AI for MWiF - Germany

[brian brian]

I think most people play the game that way. If Germany surrenders before May, 1945 and Japan before August 1945, then the Allies win; otherwise the Axis.

[Norman42]

I've always been rather disappointed with WiFs Victory Conditions system.
 
It just seemed so arbitrary that only 5 hexes of the 2 thousand hexes of the USSR are worth anything in winning the game, or that London and Washington are worth the same Victory Points as Dutch Harbor and Pago Pago.  The latter one is mind boggling; that the capture of some backwater island is worth the same as capturing the capitols of the worlds most powerful democracies is fairly ludicrous.
 
I feel that the victory conditions were indeed a tournament add-on to allow a "ranking" of who scored higher and were never really well developed.
 
Hence, most of our games end up with what Brian said: "Berlin by May '45 or Bust".
 
I think the poor Victory rules are also why a great many WiF games end before completion; they just aren't a satisfying enough enticement to play on to the bitter end.

[Mitchellvitch]

Agreed - Pago Pago indeed. The games I've played in have never used victory points - it is usually pretty clear who is winning by the time one side throws in the towel. In fact the problem is to keep the side that knows they are losing in the game long enough to let the other side have their giggles.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think most people play the game that way. If Germany surrenders before May, 1945 and Japan before August 1945, then the Allies win; otherwise the Axis.

I don't think most player play that way.
In our group, we rate our game according to the RAW victory system, assuming everyone had a bid of 0.

[composer99]

My group uses the regular RAW system with bidding and we find it quite satisfactory.
 
Incidentally, we also have for our current game developed a disincentive for early towel-throwing, whereby the capitulating side forks out for dinner/drinks for the winning side; the earlier they give up the more they pay.
 
Keep in mind that the RAW victory conditions require Germany to have 10 (!) victory objectives by July/August 1945. They could be defending the Reich heartland with a mighty army & air force by the end, but if just enough of the perimeter has fallen then they lose the game anyway, so it's not enough for the Axis to win just to still be around.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think most people play the game that way. If Germany surrenders before May, 1945 and Japan before August 1945, then the Allies win; otherwise the Axis.

Interested to hear of how others play the game as regards what is a victory. I have never used the victory points either. Our victory conditions were similar to the above. The strangest and longest game we had saw the Germans initially throw the most rubbish land combat throws in the history of boardgaming, such that France was never defeated. Meanwhile Japan was doing okay which kept the axis interested and refusing to quit. The allies then got the same sort of land combat dice luck when trying to hit back at the Germans - which caused stalemate on the Western Front and the Russians receiving numerous bloody noses - holding up their advances. So the end game saw the Italians conquered, the Japanese with most hexes of their home islands intact and the Germans clinging on pretty much within their original borders.

[brian brian]

I can't remember the victory conditions for Third Reich either, but we always played that one the same way. Berlin by the end of the 1st 1945 turn and your country wins. On the 2nd turn - alright, we'll call it a draw somewhat, with the Allied power taking Berlin sorta the winner. After that, and the Germans win. The printed rules were probably different.

[SemperAugustus]

Configurable victory conditions would be cool, but I guess it may cause issues for the AI.

[Jimm]

I tend to think the August 45 finish line as a bit artificial. It might be a historical improvement for Hitler to still be clinging on to a husk of power in August but its cold comfort if the allies are poised to overrun Berlin and the economy is in ruins. On the other hand if the Germans still hold a solid bloc from the Ruhr to Silesia you could make an argument that even though they might be outnumbered they could still be in a position to negotiate a conditional peace, ie a significant improvement on history.

Also victory should really be considered in the context of the world after the war, hence Days of Decision is the only true way to reflect this, and the differences between the allies. MWiF mk2 I hope...

[brian brian]

There is no way the Germans would have been able to negotiate any settlement with the Nazis in power. This was especially true after the discovery of the first concentration camp, for the Western powers, and Stalin would never have stopped regardless of what the democracies decided to do. If the war had ended in 1946 we'd be having this same conversation using those dates, I think.

The 'compare to history' way of looking at a wargame is a handy way to gauge the results of a game...can you do better than real life? If you do, you're going to feel like you have won the game.

I do like the bidding/objectives system though. Where I think WiF suffers is from the 'team' nature of the two sides; playing for your benefit over the benefit of the team is frowned upon somewhat, while other players frown at ahistorical decisions that greatly benefit the entire team at the expense of a country's realistic national interests. This isn't a problem in other multi-player games such as Diplomacy, where everyone understands that cooperation is only temporary and the point is to be the individual winner. I think Harry has worked hard to have the design include competition within the two sides, and that is good for the game. But not everyone is going to play it that way. After a few hundred hours of gaming over several long weekends to over a year, no one likes the person that starts to play to win for themselves. The other problem with bidding is that most players come in to a new game with a desire to play one country, either a completely different country and/or side than the previous game, or maybe the same one to 'try and get it right this time.' This is far more important to people about to enter such a long experience than bidding a few more victory points because they think the set of optionals in use favors one side or the other.

I think MWiF will really get people experiencing the bid system and playing the game a bit more competitively, and that will be good.



So here is an AI for Germany question...how will the AI decide when to switch gears? It just rolled less than 5 on three assaults on Paris in a row, Russia has taken the Middle East and overrrun Manchuria against an incompetent Japanese army overcommitted in China, the Royal Navy has put most of the Italian navy in the repair pool with hardly a scratch in return, and the first impulse of Sep/Oct 40 is a 'Storm' across Europe. Is it time to switch to a sitzkrieg?

[SemperAugustus]

Another question is, when should the AI give up? Can it offer peace?

[npilgaard]

ORIGINAL: Norman42
I've always been rather disappointed with WiFs Victory Conditions system.

In our group we have recently started a game using an extended victory point system, which allows us to reorient the game towards strategies and theaters that are sub-optimal if playing with RaW-victory. Also, the conditions are individual and differs somewhat for the various Major Powers, leading to a degree of individual goals and strategies.

This system is of course not suitable for MWiF, but if any of you are interested the rules are here:
http://www.geocities.com/npilgaard/WiF/
They are still at the test-stage though, so they will probably be adjusted for game balance.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard
In our group we have recently started a game using an extended victory point system, which allows us to reorient the game towards strategies and theaters that are sub-optimal if playing with RaW-victory. Also, the conditions are individual and differs somewhat for the various Major Powers, leading to a degree of individual goals and strategies.

This system is of course not suitable for MWiF, but if any of you are interested the rules are here:
http://www.geocities.com/npilgaard/WiF/
They are still at the test-stage though, so they will probably be adjusted for game balance.

Good reading.

My opinion though is that it is too much "designed for effect" rather "designed for causes", but I liked some of the ideas.

I pretty much liked the MIL rule for combat, that looks like similar the TERR rule. Now you wrote it, it looks like evident for me that it is good. But the parallel rule for Territorial say that this is for territorials alone. Is your MIL rules for MIL alone ? It would be better, so that it would be coherent in "causes" with the TERR rules.

Also, I pretty much liked INF-type unit set up in capital city of DoWed minor country by the attacker. Looks like this makes the minor setup more realisitic. You ought to extend it to aligned minor countries, where an INF-type unit ought to be set up in the capital city by a major power on the other side of the one to which the Minor Country aligns too.

[npilgaard]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Good reading.

Thanks [:)]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
My opinion though is that it is too much "designed for effect" rather "designed for causes", but I liked some of the ideas.

I am not sure I get what you mean by "designed for causes", but you are right regarding the effect - we identified a number of things that we would like to see more and then adjusted the VP-system to this. Also, we added a few historical items (German v-weapons, strat. bombing Japan, US battleship build, etc.)

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I pretty much liked the MIL rule for combat, that looks like similar the TERR rule. Now you wrote it, it looks like evident for me that it is good. But the parallel rule for Territorial say that this is for territorials alone. Is your MIL rules for MIL alone ? It would be better, so that it would be coherent in "causes" with the TERR rules.

We play with each attacking MIL means -1 to the 2d10 bonus, and each defending MIL is +1 to the attacker. That effectively means that MILs are only rarely used for attacking or defending key hexes outside their home country. Works very well, imho.
If you limit the penalty to MIL alone, then I think that it will significantly reduce the value of the rule - most of the times MILs are not alone when participating in battles, especially when attacking.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Also, I pretty much liked INF-type unit set up in capital city of DoWed minor country by the attacker. Looks like this makes the minor setup more realisitic. You ought to extend it to aligned minor countries, where an INF-type unit ought to be set up in the capital city by a major power on the other side of the one to which the Minor Country aligns too.

Haven't thought of that - good idea.

[Norman42]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard



This system is of course not suitable for MWiF, but if any of you are interested the rules are here:
http://www.geocities.com/npilgaard/WiF/
They are still at the test-stage though, so they will probably be adjusted for game balance.

Some very interesting ideas, thanks for the link.

My group has played with some of those as house rules as well: 1) all subs can move for a major power for just 1 naval move (makes for a more viable sub war in all theaters, instead of subs just being 'special cruisers', and 2) Militia can never move more then 10 movement points from their setup location (we found it silly that the London and Berlin militias were killed 12 times per game as cheap recyclable losses far from the homes they are supposed to be defending).

The militia rule made for a far better game, and Britain really had to be careful with its forces instead of having swarms of Mil and Terr to defend all and sundry(we had a similar rule for Terr).

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard
We play with each attacking MIL means -1 to the 2d10 bonus, and each defending MIL is +1 to the attacker. That effectively means that MILs are only rarely used for attacking or defending key hexes outside their home country. Works very well, imho.
If you limit the penalty to MIL alone, then I think that it will significantly reduce the value of the rule - most of the times MILs are not alone when participating in battles, especially when attacking.

Yes, but with MIL used, you reach the modifier of the Territorial which is pretty much harsh already.
A harsher modifier would mean poorer combat troops, and I think that MIL are better combat troops than territorials are (judging from the factors only).
So inflicting a modfier to MIL that is greater than the modifier that the worst combat unit receive seems unacceptable to me.

Perhaps the modifier could be applied (once for +1/-1) if half the non div attacking / defending units or more are MIL.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard
I am not sure I get what you mean by "designed for causes", but you are right regarding the effect - we identified a number of things that we would like to see more and then adjusted the VP-system to this. Also, we added a few historical items (German v-weapons, strat. bombing Japan, US battleship build, etc.)

"Design for causes" is creating a rule that "simulate" the cause of what happenned historicaly, not the effect.
I mean, giving a bonus range / move to German SUBs based in Norway is "designing for effect". You create a rule that is artificially made to make the effect appear.
"Designing for causes" would be designing a rule that favors the historial course of action against Norway by Germany and Britain, in its causes.

For example this one :
**************************
(Fredric Paul Smoler - fsmoler@mail.slc.edu)
If you think that the WiFFE Campaign Scenario doesn't give Germany enough incentive to invade Norway, try this: Sweden starts by giving Ge 2 resources and the CW 1. Once Ge controls Norway, Sweden gives all 3 resources to Ge. IMO, this better approximates the economic history, and it certainly is more likely to get Scandinavia into play.
**************************

Or that one :
**************************
(Geir Aaslid - gaaslid@c2i.net)
To reflect the historical rates of iron ore delivery, start with Fred's suggestion above for 1939. For 1940, Sweden will give 2 iron ore to CW, and 1 iron ore to Germany. While Norway is active but not entirely controlled by one side, the owner of Narvik will get the appropriate number of resources. Once Norway, including Narvik, is controlled by Ge, all Swedish resources goes to Germany.
This should encourage players to act historically in this area.
**************************

Or this one (that is included in a wider set of house rules regarding minor countries alignment, named "Rats and a Sinking Ship") :
**************************
(Fredric Paul Smoler - fsmoler@mail.slc.edu)
Sweden
If Italy has been partially or wholly conquered, the Allies have 5+ corps in France and Germany is at war with Russia but controls no Russian cities, roll 1d10 at the start of every game turn; on a roll >5 Sweden ships one less resource to Germany. DRMs: -3 if Norway is German controlled, +5 (each) if Norway and/or Denmark is Allied-controlled, -1 if Finland is Axis-controlled, +2 if Helsinki is Allied-controlled.
**************************

Or this one, more complicated
**************************
Incentive for Russia to DoW Finland, or for Germany to DoW Norway
(John Anderson - wargamer@atomic.com)
I would suggest the following changes to add some incentive :
19.6.1 The USSR doesn’t claim the Finnish border lands. The USSR may not claim the white print Soviet bonus for attacks in Snow or Blizzard.
19.6.1 The USSR claims the Finnish border lands. The USSR may claim the white print Soviet winter bonus.
19.8 Allied Minor Countries - Norway : The CW may declare Norway aligned with it during any Allied DOW step if the USSR has claimed the Finnish border lands (either by war or by Finnish concession) and Germany is at war with or has conquered (including incompletely) Denmark.
These changes give a reason for Russia to get entangled in Finland early, causing Germany to have to go after Norway if it wants to control the Baltic by taking Denmark or risk losing the Swedish resources in winter.
**************************

Or this one, also part or a greater set
**************************
(Siegfried Nelson - Brule31x63@aol.com)
Norway : CW or French units may occupy Narvik without declaring war on Norway if Russia and Finland are in their 4th turn of war and Germany and Russia are not at war. Narvik becomes an Allied controlled port.
Sweden : If the Allies occupy Narvik and so long as Germany and Russia are NOT at war, but Finland and Russia ARE at war, Sweden does NOT provide resources to Germany. If Russia has conquered Finland, French, CW or USA forces can occupy the Swedish resources without declaring war on Sweden.
**************************

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: npilgaard
I am not sure I get what you mean by "designed for causes", but you are right regarding the effect - we identified a number of things that we would like to see more and then adjusted the VP-system to this. Also, we added a few historical items (German v-weapons, strat. bombing Japan, US battleship build, etc.)

"Design for causes" is creating a rule that "simulate" the cause of what happenned historicaly, not the effect.
I mean, giving a bonus range / move to German SUBs based in Norway is "designing for effect". You create a rule that is artificially made to make the effect appear.
"Designing for causes" would be designing a rule that favors the historial course of action against Norway by Germany and Britain, in its causes.

For example this one :
**************************
(Fredric Paul Smoler - fsmoler@mail.slc.edu)
If you think that the WiFFE Campaign Scenario doesn't give Germany enough incentive to invade Norway, try this: Sweden starts by giving Ge 2 resources and the CW 1. Once Ge controls Norway, Sweden gives all 3 resources to Ge. IMO, this better approximates the economic history, and it certainly is more likely to get Scandinavia into play.
**************************

Or that one :
**************************
(Geir Aaslid - gaaslid@c2i.net)
To reflect the historical rates of iron ore delivery, start with Fred's suggestion above for 1939. For 1940, Sweden will give 2 iron ore to CW, and 1 iron ore to Germany. While Norway is active but not entirely controlled by one side, the owner of Narvik will get the appropriate number of resources. Once Norway, including Narvik, is controlled by Ge, all Swedish resources goes to Germany.
This should encourage players to act historically in this area.
**************************

Or this one (that is included in a wider set of house rules regarding minor countries alignment, named "Rats and a Sinking Ship") :
**************************
(Fredric Paul Smoler - fsmoler@mail.slc.edu)
Sweden
If Italy has been partially or wholly conquered, the Allies have 5+ corps in France and Germany is at war with Russia but controls no Russian cities, roll 1d10 at the start of every game turn; on a roll >5 Sweden ships one less resource to Germany. DRMs: -3 if Norway is German controlled, +5 (each) if Norway and/or Denmark is Allied-controlled, -1 if Finland is Axis-controlled, +2 if Helsinki is Allied-controlled.
**************************

Or this one, more complicated
**************************
Incentive for Russia to DoW Finland, or for Germany to DoW Norway
(John Anderson - wargamer@atomic.com)
I would suggest the following changes to add some incentive :
19.6.1 The USSR doesn’t claim the Finnish border lands. The USSR may not claim the white print Soviet bonus for attacks in Snow or Blizzard.
19.6.1 The USSR claims the Finnish border lands. The USSR may claim the white print Soviet winter bonus.
19.8 Allied Minor Countries - Norway : The CW may declare Norway aligned with it during any Allied DOW step if the USSR has claimed the Finnish border lands (either by war or by Finnish concession) and Germany is at war with or has conquered (including incompletely) Denmark.
These changes give a reason for Russia to get entangled in Finland early, causing Germany to have to go after Norway if it wants to control the Baltic by taking Denmark or risk losing the Swedish resources in winter.
**************************

Or this one, also part or a greater set
**************************
(Siegfried Nelson - Brule31x63@aol.com)
Norway : CW or French units may occupy Narvik without declaring war on Norway if Russia and Finland are in their 4th turn of war and Germany and Russia are not at war. Narvik becomes an Allied controlled port.
Sweden : If the Allies occupy Narvik and so long as Germany and Russia are NOT at war, but Finland and Russia ARE at war, Sweden does NOT provide resources to Germany. If Russia has conquered Finland, French, CW or USA forces can occupy the Swedish resources without declaring war on Sweden.
**************************

Oh, gee, I can hardly wait to code all of these![:D]

Perhaps a tome of 10,000 house rules could be gathered.[;)] Then I would have something to do for the rest of this lifetime and for my next 3 or 4 reincarnations (if I am to be punished in those lifetimes).[:)]

[brian brian]

[going back to a penalty for MIL - aren't the lower combat factors and movement enough of a penalty for buying a cheap unit? I don't think I would penalize them further. I think you are applying 18th/19th century concepts of Militia to a term Harry borrowed to designate cheap infantry. There were no 'Militia' for 'defending homes' in WWII. Men had to put on the uniform and go where they were sent. WiF MIL also abstractly represent replacement system policies of large armies. You can train recruits slowly to replace combat losses in large formations (building INF), or you can rush whole recruitment classes to the front in new units much more quickly (building MIL); check out Manstein's "Lost Victories" for a famous discussion of this.]

[Narvik - one of the house rule proposals has the Allies occupying it (& Sweden) without a DoW. In 1940, the true horrors of the Nazis weren't really known. I think Norway or Sweden might have 'aligned' with Germany if this were to happen, but maybe some of the present day Scandinavians on this board could comment better than I. I also think US entry would have taken a definite hit "those Europeans and their wars, there they go again...." I've always thought the USE penalty for a UK/French DoW should depend on what map the minor country is on, with a huge penalty for a West Europe country, smaller for East Europe, and smaller still for countries outside of Europe.]

[modelling the Baltic - something needs to be done to improve this, I think. Churchill fantasized about a death ride to the Baltic, but no other real life naval commander did that I'm aware of. But it's pretty much an automatic move in WiF when you can do it, since in WiF it's only cardboard you are ordering to it's probable death. You can't sail the straits of Gibraltar whenever you wish but the Skaggerak is fairly open at times. Light, shore-based naval forces aren't represented in WiF, nor are you given free 'action limits' to deal with crazy enemy moves in to your home waters.]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

[going back to a penalty for MIL - aren't the lower combat factors and movement enough of a penalty for buying a cheap unit? I don't think I would penalize them further. I think you are applying 18th/19th century concepts of Militia to a term Harry borrowed to designate cheap infantry. There were no 'Militia' for 'defending homes' in WWII. Men had to put on the uniform and go where they were sent. WiF MIL also abstractly represent replacement system policies of large armies. You can train recruits slowly to replace combat losses in large formations (building INF), or you can rush whole recruitment classes to the front in new units much more quickly (building MIL); check out Manstein's "Lost Victories" for a famous discussion of this.]

Before the days of WiF FE, there were Home Guards units, Volk Sturm units, Worker units.

I think that all those are replaced by WiF FE MIL units, and I think it is a good idea to give them a penalty in combats, because the combat factors are hardly penalizing. Most are 4-5 combat point strong, this means that they are nearly stronger than most GAR, and all the time quicker to move and to build.

I like the house rule proposal to have them somehow linked to their home town, kind of the Home Guard or the Volksturm are, I mean, as last ditch defenses, not cannon fodders that are ever dying on the frontline as cheap losses. Not very combat worthy is another way of disminishing their use as cannon fodder. Maybe the distance restriction is better.