'stuffing' the border

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Hey, I don't know, I've said that the game is in the business since 20 years, at least, so I beleive that these calculations are crap because if they were right 100% of the time, the game would have stoped to sell 10 years ago and we would not be speaking about a computerized version.

The game has changed a lot in 20 years. When was WiFFE brought out? I played WiF when it was Version 2 and we are up to what now? Version 7, soon to be 8? The latest garrison rule is a child of WIFFE so the track record prior to that is unjustifiable as evidence that "everything is perfect with the game". If you compared even WiF version 4 to the present WiFFE, it would be considerably different. We jointly participated in a project to get a 417 question FAQ published - many of which are annotated "needs rule change".

Hey Paul, I did not know you were so old [;)].
Well, let's not confuse things.
WiF FE is here since 1996.
It's rulebook was called RAW (rules as written) and had many incarnations. RAW1 was the one published in 1996, RAW2 was plubished in 1997, RAW4 was published somewhere in 2002-2002, and RAW7 was published in 2004.
So when you say that we are up to version 7, it is still WiF FE from 1996, with the rulebook from 2004. The pact rules did not change a iota since 1996, and it is 13 years from now. So I was saying 20, but it is 13.

I suppose that if the pact rules were soooooo broken as to hastily devise a house rule in the computer adaptation, it would have wrecked havoc in the games that were players since 1996.

And it did not.

The discussion here is good for the game if it results in improvement. Your ostrich response is not.

I don't believe that this discussion is good for the game, on the contrary, because it is trying to design the wrong way. Look, I am not a game designer, neither do you nor no one here, so let's not pretend we know the job better than Harry Rowland.

If this discussion was happening on the playtest list of WiF FE, I would not be saying the same. Harry have a much deeper understanding of the intricacies of the rules, better than anyone here, so I'd rather trust his judgement.

In other words, I'd much prefer a rule change from him.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
For example, from the top of my head when I read Jerome's assumptions, Japan can DoW the USSR.

That makes things far better for Russia. Japan takes the US Entry hit, and the Russians build their stuffing strength while slowly withdrawing in the East. If the Japanese get greedy and take Vlad, then the turn after Barb starts, Russia compels a peace. I played a successful stuff with Russia just like this and it worked beautifully. My only mistake was waiting an extra turn after the Chicoms took back Ulan Bator. They could have then reverted all of Mongolia to Russia right after peace was compelled. That would have messed up Japan even more. Instead Japan took it back before the Peace the next turn and was able to keep driving the Chicoms back south.

OK, I'm bad, you're good.
But I don't have to think about these gamey strategies you know, as Jerome pointed out, we do not have this here.
But I suspect that there are counter strategies, how would have the game survived such a broken rule since 1996 ?

ORIGINAL: Froonp
And the fact that the most vehement advocate of the "stuff is bad" argument is Hakon makes me more confident that the stuff is not a problem, because I think that Hakon hates the stuffing the border strategy because it prevents him from using his own prefered strategy.

It is not important who is most vehement or why, it is important there are so many who feel this aspect of the game needs to be improved big time. Hakon can defend himself (adroitly as always) but my reading of his posts is that the game needs better Russian survivability more than it needs more complicated, finangled garrison rules.

I agree that the game needs better Russian survivability. But weren't we talking about stuffing the border for Russia ?

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I've personaly seen a "stuff the border" strategy once and guess what [;)] ? It suceeded !!!! And you know why ? Because the German player was so confident that the pact could be broken (I suspect he did not even know that there was a rule about that) that he never counted any garrison nor any chit. He never tried to optimize his builts, never tried to not have less garrison in the west, never tried to give less RP to Italy, and the pact was broken for only 1 point of garrison. If he had been 1% more concentrated on the game (say lend 2 RP less to Italy for example), it would have failed, and the Russian was 100% dedicated to make it work, and he would have been caugnt on the border, as it happened historicaly.

And from this one game you can conclude nothing is wrong with the Stuff strategy enhanced by gamey maneuvers combined with gamey attempted antidotes?

[/quote]
From this game, I conclude that this is not such a big deal. If it was, we would have 90% of the game played that would result in failed barbarossa. If that is such a no brainer for Russia, why isn't it more used ? I'm asking the question.

Personaly I do not use it for 2 reasons : 1) I do not like playing Russia, so I manage not playing it most of the time. 2) I'm not convincted that it has such a ridiculously high chance of success. Mind you, 90% !

[brian brian]

I no longer have time to read this thread and ponder every response, though I wish I did.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a simpler optional rule on this issue than a pre-game "Gentlemen's Agreement". Works perfectly every time. All you need is for new players to understand this issue well. Whether there is a new optional you can choose to use in the computer edition, I would only look into if it was part of an AI game. Otherwise I would just discuss it with human opponents as per normal.

As for Russian blow-outs, I do not think the game needs to be tinkered with much at all at present. Always keep in mind that a lot of these blow-outs are caused by the game-Axis committing many, many more resources (both BPs and action limit choices) to Barbarossa than the historical-Axis did. Abandoning the Med and the Battle of the Atlantic and betting the house on Barbarossa should certainly be an option for the game-Axis, and when they do this, they shouldn't struggle to merely reach the historical high-water mark in Russia 50% of the time. Doing those two things is a powerful Axis strategy that the Allies need to be ready for. But they are in no way a guaranteed game-breaker for the Axis if the Allies have some skill at the game as well.

[Skanvak]

I wonder what people on the WiF yahoo group think of stuffing.

pre-game "Gentlemen's Agreement"

There are people, like me, that like to play rules as written, especially on computer games and won't accept this kind of agreement that simply say "don't use one of the strategy because it will hinder me". I prefer an option but it should be play-tested and ADG approved otherwise reaction like the one of Froonp will be frequent and it is merely including one group house rules (so why not other groups' ?).

My proposal of a free dow for every-one is better (as far as I understand the problem) because is an option to let each group design there own house rules.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Well, let's not confuse things.
WiF FE is here since 1996.
It's rulebook was called RAW (rules as written) and had many incarnations. RAW1 was the one published in 1996, RAW2 was plubished in 1997, RAW4 was published somewhere in 2002-2002, and RAW7 was published in 2004.
So when you say that we are up to version 7, it is still WiF FE from 1996, with the rulebook from 2004. The pact rules did not change a iota since 1996, and it is 13 years from now. So I was saying 20, but it is 13.

I suppose that if the pact rules were soooooo broken as to hastily devise a house rule in the computer adaptation, it would have wrecked havoc in the games that were players since 1996.

And it did not.

Version 5 had a different garrison rule. HQs used to be weaklings that could not move at all in mud. Both of those worked better for Russia then the current rules. There are more things that give Germany a significant advantage that are also ahistorical, but I'll leave them for discussion in the Playtest group.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The discussion here is good for the game if it results in improvement. Your ostrich response is not.

I don't believe that this discussion is good for the game, on the contrary, because it is trying to design the wrong way. Look, I am not a game designer, neither do you nor no one here, so let's not pretend we know the job better than Harry Rowland.

If this discussion was happening on the playtest list of WiF FE, I would not be saying the same. Harry have a much deeper understanding of the intricacies of the rules, better than anyone here, so I'd rather trust his judgement.

In other words, I'd much prefer a rule change from him.

That's valid.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
For example, from the top of my head when I read Jerome's assumptions, Japan can DoW the USSR.

That makes things far better for Russia. Japan takes the US Entry hit, and the Russians build their stuffing strength while slowly withdrawing in the East. If the Japanese get greedy and take Vlad, then the turn after Barb starts, Russia compels a peace. I played a successful stuff with Russia just like this and it worked beautifully. My only mistake was waiting an extra turn after the Chicoms took back Ulan Bator. They could have then reverted all of Mongolia to Russia right after peace was compelled. That would have messed up Japan even more. Instead Japan took it back before the Peace the next turn and was able to keep driving the Chicoms back south.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
OK, I'm bad, you're good.
But I don't have to think about these gamey strategies you know, as Jerome pointed out, we do not have this here.
But I suspect that there are counter strategies, how would have the game survived such a broken rule since 1996 ?

[/quote]
I don't know but when I resumed playing WiFFE after missing out from around the late 80s to 2003 and then found the Yahoo WiFList, one of my very first posts was saying: "Hey, did anyone notice the Russians can always DoW Japan and hold the stuffing garrison?" You can still go and find this post there today.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
And the fact that the most vehement advocate of the "stuff is bad" argument is Hakon makes me more confident that the stuff is not a problem, because I think that Hakon hates the stuffing the border strategy because it prevents him from using his own prefered strategy.

It is not important who is most vehement or why, it is important there are so many who feel this aspect of the game needs to be improved big time. Hakon can defend himself (adroitly as always) but my reading of his posts is that the game needs better Russian survivability more than it needs more complicated, finangled garrison rules.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I agree that the game needs better Russian survivability. But weren't we talking about stuffing the border for Russia ?

They are totally interconnected. People would not stuff and hunt for even enhanced ways of stuffing if they thought they could slug it out with the Russians in 1941.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I've personaly seen a "stuff the border" strategy once and guess what [;)] ? It suceeded !!!! And you know why ? Because the German player was so confident that the pact could be broken (I suspect he did not even know that there was a rule about that) that he never counted any garrison nor any chit. He never tried to optimize his builts, never tried to not have less garrison in the west, never tried to give less RP to Italy, and the pact was broken for only 1 point of garrison. If he had been 1% more concentrated on the game (say lend 2 RP less to Italy for example), it would have failed, and the Russian was 100% dedicated to make it work, and he would have been caugnt on the border, as it happened historicaly.

ORIGINAL: Paul
And from this one game you can conclude nothing is wrong with the Stuff strategy enhanced by gamey maneuvers combined with gamey attempted antidotes?

ORIGINAL: Froonp
From this game, I conclude that this is not such a big deal. If it was, we would have 90% of the game played that would result in failed barbarossa. If that is such a no brainer for Russia, why isn't it more used ? I'm asking the question.

I have often wondered in reading the forums since 2003 at the preponderence of Sea Lions and Closures of the Med. Could it be these were brought on by Axis players who realized Russia was a dead end? Certainly other players may be happy to A. Not Stuff and B. Not use Super Balbo and enjoy the game together and have a competitive Barb 41. But the current game mechanics allow a murderous Barb if the Russian doesn't stuff - period, the end.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
But the current game mechanics allow a murderous Barb if the Russian doesn't stuff - period, the end.

Well, you say "allow", and I think that all reside in this word finaly. The current game mechanics can lead to a murderous Barb, but can also lead to a busted Barb.

Look, in our current game, under the current game mechanics (2d10, Hitler's War), Barb 41 was launched in M/A 41, and led nowhere. We (I am Japan / Italy) are stuck a few hexes around the Dniepr, and the Russian only lost 19 corps in 1941. We are in M/A 42 now and even if the Russian will soon again loose battles, his integrity is no more in question.

In all the home games I saw a Russia beeng blown out, it was because of a big player experience difference between Russia & Germany, and thus because of bad Russian play versus good german play. In the current one, an anormal bad luck on the German side in land combats since France was one of the components, because the players are about equally matched. The German is a little superior, but the Russian made no fatal mistake.


OK, anyway I agree that the game would a need better Russian survivability, as it looks like (from my experience) that the Russian is more on the edge than the German in that confrontation, and that all what Germany risks on the worst case is a busted Barb, but even with a Busted Barb Germany can win the game while with a murderous Barb, very often the Allied are toast.

Why not let this alone for a time and wait for the new rules that will be issued (that are currently discussed with Harry as you know) in the next occurence of RAW ? The MWiF game will not be published tomorrow, RAW8 neither [:D] but it may have more global solutions, and better, the MWiF game would still be synchronized with the WiF FE game. I agree that these possible RAW8 improvements looks like the moving target that Steve don't like, but he is making unforeseen changes anyway with this new optional rule, so why not wait and add something official rather than something homebrew for MWiF ?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
I have often wondered in reading the forums since 2003 at the preponderence of Sea Lions and Closures of the Med. Could it be these were brought on by Axis players who realized Russia was a dead end? Certainly other players may be happy to A. Not Stuff and B. Not use Super Balbo and enjoy the game together and have a competitive Barb 41. But the current game mechanics allow a murderous Barb if the Russian doesn't stuff - period, the end.

About the preponderance of Closures of the Med, my opinion is that experienced players prefer this because it is a very easy strategy that is very hard to fail. But this is for another discussion.

About the preponderance of Sea Lions, I'm sorry but I would not say that they are preponderant. There are those that are done after the Close the Med strategy, but these are the first case, but the direct Sea Lions are very rare in what I observe from the discussions all around.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
And the fact that the most vehement advocate of the "stuff is bad" argument is Hakon makes me more confident that the stuff is not a problem, because I think that Hakon hates the stuffing the border strategy because it prevents him from using his own prefered strategy.

Patrice, with all due respect, but these kinds of accusations are unfournded.

The fact is that my resistance to 'stuffig the border' predates my first game of WiF, and did in fact arise when reading the scenario booklet prior to my first game. In both my first 2 games of WiF, I played Russia. This was around year 2000, and upon reading the part where this is discussed in the booklet, I got disgusted, and woved not to employ this gamey trick. (I wouldn't even call it a strategy, since I consider it to be a pure game mechanic artifact, and a game design error that somehow made it past QA)

Regardless of if I play Russia or Germany, I prefer a 1941 Barbarossa, as I think that the "Great Patriotic War" was the crescendo of WW2, and I really don't think that a 42 would have been very viable, given the enourmous production advantage that the Russians already had over the Germans.

The only alternative that I really find historically interesting in a game structured like WiF, is a strategy based on forcing UK surrender, either by a Sealion. Alternative, more less violent German strategies, such as securing the Med and then sitzing, could easily have led to very drawn out conflicts with no American or Russian interference, imo, and are better suited for what-if games such as Days of Decision, imo.

So basically, in my eyes, it is precisely Barbarossa that turned World War 2 into World War 2.

Now, in our local group, this was not a big problem, since most of us seemed to share these view more or less.

Only later did we discover how hard it is for Russia to defend vs a 1941 Barbarossa when the Axis is well prepared for one, works well together and concentrates a maximum amount of assets on it.

Btw, Patrice, I've said all of this before, also in dicussions where you have been involved. I sincerely hope you don't remember, for the alternative is that you are accusing me of blatantly lying.....

Regards
Hakon

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
It is not important who is most vehement or why, it is important there are so many who feel this aspect of the game needs to be improved big time. Hakon can defend himself (adroitly as always) but my reading of his posts is that the game needs better Russian survivability more than it needs more complicated, finangled garrison rules.

Exactly.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I suppose that if the pact rules were soooooo broken as to hastily devise a house rule in the computer adaptation, it would have wrecked havoc in the games that were players since 1996.

And it did not.

How do you know this? For all you know, these rules can already have wrecked havoc in loads of games, with the result that the affected players stopped playing WiF, and moved on to other games where Germany is actually allowed to stage the biggest campaign of the war (and of world history) at the historical time.

Certainly, I would not have been playing WiF today, if the rest of my group had considered stuffing to to be ok, and a valid way to play. It would simply take the game too far away from my view of what would be a WW2 game. Heck, I would probably prefer Axis and Allies for realism then.....

Now, assuming that the situation in my group is not that uncommon, ie that most players hold simmilar views, then there may still be a large number of groups where 'no stuffing' is the de facto rule already.

In groups where most games involve alternative strategies to a 41 barb, the whole issue is, of course, completely irrelevant.

But to release a computer game that claims to be based on WW2, I think it would be a huge risk to release the game with rules that allow Russia to unilateraly stop a 41 Barbarossa more often than not, partly because the would be many new players (most of which I think would expect a 1941 barb to be possible), and also because the ability to play over the net would take away most of the "common understanding" ways that local groups can develop to handle things like this.

Making this an optional rule, should solve the problem, since the players that can not accept (as Germany) to have their game decided by stuffing, can prevent this even before the game starts.

Now, if it should be that the current trend, ie that 1941 Barbs tend to be blow outs, does indeed carry over into MWiF, one could always implement something like my "Great Patriotic War" optional, or one could even add it front the release.

Cheers
Hakon

Hakon

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: hakon
Patrice, with all due respect, but these kinds of accusations are unfournded.

The fact is that my resistance to 'stuffig the border' predates my first game of WiF, and did in fact arise when reading the scenario booklet prior to my first game. In both my first 2 games of WiF, I played Russia. This was around year 2000, and upon reading the part where this is discussed in the booklet, I got disgusted, and woved not to employ this gamey trick. (I wouldn't even call it a strategy, since I consider it to be a pure game mechanic artifact, and a game design error that somehow made it past QA)

Regardless of if I play Russia or Germany, I prefer a 1941 Barbarossa, as I think that the "Great Patriotic War" was the crescendo of WW2, and I really don't think that a 42 would have been very viable, given the enourmous production advantage that the Russians already had over the Germans.

The only alternative that I really find historically interesting in a game structured like WiF, is a strategy based on forcing UK surrender, either by a Sealion. Alternative, more less violent German strategies, such as securing the Med and then sitzing, could easily have led to very drawn out conflicts with no American or Russian interference, imo, and are better suited for what-if games such as Days of Decision, imo.

So basically, in my eyes, it is precisely Barbarossa that turned World War 2 into World War 2.

Now, in our local group, this was not a big problem, since most of us seemed to share these view more or less.

Only later did we discover how hard it is for Russia to defend vs a 1941 Barbarossa when the Axis is well prepared for one, works well together and concentrates a maximum amount of assets on it.

Btw, Patrice, I've said all of this before, also in dicussions where you have been involved. I sincerely hope you don't remember, for the alternative is that you are accusing me of blatantly lying.....

Regards
Hakon

Thanks for the clarification Hakon. (As a note, I do not understand exactly your last sentence, are you saying I am accusing you of lying ? I don't understand, because I don't accuse you of lying.)

For your view of what makes WW2 be WW2, we both agree indeed, and from what you tell about the time when you read the notes and about stuffing the border, I felt the same and thought the same, that I'd never use that because I also felt it was ahistoric (which I learnt later that was wrong) and gamey (which I learn later that was wrong too).

My point in what I wrote is that you say that "Stuffing the border" is anti-WW2, but then you nevertheless use others anti WW2 strategies against Russia to optimize its destruction. Your Italy for example is never interested in making a Mare Nostrum from the Med, and is a puppet of Germany devoted to overcome Russia, in which Mussolini had no interest. Why ? Why don't you have the same approach here ? Kind of saying your group : "Well guys, this is ridiculous, let's not make this again."

So when I read from you that the stuffing is ahistorical (which is partly wrong as I said already because Russia was at the border in June 1941, so how a game without a fair chance of the stuffing the border strategy to succeed can reproduce that move forward from Stalin ? and also because I learnt earlier this year that Hitler said to someone I forgot who that if he had known how many tanks the Soviets had he would not have attacked), knowing the rest of the story makes me think that what looks historical or not is subjective to the one who looks.

In other words, if you were as vehement in proposing rule changes to prevent a super Balbo strategy than to prevent a stuffing the border strategy, it would be better to my eyes.


So, to be constructive, now that Steve have enacted the addition of an optional rule that makes the Stuffing the border impossible, what do you propose so that games that are run with this optional rule don't turn out in Super Balbos each time.

Sincerely, your answer to this is very important, as this will be a real improvement to the game in my eyes too.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: hakon

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I suppose that if the pact rules were soooooo broken as to hastily devise a house rule in the computer adaptation, it would have wrecked havoc in the games that were players since 1996.

And it did not.

How do you know this? For all you know, these rules can already have wrecked havoc in loads of games, with the result that the affected players stopped playing WiF, and moved on to other games where Germany is actually allowed to stage the biggest campaign of the war (and of world history) at the historical time.

Well obviously I'm not all knowing and I don't know about each of the many WiF FE players, but I'm subscribed to the WiF discussion list since 1996 (when it was named pipex or something, and I was on my 56k modem), and the discussions on the list never went down.

If the game had sufferend from the effect you describle because of that stuffing the border strategy, the game would be less and less played, and this is the reverse that happens.

As a last note, I would like to let you know that I concur with you that the war in the east during WW2 is the biggest campaign of the war (and of world history) at the historical time. That is, I'm not sitting on the other side of some fence from you, but as I wrote in my previous post, I'd also like to see proposals to limit the Super balbo strategy then, because this and the stuffing the border strategy are the two sides of the same coin for me, an ugly coin that don't fit in my view of WW2.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Personaly I do not use it for 2 reasons : 1) I do not like playing Russia, so I manage not playing it most of the time. 2) I'm not convincted that it has such a ridiculously high chance of success. Mind you, 90% !

Well, I love playing Russia. (And in fact we just started a new game last week with me as Russia.) I do NOT want to have to rely on stuffing as the only means to survive as Russia, though. In this game, we're playing a (slightly modified) 3d10, hoping that this will be enough to keep Russia alive.

About that 90% chance, well in practice the number will vary, depending on optional rules, German losses, Russian willingness to DOW someone to become active, etc.

But as long as a 41 Barb is as potentially devestating at is being reported (from more and more games), Russia really has absolutely nothing to lose by behaving and building units in such a way that they can stuff if needed, at least until end-SO-41.

Germany (and Italy) on the other hand, really wan to be able to select a strategy sgificanly before this. And if they don't Russia can get a close-to-certain stuff in some percentage of games, a good chance in many others, and in the few where the probabiliyt of stuffing is really low, they cand just act like they never intended to stuff, and set up further back.

So, basically, behaving like you are going to stuff has virtually NO drawbacks for Russia (except possibly not being able to demand te Finnish borderlands). If they pull bad chits, they dont have to go through with it.

Unless you are unable to do the math required to calculate the odds of keeping the garrison, that is, which many people obviously will have. But basing a game on people's lack of skill to process the numbers, is hardly good game design. And as games like this spread on the internet, one can always use the calculations/tools provided by other people.

Regards
Hakon

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Thanks for the clarification Hakon. (As a note, I do not understand exactly your last sentence, are you saying I am accusing you of lying ? I don't understand, because I don't accuse you of lying.)

I was asking if you were accusing me of lying. I have no reason to accuse you of lying.

My point in what I wrote is that you say that "Stuffing the border" is anti-WW2, but then you nevertheless use others anti WW2 strategies against Russia to optimize its destruction. Your Italy for example is never interested in making a Mare Nostrum from the Med, and is a puppet of Germany devoted to overcome Russia, in which Mussolini had no interest. Why ? Why don't you have the same approach here ? Kind of saying your group : "Well guys, this is ridiculous, let's not make this again."

I've answered this question many times before, Patrice. Search the forum if you want details, but the ouline is as follows:
1) I don't consider a stronger Italian involvement vs Russia to be outside of the "what-if"'s that could be realistically explored by WiF. Italy was an anti-communits facist state for many years before Hitler even came to power. Even if Mussolini may not have shared Hitler's ideas about Lebensraum, he certainly was no friend of Stalin.
2) Strategically, it is my understanding that it was a huge mistake my Mussolini to try to fight for Egypt, given the naval superiority of the British. (Just as it was a mistake to join Hitler in the first place, but that is another matter). Instead, the Italians should have found defensible positions in Libya, or better, in, Sicily, and made sure to hold those.
3) However, I do think that WIF makes italy to be waay to strong, which of course, is a concious decision by Harry. But since this is a fact in the game, and probably is the main reason why the axis needs to keep 15 victory cities at the end of the game for a draw, I don't feel obliged to repeat Italy's historical mistakes, but instead to use whatever force they have as efficiently as possible.
4) The choice to build aircraft with Italy is something I view as a pure adaptation to the impulse system (which I consider one of WiF's main weaknesses, even if it's hard to come up with something better). In fact, this approach was something I first came up with when playing Russia, as a suggestion to my western allies (ie Super Alex), and it worked quite well in that game. So it was only natural to try the same thing with the Axis. Btw, I donsider Italy building subs and Germany not to be just another aspect of exactly the same issue.

1) and 2) are historical interpretations that I stand by 100%, and I don't consider these gamey at all. One could of course force priorities a bit down the historical path by

3) Is a concious design decision by Harry, one that some people (like Devin) likes to fix with house rules. But as long as Italy has this huge production, I don't see why they should not be able to use it on the most effecient builds possible.

4) This is an adaptation to a design flaw. A flaw that the Allies have just as big an oportunity to take advantage of (albeit a couple of years later). This is an issue that I really would want to see fixed, but preferably in a consistent way that applies equally to all nations.

So when I read from you that the stuffing is ahistorical (which is partly wrong as I said already because Russia was at the border in June 1941, so how a game without a fair chance of the stuffing the border strategy to succeed can reproduce that move forward from Stalin ?

This is a very bad reasoning for supporting stuffing, possibly the worst one of all. In WiF, Russia is far weaker than historically (in particular, they had many more reserves historically). This means that the few times that Russia is actually caught at the border, will tend to be complete blow outs, and not resemble the historical development at war.

Given the size of the Russian army, one is left little chice but to wif-zen that the border army is mostly destroyed at th border, and that Russia's starting army represents their second line units.

and also because I learnt earlier this year that Hitler said to someone I forgot who that if he had known how many tanks the Soviets had he would not have attacked), knowing the rest of the story makes me think that what looks historical or not is subjective to the one who looks.

Guderian claims that hitler said something like "If I'd believed in our intelligence reports regarding the number of German armor....". This was supposed to have been said at a conferance in august 41, or so. While this argument does have some weight, it would have even more weight in 1942, since the Russian industrial production at the time was much, much greater than Germany's.

So, if you want to use this argument, you should also make sure that Stalin could ALWAYS stuff the border in 1942. But do we want this?

In other words, if you were as vehement in proposing rule changes to prevent a super Balbo strategy than to prevent a stuffing the border strategy, it would be better to my eyes.

Preventing stuffing is easy. It only requires one sentence.

Reworking the action limit sytem is another can of worms completely. If you'd been paying better attention, you might have remembered my posts where I describe various house rules that we have tried in order to solve this. (point 4 above, that is).

So, to be constructive, now that Steve have enacted the addition of an optional rule that makes the Stuffing the border impossible, what do you propose so that games that are run with this optional rule don't turn out in Super Balbos each time.

Sincerely, your answer to this is very important, as this will be a real improvement to the game in my eyes too.

Look further up in this threat. I proposed the option "The Great Patriotic War" as an option that could be made alongside "Lebensraum". They should not be hard-linked, but having the patriotic war option available, would let players decide for themselves if they should be linked or not.

By giving Russia +0.25 when attacked, but not when attacking, on top of all other PM bonuses, would not only make it easier for Russia to survive Barbarossa, but also provide some incentive to the Axis for not attacking USSR at all, but instead do a close the med or sealion.

That the +0.25 would also give a bonus in a 1942 barb, would make strategies with 1942 barbs a bit less attractive, of course, and this is intended. I definitely believe that 1941 was the best time for Germany to attack, if they were to attack at all.

Cheers
Hakon

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
If the game had sufferend from the effect you describle because of that stuffing the border strategy, the game would be less and less played, and this is the reverse that happens.

It wouldn't have to be less and less played. A game can still be reasonably popular, even if it has flaws that make some players turn away. But it's definitely possible that the game could have MORE players had it not had such rules.

How many players it would apply to, is of course impossible to guess, buy speaking for myself, it could definitely have applied to me if I was playing with another group.

Hakon

[Froonp]

Well, I guess we will stay in disagreement regarding Italy's role in WW2 and what was a mistake or not, and that the game will keep the new "Super Balbo" Optional rule as we should rename it. Happily it is optional.

It is strange though for someone who seems to think that the war in the east was the essence of WW2, to accept to play with such ahistorical strategies. The same as you baned stuffing the border for Russia, you should have had baned the Super Balbo for Germany too as soon as it was discovered. Because to me, the war in the east with Italian bombers by thousands paving the way to the Wermarcht is not too much in the nature of the war in the east as I pictured it.

You see, you assert that lots of players may have quited playing WiF FE because of the Pact Rules, but how many in your opinion would quit the game when they learn that the most efficient way of detroying Russia is to use the Italians to do so ???

Your reasoning is not fair.

Guderian claims that hitler said something like "If I'd believed in our intelligence reports regarding the number of German armor....". This was supposed to have been said at a conferance in august 41, or so. While this argument does have some weight, it would have even more weight in 1942, since the Russian industrial production at the time was much, much greater than Germany's.

So, if you want to use this argument, you should also make sure that Stalin could ALWAYS stuff the border in 1942. But do we want this?

Thanks for the reminder. Was it about German Armor are you sure ? Wasn't it about Russian armor ?
The last sentense is nonsense Hakon.
This declaration of Hitler simply shows that it was not the no brainer that almost everyone say it was for Germany to attack Soviet Union in 1941, to support the saying that the pact breaking rule is itself broken.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: hakon
Reworking the action limit sytem is another can of worms completely. If you'd been paying better attention, you might have remembered my posts where I describe various house rules that we have tried in order to solve this. (point 4 above, that is).

Who said it was what had to be done ?

Maybe the problem lies in the abuse of the victory system by players playing Italy as a puppet of Germany. Italy have her own objectives to win the game, and going east they have absolutely nothing to gain. The rare Russian objectives will be taken by Germany, not Italy, and it is Germany that will win the game. As the Italian player, I have more ambition than just let my friend playing Germany win the game, I want to win it for myself, and I can as Italy / Japan, but not going east.

Your assertion that Italy cannot beat the RN in the Med is wrong too, it can, and the CW can be crippled by Italian play, but not by Italian play in the East.

Hakon, you're an optimizing player, and you got rid of that parameter by saying that you focus on side victory, but while cooperation and side victory are important elements of the game, each country can win including Italy / Japan, and I as an Italian player would not bow to the German player ambitions without fulfilling mine.

[Froonp]

I forgot to stress also the following.
The scenarion book have a chapter (24.1.2) that describe which player should play which country.
For the Global War Scenario this is :

3 players
1 Axis player
1 China, CW & USA player
1 France & USSR player

4 players
1 Germany player
1 Italy / Japan player
1 China, CW & USA player
1 France & USSR player

5 players
1 Germany player
1 Italy / Japan player
1 CW player
1 China & USA player
1 France & USSR player

6 players
1 Germany player
1 Italy player
1 Japan player
1 CW player
1 China & USA player
1 France & USSR player

so unless you play the game with 2 or 3 players, the German and Italian player should always be separate, and each one have its own objective number to reach.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I don't believe that this discussion is good for the game, on the contrary, because it is trying to design the wrong way. Look, I am not a game designer, neither do you nor no one here, so let's not pretend we know the job better than Harry Rowland.

If this discussion was happening on the playtest list of WiF FE, I would not be saying the same. Harry have a much deeper understanding of the intricacies of the rules, better than anyone here, so I'd rather trust his judgement.

In other words, I'd much prefer a rule change from him.

Of course, Harry Rowland must have the final word. But is he aware of the many discussions that did occur on this particular subject at least?

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Your reasoning is not fair.

Well, you didn't specifically mention which of the 4 aspects of Super Balbo you considered unfair. If it's 1) or 2), ie Italy being on the Eastern Front in the first place, I think this is a far, far more likely even than Hitler declaring war on Franco, for instance.

I can agree to an argument where one would claim that it was not in Russia that Italy's primary interest were, and that they, ideally, would have wanted to perform a med Campaign. But Franco was definitely an enemy of Stalin, probably more so than the USA was an enemy of Germany at the time. (1940-early 41).

And if you add the military realities of the time, then Italy COULD have known that they would not be able to stand up to the Brits on their own. Had they known this, they may not have joined the war, but I guess that we really don't want to discuss if Italy should be able to join the war or not.

So, given the historical politics (italy at war on the axis side), and try to improve military strategy, I think it is a logical improvement of their military strategy to make use of whatever combat potential that the Italians posessed in Europe instead of Africa, and in closer cooperation with the Germans already from the beginning.

Historically (point 3), Italy may not have had much more strength, than what they would have needed to defend Sicily and southern Italy from invasion, even in 1941. In the game, though, Italy i spretty strong. This extra strength compared to the historical, makes most sense on the eastern front, imo.

Now, if your main problem is not the number of italian units, but rather the fact that these are mostly air units, then we're at point 4). This can be handled in several ways. One way, could be to require that Italy can only take an air if Germany does air or super combined. (In that case, the same restriction should apply to the CW/USA).

Another method, would be to ban air missions alltogether, and instead give each power the same number of air impulses in a land, as they have in a combined, and twice that in a real combined (ie 7 USA air missions in a land, and 14 in a combined, while Italy would get 3 in a land and 6 in a combined). We've tried a variant of this, with me as Germany, and it definitely stopped Super Balbo and super Alex. (We still allowed super combineds and air offensives to give unlimited air missions).

Now, back to the historical objectives:

If you really want to more strongly encourage each power to go down the historical path, instead of focusing mostly on what makes most sense militarily, you could try to find my post (on this forum) where I proposed a victory point system more akin to the one used in the boardgame Britannia, where each player gets victory points at various intervals in time for holding objectives that were specifially important t their power at that time. Since different power would have objectives in very different locations, they would not tend to cooperate so much. (Some of these rewards would not have to be that the city is controlled by that player, but could in many cases be:

At the end of J/A 1944, the USA gets the following victory points:
3 if Paris is controlled by France, Free France or the USA
2 if Paris is controlled by the UK
2 if Rome is cotrolled by the USA
1 if Rome is controlled by another western allied country
1 for each printed factory stack in a Japan or Germany controlled by a Western Ally
1 for the USA holding Manila
-1 for each printed factory stack in Japan or Germany proper controlled by the USSR
-1 for each of the following territories not held by a western ally: Gibraltar, Suez, Pearl Harbor, Rabaul, London, Glasgow, New Delhy, Sidney
-2 for each corps lost during the turn
-1 for each division or ship lost during the turn

This kind of victory system (which would HAVE to be individual) could be used to strongly encourage each power to go for their historical short term goals, and in many cases make them have to chose between short term political success (victory points) or longer term military success.

Thanks for the reminder. Was it about German Armor are you sure ? Wasn't it about Russian armor ?

Russia, of course.

The last sentense is nonsense Hakon.
This declaration of Hitler simply shows that it was not the no brainer that almost everyone say it was for Germany to attack Soviet Union in 1941, to support the saying that the pact breaking rule is itself broken.

I never claimed it was a no brainer. It probably was stupid, possiby almost as stupid as declaring war on Poland in the first place.

But if Russia was too strong to be attacked in 1941, they definitely would have been so in 1942. In fact, a rather realistic fix to the imbalance of a Barb 41, would be to give Russia a base PM of 1.5 starting in M/J 1941, and keep it at that level for the rest of the war.

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
so unless you play the game with 2 or 3 players, the German and Italian player should always be separate, and each one have its own objective number to reach.

Interestingly enough, Super Balbo still often works, especially if axis players are good team players. Two reasons for this:

1) Super Balbo frequently puts so much preassure on Russia, that Japan gets left entirely in peace.
2) Whoever plays italy just looove to get a second home country in Teheran, protected by german ground forces.

I even had one game where the allies were doing a Japan first, after Japan had managed to keep Persia in an early war vs Russia, where Japan (because of German presence) were planning to use Teheran as the second home country. In that game, the allies had mostly ignored Europe, and had taken Tokyo in 1942 (after extremely early US entry, and by surprise invasion). But at the same time, Germany had advanced to Novosibirsk, and the last 2 printed factory cities (Taskent and Leningrad) were both about 2 turns from falling., so japan would be able to trace supply to Manchuria, Korea and China through Russia.

Part of my point is, that if the Axis can really knock out Russia, they can practically win the war (not just the game). Exactly this realization (combined with some appriciation of the difficulty of doing it) could have moved the historical leaders in Tokyo and Rome to focus more on Russia in 1941.

Cheers
Hakon