WiF Annual 2008

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: Froonp
Doing something finer would need to create subcountries in that area of Russia and decide which go to the Japanese.
I considered that but it seems like overkill.
This said, the day you want subcountries to exist on the MWiF map, all over the world, I'm your man.

I'm more than willing to divide the USSR, the USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Mexico, Europe (Bohemia, Silesia, Morovia...), etc... into subcountries that match the 40s political sub-division of countries, so that there are more possibilities of peace agreements for example or whatever else based on subcountries in MWiF (Partisans for example).
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: Froonp
Doing something finer would need to create subcountries in that area of Russia and decide which go to the Japanese.
I considered that but it seems like overkill.
This said, the day you want subcountries to exist on the MWiF map, all over the world, I'm your man.

I'm more than willing to divide the USSR, the USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Mexico, Europe (Bohemia, Silesia, Morovia...), etc... into subcountries that match the 40s political sub-division of countries, so that there are more possibilities of peace agreements for example or whatever else based on subcountries in MWiF (Partisans for example).
Thank you for offerring, but that day is along ways off.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
marcuswatney
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:07 pm

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by marcuswatney »

The objective of the Strike North faction was the Maritime province, not the conquest of the Soviet Union, nor meeting the Germans at the Urals, nor any of the other crazy things that gamers get up to.  Their great and single fear was what massed Soviet bombers could do to the homeland if Rusian territory were allowed to exist just across the water.  To understand the mindset of that faction in the late thirties, think Cuba 1962.
 
It follows that the surrendered area should correspond to the maximum range of a Soviet strategic bomber of the time from any Japanese homeland factory.
 
It is not conceivable that the Japanese would have accepted a negotiated settlement that did not fulfil this basic criterion.  Equally, it is not believable that the Japanese would delay such a settlement in pursuit of some obscure piece of territory outside the danger zone, or land logistically too difficult to be turned into bomber bases some time in the future.
User avatar
c92nichj
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:15 pm
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by c92nichj »

I think patrice suggestion goes in line with the bomber range question so i vote for the suggested division.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

Patrice,

Here is what I propose. It is more or less what you gave, but the determination for the program is much easier. The area bordered in red (inclusive) is what the USSR would concede to Japan if it surrenders as per the optional rule: all hexes in the USSR that have a column number >= 154 and a row number >= 42.

Image
Attachments
USSRJapan..ryPeace.jpg
USSRJapan..ryPeace.jpg (449.29 KiB) Viewed 145 times
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

The same picture at zoom level 3 instead of2.

Image
Attachments
USSRJapan..Peace2.jpg
USSRJapan..Peace2.jpg (644.75 KiB) Viewed 143 times
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8355
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by paulderynck »

Maybe the western edge should be one more hex column to the left in order to avoid the exploit Hakon mentions in the "Exploits" thread. Then the resource at Tsitsihar would have to also be relinquised.
Paul
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Maybe the western edge should be one more hex column to the left in order to avoid the exploit Hakon mentions in the "Exploits" thread. Then the resource at Tsitsihar would have to also be relinquised.
Ok by me.

But there might be other ways to deal with the exploit Hakon described. And making this change doesn't handle the reverse exploit Hakon mentions with the Japanese surrendering while holding hexes on the east coast.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by brian brian »

Maybe the historical borders of the Soviet 'Maritime Province' + Sakhalin could be used for this purpose.

Making Komsolmosk a new city is still not very realistic in any way.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Patrice,

Here is what I propose. It is more or less what you gave, but the determination for the program is much easier. The area bordered in red (inclusive) is what the USSR would concede to Japan if it surrenders as per the optional rule: all hexes in the USSR that have a column number >= 154 and a row number >= 42.
I would not give Kamchatka.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Patrice,

Here is what I propose. It is more or less what you gave, but the determination for the program is much easier. The area bordered in red (inclusive) is what the USSR would concede to Japan if it surrenders as per the optional rule: all hexes in the USSR that have a column number >= 154 and a row number >= 42.
I would not give Kamchatka.
Yes, you had said that before. But then I was working from one of your earlier proposals.[:)]

To reiterate my position on this: I don't really care. I just want it to be such that the forum members believe it is a good implementation of the rule.
===
Here is the redefined boundary (inclusive) based on the feedback of the last ~24 hours.
===
I was thinking that this could be the "surrender area" for both Japan and the USSR. If the USSR 'surrenders', then Japan would gain control of all hexes in this area that the USSR controls at the time it surrenders. If the Japan 'surrenders', then the USSR would gain control of this area, plus the rest of Manchuria. Just an idea.

Image
Attachments
USSRJapan..Peace3.jpg
USSRJapan..Peace3.jpg (482.96 KiB) Viewed 145 times
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
michaelbaldur
Posts: 4800
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:28 pm
Location: denmark

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by michaelbaldur »


remember that us/cw can debark into russian hexes ... don´´t know if it is a issue here ...

but I can see usa early in the war debark a HQ in a russian hex then walk south and get a port .... and then they have airbases in the Sea of japan in 41.

and it´s hard for japan to react on Kamchatka..
the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 27737
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


To reiterate my position on this: I don't really care. I just want it to be such that the forum members believe it is a good implementation of the rule.
===
I was thinking that this could be the "surrender area" for both Japan and the USSR. If the USSR 'surrenders', then Japan would gain control of all hexes in this area that the USSR controls at the time it surrenders. If the Japan 'surrenders', then the USSR would gain control of this area, plus the rest of Manchuria. Just an idea.
Exactly my thoughts on this. Both of them. [:)]
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
To reiterate my position on this: I don't really care. I just want it to be such that the forum members believe it is a good implementation of the rule.
===
Here is the redefined boundary (inclusive) based on the feedback of the last ~24 hours.
===
I was thinking that this could be the "surrender area" for both Japan and the USSR. If the USSR 'surrenders', then Japan would gain control of all hexes in this area that the USSR controls at the time it surrenders. If the Japan 'surrenders', then the USSR would gain control of this area, plus the rest of Manchuria. Just an idea.

Image
Well, for the Russian surrender I'm OK, but for the Japanese surrender, Japan is supposed to cede Manchuria, so why do you write that "the USSR would gain control of this area, plus the rest of Manchuria" ?

Of do you mean that this is to take care of the possible hexes Japan would have conquered in Russia when Japan surrenders ? If that is the case, why not just say that Japan if it surrenders also cedes all hexes it could have conquered in Russia, and vice versa for Russia having conquered hexes in Manchuria when it surrenders ?
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
To reiterate my position on this: I don't really care. I just want it to be such that the forum members believe it is a good implementation of the rule.
===
Here is the redefined boundary (inclusive) based on the feedback of the last ~24 hours.
===
I was thinking that this could be the "surrender area" for both Japan and the USSR. If the USSR 'surrenders', then Japan would gain control of all hexes in this area that the USSR controls at the time it surrenders. If the Japan 'surrenders', then the USSR would gain control of this area, plus the rest of Manchuria. Just an idea.

Image
Well, for the Russian surrender I'm OK, but for the Japanese surrender, Japan is supposed to cede Manchuria, so why do you write that "the USSR would gain control of this area, plus the rest of Manchuria" ?

Of do you mean that this is to take care of the possible hexes Japan would have conquered in Russia when Japan surrenders ? If that is the case, why not just say that Japan if it surrenders also cedes all hexes it could have conquered in Russia, and vice versa for Russia having conquered hexes in Manchuria when it surrenders ?
You're right.

I'll reword this - but later. The World Series game #3 is starting.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

Here is today's pass on this optional rule. Please let me know if you agree/disagree with this.

Image
Attachments
USSRJapan..Peace4.jpg
USSRJapan..Peace4.jpg (726.69 KiB) Viewed 145 times
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is today's pass on this optional rule. Please let me know if you agree/disagree with this.

Image
It looks good to me.
hakon
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by hakon »

Hi.

I've also toyed with the concept of a common "surrender area". But, after thinking about it, I don't think it provides a satisfactory protection vs gaminess.

Consider, for instance: Japan sets up a somewhat strong force to the west of Harbin in M/A 40. Russia responds by building many land units in the cities they have in the area (which mostly means to the east of Manchuria). Japan attacks in M/J, and manages to reach the railroad junction to the east of Chita, as well as maintain control of a strip of hexes all the way down to China.

Meanwhile, Russia is winning the war in the east of Manchuria, particularily in the South. They take Harbin and Kirin, and gradually push their way down to Port Arthur. Russia in not able to cross the Nen River in M/J. In J/A Russia builds additional reinforcements in the far east, and are now far stronger than the Japanese in the area. During that turn, they both capture Port Arthur, and also penetrates the Nen river. But during the turn Japan manages to take a few extra hexes to the north of the railroad at Chita, making it almost impossible for Russian units to walk around the Japanese controlled territory. (10 or so mountain hexes).

Realizing that the Russians are too strong, the Japanese surrenders at the end of J/A 40.

Now, what should be done about the hexes that Japan controls around Chita? If Japan gets to keep these hexes, the Russian army for sure will not be able to relocate to Europe before a M/J 1941 (which will be catastrophic if there is a Barbarossa).

Personally, I think it would be best, safest and easiest if only the winner of the war (the one NOT surrendering) gets to keep the hexes that he controls, on top of the regular surrender areas, while the loser always should be forced to give up any territory gained after the war was declared. If both sides agree, they can of course make another treaty, but in order to be able to enforce a peace treaty, the surrendering party should be forced to give up any territory considered essential by the victor.

If this is too difficult to code, then at least make sure that Japan has to give up any controlled Mongolian or Russian home country hex when surrendering, while making sure that Russia have to give up any controlled Manchurian or Chinese hex when surrendering, as well as probably any hex in south east asia. (A crazy russian player could DOW Japan in 1942 or so, and quickly invade the philipines, Hong Kong, NEI, etc, and then surrender. (Especially if anticipating an upcoming Japanese attack).

As for the partitioning line for territory that Russia has to give to Japan when surrendering, I believe the line should be drawn directly north-south, from map edge to map edge. This means of course that Russia would keep no Pacific coastline after surrendering. In particular, I don't think Russia should be able to keep any ports on the Pacific map after surrendering. In fact, I believe that preventing a future Russian pacific fleet would be a primary objective for the Japanese high command when considering any such peace treaty.

Cheers
Hakon
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: hakon

Hi.

I've also toyed with the concept of a common "surrender area". But, after thinking about it, I don't think it provides a satisfactory protection vs gaminess.

Consider, for instance: Japan sets up a somewhat strong force to the west of Harbin in M/A 40. Russia responds by building many land units in the cities they have in the area (which mostly means to the east of Manchuria). Japan attacks in M/J, and manages to reach the railroad junction to the east of Chita, as well as maintain control of a strip of hexes all the way down to China.

Meanwhile, Russia is winning the war in the east of Manchuria, particularily in the South. They take Harbin and Kirin, and gradually push their way down to Port Arthur. Russia in not able to cross the Nen River in M/J. In J/A Russia builds additional reinforcements in the far east, and are now far stronger than the Japanese in the area. During that turn, they both capture Port Arthur, and also penetrates the Nen river. But during the turn Japan manages to take a few extra hexes to the north of the railroad at Chita, making it almost impossible for Russian units to walk around the Japanese controlled territory. (10 or so mountain hexes).

Realizing that the Russians are too strong, the Japanese surrenders at the end of J/A 40.

Now, what should be done about the hexes that Japan controls around Chita? If Japan gets to keep these hexes, the Russian army for sure will not be able to relocate to Europe before a M/J 1941 (which will be catastrophic if there is a Barbarossa).

Personally, I think it would be best, safest and easiest if only the winner of the war (the one NOT surrendering) gets to keep the hexes that he controls, on top of the regular surrender areas, while the loser always should be forced to give up any territory gained after the war was declared. If both sides agree, they can of course make another treaty, but in order to be able to enforce a peace treaty, the surrendering party should be forced to give up any territory considered essential by the victor.

If this is too difficult to code, then at least make sure that Japan has to give up any controlled Mongolian or Russian home country hex when surrendering, while making sure that Russia have to give up any controlled Manchurian or Chinese hex when surrendering, as well as probably any hex in south east asia. (A crazy russian player could DOW Japan in 1942 or so, and quickly invade the philipines, Hong Kong, NEI, etc, and then surrender. (Especially if anticipating an upcoming Japanese attack).

As for the partitioning line for territory that Russia has to give to Japan when surrendering, I believe the line should be drawn directly north-south, from map edge to map edge. This means of course that Russia would keep no Pacific coastline after surrendering. In particular, I don't think Russia should be able to keep any ports on the Pacific map after surrendering. In fact, I believe that preventing a future Russian pacific fleet would be a primary objective for the Japanese high command when considering any such peace treaty.

Cheers
Hakon
If you read the text to the right of the screen shot, you'll see that the idea is the side which surrenders gives back any hexes they have taken from the other major power.

As surrender is defined above, the only ports that the USSR would retain in the Pacific would be minor ones and they would all be out of supply.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
lavisj
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:02 pm

RE: WiF Annual 2008

Post by lavisj »

ORIGINAL: hakon

Hi.

I've also toyed with the concept of a common "surrender area". But, after thinking about it, I don't think it provides a satisfactory protection vs gaminess.

Consider, for instance: Japan sets up a somewhat strong force to the west of Harbin in M/A 40. Russia responds by building many land units in the cities they have in the area (which mostly means to the east of Manchuria). Japan attacks in M/J, and manages to reach the railroad junction to the east of Chita, as well as maintain control of a strip of hexes all the way down to China.

Meanwhile, Russia is winning the war in the east of Manchuria, particularily in the South. They take Harbin and Kirin, and gradually push their way down to Port Arthur. Russia in not able to cross the Nen River in M/J. In J/A Russia builds additional reinforcements in the far east, and are now far stronger than the Japanese in the area. During that turn, they both capture Port Arthur, and also penetrates the Nen river. But during the turn Japan manages to take a few extra hexes to the north of the railroad at Chita, making it almost impossible for Russian units to walk around the Japanese controlled territory. (10 or so mountain hexes).

Realizing that the Russians are too strong, the Japanese surrenders at the end of J/A 40.

Now, what should be done about the hexes that Japan controls around Chita? If Japan gets to keep these hexes, the Russian army for sure will not be able to relocate to Europe before a M/J 1941 (which will be catastrophic if there is a Barbarossa).

Personally, I think it would be best, safest and easiest if only the winner of the war (the one NOT surrendering) gets to keep the hexes that he controls, on top of the regular surrender areas, while the loser always should be forced to give up any territory gained after the war was declared. If both sides agree, they can of course make another treaty, but in order to be able to enforce a peace treaty, the surrendering party should be forced to give up any territory considered essential by the victor.

If this is too difficult to code, then at least make sure that Japan has to give up any controlled Mongolian or Russian home country hex when surrendering, while making sure that Russia have to give up any controlled Manchurian or Chinese hex when surrendering, as well as probably any hex in south east asia. (A crazy russian player could DOW Japan in 1942 or so, and quickly invade the philipines, Hong Kong, NEI, etc, and then surrender. (Especially if anticipating an upcoming Japanese attack).

As for the partitioning line for territory that Russia has to give to Japan when surrendering, I believe the line should be drawn directly north-south, from map edge to map edge. This means of course that Russia would keep no Pacific coastline after surrendering. In particular, I don't think Russia should be able to keep any ports on the Pacific map after surrendering. In fact, I believe that preventing a future Russian pacific fleet would be a primary objective for the Japanese high command when considering any such peace treaty.

Cheers
Hakon

Hakon, in your exemple, wouldn't the hexes that Japan controls in the Russian territory be reverted back to Russia because Japan lacks a coast hexes that links them to Japan?

But the rule could still be taken advantages. For exemple, Japan could capture Vladivostock and the 2 ressources next to it, while abandoning Manchouria. Then surrender during 1940. The net loss for Japan is only 1 BP then. But Japan can DoW again in MJ41 when Barbarossa starts and reclaim easily pretty much all the terrain surrendered.

Jerome
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”