Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR

[AxelNL]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Perhaps that will bring Steve to the point to use a proper tool instead of a slave managing a list.. a webbased tool perhaps so people can participate..

Calling Paul a slave is uncalled for, Dabrion.

How about you put in some slave labour and create such a webtool for the benefit of us all?

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I do not care for you using the word slave in this way. I suppose you didn't really mean it or that I am misunderstanding something. [:(]

He's using it in the sense of someone that works for free. Of course, that's also the definition of a volunteer. Slave carries with it additional meaning, one of which is the inability to quit, and so it was not accurate here. It's also an emotionally charged word, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that Dabrion would choose to be provocative in his choice of language.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Orm

I do not care for you using the word slave in this way. I suppose you didn't really mean it or that I am misunderstanding something. [:(]

He's using it in the sense of someone that works for free. Of course, that's also the definition of a volunteer. Slave carries with it additional meaning, one of which is the inability to quit, and so it was not accurate here. It's also an emotionally charged word, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that Dabrion would choose to be provocative in his choice of language.

Hmm not only are you a very good finder of bugs and such, a compliment, you also know what Dabrion really means when he says something that could be construed by many as provacative. I'm impressed [:(] you two have not been conspiring in private, have you now [:-]

Bo]

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Honestly, I don't think it's all that complex. I could teach someone the base rules in about twenty minutes and get them started playing. Most of the complexity lies in about 10% of the rules/situations, and the interaction between semi-conflicting rules. A lot of the game (but not the interface) is fairly intuitive. Things work in ways that make sense to anyone that has played wargames and/or has a basic understanding of WW2 history. A lot of the confusion comes from areas where WiF abstracts things in ways that are mechanically non intuitive, but produce results that make sense. People used to bandy about the term "WIF zen" to describe it.

For example, action limits don't really make sense from a realism standpoint. My air force is flying so my navy is grounded? That's illogical. But the action limit system does a good job of forcing players to make the difficult (and interesting) decisions that end up leading to realistic results. WIF zen.

The answer is Offensive Chit for super-combined. Zen removed. [;)]

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Honestly, I don't think it's all that complex. I could teach someone the base rules in about twenty minutes and get them started playing. Most of the complexity lies in about 10% of the rules/situations, and the interaction between semi-conflicting rules. A lot of the game (but not the interface) is fairly intuitive. Things work in ways that make sense to anyone that has played wargames and/or has a basic understanding of WW2 history. A lot of the confusion comes from areas where WiF abstracts things in ways that are mechanically non intuitive, but produce results that make sense. People used to bandy about the term "WIF zen" to describe it.

For example, action limits don't really make sense from a realism standpoint. My air force is flying so my navy is grounded? That's illogical. But the action limit system does a good job of forcing players to make the difficult (and interesting) decisions that end up leading to realistic results. WIF zen.

The answer is Offensive Chit for super-combined. Zen removed. [;)]

But action limits make sense out of a realism standpoint. It simulates the decisions the General Staff has to make. Is fuel going to the tanks, the navy or the airforce? How are the supplies divided? What ammo is produced and who gets it? In war, there are always shortages. Sure, you might have the necessary ships, the planes and the Panzer produced, but you surely don't have enough supplies to let them all fly, sail and ride at the same time. Your men have to rest, your planes, ships and vehicles needs maintenance...
Even the US had major problems supplying all branches in the autumn of 1944, so units were stopped due to lack of supplies, planes were grounded due to lack of bombs...
The action limits simulates this quite well.
Now, in wargames every general wants to move everything and use all weapons. In reality, you couldn't do so...

[Zorachus99]

Which is why you see the US taking a super-combined every turn starting in about '44, if not a bit earlier.

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

One thing I've toyed with when looking over the game in solitaire, is a setup where everyone has certain "base" action limits, regardless of what they play unless they pass. An air, land, or naval action respectively don't give you unlimited moves in whatever field, but you do get a bunch, and a combined is more or less the same. Basically, the three focused types of impulses are more like combineds.

In addition, every major power can spend BP in order to build up their action limits. Once spent, this increase is permanent, and you get an extra land move per action or air attack or whatever.

The idea bieng that

A) I want to encourage major powers to spend money and time and effort expanding their logistical capability, something which everyone did historically.

B) I wanted to get rid of the "CW builds the army, U.S. builds the airforce" total hyperfocusing that WiF encourages and is frankly a bit stupid.


Never got it to work, but I think the base idea has some merit, if you can get the details to line up.