Is the Mutual Peace Phase not working in the Global War Scenario (V.1.2.1.5)? Selecting/Deselecting the Skip Initiate Peace Phase Checkbox in the Disable Phases Form seems to do nothing, producing always the same result: the Mutual Peace Phase is skipped and an option for establishing Nonagression Pacts or peace between warring Major Powers ist not given.
with kind regards
Mutual Peace Phase
Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets
Mutual Peace Phase
And it is also my belief that there has to be CAP for the active player during Ground Support.
RE: Mutual Peace Phase
Mutual Peace is not yet implemented.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
-
joshuamnave
- Posts: 967
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:51 am
- Contact:
RE: Mutual Peace Phase
Not yet implemented or not going to be implemented? I thought the difficulties of coding an open ended negotiation meant this one wasn't going to happen at all.
Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky
RE: Mutual Peace Phase
I thought that a variant of this was going to be implemented. I do remember that there was a discussion about it but I do not remember what the result of it was.ORIGINAL: Zartacla
Not yet implemented or not going to be implemented? I thought the difficulties of coding an open ended negotiation meant this one wasn't going to happen at all.
I suppose someone will clear it up soon enough.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
RE: Mutual Peace Phase
ORIGINAL: Orm
I thought that a variant of this was going to be implemented. I do remember that there was a discussion about it but I do not remember what the result of it was.ORIGINAL: Zartacla
Not yet implemented or not going to be implemented? I thought the difficulties of coding an open ended negotiation meant this one wasn't going to happen at all.
I suppose someone will clear it up soon enough.
Orm, I think you have it right. There needs to be some sort of implementation, but it will have to be a bit adapted as the current rules are a nightmare to code.
RE: Mutual Peace Phase
There is this line in RAW which makes coding this very difficult:
Two major powers at war can agree to come to peace on any terms mutually acceptable (except for transferring units).
In the FAQ it is put into this:
Is “Whatever they agree between themselves” entirely accurate or are some terms out of bounds within a World in Flames framework. I imagine surrendering foreign possessions will be a common term. What about the home country. Can Germany take back Alsace Lorraine? Are these then part of the German home country or do they remain conquered hexes? Reparations, can RP or BP be part of the treaty? Disarming forces? Production limitation? Confiscation of ships? Planes? Tanks? Demilitarized zones? Terms for breaking pact? Change of ideology?. This section of the rules may need some more meat on the bones.
And the answer is so very short...
You can do anything you like within the bounds of the rules. You may not change sides nor unilaterally decide what is now part of your home country nor transfer units. Date 28/12/2007
First: what's not allowed according to the rules. That is that you can't force a major power to change sides and you can't expand your home country. That's it, everything else goes, if there is a rule for it in MWIF somewhere...
What this really means to code is horrendous.
For example: Imagine that the Soviet Union comes to a peace with Japan (optional rule not used) and has conquered Finland...
It is possible for Japan to ask that the USSR gives up a conquered Finland to Germany... How to code this? Or Japan can ask for Mongolia, or is this impossible since this invokes the transfer of the Mongolian CAV? What is meant by not transferring units? Does that mean the minor country involved can't be given to Japan if it has units on the map? Is the removal of units from the map allowed or not (is this transferring units)? Can you force the Major Power into destroying units and also scrap them (or is this transferring of units)? Or is this against the rules generally, since no major power can destroy it's own units (except when they can't rebase...)?
Since you are doing this in the Mutual Peace phase, you can even ask for a trade agreement. But what is this for a trade agreement? Is it an agreement as stated in the rulebook (a mandatory one), or can the USSR simply say to Japan: "bad luck, you don't get these resources or build points you asked for this turn"? It isn't covered by the rulebook at all, since it isn't a trade agreement which is in place at start of Global War, but a result of the Mutual Peace agreement...
And than there is the neutrality pact. Suppose the players agree on: "we come to peace, we have a trade agreement and the moment that agreement isn't fullfilled, the neutrality pact is immediately cancelled". Can this happen? If so, how to code this? Or: "if a USSR unit is moved within 6 hexes of any Japanese controlled hex, the neutrality pact is immediately cancelled"? Is this allowed to be put as extra conditions on a neutrality pact? Such things are in the Ribbentrop/Molotov pact in MWIF, so it isn't against the rules. But to code this?
Sure, there is code for trade agreements/lending resources. There is code to relocate units (out of Vichy or minors like Rumania and Finland). There is code by which we can change ownership of hexes and countries/territories between player (in the debug tool). Trade agreements and neutrality pacts are coded...
What's really needed for this rule to be coded is to define "any terms". Because "any terms" can't be coded at all...
Two major powers at war can agree to come to peace on any terms mutually acceptable (except for transferring units).
In the FAQ it is put into this:
Is “Whatever they agree between themselves” entirely accurate or are some terms out of bounds within a World in Flames framework. I imagine surrendering foreign possessions will be a common term. What about the home country. Can Germany take back Alsace Lorraine? Are these then part of the German home country or do they remain conquered hexes? Reparations, can RP or BP be part of the treaty? Disarming forces? Production limitation? Confiscation of ships? Planes? Tanks? Demilitarized zones? Terms for breaking pact? Change of ideology?. This section of the rules may need some more meat on the bones.
And the answer is so very short...
You can do anything you like within the bounds of the rules. You may not change sides nor unilaterally decide what is now part of your home country nor transfer units. Date 28/12/2007
First: what's not allowed according to the rules. That is that you can't force a major power to change sides and you can't expand your home country. That's it, everything else goes, if there is a rule for it in MWIF somewhere...
What this really means to code is horrendous.
For example: Imagine that the Soviet Union comes to a peace with Japan (optional rule not used) and has conquered Finland...
It is possible for Japan to ask that the USSR gives up a conquered Finland to Germany... How to code this? Or Japan can ask for Mongolia, or is this impossible since this invokes the transfer of the Mongolian CAV? What is meant by not transferring units? Does that mean the minor country involved can't be given to Japan if it has units on the map? Is the removal of units from the map allowed or not (is this transferring units)? Can you force the Major Power into destroying units and also scrap them (or is this transferring of units)? Or is this against the rules generally, since no major power can destroy it's own units (except when they can't rebase...)?
Since you are doing this in the Mutual Peace phase, you can even ask for a trade agreement. But what is this for a trade agreement? Is it an agreement as stated in the rulebook (a mandatory one), or can the USSR simply say to Japan: "bad luck, you don't get these resources or build points you asked for this turn"? It isn't covered by the rulebook at all, since it isn't a trade agreement which is in place at start of Global War, but a result of the Mutual Peace agreement...
And than there is the neutrality pact. Suppose the players agree on: "we come to peace, we have a trade agreement and the moment that agreement isn't fullfilled, the neutrality pact is immediately cancelled". Can this happen? If so, how to code this? Or: "if a USSR unit is moved within 6 hexes of any Japanese controlled hex, the neutrality pact is immediately cancelled"? Is this allowed to be put as extra conditions on a neutrality pact? Such things are in the Ribbentrop/Molotov pact in MWIF, so it isn't against the rules. But to code this?
Sure, there is code for trade agreements/lending resources. There is code to relocate units (out of Vichy or minors like Rumania and Finland). There is code by which we can change ownership of hexes and countries/territories between player (in the debug tool). Trade agreements and neutrality pacts are coded...
What's really needed for this rule to be coded is to define "any terms". Because "any terms" can't be coded at all...
Peter
-
brian brian
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm
RE: Mutual Peace Phase
no one would complain if this was done with a more limited set of possibilities than "any terms". after all, how many could there really be, besides a few basics of trade agreements, a neutrality pact, and some hex control changes? My ships won't sail past that one sea-Zone? I promise to flip my HQ-A after each first impulse of a turn? that would be within the bounds of the rules but obviously not needed.
RE: Mutual Peace Phase
Wow. With this group here you think no one would complain if this had limitations [X(]? Somehow I think this would not be the case [:D]
But how many times does this actually occur in games. I would think it is almost non-existent. If so then why even bothering at all?
But how many times does this actually occur in games. I would think it is almost non-existent. If so then why even bothering at all?
-
brian brian
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm
RE: Mutual Peace Phase
World in Flames is designed to be a multi-player game with a single winner. Giving Russia and Japan diplomatic and strategy options is part of the game, and allows the full exploration of alternative decisions in WWII. In MWiF currently, if either starts a war with the other, it doesn't end until the end of the game. Normally playing World in Flames, there are a large number of other possible outcomes to that.
RE: Mutual Peace Phase
In Player Manual 1, page 134, there is written how Steve thinks to code this. I think this is difficult enough to code, but it should be possible to do...
Peter
RE: Mutual Peace Phase
ORIGINAL: brian brian
World in Flames is designed to be a multi-player game with a single winner. Giving Russia and Japan diplomatic and strategy options is part of the game, and allows the full exploration of alternative decisions in WWII. In MWiF currently, if either starts a war with the other, it doesn't end until the end of the game. Normally playing World in Flames, there are a large number of other possible outcomes to that.
I appreciate the response, but no answer to the number of times this occurs in games was provided. If in 100 games this happens 2-3 times, then coding this when so many things need to be done does not make sense. If it occurs 30 times out of 100 then that may be worthwhile to code.
I agree that having this in the game would be nice, but not at the expense of other items that impact the game far more. Especially if my assumption on the number of times this occurs is very very small.
-
brian brian
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm
RE: Mutual Peace Phase
Well perhaps more common is to use the Russia-Japan Compulsory Peace Rule and that definitely needs to be coded, and is more on the minds of people experienced with the cardboard. That rule is used regularly.
A Russia and Japan that actually use the Mutual Peace rules is a more rare event, yes. I can't say much about that one as the bulk of my playing experience in the 21st century is two player only, and then there is zero point to making any kind of negotiation or terms. Also, in my opinion, in a two player game, Russia has far less incentive to ever go to peace than Japan. Russia can only lose a red factory and four resources. Japan is going to take the red factory and at least two resources before they consider any peace anyway, every time. Perhaps the new map will make the 3rd and 4th resources that much harder for Japan to get, so Russia might want peace. But then Russia has the new wonder-base of Komsomolsk on the new map (MWiF can't change World in Flames … except where it is going to change it), which I still feel is a complete joke. Any given Reinforcement phase, it can magically launch a new offensive of various types towards Japanese possessions from the edge of the Siberian wilderness, even if cut off from the rest of Russia by a smart Japan cutting the Trans-Siberian at it's first opportunity, and Japan would have to march a long way to get Komsomolsk away from them. I would demand the hex in a Mutual Peace negotiation on the new map, that is for sure, along with the other cities on the Trans-Siberian.
But if Russia has already lost everything in the Far East, it should never go to peace, because it has unlimited opportunity to mess with Japan with cheap raids, and the tiny Japanese Army will have a hard time dealing with that. A half-dozen Russian cavalry divisions with a couple TB-3 bomber-ATRs backing them up would likely disintegrate Japanese positions in north-east Asia on the new map.
That's where negotiations come in. Just as in the real WWII. The West wanted Russia to help with the war against Japan, though probably they regretted that later as it turned out. The West was helping to prop up the Russian war effort in Europe….Japan and Russia want things from each other. Their allies want things from them….
Russia and Japan having the ability to trade with each other and start or stop a war between the two makes them a lot more independent Major Powers, and that is the point of the game - to win the game out right, not to be on the winning team.
But that idea is somewhat generally frowned upon at times in World in Flames. At WiFCon, a Russia-Japan agreement is explicitly forbidden, because of the disagreements among allies it can cause, and no one wants anyone's vacation ruined by a gamergate argument. (I disagree with forbidding it though)
And I would note that probably the #1 way for the Allies to lose World in Flames is for the Russians to get heavily bogged down in a war of pride with Japan before the German wolf appears to chomp up all of Mother Russia. (#2 is for the the Wallies to spend so much on capital ships that the Germans can ignore them while they take Mother Russia and the Wallies do nothing). The Russians can suddenly need Peace … they have a lot of oil….Japan needs oil…..
A Russia and Japan that actually use the Mutual Peace rules is a more rare event, yes. I can't say much about that one as the bulk of my playing experience in the 21st century is two player only, and then there is zero point to making any kind of negotiation or terms. Also, in my opinion, in a two player game, Russia has far less incentive to ever go to peace than Japan. Russia can only lose a red factory and four resources. Japan is going to take the red factory and at least two resources before they consider any peace anyway, every time. Perhaps the new map will make the 3rd and 4th resources that much harder for Japan to get, so Russia might want peace. But then Russia has the new wonder-base of Komsomolsk on the new map (MWiF can't change World in Flames … except where it is going to change it), which I still feel is a complete joke. Any given Reinforcement phase, it can magically launch a new offensive of various types towards Japanese possessions from the edge of the Siberian wilderness, even if cut off from the rest of Russia by a smart Japan cutting the Trans-Siberian at it's first opportunity, and Japan would have to march a long way to get Komsomolsk away from them. I would demand the hex in a Mutual Peace negotiation on the new map, that is for sure, along with the other cities on the Trans-Siberian.
But if Russia has already lost everything in the Far East, it should never go to peace, because it has unlimited opportunity to mess with Japan with cheap raids, and the tiny Japanese Army will have a hard time dealing with that. A half-dozen Russian cavalry divisions with a couple TB-3 bomber-ATRs backing them up would likely disintegrate Japanese positions in north-east Asia on the new map.
That's where negotiations come in. Just as in the real WWII. The West wanted Russia to help with the war against Japan, though probably they regretted that later as it turned out. The West was helping to prop up the Russian war effort in Europe….Japan and Russia want things from each other. Their allies want things from them….
Russia and Japan having the ability to trade with each other and start or stop a war between the two makes them a lot more independent Major Powers, and that is the point of the game - to win the game out right, not to be on the winning team.
But that idea is somewhat generally frowned upon at times in World in Flames. At WiFCon, a Russia-Japan agreement is explicitly forbidden, because of the disagreements among allies it can cause, and no one wants anyone's vacation ruined by a gamergate argument. (I disagree with forbidding it though)
And I would note that probably the #1 way for the Allies to lose World in Flames is for the Russians to get heavily bogged down in a war of pride with Japan before the German wolf appears to chomp up all of Mother Russia. (#2 is for the the Wallies to spend so much on capital ships that the Germans can ignore them while they take Mother Russia and the Wallies do nothing). The Russians can suddenly need Peace … they have a lot of oil….Japan needs oil…..
RE: Mutual Peace Phase
Exactly. In a multiplayer game, IMHO it is perfectly all right for the USSR to make a neutrality pact with Japan somewhere along in the game. If the Japan-China war doesn't look like it is going to be a victory for the Japanese (that is: the Chinese survive), I would like to see a neutrality pact in place with Japan early 1941 as the USSR. I will than happily trade one or two oil resources in exchange (which I grab from Persia and Iraq as the USSR).
Remember, I'm Uncle Joe Stalin and only interested in the USSR surviving the game. The USSR chances on survival are much greater if Japan can't take China out and there is peace in the east...
That this is forbidden at Wifcon is a shame. It shouldn't be, since each player fends for himself first and for the group second in a multiplayer game...
Remember, I'm Uncle Joe Stalin and only interested in the USSR surviving the game. The USSR chances on survival are much greater if Japan can't take China out and there is peace in the east...
That this is forbidden at Wifcon is a shame. It shouldn't be, since each player fends for himself first and for the group second in a multiplayer game...
Peter