RE: WiF Annual 2008 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message


Froonp -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/17/2008 12:39:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Patrice,

What is your proposed alternative? Just to leave the 3 extra ports Russian? I have no vested interest in this - I haven't written any code to support it. What I proposed was just to get the discussion started.

I would give the Japanese this, based on the WiF FE map.
This includes the southern part of Kamchatka, the whole Sakhalin.
On the other hand I would not give any of the northern Ports.

This is fairly simple. All Russian hexes that are :
- Between row 44 (included) and row 64 (included) and between column 152 / 153 (included) and column 172 (included).
- Plus hex 43,170 (northern tip of Sakhalin)
- Between row 40 (included) and row 49 (included) and between columns 185 (included) and column 196 (included) (Kamchatka plus Komandorski Is.).
become Japanese.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/9A2410ADDE2444BE903AA50F9139C424.jpg[/image]




lavisj -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/17/2008 1:00:52 AM)

This new surrender rule reminds me of the rule that existed before WIF FE. I remember a similar rule in the 4th edition when I was playing it. So I guess it is just reintroducing the old.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/17/2008 1:29:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Patrice,

What is your proposed alternative? Just to leave the 3 extra ports Russian? I have no vested interest in this - I haven't written any code to support it. What I proposed was just to get the discussion started.

I would give the Japanese this, based on the WiF FE map.
This includes the southern part of Kamchatka, the whole Sakhalin.
On the other hand I would not give any of the northern Ports.

This is fairly simple. All Russian hexes that are :
- Between row 44 (included) and row 64 (included) and between column 152 / 153 (included) and column 172 (included).
- Plus hex 43,170 (northern tip of Sakhalin)
- Between row 40 (included) and row 49 (included) and between columns 185 (included) and column 196 (included) (Kamchatka plus Komandorski Is.).
become Japanese.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/9A2410ADDE2444BE903AA50F9139C424.jpg[/image]

This is ok by me. Other opinions?




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/17/2008 1:37:00 AM)

Here is a higher resolution image. The 3 northern ports can be seen if you look closely.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/A9EB84EAE871466582CE43ADDED3B5F3.jpg[/image]




Zorachus99 -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/17/2008 1:37:49 AM)

Historically, peace agreements followed natural defensive positions which both sides could use.  Normally this was major rivers, but did incorporate mountain passes.  I'd suggest using the river lines in Siberia.




lomyrin -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/17/2008 1:43:03 AM)

Looks good to me.

Lars




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/17/2008 1:55:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Historically, peace agreements followed natural defensive positions which both sides could use.  Normally this was major rivers, but did incorporate mountain passes.  I'd suggest using the river lines in Siberia.

The original border did use the rivers (Argun and Amur). There is nothing really obvious for the necessary change since the Zeya river runs more or less northwest-southeast and we need a north-south demarkation.




npilgaard -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/17/2008 9:53:01 AM)

quote:

This is ok by me. Other opinions?


Looks fine imho.




Froonp -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/17/2008 10:29:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Historically, peace agreements followed natural defensive positions which both sides could use.  Normally this was major rivers, but did incorporate mountain passes.  I'd suggest using the river lines in Siberia.

The original border did use the rivers (Argun and Amur). There is nothing really obvious for the necessary change since the Zeya river runs more or less northwest-southeast and we need a north-south demarkation.

Well, I'd agree with Zorachus, but as Steve wanted something simple, I thought that something with "between rows" and "between columns" would be the best for him. What I proposed is both simple in this regard, and consistent with what WiF FE the paper game gives to Japan under this new errata. I've asked the designer of the errata, and yes, he intended Kamchatka to be part of the land given.
Doing something finer would need to create subcountries in that area of Russia and decide which go to the Japanese.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/17/2008 11:29:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Historically, peace agreements followed natural defensive positions which both sides could use.  Normally this was major rivers, but did incorporate mountain passes.  I'd suggest using the river lines in Siberia.

The original border did use the rivers (Argun and Amur). There is nothing really obvious for the necessary change since the Zeya river runs more or less northwest-southeast and we need a north-south demarkation.

Well, I'd agree with Zorachus, but as Steve wanted something simple, I thought that something with "between rows" and "between columns" would be the best for him. What I proposed is both simple in this regard, and consistent with what WiF FE the paper game gives to Japan under this new errata. I've asked the designer of the errata, and yes, he intended Kamchatka to be part of the land given.
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 situation won't occur that often, and the impact of which hexes are given to the Japanese won't really matter all that much. Either side has some fine defensive terrain they could use, if they have the troops to defend it. If they don't, then the other side just needs to put together a decent offensive force.




Froonp -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/17/2008 12:12:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

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 -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/17/2008 7:23:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

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.




marcuswatney -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/18/2008 2:39:07 AM)

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.




c92nichj -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (5/30/2008 5:35:01 PM)

I think patrice suggestion goes in line with the bomber range question so i vote for the suggested division.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (10/30/2009 12:13:48 AM)

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]local://upfiles/16701/7C905616E4524A6EAA4097116D2670F2.jpg[/image]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (10/30/2009 12:21:54 AM)

The same picture at zoom level 3 instead of2.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/DE5A422D64DE4B2E91911FBC85B65C17.jpg[/image]




paulderynck -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (10/30/2009 6:26:59 PM)

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.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (10/30/2009 6:51:35 PM)


quote:

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.




brian brian -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (10/30/2009 10:09:52 PM)

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.




Froonp -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (10/31/2009 12:06:47 AM)

quote:

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 -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (10/31/2009 1:56:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

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]local://upfiles/16701/34C3238FA32E498E8D5192EECEC293DF.jpg[/image]




michaelbaldur -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (10/31/2009 4:06:53 AM)


remember that us/cw can debark into russian hexes ... donīīt 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 itīs hard for japan to react on Kamchatka..




Orm -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (10/31/2009 7:55:14 AM)


quote:

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. [:)]




Froonp -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (10/31/2009 10:13:44 PM)

quote:

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]local://upfiles/16701/34C3238FA32E498E8D5192EECEC293DF.jpg[/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 -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (11/1/2009 1:01:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

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]local://upfiles/16701/34C3238FA32E498E8D5192EECEC293DF.jpg[/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.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (11/1/2009 6:19:04 PM)

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

[image]local://upfiles/16701/8FCE7860CDB34BE689389E92137F531A.jpg[/image]




Froonp -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (11/1/2009 6:55:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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

[image]local://upfiles/16701/8FCE7860CDB34BE689389E92137F531A.jpg[/image]

It looks good to me.




hakon -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (11/1/2009 6:59:31 PM)

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 -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (11/1/2009 8:07:58 PM)


quote:

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.




lavisj -> RE: WiF Annual 2008 (11/2/2009 12:49:26 AM)


quote:

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




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.029297E-02