Option 47

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I know there is a difference between a beer and a cat as well. But how Yogi spells his name has any relevance with option 47 eludes me. [;)]

"Can we get back to optional rule 47 or is it like beating a dead horse now, or bear."

Orm this was my post # 166, I tried but I failed to get it back on track of course I am guilty also for helping to keep it off track, [:(] I could be wrong Orm but I think it ran out of steam, some players like it some don't on and on, Steve will put it in Steve wont put it in, [&:] I feel the other was just a little levity before some posts reached "Critical Mass" [;)]

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Well I did point out opinions on Option 47 were polarized, so maybe someone thought...

Very polarized paul, I trust your judgement in the game of WIF and MWIF. Is it good for the game rule 47 being in. I guess in other words if you had the option would you put it in. Not trying to put you on the spot, I have no opinion as I have never played a real game, and really never noticed whether isolated units were reorganizing at the end of the turn probably because I never left units in my rear area while I was testing.

Never even heard of it even when Warhunter started this post on 06/11/2014, it went right over my head [easy to do] After seeing some posts recently I went back and read all of the post negative and positive, I actually read the rule for the first time.

I understand it now and I am still not sure if it is good for the game or not, is it realistic or not, or is it just a game and lets not get uptight about it.

Bo

[Orm]

I am sorry Bo. I didn't mean to stop your fun. Please forgive me. I am just a grumpy, old bear.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I am sorry Bo. I didn't mean to stop your fun. Please forgive me. I am just a grumpy, old bear.

Orm please, you were 100% correct, I think after some 170 posts maybe it had lost its momentum, err I noticed Orm you got the word bear in there [:D] So how how do you feel about # 47.

You also have the dark days blues which is starting to change in Sweden and soon the cherry blossoms, [ah, I can smell them already] blooming again and all that grumpiness will be a forgotten memory [&:] until October when the dark days start again [:(]

Bo

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: bo
Very polarized paul, I trust your judgement in the game of WIF and MWIF. Is it good for the game rule 47 being in. I guess in other words if you had the option would you put it in. Not trying to put you on the spot, I have no opinion as I have never played a real game, and really never noticed whether isolated units were reorganizing at the end of the turn probably because I never left units in my rear area while I was testing.

Ideally I'd like to see it in MWiF as an option for people to use if they agreed to do so.

But I don't think MWiF is broken without it.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: bo
Very polarized paul, I trust your judgement in the game of WIF and MWIF. Is it good for the game rule 47 being in. I guess in other words if you had the option would you put it in. Not trying to put you on the spot, I have no opinion as I have never played a real game, and really never noticed whether isolated units were reorganizing at the end of the turn probably because I never left units in my rear area while I was testing.

Ideally I'd like to see it in MWiF as an option for people to use if they agreed to do so.

But I don't think MWiF is broken without it.

+1

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: bo
Very polarized paul, I trust your judgement in the game of WIF and MWIF. Is it good for the game rule 47 being in. I guess in other words if you had the option would you put it in. Not trying to put you on the spot, I have no opinion as I have never played a real game, and really never noticed whether isolated units were reorganizing at the end of the turn probably because I never left units in my rear area while I was testing.

Ideally I'd like to see it in MWiF as an option for people to use if they agreed to do so.

But I don't think MWiF is broken without it.

+1

Another one of those posts with the beta testers patting themselves on the back. "We have the tool, we have what we want from the game, and we aren't dealing with any game-breaking bugs. We have the developer to fix them."

I'm relatively sure Zartacla would agree. My guess is he's moved on already, like I should.

[bo]

I'm relatively sure Zartacla would agree. My guess is he's moved on already, like I should.

Yep probably a good idea [;)]

Bo

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: paulderynck



Ideally I'd like to see it in MWiF as an option for people to use if they agreed to do so.

But I don't think MWiF is broken without it.

+1

Another one of those posts with the beta testers patting themselves on the back. "We have the tool, we have what we want from the game, and we aren't dealing with any game-breaking bugs. We have the developer to fix them."

I'm relatively sure Zartacla would agree. My guess is he's moved on already, like I should.

warspite1

Zorachus99 that is disappointing coming from you. I know you are frustrated by this one optional in particular - and FWIW I agree that some of these options and/or single map scenarios should be coded sooner rather than later for the reasons I have previously outlined.

But come on, you are starting to sound like certain immature posters - and we know who we are talking about here - with this totally unwarranted comment:

Another one of those posts with the beta testers patting themselves on the back. "We have the tool, we have what we want from the game, and we aren't dealing with any game-breaking bugs. We have the developer to fix them."

Why would the betatesters be any less frustrated about the situation than you? You think they deserve this ****? You think they decide the direction of travel for this game? Without them slow progress becomes no progress. Is that better?

Who is not dealing with game-breaking bugs?

They have the tool? Yes, and they rarely get to play the game because they are testing it.

Who exactly has what they want from the game? Er, that would be no one from where I am sitting?

The fact is - sadly - there is so much to be done just to get netplay and game breaking bugs working that it appears there will be no quick win on the optional rules - BUT NO ONE, LEAST OF ALL THE BETA TESTERS, ARE HAPPY WITH THE SITUATION.

Optional 47 is important to you personally and you consider it a deal breaker, and I am sorry about that. But you are not the only one out there that has elements they want coded. You mention Zartacla, but there are loads of others too. If he/they have moved on then hopefully it will be only temporarily while this gets sorted.

Fact is Optional 47 IS optional so when anyone states the game is not broken without it they are merely stating fact - it does NOT mean they are happy with the situation.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: paulderynck



Ideally I'd like to see it in MWiF as an option for people to use if they agreed to do so.

But I don't think MWiF is broken without it.

+1

Another one of those posts with the beta testers patting themselves on the back. "We have the tool, we have what we want from the game, and we aren't dealing with any game-breaking bugs. We have the developer to fix them."

I'm relatively sure Zartacla would agree. My guess is he's moved on already, like I should.

Thanks for the non-quote.

You miss the point because you have tunnel vision on this one. You say supply is broken because an optional rule wasn't included. That's simply untrue.

In the Teamviewer game we enforced Option 47 by fixing a game save exactly once for exactly one unit to this point. It is now JA40 in Global War. If during option choices we'd agreed to play without that option, we wouldn't have bothered and it would have made very little difference to the outcome so far, nor the quality of the gaming experience.

It just doesn't come up that often (or shouldn't, depending on how folks play). Hence the offer to "fix" your files. Since that offer has never been accepted by anyone, that would seem to be an indication of the frequency of the need, wouldn't it?

[brian brian]

I've been playing with a House Rule of Option 47 ever since my 2nd game of World in Flames, under 4th Edition rules in the year 1991. I've never heard anyone suggest not using it in pre-game optional rules negotiations, ever. It is probably common to use a House Rule to solve the problem of key units being "in jail" by simply allowing players to remove them from the map, rather than not use Option 47 at all. I would predict at least an 80% use rate if WiF players were polled on the question of using it.

The only reason that I can see that it wasn't included as a core part of MWiF was the 5th Edition perspective of the whole project, as if Final Edition was just a change from d6 to d10 but otherwise the same game.

World in Flames has a lot of playability fudges, particularly in logistics. The German Army could not advance it's logistic front into Russia by 400km in ten days the way the Manstein or Rommel HQ-A can do it in the game. The players of World in Flames itself (not just MWiF) are continually asked to ignore the fudges in the interests of simplicity for everyone else. Option 47 is somewhat of a help in reducing those, and I agree with Zartacia on this one. Option 47 changes play on the Russian Front. The WWII standard of bypassing enemy pockets with armor and mopping them up later is a lesser tactic when units cut off from their logistics for weeks at a time can still function at 100% combat effectiveness, unless you devote front line artillery and aircraft to reducing isolated enemy units that are unlikely to fight as well as units still supplied normally. These are not 19th Century infantry units that can raid farms for food and every soldier can physically carry enough ammunition for an entire day of combat.

[warspite1]

Surely being able to attack counts toward 100% combat effectiveness and out of supply units cannot attack?

[bo]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I've been playing with a House Rule of Option 47 ever since my 2nd game of World in Flames, under 4th Edition rules in the year 1991. I've never heard anyone suggest not using it in pre-game optional rules negotiations, ever. It is probably common to use a House Rule to solve the problem of key units being "in jail" by simply allowing players to remove them from the map, rather than not use Option 47 at all. I would predict at least an 80% use rate if WiF players were polled on the question of using it.

The only reason that I can see that it wasn't included as a core part of MWiF was the 5th Edition perspective of the whole project, as if Final Edition was just a change from d6 to d10 but otherwise the same game.

World in Flames has a lot of playability fudges, particularly in logistics. The German Army could not advance it's logistic front into Russia by 400km in ten days the way the Manstein or Rommel HQ-A can do it in the game. The players of World in Flames itself (not just MWiF) are continually asked to ignore the fudges in the interests of simplicity for everyone else. Option 47 is somewhat of a help in reducing those, and I agree with Zartacia on this one. Option 47 changes play on the Russian Front. The WWII standard of bypassing enemy pockets with armor and mopping them up later is a lesser tactic when units cut off from their logistics for weeks at a time can still function at 100% combat effectiveness, unless you devote front line artillery and aircraft to reducing isolated enemy units that are unlikely to fight as well as units still supplied normally. These are not 19th Century infantry units that can raid farms for food and every soldier can physically carry enough ammunition for an entire day of combat.

This is why I love the posts, I have learned more about this game then reading any old rules [:(][which I don't] Actually the rule makes sense and you make sense brian brian, you explained your interpretation of the rule without being argumentative which does not seem to be a good trait here at times [;)]

I think sometimes conflict arises with these rules because it is what it is a board game transferred to the computer, a good game but just a game, the makers of these rules tried the best they could to make it realistic in accordance with what happened in WW2.

There is no question IMO that the computer game is a much better way to play the game than the board game, that is if all the components were installed properly. I mean by that is there can be no supply mistakes or what unit can move farther then it was allowed by mistake, do not have to take the board down at night for dinner, long setups etc.

The positive side of the board game might be good friends sitting there having a Budweiser [;)] talking about world events while playing, being able to see the whole map quickly as compared to small sections playing the computer game, also in the board game turning over a 7/6 unit that is isolated and out of supply and keeping it that way if option 47 is in effect. [:(]

Keeping it optional might bode well for the game but IMO someday Steve has to put it into the game, of course as an option [;)]

Bo

[brian brian]

By 100% combat effectiveness I meant on defense. It is more than a little frustrating to successfully flip / disorganize two Soviet Infantry Armies of the Southwest Front on the plains of the Ukraine, bypass them with Panzer spearheads, and then have the turn end and have to start over on reducing the enemy pocket, which once again defends at full strength. The historical Germans took hundreds of thousands of prisoners in that situation, with weak resistance. The binary nature of the simple to play game World in Flames leads to realism problems, and Option 47 is of acute interest to players interested in realism, far more than any need to code Supply Units or Large ATR options. If the supply rules work it is really hard to understand why Option 47 can't work though I know it has been explained.

Continually being locked out of being able to control the software you purchase also seems to be a relic of the 20th century. Purchasing the game should give you access to the beta versions if you so desire and I can't understand that either. It's just a game, not a cutting edge mobile OS full of proprietary secrets that could be monetized by the competitors. And I know that has been explained too.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
The only reason that I can see that it wasn't included as a core part of MWiF was the 5th Edition perspective of the whole project, as if Final Edition was just a change from d6 to d10 but otherwise the same game.

As I stated earlier in this thread (and I was "there"), it wasn't included because of the performance issues it caused to the supply tracing routines because the supply path can be unlimited and doesn't even require RR connectivity to get from FREX Vlad to Gibraltar. And unlike tracing to oil the number of possible "sources" is far in excess of what you see for stored oil/owned oil resources. And the quantity of the sources is dependent on who's at war with who and who cooperates with who.

We can all remember early on how the first supply fixes worked but sometimes the wait for supply to recalculate was extreme. Maybe now that Steve has invested so much time in optimizing the supply routines, this can be looked at again.

There was also talk about setting a hex distance that would be considered long enough, that as a compromise, should it be exceeded, then the supply trace would be classed as a "fail". However at that time there wasn't a consensus on how far that should be, nor is one likely now with far more viewpoints likely to be expressed.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

By 100% combat effectiveness I meant on defense. It is more than a little frustrating to successfully flip / disorganize two Soviet Infantry Armies of the Southwest Front on the plains of the Ukraine, bypass them with Panzer spearheads, and then have the turn end and have to start over on reducing the enemy pocket, which once again defends at full strength. The historical Germans took hundreds of thousands of prisoners in that situation, with weak resistance. The binary nature of the simple to play game World in Flames leads to realism problems, and Option 47 is of acute interest to players interested in realism, far more than any need to code Supply Units or Large ATR options. If the supply rules work it is really hard to understand why Option 47 can't work though I know it has been explained.

Continually being locked out of being able to control the software you purchase also seems to be a relic of the 20th century. Purchasing the game should give you access to the beta versions if you so desire and I can't understand that either. It's just a game, not a cutting edge mobile OS full of proprietary secrets that could be monetized by the competitors. And I know that has been explained too.

warspite1

Yes, but a bit of context here (see post 108). When the Germans surrounded those Soviet pockets (and the same for the Soviets when coming back against the Germans later in the war) they did not just cut-off the enemy and then continue blithely on. Both sides still took much by way of time and resources to annihilate the trapped armies.

Remember we are talking 2-month turns. In real life the advancing armies could not simply continue on and ignore those surrounded. IF in MWIF a player chooses (unrealistically) to do so then, without Option 47, that surrounded army will have a chance to "re-organise" - albeit not re-supply or re-equip and so be unable to mount an attack.

I just do not see this as a deal breaker.

[Larry Smith]

I've been perusing a number of sites online that attempt to explain some of the inconsistencies with what the situation was between Germany and the Soviets in 1941. One site was even using a tagline that "Hitler saved Europe". The theory isn't new - that the Soviets under Stalin were building up to invade Europe. Why else were their forces bunched up so close to the frontier? Why else did they need so many paratroops [some reports claim they had 1 million trained, though it was doubtful they were properly trained]? What good was the BT tank design [it could shed its tracks to drive fast on proper roads] when Eastern Europe had such poor roadways? Yet something I had never considered was how the politics came into it. One site apparently mentioned a quote by Stalin, whereby he told junior officers at a military academy that the Nazi-Soviet pact was "merely a curtain behind which we may do our real work". The purges were not just to remove possible threats, but to make room for more aggressive juniors, and to remove those who were against invading the west. Just a few of the sites. Some of the articles posted appear to have been written almost a century ago, so not all of it is blessed with the perspective of post-war knowledge.
How this fits into this thread - well, there were many reasons why so many Soviet troops surrendered so readily in the early days of the invasion. They had not been properly trained for defensive fighting; they were not supportive of the Soviet regime; they didn't understand the real nature of the German leadership... Perhaps a House Rule wherein out of supply Soviet units have a chance of surrendering instead of fighting, at least before the winter hit. With the lack of shelter and food, and the Germans so short on winterized gear and clothing, the true nature of the Nazi beast would have been there for all to see.
Here are some of those links...
http://rense.com/general95/did.htm
http://www.2worldwar2.com/
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/script ... plans.html
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/script ... lcome.html

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: Larry Smith

I've been perusing a number of sites online that attempt to explain some of the inconsistencies with what the situation was between Germany and the Soviets in 1941. One site was even using a tagline that "Hitler saved Europe". The theory isn't new - that the Soviets under Stalin were building up to invade Europe. Why else were their forces bunched up so close to the frontier? Why else did they need so many paratroops [some reports claim they had 1 million trained, though it was doubtful they were properly trained]? What good was the BT tank design [it could shed its tracks to drive fast on proper roads] when Eastern Europe had such poor roadways? Yet something I had never considered was how the politics came into it. One site apparently mentioned a quote by Stalin, whereby he told junior officers at a military academy that the Nazi-Soviet pact was "merely a curtain behind which we may do our real work". The purges were not just to remove possible threats, but to make room for more aggressive juniors, and to remove those who were against invading the west. Just a few of the sites. Some of the articles posted appear to have been written almost a century ago, so not all of it is blessed with the perspective of post-war knowledge.
How this fits into this thread - well, there were many reasons why so many Soviet troops surrendered so readily in the early days of the invasion. They had not been properly trained for defensive fighting; they were not supportive of the Soviet regime; they didn't understand the real nature of the German leadership... Perhaps a House Rule wherein out of supply Soviet units have a chance of surrendering instead of fighting, at least before the winter hit. With the lack of shelter and food, and the Germans so short on winterized gear and clothing, the true nature of the Nazi beast would have been there for all to see.
Here are some of those links...
http://rense.com/general95/did.htm
http://www.2worldwar2.com/
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/script ... plans.html
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/script ... lcome.html

Did you consider that the Soviets planned (if left unchecked) to have one of the largest most modern fleets?

For the Purists: Navy of the United Soviet Socialist Republics - June 22, 1941

[jc4751]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: brian brian

By 100% combat effectiveness I meant on defense. It is more than a little frustrating to successfully flip / disorganize two Soviet Infantry Armies of the Southwest Front on the plains of the Ukraine, bypass them with Panzer spearheads, and then have the turn end and have to start over on reducing the enemy pocket, which once again defends at full strength. The historical Germans took hundreds of thousands of prisoners in that situation, with weak resistance. The binary nature of the simple to play game World in Flames leads to realism problems, and Option 47 is of acute interest to players interested in realism, far more than any need to code Supply Units or Large ATR options. If the supply rules work it is really hard to understand why Option 47 can't work though I know it has been explained.

Continually being locked out of being able to control the software you purchase also seems to be a relic of the 20th century. Purchasing the game should give you access to the beta versions if you so desire and I can't understand that either. It's just a game, not a cutting edge mobile OS full of proprietary secrets that could be monetized by the competitors. And I know that has been explained too.

warspite1

Yes, but a bit of context here (see post 108). When the Germans surrounded those Soviet pockets (and the same for the Soviets when coming back against the Germans later in the war) they did not just cut-off the enemy and then continue blithely on. Both sides still took much by way of time and resources to annihilate the trapped armies.

Remember we are talking 2-month turns. In real life the advancing armies could not simply continue on and ignore those surrounded. IF in MWIF a player chooses (unrealistically) to do so then, without Option 47, that surrounded army will have a chance to "re-organise" - albeit not re-supply or re-equip and so be unable to mount an attack.

I just do not see this as a deal breaker.

After spending some time digesting the rule books and replaying Barbarossa a few times, I'm of the opinion that Option 47 makes sense from a perspective of historical playability and realism, but......I also would point out that while everyone has been talking about the Soviet pockets, the Germans experienced their own pockets on the Russian front (Cherkassy pocket comes to mind), as well as the Ruhr pocket, not to mention Stalingrad. The relief efforts for Stalingrad were only marginally successful(due to confusion in the German supply situation, completely unnecessary items, such as condoms, were flown into Stalingrad), but the last resistance ended a couple of months after the Germans were cut off. In the other cases, the Germans were either able to fight their way out, or took some time before being squashed. While there is debate about the realism, this is still a game ("Oh, hey, I don't know exactly what is going to be produced next turn? I get to pick the plane behind curtain 1, 2, or 3?"). Is it fun without Option 47? I think so.

At any rate, while Option 47 is probably a "nice to have," being out of supply probably carries enough penalties to at least make the status mean something, and I'd rather see more work done on the one-map scenarios to get those up and running.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: paulderynck



You do what you'd do if Option 47 never existed. Ground strike them and kill them. If you miss the ground strike you leave units adjacent and keep them OOS. The best they can do next turn is "ooze" to somewhere and disorganize, knowing you can then probably kill them unless they try to time it with the turn ending. Also you place your units adjacent in a manner that if they do ooze, it is you who controls where they ooze to.

In the next turn you try to ground strike them again.

If Option 47 never existed this would just be standard play in WiF with no one knowing any different.

Sounds sensible paul but aren't you tying up ground units to keep them out of supply that could be used elsewhere? Also they still have a zone of control and can still disrupt supply lines and RR lines that are in their ZOC, right.

Bo

Yes they have a ZoC which can disrupt supply and rail lines. That's why you likely want to dispense with them.

Yes it ties up ground units. That's just how it is - there's no magic solution, just like there's no magic solution that will give you an AI opponent tomorrow. You kind of have to live with it.

ZOC

After speaking with my mates...

... it seems they consider (and from the rules I would agree, unless there is a Clarification stating opposite) that you wouldn't need to ZOC them and stay with those own unit behind.

It seems they follow strictly the supply rule except that it is of any length, which means it cannot cross enemy controlled hexes, so it shouldn't be difficult to surround the unit by hexes controlled by you and thus it could not resupply.