 1.5:1 is needed.
∙ in 1942, the defenders are worth 0.50, so a ratio of 1:1 is needed.
∙ and so on as per the WIF FE rules.

The only change is the bullet point in blue. Note that while this only affects the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact, it does ease breaking the pact for both sides, not just for Germany.

I just reread this and I'm not sure the wording is correct. Shouldn't it be:

9.8.13 Breaking Neutrality Pacts
It can be very difficult for Germany to break the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941, if the USSR puts all of its resources into ‘stuffing’ the border with units. If you feel that it is too ahistorical for the USSR to be able to virtually prevent (90% probability) Germany to declare war on the USSR in 1941, then you can select this optional rule to make it somewhat easier.

In the third year of the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact (i.e., 1941), the value of the defenders units is a full 1.0 for the first six months (i.e., 3 turns) but drops to 0.75 for the second six months of the year. In all other regards, the rules for breaking neutrality pacts are unchanged. You still require a 2:1 ratio to break a pact. Therefore:

∙ in 1939 the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact can not be broken.
∙ in 1940 the defender's defensive values are doubled
∙ in 1941, first 6 months, the defender's defensive values unmodified
∙ in 1941, second 6 months, the defender's defensive values are multiplied by 0.75
∙ in 1942, the defender's defensive values are multiplied by 0.50
When you want to break a neutrality pact, you increase your garrison value by the value of your offensive entry markers but you can’t more than double your garrison value. Similarly, you increase your defensive garrison value by the total of your defensive entry markers on the common border. Again, you can’t more than double your (modified) defensive garrison value.
∙ and so on as per the WIF FE rules.

Yes. My wording could have been more precise: "defender's garrison values multiplied by 0.75".

I am not going to repeat the stuff about entry markers though. I believe the reference to all the other rules is sufficient. There is always the danger of confusing the reader by increasing the number of words in a rule. I want the rule to focus on what has changed and the implications of that change.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The problem is that it does not help Russia to withstand a 41 Barb, which the German can now almost guarantee with this change, and nothing is done to offset that other than the earliest attack probably being in JA.


[/quote] Warspite1

Good. In a World War II game the Germans should be allowed to do a historic Barbarossa in my view. I had not appreciated this level of change in the rules meant that the Russians could almost guarantee the Germans could not do this.....v. strange.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is what I have decided upon. Although, shrieks of pain might change my mind. The text below is intended for the Players Manual to describe this new optional rule.
===
9.8.13 Breaking Neutrality Pacts
It can be very difficult for Germany to break the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941, if the USSR puts all of its resources into ‘stuffing’ the border with units. If you feel that it is too ahistorical for the USSR to be able to virtually prevent (90% probability) Germany to declare war on the USSR in 1941, then you can select this optional rule to make it somewhat easier.

I will try a shriek of joy.

A wise descision, as always, by a wise man. [&o]

I doubt that I will vote for this optional rule for the Global War scenario but at the same time I do not think I will object to it. But I do feel it will be a must for me to play the Lebensraum scenario.

[lavisj]

Steve,

The change to a 0.75 means roughly that the unit garrison value for the Russian will drop from around 60 to 45 from MJ to JA. Which means a difference of 30 German garrison points (not counting the chits). Since Germany was around 10 points short before, it is now 20 points over. That means it can dedicate an extra 20 units, mostly at 3 pts / units, so around 60BP to things other than Barbarossa. That allows Germany to wage a serious BoA, or absorb tremendous losses in France, and still be able to break the pact.

Basically it allows Germany to declare at will. This might very well be the intent.
Nevertheless, what that means, since Germany can pretty much break the pact in JA, even if having taken lots of losses and having built NAV's and subs..... that Russia should never even attempt to stuff in MJ, because it can not afford to be stuck on the border in JA.... it could lead to an interesting withdrawal I would think...... but I would venture a guess that unless Russia is active it will never defend forwards.

Just a note.... if it is the intent, then yes it would be good.

I also think that there should be the same thing in JA42 in order for Russia to increase Russia's ability to break a sitz.

Jerome

[darune]

The problem is that it does not help Russia to withstand a 41 Barb, which the German can now almost guarantee with this change, and nothing is done to offset that other than the earliest attack probably being in JA.

Without the rule it does not help russia either to withstand a 41 Barb, if ge/it uses an extremely gamey trick (already discussed) so war can be declared anyway.

[Skanvak]

I still would rather have a free DOW option for every one.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is what I have decided upon. Although, shrieks of pain might change my mind. The text below is intended for the Players Manual to describe this new optional rule.
===
9.8.13 Breaking Neutrality Pacts
It can be very difficult for Germany to break the Nazi-Soviet neutrality pact in 1941, if the USSR puts all of its resources into ‘stuffing’ the border with units. If you feel that it is too ahistorical for the USSR to be able to virtually prevent (90% probability) Germany to declare war on the USSR in 1941, then you can select this optional rule to make it somewhat easier.

I will try a shriek of joy.

A wise descision, as always, by a wise man. [&o]

I doubt that I will vote for this optional rule for the Global War scenario but at the same time I do not think I will object to it. But I do feel it will be a must for me to play the Lebensraum scenario.

The WIF FE rules for the Lebensraum scenario give Germany a one time opportunity to DOW the USSR in 1941 with a ratio of 1:1. That decision must be made by Germany in the first or second impulse of the scenario's first turn. If Germany does not DOW at that time, then the normal ratio of 2:1 is in effect.

Note that there are also special rules for the Japan-USSR neutrality pact in the Day of Infamy scenario (only the Pacific map is in use).

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: paulderynck





The problem is that it does not help Russia to withstand a 41 Barb, which the German can now almost guarantee with this change, and nothing is done to offset that other than the earliest attack probably being in JA.

Good. In a World War II game the Germans should be allowed to do a historic Barbarossa in my view. I had not appreciated this level of change in the rules meant that the Russians could almost guarantee the Germans could not do this.....v. strange.

I don't disagree with allowing the Germans a 41 Barb providing it doesn't always result in a Russian blow-out. That's the problem. Knowing this, a competitive Allied player has two choices:
1. Don't stuff and get crushed
2. Stuff, force a 42 Barb, or some other Axis strategy and have a chance for a victory.

So to guarantee a Stuff working you do absurd things like DoW Japan but withdraw to minimum frontage with cheap garrison units - in other words - declare war with no intent to fight or win (that's the absurd part). This in turn causes the Axis to DoW Hungary or Lithuania with the Italians !! ?[X(]

So absurdity is added to absurdity when the real problem is the game mechanics needed are a simplified garrison rule (like in WiF5) plus some mods to allow Russia to survive an all-out 41 Barb approximately 50% of the time. And by "survive", I mean fighting back from somewhere close to the historical Axis high-water mark, not from the three enclaves of Leningrad, Caucasus and the Urals.