Thanks for the clarification Hakon. (As a note, I do not understand exactly your last sentence, are you saying I am accusing you of lying ? I don't understand, because I don't accuse you of lying.)
I was asking if you were accusing me of lying. I have no reason to accuse you of lying.
My point in what I wrote is that you say that "Stuffing the border" is anti-WW2, but then you nevertheless use others anti WW2 strategies against Russia to optimize its destruction. Your Italy for example is never interested in making a Mare Nostrum from the Med, and is a puppet of Germany devoted to overcome Russia, in which Mussolini had no interest. Why ? Why don't you have the same approach here ? Kind of saying your group : "Well guys, this is ridiculous, let's not make this again."
I've answered this question many times before, Patrice. Search the forum if you want details, but the ouline is as follows:
1) I don't consider a stronger Italian involvement vs Russia to be outside of the "what-if"'s that could be realistically explored by WiF. Italy was an anti-communits facist state for many years before Hitler even came to power. Even if Mussolini may not have shared Hitler's ideas about Lebensraum, he certainly was no friend of Stalin.
2) Strategically, it is my understanding that it was a huge mistake my Mussolini to try to fight for Egypt, given the naval superiority of the British. (Just as it was a mistake to join Hitler in the first place, but that is another matter). Instead, the Italians should have found defensible positions in Libya, or better, in, Sicily, and made sure to hold those.
3) However, I do think that WIF makes italy to be waay to strong, which of course, is a concious decision by Harry. But since this is a fact in the game, and probably is the main reason why the axis needs to keep 15 victory cities at the end of the game for a draw, I don't feel obliged to repeat Italy's historical mistakes, but instead to use whatever force they have as efficiently as possible.
4) The choice to build aircraft with Italy is something I view as a pure adaptation to the impulse system (which I consider one of WiF's main weaknesses, even if it's hard to come up with something better). In fact, this approach was something I first came up with when playing Russia, as a suggestion to my western allies (ie Super Alex), and it worked quite well in that game. So it was only natural to try the same thing with the Axis. Btw, I donsider Italy building subs and Germany not to be just another aspect of exactly the same issue.
1) and 2) are historical interpretations that I stand by 100%, and I don't consider these gamey at all. One could of course force priorities a bit down the historical path by
3) Is a concious design decision by Harry, one that some people (like Devin) likes to fix with house rules. But as long as Italy has this huge production, I don't see why they should not be able to use it on the most effecient builds possible.
4) This is an adaptation to a design flaw. A flaw that the Allies have just as big an oportunity to take advantage of (albeit a couple of years later). This is an issue that I really would want to see fixed, but preferably in a consistent way that applies equally to all nations.
So when I read from you that the stuffing is ahistorical (which is partly wrong as I said already because Russia was at the border in June 1941, so how a game without a fair chance of the stuffing the border strategy to succeed can reproduce that move forward from Stalin ?
This is a very bad reasoning for supporting stuffing, possibly the worst one of all. In WiF, Russia is far weaker than historically (in particular, they had many more reserves historically). This means that the few times that Russia is actually caught at the border, will tend to be complete blow outs, and not resemble the historical development at war.
Given the size of the Russian army, one is left little chice but to wif-zen that the border army is mostly destroyed at th border, and that Russia's starting army represents their second line units.
and also because I learnt earlier this year that Hitler said to someone I forgot who that if he had known how many tanks the Soviets had he would not have attacked), knowing the rest of the story makes me think that what looks historical or not is subjective to the one who looks.
Guderian claims that hitler said something like "If I'd believed in our intelligence reports regarding the number of German armor....". This was supposed to have been said at a conferance in august 41, or so. While this argument does have some weight, it would have even more weight in 1942, since the Russian industrial production at the time was much, much greater than Germany's.
So, if you want to use this argument, you should also make sure that Stalin could ALWAYS stuff the border in 1942. But do we want this?
In other words, if you were as vehement in proposing rule changes to prevent a super Balbo strategy than to prevent a stuffing the border strategy, it would be better to my eyes.
Preventing stuffing is easy. It only requires one sentence.
Reworking the action limit sytem is another can of worms completely. If you'd been paying better attention, you might have remembered my posts where I describe various house rules that we have tried in order to solve this. (point 4 above, that is).
So, to be constructive, now that Steve have enacted the addition of an optional rule that makes the Stuffing the border impossible, what do you propose so that games that are run with this optional rule don't turn out in Super Balbos each time.
Sincerely, your answer to this is very important, as this will be a real improvement to the game in my eyes too.
Look further up in this threat. I proposed the option "The Great Patriotic War" as an option that could be made alongside "Lebensraum". They should not be hard-linked, but having the patriotic war option available, would let players decide for themselves if they should be linked or not.
By giving Russia +0.25 when attacked, but not when attacking, on top of all other PM bonuses, would not only make it easier for Russia to survive Barbarossa, but also provide some incentive to the Axis for not attacking USSR at all, but instead do a close the med or sealion.
That the +0.25 would also give a bonus in a 1942 barb, would make strategies with 1942 barbs a bit less attractive, of course, and this is intended. I definitely believe that 1941 was the best time for Germany to attack, if they were to attack at all.