Unfair and Fair

A sub-forum for players new to WIF, containing information on how to get started and become an experienced player.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

IBender
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:44 pm

Unfair and Fair

Post by IBender »

Fair and Unfair.

I am not a veteran of this game as many of you are so keep that in mind please. I have played the game now for a while, maybe a year? Mostly Global with all the optional rules. Over this gaming time I have spent a lot of time reading on the forums and fairly often come across a conversation regarding one rule or another as being 'unfair' to one side or the other.

ie strategic bombing, engineers, oil and others.

As I have read the forums, I tended to agree with most arguments regarding a rule being unfair. However, the more I play the game the more I wonder if 'unfair' is maybe ok.

For example, every game I play as the Germans I am always frustrated France is as hard to conquer as it is. I can never stop my son from sending french cruisers into the Baltic immediately disrupting the 3 german convoys there. I can never force him to deploy french troops poorly. If the German gets bad weather rolls, or a few bad combat rolls he is in for a rough time. If I conquer France losing only a couple German corps I feel like I did really and unusually well. Once I conquered it by only losing 1 corp. Other times I lose much more. In short I am always frustrated attacking France.

In the end I wonder if maybe 'unfair' is ok. Maybe some rules are too one sided. I have mixed feelings on this topic and I was wondering if anyone had thoughts regarding it. Clearly this is a game and everyone can play it however they wish and that way is always just fine. After all if they enjoy it that is what counts.

I would love to hear what you guys think.

For now I am sitting here and I do feel some rules are unfair and I think..I am just fine what that.
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by Centuur »

It's the balance of the rules you want to use which counts. If your Allied opponent wants to choose an optional rule which favours the Allies than you need to say that you want an optional which favours the Axis.

If you use all optional rules available in MWIF now, the game tends to favour the Allies a little bit, since there are a couple of optional rules like City based volunteers, en route interception, USSR-Japan compulsory peace and surprised ZOC which tend to favour the Axis a lot and are not coded at this moment...

Therefore, I would suggest that you should scrap a couple of Allied favoured optional rules, such as light cruisers, Food in Flames or construction engineers (the last one I would never want to play with. It's not reflected good enough in the order of battle of the different major powers, since the engineers of f.e. Germany in the war were totally different organised if you compare it with the US. German construction engineers were never meant to be combat units. But there is only one engineer unit at start for Germany and that has a combat factor... They should have had at least 3 non combat factors engineers at start if you look at the huge number of regiments for the German "Bautruppen" at start of the war in addition to the engineer with a combat factor, which should not have construction capabilities at all...).
Peter
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by paulderynck »

IMO fair or unfair is not the way to express it. The definition (1) of fair is: "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate". If both sides agree to play with a rule then it cannot be unfair. The question is: which optional rules favor one side versus the other. There are a number of these and experience with the game will identify who they favor. Normally you want to try to balance these. But still there may be times when you want to select more options that favor a particular side as you may want to compensate for the non-favored side being run by a very skilled player, or the favored side being run by a novice.




Paul
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4368
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by Courtenay »

The question is unbalanced or balanced. The only rule that I think is radically unbalanced is the surprised ZOC rule; I will not play with that one. (Actually, I suspect that playing without mechanized movement costs might be just as bad, but I can't imagine playing without that rule; the thought of panzers zipping through the Pripyat is just repugnant. [:)])
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by Centuur »

Well, if you would get carpet bombing in return for playing with surprised ZOC rule, I would not hesitate. That's a rule which really is hurting for the Axis, all those heavy strategic bombers hitting you precious ARM HQ's stacks again and again...
Peter
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
The question is: which optional rules favor one side versus the other. There are a number of these and experience with the game will identify who they favor. Normally you want to try to balance these.

Might there be a way for experienced players to quantify the biases, say +1, +2 or +3 Axis or Allies, and have the game provide a summary of the net bias? One may assume that the default novice/standard/advanced sets are all neutral, but maybe not? And the proposed special set for future AI play, is that neutral or not? And as players deviate from these sets and add/delete options, it would be helpful to get a sense of how the selected options are biasing the game. Certainly not a perfect scheme, for sure, but at least something to help players (fairly?) balance or handicap their games as desired before investing time and effort into playing a lengthy campaign. Getting something like this added to the game interface may not happen, but perhaps someone could develop an Excel spreadsheet or other simple tool as a player aid. Just a thought.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4368
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by Courtenay »

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Well, if you would get carpet bombing in return for playing with surprised ZOC rule, I would not hesitate. That's a rule which really is hurting for the Axis, all those heavy strategic bombers hitting you precious ARM HQ's stacks again and again...
I had forgotten about carpet bombing, because I never use the rule as written. I do think surprised ZOCs is more in favor of the Axis than carpet bombing is in favor of the Allies, but carpet bombing as written is certainly not a good rule.

(Then there is construction engineers, which is biased against human beings.)
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by Centuur »

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
ORIGINAL: paulderynck
The question is: which optional rules favor one side versus the other. There are a number of these and experience with the game will identify who they favor. Normally you want to try to balance these.

Might there be a way for experienced players to quantify the biases, say +1, +2 or +3 Axis or Allies, and have the game provide a summary of the net bias? One may assume that the default novice/standard/advanced sets are all neutral, but maybe not? And the proposed special set for future AI play, is that neutral or not? And as players deviate from these sets and add/delete options, it would be helpful to get a sense of how the selected options are biasing the game. Certainly not a perfect scheme, for sure, but at least something to help players (fairly?) balance or handicap their games as desired before investing time and effort into playing a lengthy campaign. Getting something like this added to the game interface may not happen, but perhaps someone could develop an Excel spreadsheet or other simple tool as a player aid. Just a thought.

That's a difficult thing to do. That's because of the fact that the use of one optional rule in conjunction with another optional rule can negate some of it's effects.

Peter
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by paulderynck »

Oh I don't know. You could do a survey of experienced players and have the ratings as zero = neutral, +-1 somewhat favoring, +-2 favors, +-3 massively favoring

Then average all the results and find out they are all zero or +-2. [:)]

The one standout is Oil. It favors the Allies but the vast majority of players on both sides choose it because of its historical accuracy, and let the favoring be damned.
Paul
User avatar
RFalvo69
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: Lamezia Terme (Italy)

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by RFalvo69 »

I think that the gist of the matter is: "Should we play a realistic or a balanced game"?

In a realistic game you choose the optional rules that "make sense" (Oil, Motorised Movement Rates, Carpet Bombing...) and usually end up with a game that favours the Allies. However, it must be clear that such a game is played more for the (lacking a better term) "True WWII Experience" than for winning.
"Yes darling, I served in the Navy for eight years. I was a cook..."
"Oh dad... so you were a God-damned cook?"

(My 10 years old daughter after watching "The Hunt for Red October")
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by Centuur »

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I think that the gist of the matter is: "Should we play a realistic or a balanced game"?

In a realistic game you choose the optional rules that "make sense" (Oil, Motorised Movement Rates, Carpet Bombing...) and usually end up with a game that favours the Allies. However, it must be clear that such a game is played more for the (lacking a better term) "True WWII Experience" than for winning.

If you choose to use optional rules that make sense historically, one should include the no ZOC on surprise impulse rule too.
And one should exclude carpet bombing, since that was only used once in the war and never again, because due to the terrain damage, the attacking land units could not advance...
Peter
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Oh I don't know. You could do a survey of experienced players and have the ratings as zero = neutral, +-1 somewhat favoring, +-2 favors, +-3 massively favoring
Then average all the results and find out they are all zero or +-2. [:)]
The one standout is Oil. It favors the Allies but the vast majority of players on both sides choose it because of its historical accuracy, and let the favoring be damned.


That's all I'm getting at. I acknowledge this may be difficult to do and not perfect, but it's something. It would be good to see what a concensus of experienced players have to say about the default option sets. Are they all neutral or slightly biased? If players change this or that, what is the bias if any? WiF has been around for quite a while; is there any player aid out there that already assesses the relative worth of the various options or is it just a "gut feel" that experienced players use?

And of course there's a difference between historical accuracy and game fairness, but the idea here is to better assess game fairness and the net bias of selected options. Players can do what they want, but at least they could see if their options set is "fair" or biased to some degree.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by Centuur »

On a scale of -4 (extreme pro Allied) to +4 (extreme pro Axis), I've made this list. But I expect a lot of people to think different about this...

Divisions 0
Artillery 0
Ski troops 0
Frogman 0
Combat engineers 0
Construction engineers -2
Territorials 0
Partisans -3
Partisan HQ's -1
Chinese warlords 0
Guards banner army's -3
City based volunteers +2
Siberians -1
Pilots 0
Carrier planes 0
V-waepons +1
A-bomb -2
Naval supply units -1
Cruisers in flames -2
Convoys in flames +1
The Queens -1
Rough seas 0
Oil tankers -1
Offensive chits 0
Synthetic oil plants +2
Fortifications 0
Supply units 0

Motorized movement rates -1
Railway movement bonus +2
HQ movement -1
HQ support 0
2D10 land combat table 0
Surprised ZOC's +4
Blitz bonus 0
Unlimited breakdown +1

Carpet bombing -3
Kamikazes 0
Night air missions -1
Bounce combats 0
En-route aircraft interception +2
Limited aircraft interception -1

Fighter-bombers 0
Twin engined fighters -1
Back-up fighters 0
Tank busters 0
Flying boats 0
Large ATR's 0
Bomber and no-paradrop ATR's 0
Flying bombs 0
Extended aircraft rebasing -1
Internment -1

In the presence of the enemy -2
Variable carrier plane searching +1
Amphibious rules -1
SCS transports +1
Defensive shore bombardment -2
Bottomed ships 0
Old navel offensive chit 0

Limited overseas supply -4
Limited supply across streets -1
Emergency HQ supply 0
Variable reorganisation costs 0
Isolated reorganisation limits -1

Oil rules -4
Saving oil resources and build points +2
Food in flames -2
Factory construction and destruction +1
Hitler's war +1

Off city reinforcement 0
Recruitment limits 0
Allied combat friction +1
Chinese attack weakness +2
Japanese command conflict -2
USSR-Japan compulsory peace +1
The Ukraine 0
Fractional odds 0
Intelligence -3
Scrap units 0
Additional Chinese cities +2
Extended game length 0
Breaking the Nazi-Soviet pact +1
Peter
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I think that the gist of the matter is: "Should we play a realistic or a balanced game"?

In a realistic game you choose the optional rules that "make sense" (Oil, Motorised Movement Rates, Carpet Bombing...) and usually end up with a game that favours the Allies. However, it must be clear that such a game is played more for the (lacking a better term) "True WWII Experience" than for winning.

If you choose to use optional rules that make sense historically, one should include the no ZOC on surprise impulse rule too.
And one should exclude carpet bombing, since that was only used once in the war and never again, because due to the terrain damage, the attacking land units could not advance...
Carpet bombing was used three times between D-Day and Falaise Gap. (And arguably also at Monte Casino.) But the problem with carpet bombing in WiF is the table should have possible flips for both the defender and adjacent attackers and less chances for destroying whole units and air units should be exempt from any results.
Paul
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4368
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by Courtenay »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I think that the gist of the matter is: "Should we play a realistic or a balanced game"?

In a realistic game you choose the optional rules that "make sense" (Oil, Motorised Movement Rates, Carpet Bombing...) and usually end up with a game that favours the Allies. However, it must be clear that such a game is played more for the (lacking a better term) "True WWII Experience" than for winning.

If you choose to use optional rules that make sense historically, one should include the no ZOC on surprise impulse rule too.
And one should exclude carpet bombing, since that was only used once in the war and never again, because due to the terrain damage, the attacking land units could not advance...
Carpet bombing was used three times between D-Day and Falaise Gap. (And arguably also at Monte Casino.) But the problem with carpet bombing in WiF is the table should have possible flips for both the defender and adjacent attackers and less chances for destroying whole units and air units should be exempt from any results.
Carpet bombing was used more often than that. It was used at least ten times on the Western Frone, at Monte Cassino, and once in North Africa. It may have been used more than this; this is simply what I have found in a quick search. It was used often enough that the Germans developed doctrine for its troops on how to survive carpet bombing. (Get in a shallow trench, below line of sight from fragments on the ground hitting you, place hands over ears, and keep your mouth open. Do NOT get in a deep trench; it is liable to collapse on top of you.)

The problem with carpet bombing in WiF is that it has little resemblance to carpet bombing in real life. The tactic of hunting out HQs and bombing them that can be used in WiF is simply impossible in real life; rear area logistics were too dispersed to be targeted that way. Furthermore, carpet bombing, even when successful, did not destroy formations (unlike the atomic bomb), it rendered them combat ineffective for a brief period of time. A better rule would be to restrict carpet bombing to hexes in the ZOC of a cooperating major power, with the effect of disorganizing a unit, and making it incapable of receiving supplies for the remainder of that impulse. (However, a HQ can still be part of a supply chain for other units.)
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
TeaLeaf
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 3:08 pm

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by TeaLeaf »

There are wargames that force a player to play along certain directives, and nothing prevents a WiF player to play with houserules doing the same. If you'd want to recreate the historical feel, you could agree on France having to set up (and stay) behind the Maginot-line with certain number of forces (until it is too late).
But then again, then you should also make Germany do maniacal things, like attacking the Red Army in winter turns, with very low odds/modifiers. Etc. etc.
But that's the exciting thing about WiF: we don't get orders from a maniac, or nestor generals who are stuck in obsolete doctrines that might have worked in another era.

Seeing your other post you are playing 2d10 or just started playing it. That option should make life much easier for the attacker,
so especially for Germany during the early years of the war.
An example. Compare a 2:1 Blitz-attack of two German panzer stacks against a french infantry stack with an AT-division and two disorganised corps, 1d10 vs. 2d10.
* 1d10, the attacker has 40% chance of all his units becoming disorganised, and a 10% chance of losing a unit himself.
* 2d10, the attacker has 3% chance of all his units becoming disorganised, a 7% chance of losing a unit, and 18% of becoming ½DG. If the French had an ARM/MECH division included, the chance Germany lose a unit would increase from 7% to 14%.

I call that quite an improvement for the Attacker (the Axis, because they are the aggressors early on and have first shot at victory). The total chance of any attacking unit becoming DG is reduced from 40% to 21% (18% being only ½DG). OK, the Allies will benefit from this as well once they are on the offensive, but that is later, after the Axis failed.

Personally I have mixed feelings about how land combat in WiF developed over the years; in WiF 4 (before the 2d10 option), when I started to play WiF, the chance that the attacker would be disorganised in the above example (Germany) was 70%, with a 40% chance of also loosing a unit. Not including Fractional odds, an option that was also introduced at a later point, IIRC. So over the years I've seen a rebalancing in favor of the Axis. I know, I should say 'the attacker', but I think Fall Gelb and Barbarossa and all of a sudden 'attacker' becomes 'Axis'.

Anyway, I am still somewhat happy with the probability distribution in land combat, but I have to hope WiF does not develop into an Axis and Allies sort of game, where both sides are given an equal chance to conquer the entire world and time works against the allies!
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: Centuur
On a scale of -4 (extreme pro Allied) to +4 (extreme pro Axis), I've made this list. But I expect a lot of people to think different about this...

Alright, this is a mark on the wall. I made an Excel spreadsheet (attached).

Interesting results. Novice set is -4, Standard set is -11, Advanced set is -22, and the proposed AI set is -16. This indicates an increasingly pro-Allied bias with the optional rules sets. Which begs a question: Is the game itself biased towards pro-Axis and by how much? Perhaps a -10 handicap for Allies might be considered balancing, but who knows. Peter's numbers are a first swag, and probably need to be reconsidered.

I will offer two thoughts:
1. Ideally, the default optional rule sets should be neutral. Unless a recognized pro-Axis bias exists in the game and then some pro-Allied handicap should also be recognized as balancing to achieve neutrality. For fairness, however players choose to define it.
2. The discrepancies between the Standard set and the proposed AI set are questionable. Several standard options are not included, but several advanced options are included. IMHO, the AI should use the Standard set, but that's another discussion issue for Steve to consider.
Attachments
MWiFOptions.zip
(11.19 KiB) Downloaded 6 times
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by brian brian »

These are the deepest questions of the game. Is the Allied experience in France fair or unfair if the Germans use both of their Offensive Chits there? Did the Germans use one to break the Weygand Line in Fall Rot? No one knows.

The options have deeper concerns than pro- or anti- this side or that side: perceived realism, complexity, and playing time.

The ‘fairness’ and balance of the game depend greatly on the experience of the players, and also their willingness to play unhistorically. Will the British ruthlessly order the Tommies of all the Commonwealth countries to attempt to pin down the Wehrmacht on The Continent, with no hope of withdrawal or realistic chance of holding out till Uncle Sam’s boys show up, rather than doubling the size of the Royal Navy for zero victory points, all so that the Communists can have more time to prepare the Red Army for the real war still to come? Quite the rabbit hole question. The western WiF Supreme Commanders don’t have to face voters to stay in power.
User avatar
TeaLeaf
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 3:08 pm

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by TeaLeaf »

You calculated the values from Centuur into the optional rules sets. Interesting. I think some of those values are a bit off, if the advanced set gets to -22, which should read as "broken beyond belief" in favor of the allies [8D].
According to centuur's classification of -4 meaning extreme pro-allied.
ORIGINAL: Centuur
On a scale of -4 (extreme pro Allied) to +4 (extreme pro Axis), I've made this list. But I expect a lot of people to think different about this...
Emphasis on the last sentence [;)].
I think calculating any such list should get into the + (pro-axis), if I can believe a friend of mine who is a real WiF Guru (attending WiF Cons, designing scenarios and even WiF Master edition).
Except maybe if some exotic options are also used that very rarely make it into a game...
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Unfair and Fair

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf
You calculated the values from Centuur into the optional rules sets. Interesting. I think some of those values are a bit off, if the advanced set gets to -22, which should read as "broken beyond belief" in favor of the allies [8D].

I was surprised by the results, tentative as they are. I did not expect such pro-Allied bias overall. The spreadsheet is set up such that changes to the individual rankings will copy to the rules sets and then get summed. So folks can make adjustments and see what effect they have.

brian brian offers good insights. Experienced players have their preferences for various reasons, and realism and historical accuracy are important. If the options are so skewed towards Allies then Axis should rarely win, but I don't think that's the case?

I have my own interests looking forward to eventually playing the Fascist Tide campaign with computer opponent, and curious about the play balance with the proposed optional rule set. I suppose others are also curious about "fairness", hence this topic. Again, the whole idea is just to get a sense of how selected options may or may not be biasing the game. It's interesting.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Post Reply

Return to “WIF School”