From: Bangor, Maine, USA
First I want to state that I don't take the discussion about the Siberians personal. If I've given the impression that this is the case, than blame my lousy English (or something like the fact that English isn't my first or even second language... I'm better of in Dutch and German...). You can also blame the fact that I'm absolutely not a diplomatic guy or something else (hey, I don't care, since I don't know what you're all thinking about this crazy Dutch/Austrian guy who is probably a pain in the proverbial... ).
I only blame myself for not searching for World in Flames on the internet a couple of years ago (I would love to have contributed to some things done in the game, but it looks like I'm to late... ).
From my point of view, this discussion is done in a good manner, with good arguments going between all here, so nothing here is personal... I sure hope the others are thinking this to, because otherwise...
It is just a little strange for me, to find that a rule which is stated the way it is in RAW is being done differently (and I'm still not convinced ...).
When our group played the game the first time, the rulebook was more open than closed, and it took us a long time to find that the transport of resources is different from providing supply to units (you can trace supply through an enemy ZOC if you've also have a unit in the hex, however a resouce cannot go through that hex. That was something we did wrong for years, before we spotted this difference in the rulebook... or did it change somewhere between all those versions of the game...).
A good Dutch proverb says (translated in English): "the devil is in the details"... This is probably driving Steve nuts sometimes (or more than sometimes), since he is the one (together with rule interpreters from ADG and others) who has to make the final decision to go left or right (making some people happy and others not happy).
And back on the issue of the infamous Siberians... Isn't there a Q an A somewhere, to give us the answer? There is at least another one here that plays WiF the way we did, so I'm not alone here...
Now, if I'm wrong (and some are very persistent that I am wrong ), than the case for the AI is simple: replace INF units Siberians, if those are better (take into account the setup of the enemy, before doing so). If I'm right, however, the AI should think about the effect in early war, before replacing the units.
Off course, it is only a minor issue, but well...
Strange as it is, the Dutch proverb translates exactly to the English one: "the devil is in the details". I guess some things really do span the world.
I think the Q & A has something like 450 questions in it, or close to it, and as you've pointed out . . . the rules have so much room for interpretation, I think we could easily find another two thousand questions that have not been answered completely anywhere.
Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH