Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: WiF Annual 2008

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: WiF Annual 2008 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/17/2008 12:39:20 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
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.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 31
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/17/2008 1:00:52 AM   
lavisj

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 32
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/17/2008 1:29:09 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21615
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

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.




This is ok by me. Other opinions?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 33
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/17/2008 1:37:00 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21615
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Here is a higher resolution image. The 3 northern ports can be seen if you look closely.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 34
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/17/2008 1:37:49 AM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1054
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 35
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/17/2008 1:43:03 AM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Looks good to me.

Lars

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 36
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/17/2008 1:55:51 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21615
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 37
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/17/2008 9:53:01 AM   
npilgaard

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 5/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

This is ok by me. Other opinions?


Looks fine imho.

_____________________________

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 38
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/17/2008 10:29:41 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 39
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/17/2008 11:29:16 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21615
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 40
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/17/2008 12:12:35 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
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).

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 41
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/17/2008 7:23:29 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21615
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 42
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/18/2008 2:39:07 AM   
marcuswatney

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 43
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 5/30/2008 5:35:01 PM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline
I think patrice suggestion goes in line with the bomber range question so i vote for the suggested division.

(in reply to marcuswatney)
Post #: 44
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 10/30/2009 12:13:48 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21615
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
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.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to c92nichj)
Post #: 45
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 10/30/2009 12:21:54 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21615
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
The same picture at zoom level 3 instead of2.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 46
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 10/30/2009 6:26:59 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7849
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 10/30/2009 6:28:43 PM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 47
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 10/30/2009 6:51:35 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21615
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 48
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 10/30/2009 10:09:52 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 49
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 10/31/2009 12:06:47 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 50
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 10/31/2009 1:56:41 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21615
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

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.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 51
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 10/31/2009 4:06:53 AM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4573
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline

remember that us/cw can debark into russian hexes ... don´´t 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 it´s hard for japan to react on Kamchatka..

_____________________________

the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 52
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 10/31/2009 7:55:14 AM   
Orm


Posts: 17929
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 53
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 10/31/2009 10:13:44 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
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.




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 ?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 54
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 11/1/2009 1:01:45 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21615
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

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.




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.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 55
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 11/1/2009 6:19:04 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21615
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Here is today's pass on this optional rule. Please let me know if you agree/disagree with this.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 56
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 11/1/2009 6:55:29 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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




It looks good to me.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 57
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 11/1/2009 6:59:31 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 58
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 11/1/2009 8:07:58 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21615
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 59
RE: WiF Annual 2008 - 11/2/2009 12:49:26 AM   
lavisj

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline

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

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: WiF Annual 2008 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.188