Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Finn House Rule question

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> War In Russia: The Matrix Edition >> Finn House Rule question Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Finn House Rule question - 4/19/2002 10:27:07 AM   
bgiddings

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 3/22/2002
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
I have seen the House Rules and am following them. My opponent playing the Russians was kind ebnough to question the Finn hose rule about not attacking the north part of Leningrad by land and taking the city.

His point and I have seen the same idea posted without a reply
was:

If the Finns can not attack by land then the Russians could completely withdraw from the hexes directly north of the Leningrad hex itself leaving them vacant or with simply an artillery unit or something and use forces for other contested areas.

We understand the political stance of the Finns but at the same time I do not think that the Russians would be so trustworthy with a country that they were at war with to completely vacate the city hex direcrly north of Leningrad.

Stalin trusts that the Finns would not just walk into the suburbs of Leningrad ???
Post #: 1
- 4/19/2002 12:39:57 PM   
varjager

 

Posts: 358
Joined: 3/25/2000
From: sweden
Status: offline
I think that they rules should be changed to only allow static attacks.The finns should not be moving in to the hexes.

_____________________________


(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 2
- 4/19/2002 3:34:34 PM   
PMCN

 

Posts: 619
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline
I think it should be pointed out clearly that the whole idea behind this (and for the most part all the PBEM home rules) is common sense. The Finns were unwilling to attack by themselves and take Lenningrad...something that is fairly easy to accomplish in the game. On the other hand Nothing in my original suggestion for this had anything to with the hexs north of Lenningrad...only the city itself. I have a hard time translating the actualy stop lines of the Finns with the map...but given the importance of holding the hex to the NE of Lenningrad if the russian puts a single ARTY division there the Finns would roll over it. What the Finns should not do is attack Lenningrad itself except as part of a join action with the Germans. But in the end the idea is to use common sense and good judgment NOT to look for ways to manipulate the rules to advantage in ways that are total artificial. This is not directed at anyone in particular BTW it is just my philosophy on rules in games...the whole point of rules in a game is to re-create reality not to exist as a new reality. This is absolutely critical to a good simulation or recreation type game. Rather pointless to have a world war 2 tank combat simulator where you can drive around in a sherman and blow up tiger tanks with shots against their front armor from 3 Km away and that is no different than what was occuring in WIR...

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 3
- 4/20/2002 2:42:35 AM   
bgiddings

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 3/22/2002
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
Mark,my current Russian opponent, to his credit, was not trying to manipulate the rules but was initiating a discussion with me about the details of the rule as we are both newbies.

Thanks for the replies ...I believe that the ability of the Finns to advance to the hexes direclty beside the Leningrad hex clarifies the situation for both as it makes sense by forcing the Russians to keep a reasonable army there to prevent direct confrontation on the Leninggrad hex once the Germans have arrived.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 4
Re: Finn House Rule question - 4/20/2002 4:08:32 AM   
Josans


Posts: 1728
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by techex
[B]I have seen the House Rules and am following them. My opponent playing the Russians was kind ebnough to question the Finn hose rule about not attacking the north part of Leningrad by land and taking the city.

His point and I have seen the same idea posted without a reply
was:

If the Finns can not attack by land then the Russians could completely withdraw from the hexes directly north of the Leningrad hex itself leaving them vacant or with simply an artillery unit or something and use forces for other contested areas.

We understand the political stance of the Finns but at the same time I do not think that the Russians would be so trustworthy with a country that they were at war with to completely vacate the city hex direcrly north of Leningrad.

Stalin trusts that the Finns would not just walk into the suburbs of Leningrad ??? [/B][/QUOTE]


Yes you are right, the soviets can withdraw the units so an update of this rule is needed. I think that with a garrison of 4 or 5 FULL Rifle Divisions would be enough.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 5
Re: Re: Finn House Rule question - 4/20/2002 8:20:15 AM   
Lokioftheaesir

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/26/2001
From: Oz
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Josan
[B]


Yes you are right, the soviets can withdraw the units so an update of this rule is needed. I think that with a garrison of 4 or 5 FULL Rifle Divisions would be enough. [/B][/QUOTE]

Josan

Or as mentioned, static attacks could be launched (from one hex only?)
If, after Nov '41, the german starts his turn with
that city hex empty he may advance the Finns into it.

Loki

_____________________________

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 6
- 4/20/2002 9:32:51 AM   
Die Kriegerin

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 1/30/2002
From: Harligen, Texas
Status: offline
You guys are more trusting then I am. I'll keep at least a tank corp and 4 divisions there (north Lennigrad), with enought strenght in Lenningrad to counter attack this threat ( 2 tank corp 5 divisions). The Finns are strong but there replacements arn't. Supply early is also very poor. Ever wonder why there rail dosn't convert as fast? Gary built it in. This house rule sucks. The threat is real. Deal with it... If Hitler hadn't called the assault off in late Aug. and early Sept., Lenningrd would have fallen. Didn't his plan call for Lennigrad to fall, before the Moscow attack?

Jon
:rolleyes:

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 7
- 4/20/2002 9:49:16 AM   
Lokioftheaesir

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/26/2001
From: Oz
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Die Kriegerin
[B]You guys are more trusting then I am. I'll keep at least a tank corp and 4 divisions there (north Lennigrad), with enought strenght in Lenningrad to counter attack this threat ( 2 tank corp 5 divisions). The Finns are strong but there replacements arn't. Supply early is also very poor. Ever wonder why there rail dosn't convert as fast? Gary built it in. This house rule sucks. The threat is real. Deal with it... If Hitler hadn't called the assault off in late Aug. and early Sept., Lenningrd would have fallen. Didn't his plan call for Lennigrad to fall, before the Moscow attack?

Jon
:rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

Jon

Quite true, personally i defend the hexes north of Leningrad fairly strongly. (approx 1 tank and 2 to 3 inf). Better safe than sorry.

Loki

_____________________________

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 8
- 4/20/2002 3:41:49 PM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
Folks, square 40,6 just north of Leningrad WAS TAKEN by the Finns! 40,6 is an urbanized area, but not literally part of the city of Leningrad. They held positions ADJACENT to Leningrad, but at no time was Finland even considering an attack on Leningrad. Heck, the Finns allowed the Murmansk food supply route to Leningrad to remain open during the war. If you want to play this historically, then as the Soviets, you can simply abandon the areas north of Lenngrad and form your line on Leningrad and the square to the northeast of the city. Heck, you can leave Leningrad undefended if you wish! The Finns only took back the land they believed to be theirs, they NEVER considered Leningrad to be Finnish, it wasn't. There was NEVER a military threat to Leningrad from the Finns, they never even built up their forces near Leningrad, an act that could be construed as a threat. Stalin's claims about the Finns threating Leningrad were simply lies.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 9
- 4/20/2002 9:07:52 PM   
Josans


Posts: 1728
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]Folks, square 40,6 just north of Leningrad WAS TAKEN by the Finns! 40,6 is an urbanized area, but not literally part of the city of Leningrad. They held positions ADJACENT to Leningrad, but at no time was Finland even considering an attack on Leningrad. Heck, the Finns allowed the Murmansk food supply route to Leningrad to remain open during the war. If you want to play this historically, then as the Soviets, you can simply abandon the areas north of Lenngrad and form your line on Leningrad and the square to the northeast of the city. Heck, you can leave Leningrad undefended if you wish! The Finns only took back the land they believed to be theirs, they NEVER considered Leningrad to be Finnish, it wasn't. There was NEVER a military threat to Leningrad from the Finns, they never even built up their forces near Leningrad, an act that could be construed as a threat. Stalin's claims about the Finns threating Leningrad were simply lies. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ed, if soviets knew that Leningrad was free of any finn attack, no soviet garrison would be required I think. But if soviets didn´t know this maybe some forces must stay to reflect the situation.

Btw, the Grizzlies have now the best rookie of the year (well, we must wait to the next week to be offcial) the great Pau Gasol so next year will be the Grizzlies year;)

Go Gasol!!! Go Grizzlies!!!! Go Tennessee!!!!:)


P.S. Sorry if you dont like the NBA.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 10
Re: Re: Re: Finn House Rule question - 4/20/2002 9:10:55 PM   
Josans


Posts: 1728
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
[B]

Josan

Or as mentioned, static attacks could be launched (from one hex only?)
If, after Nov '41, the german starts his turn with
that city hex empty he may advance the Finns into it.

Loki [/B][/QUOTE]


I thought that only artillery attacks was allowed. Static attacks, in coordination with german attacks, can easily surrender the city.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 11
- 4/20/2002 10:01:39 PM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Josan
[B]
Ed, if soviets knew that Leningrad was free of any finn attack, no soviet garrison would be required I think. But if soviets didn´t know this maybe some forces must stay to reflect the situation.
[/B][/QUOTE]


As I understand it, Finland made their position clear to the Soviets, but Stalin insisted on categorising the Finns as a major threat, a country in league with the despicable Nazis. He convinced the West of this, so Finland was treated badly after the war.

You're right though, players are going to have to decide how "historical" they want to be with Finland. Should Finland be totally passive, aggresive solely for taking back their own territory, or at least opportunistic if the Soviets leave an opening to the Finnish military.


[QUOTE][B]
Go Gasol!!! Go Grizzlies!!!! Go Tennessee!!!!:)

....

P.S. Sorry if you dont like the NBA. [/B][/QUOTE]


If Tennessee had a pro basketball team, I'd love the NBA. :D As it is I must suffice with just the pro football team Titans, and the collegiate football team the Volunteers, expected to be ranked in the top 5 of the country come August. Yes, a shameless plug, I can't help myself. :) Go Tennessee! Go Grizzlies! :cool:

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 12
- 5/4/2002 10:16:38 PM   
Mikser

 

Posts: 57
Joined: 4/20/2001
From: Finland
Status: offline
Folks, sorry for bumping up this old thread, but I felt the need to make my own views on the matter apparent.
It seems to me the Finnish leadership of the time was cautious and opportunistic; national survival depended on it. Thus I firmly believe that the Finns would've been willing to help capture Leningrad IF it would've been plainly obvious that Russia would collapse; eg. the capture of Moscow and the utter failure of the Winter Offensive or something to that effect, even if this is only relative and the Russian player might actually win in the end.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 13
- 5/5/2002 8:13:52 PM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mikser
[B]Folks, sorry for bumping up this old thread, but I felt the need to make my own views on the matter apparent.
It seems to me the Finnish leadership of the time was cautious and opportunistic;
[/B][/QUOTE]


Do you have any references to this opportunism of the Finns? What I've read of the matter says very clearly the Finns wanted nothing to do with attacking Leningrad.


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/3818/FINNLIV.HTM


quote:

Contrary to Soviet propaganda, Finland did not join Hitler in the siege of Leningrad either, in fact Finland did what it could to keep the Murmansk supply lines open, according to the writer's father who was there. Most of the nuisance was caused by Hitler's submarines in the North Sea. General Mannerheim himself said he did not want the blood of the Leningrad people on his hands.



Keep in mind the Finns didn't attack the Soviet Union at the beginning of Barbarossa, the USSR attacked them first, The Soviets made it clear they would attack Finland if Germany attacked the USSR, regardless of circumstances. The Finns wanted no part of the Continuation War, they just simply had no choice, it was fight or die.

Another thing, the Finns actually demobilized much of their army after all the initial advances were over in the Continuation War to allow manpower to return to agricultural work that Finland depended on. So there was never a build up of Finnish forces near Leningrad, in reality the number of Finnish troops in and around Leningrad actually went DOWN.


http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumaxiscollaborationistforces.showMessage?topicID=69.topic

Another discussion like ours that occured elsewhere, including a Finn, or someone familar with the history, who says virtually the same thing I did in my first post in this thread. One excerpt:


quote:

Also, the "attack phase" of the Finnish "Continuation War" (1941-1944), in where Finns advanced to the old border in the Karelian Isthmus and took a big chunk of Russian Karelia (NE and E of Lake Ladoga), was very costly as casualties. The Finnish manpower pool couldn't have supplied enough men to replace very heavy losses, which are usual to urban combat.



I've read this elsewhere too, the Finns just didn't have the population to fight a war of attrition. Because WIR doesn't separate the individual nations manpower pools on the Axis side, you can't see this weakness.


quote:

One of the main reasons to the Winter War (1939-1940) was the Soviet claim that Finland "threathened" Leningrad. So even while Finland was at war with the USSR, so for political reasons, no Finnish plane ever attacked the city itself, and no gun ever shelled the city.

....

(Finns could've cut the supply road to Leningrad, without needing to invade into the city itself). Also, the Finns could started to shell the city, harass the supply transports by air units, all which weren't made).



http://www.geocities.com/ojoronen/ALIE.HTM


quote:

Finland never posed a threat to Leningrad even when it was in its power to do so in 1941- 44. Especially when it was under siege by Hitler, Finland kept the Murmansk food supply line to Leningrad open, thereby proving that no threat existed from Finland. Despite evidence to the contrary, the Allies insisted that such a threat existed as per Stalin's insistance, even labelling Finland as a Fascist country - a serious error, the consequence of which was born by Finland. Many history maps still show Leningrad being attacked from the South by Germany, and from the Karelian Isthmus by Finns, which is false.




I'll repeat my claim. If you want to play Finland historically, then Finland only takes back the Karelia, and NEVER attacks deeper into the Soviet Union (north and east of lake Ladoga) and NEVER attacks Leningrad (the other disputed area where Finns attacked is off the map). If you want, you can make a rule that requires some minimum Soviet force in Leningrad and the square to the northeast as long as 40,6 is held by the Finns to represent the Soviet's alleged suspicions (which I believe is a lie, the Soviets knew d*a*m*n well the Finns had no interest in Leningrad, but I can't prove that) about Finland's intentions.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 14
- 5/6/2002 2:05:58 AM   
jontegrabben

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 1/14/2002
From: Suedois
Status: offline
I also must throw in my personal opinion! :)
I agree with Ed about the rule in the game but there where many people in the armed forces and politicians who wanted to go on. Many thought they had things to settle(winter war) with the reds and that they where on the rope. This was fortunaly rejected by Mannerheim amongst other. One has to remember that the civil war wasnt that far away in time. Where the to sides was called "whites" & "reds". The "whites" consisted of middle and upper class mostly, as it happends from the same place where the army recruited they´re officers.......
Mannerheim came from this background but it is here where he shows his brilliance, not so much on the battlefield but as a stateman. He always saw on Finnlands position with clear eyes.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 15
- 5/11/2002 5:34:04 AM   
Bernard

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/27/2002
From: Belgium
Status: offline
Where do you keep a version of these rules ?
I am personaly of fan of doing any "idiotic" thing that is NOT historical. I am more interested in What-ifs than replaying it exactly as it was.
Like, I am upset that you have to produce italian tanks in Italy - why not allow for Mussolini to be intelligent and ask Hitler to build Pz under licence agreement (I think they actually thought about it) -why wouldn't that work ?
By hte way, how would i play with one of you ? max 1-2 plays per week (1 in WE, 1 the week when i am lucky).
best regards.

_____________________________

Ben

Verzage ni

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 16
- 5/11/2002 7:34:52 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
The Finns did in fact stop along a line that was roughly equivalent to their pre-1940 borders and made it very clear to the Germans they would go no further. They were pursuaded late in September 1941 to push a little further than their old borders and attacked and took Petrozavodsk and a line along the Svir river (actually east of Leningrad). However, beyond that, they would not budge.

Its really impossible to simulate what the Finns did in a game, because the Finns were playing for the "end game" beyond the war. The wanted no responsibility, should the Germans lose the war" for some kind of war of aggression. The Finns wanted it clear that they were merely trying to recover the territory the Soviets had taken from them when Stalin invaded in 1940.

So, I don't think a house rule is necessarily a good idea. I've played many games and have as the russians stopped the finns butt cold. I personally don't see a problem. Any kind of house rule is just some russian player attempting to squeeze a few extra divisions and a tank corps or two down to the main front.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 17
- 5/11/2002 8:57:42 AM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernard
[B]I am personaly of fan of doing any "idiotic" thing that is NOT historical.
[/B][/QUOTE]


Where did anyone say that playing the Finns differently from history was "idiotic"? Some people want to know what happened historically so they can make up their own minds about how to handle the Finns in the game, that's all.


[QUOTE][B]
I am more interested in What-ifs than replaying it exactly as it was.
[/B][/QUOTE]


I really get tired of people saying that. A game with more historical restrictions is NOT a game that is played "exactly as it was". Within the historical restrictions many many outcomes are still possible.


[QUOTE][B]
Like, I am upset that you have to produce italian tanks in Italy
[/B][/QUOTE]


Providing for unlikely what-ifs takes time away from the programmers that could be better spent enhancing the basics and essentials of the game itself.


[QUOTE][B]
- why not allow for Mussolini to be intelligent and ask Hitler to build Pz under licence agreement (I think they actually thought about it) -why wouldn't that work ?
[/B][/QUOTE]


I'll bet this had about as much chance for success as the Germans consolidating all their energies on the FW-190 and dumping the ME line of fighters. We just had a discussion about that recently. The extreme nationalism of Mussolini would have made dependence on another country for such important items unlikely, I think. Besides, the agreement would have broken down almost immediately after the Barbarossa invasion when the Germans found themselves unable to build enough tanks to replace their own losses they were suffering, much less serve the needs of the Italians at the same time.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 18
- 5/11/2002 2:38:48 PM   
Lokioftheaesir

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/26/2001
From: Oz
Status: offline
Ed

""(you) ** (me)
-------------------------------
"I really get tired of people saying that. A game with more historical restrictions is NOT a game that is played "exactly as it was". Within the historical restrictions many many outcomes are still possible."
-----------------------------
**Yes, within the objectively possible historical restrictions quite a lot can be changed.**
-----------------------------
"I'll bet this had about as much chance for success as the Germans consolidating all their energies on the FW-190 and dumping the ME line of fighters. We just had a discussion about that recently. The extreme nationalism of Mussolini would have made dependence on another country for such important items unlikely, I think. Besides, the agreement would have broken down almost immediately after the Barbarossa invasion when the Germans found themselves unable to build enough tanks to replace their own losses they were suffering, much less serve the needs of the Italians at the same time."
_____________________________
**A cheap shot, you and i both know that that if Hitler had of ordered it then Kurt Tanks'190
design could of easily been produced by Me with only a couple of months retooling. You seem to be stuck on this point. Face the 'objective' facts that there is nothing but pride stopping such a retooling, in hitler's germany (and everywhere)
fear outguns pride every time.
Are you saying that Me 'would' not produce the 190
if ordered to do so?
Think again.... or die(as would have happened)**


Loki

I dont see the problem?? I FDR had said to Boeing
'Build a copy of the NA B-25', well boeing would have no trouble doing that and would do so (are you going to argue with the president? (And unlike Hitler he can't order you into the Gestapo dungeons)
Get real, align your objective freedoms of action on the map with the objective freedoms of action in the political/industrial sphere. There is NO
reason why the FW190 'could not' have been produced en-mass instead of the 109.

Loki

_____________________________

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 19
- 5/11/2002 2:48:04 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
[B]Ed


I dont see the problem?? I FDR had said to Boeing
'Build a copy of the NA B-25', well boeing would have no trouble doing that and would do so (are you going to argue with the president? (And unlike Hitler he can't order you into the Gestapo dungeons)
Get real, align your objective freedoms of action on the map with the objective freedoms of action in the political/industrial sphere. There is NO
reason why the FW190 'could not' have been produced en-mass instead of the 109.

Loki [/B][/QUOTE]

Allowing any nation to produce whatever weapon it wants as soon as it was historically designed essentially allows a game to be played with complete historical hindsight. This is unrealistic.

Using your argument, there is no reason why the ME262 could not have been mass-produced in 1942, the Spitfire in 1938 instead of the Hurricaine, the Sherman 90 instead of the 76 in 1942, the T-34 instead of the T-28 in 1940 instead of 1941, the Mustang instead of the Thunderbolt in 1942, and on and on and so on and so forth.

I'm afraid that the relative capabilities of a weapon were not so easily known at the time design was completed, and nations and military forces were not so willing to stake their existence on an unknown quantity. This fear/reluctance, or just plain ignorance, had decisive impact on the outcome of the war.

Unless a game designer puts in some limitations on the production choices that can be made by players to reflect these considerations, you have a "labratory" simulation with very little connection to the period it is trying to simulate, and it therefore becomes a boring numbers and stats game.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 20
- 5/11/2002 3:00:16 PM   
Preuss

 

Posts: 372
Joined: 4/8/2002
From: Australia
Status: offline
I'm really thinking that house rules within a computer game are a more trouble than they are worth. They just end up sparking more controversy than anything.
I haven't used my finns for anything more than bombardment...as for the FW-190/Bf-109 bit...I like to have em both...call me weird. As far as production costs go...there may have been a man-hour question to deal with. Besides, the 109 was much superior to the 190 at high altitudes. Replacements for the 109...like the Me-309 didn't produce enough improvement in performance to warrant a change over in production.
As far as the Italians building German designed tanks...doubt it would happen...besides national pride..italy only got the steel that Germany spared them...most of it coming from Sweden.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 21
- 5/11/2002 3:11:09 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
Preuss : I agree. Unless the game has an absolute bonehead thing wrong with it that both players agree is ridiculous, house rules usually don't work.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 22
- 5/11/2002 3:20:22 PM   
Lokioftheaesir

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/26/2001
From: Oz
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]

Allowing any nation to produce whatever weapon it wants as soon as it was historically designed essentially allows a game to be played with complete historical hindsight. This is unrealistic.

Using your argument, there is no reason why the ME262 could not have been mass-produced in 1942, the Spitfire in 1938 instead of the Hurricaine, the Sherman 90 instead of the 76 in 1942, the T-34 instead of the T-28 in 1940 instead of 1941, the Mustang instead of the Thunderbolt in 1942, and on and on and so on and so forth.

I'm afraid that the relative capabilities of a weapon were not so easily known at the time design was completed, and nations and military forces were not so willing to stake their existence on an unknown quantity. This fear/reluctance, or just plain ignorance, had decisive impact on the outcome of the war.

Unless a game designer puts in some limitations on the production choices that can be made by players to reflect these considerations, you have a "labratory" simulation with very little connection to the period it is trying to simulate, and it therefore becomes a boring numbers and stats game. [/B][/QUOTE]

Dgaad

You of course are entitled to your opinion.

In Wir i swap all fighter factories to FW109 (but for one or two 109f factories)because the design is already in the air and proven.
I do not produce HE177's as they had many troubles.
I change all AFVs to Pz 111h cause it is proven.
I produce few if any Elephants as the design had troubles.

So you see i limmit my 'Historical hindsight' to what are reliable designs.
If i cannot do this then what do you suggest??
No altering of production types?
That is what you are saying. So why do you look at production at all? Why bother even talking about it?
Just let the game produce what it wants is what you are saying. While you are at it why not let the game move all the ground units just how they were moved historically?? That is the same thing is it not. Or is Guderian moving NW instead of SW OK (and the momentous changes that causes) But if Der Fuhrer says More 190's instead of 'Let it be'
then that is 'not' OK.
What is this problem to modifying production in objectively possible ways but there is no objection to sending armies off in all directions
in also possible ways?

Rationalise your logic (political/industrial alternatives are no less possible than spacial/millitary)

Loki

_____________________________

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 23
- 5/11/2002 3:44:23 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
[B]

Dgaad

You of course are entitled to your opinion.

In Wir i swap all fighter factories to FW109 (but for one or two 109f factories)because the design is already in the air and proven.
I do not produce HE177's as they had many troubles.
I change all AFVs to Pz 111h cause it is proven.
I produce few if any Elephants as the design had troubles.

So you see i limmit my 'Historical hindsight' to what are reliable designs.
If i cannot do this then what do you suggest??
No altering of production types?
That is what you are saying. So why do you look at production at all? Why bother even talking about it?
Just let the game produce what it wants is what you are saying. While you are at it why not let the game move all the ground units just how they were moved historically?? That is the same thing is it not. Or is Guderian moving NW instead of SW OK (and the momentous changes that causes) But if Der Fuhrer says More 190's instead of 'Let it be'
then that is 'not' OK.
What is this problem to modifying production in objectively possible ways but there is no objection to sending armies off in all directions
in also possible ways?

Rationalise your logic (political/industrial alternatives are no less possible than spacial/millitary)

Loki [/B][/QUOTE]

Its interesting to see what would have happened had all political and economic decisions been completely rational during the war. As you know, many many mistakes were made by both sides in political, economic and military spheres.

You are wrong about what I am saying. I said that "some" limitations should be put in if it is to be a game that reflects the history of the period. In other games, I've recommended that players have the option of turning off all historical limitations if they want to play that way. I don't like to play that way because I think its no longer a historical wargame, its just a pure wargame with history and other kinds of limitations completely dispensed with. Its more like chess.

Your arguments to support the idea that you should be allowed to switch production to the equipment with the best numerical stats as soon as its available is not a historical argument. Its a play-style and preference argument.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 24
- 5/11/2002 4:29:50 PM   
JIM366

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 5/6/2002
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Status: offline
In my humble opinion, switching all production to one type of weapon is a squeeze designed to maximize a player's advantage without the need for superior play: If you switch to all FW-190 production, the VVS cannot hope to challenge you in the air until 1944; the Red Army will be slaughtered by waves of Ju-87g's protected by hordes of FW-190's, while the fleets of He-177's pound your factories into dust. This is exactly what happened to me when I agreed to play a 'no restrictions on production' game some years ago; the only reason why I survived into late 1943 was that my opponent kept driving his Pz corp's deep into my rear area, these corps were promptly cut off and killed (perhaps I should say Panzer Corpses...).

I think that the only reasonable thing to do is for individual players to decide amongst themselves what, if any limits or guidelines to place on production. When I play the Germans, I build Me-109's and Fw-190's in a 50/50 mix. I set 6 afv factories to build one type of tank, and the remaining 3 factories to build a second type of tank. As the Soviets, I do pretty much the same thing; 50/50 fighter production, no more than 5 or 6 KV factories, build T-60's with 1 or 2 factories, and everything else is T-34's. I never switch what class of equipment a factory is building (fighter, tank, ground attack, Stug, you get the picture). If players want to do things differently, that's fine. Different players have different styles, there is no right or wrong, WIR is just a game (I think...).

Please excuse the length of this rant, but I've read arguments from both sides, and I don't think this debate can be won by anyone. And on that note, I will shut up about the subject...

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 25
- 5/11/2002 4:50:39 PM   
Lokioftheaesir

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/26/2001
From: Oz
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]

Its interesting to see what would have happened had all political and economic decisions been completely rational during the war. As you know, many many mistakes were made by both sides in political, economic and military spheres.

You are wrong about what I am saying. I said that "some" limitations should be put in if it is to be a game that reflects the history of the period. In other games, I've recommended that players have the option of turning off all historical limitations if they want to play that way. I don't like to play that way because I think its no longer a historical wargame, its just a pure wargame with history and other kinds of limitations completely dispensed with. Its more like chess.

Your arguments to support the idea that you should be allowed to switch production to the equipment with the best numerical stats as soon as its available is not a historical argument. Its a play-style and preference argument. [/B][/QUOTE]

Dgaad

--------------
Dgaad

quote
"Its interesting to see what would have happened had all political and economic decisions been completely rational during the war."

I only used the term 'rational' in 'rationalise your logic'. But yes, rationalising production, modified by historical perspective is what i aim for.
'Objectively possible' is the common term i refer to. I seem to be the only one who ever uses that term in relation to what is posible in production.
---------------------
"Your arguments to support the idea that you should be allowed to switch production to the equipment with the best numerical stats as soon as its available is not a historical argument."
------
The Game starts with the FW190 already in production and units in the field so your premise in that area is void. If i switch production to PZ3h as soon as it is available it is because the PZ3g is already proven. By your arguement i would switch to elephants or Pz4g as soon as they are available,, I do not, once again your premise is void.
I modify production logically as i see it. I do the same on the battlefield. The alternative is to produce equipment that has obvious superior counterparts and to stick the 6th army in Stalingrad so it can be cut off.
Is that what you do?
--------------------
"In other games, I've recommended that players have the option of turning off all historical limitations if they want to play that way. I don't like to play that way because I think its no longer a historical wargame, its just a pure wargame with history and other kinds of limitations completely dispensed with. Its more like chess."
--
Who asked you to enter any of the production screens? Were you forced? If you want to play with historical production then no-one is stopping you. But please do not try to tell me why i cannot alter what the game allows as valid objective alternatives. You must first prove that they are NOT valid alteratives.
---------------------
"I said that "some" limitations should be put in if it is to be a game that reflects the history of the period"
---
And who would decide on these limitations? You?
We are given the GodLike power to do what is objectively possible. Most (but not all)of the options we are given are possible. Those who try to limmit the options because of what happened in reality fail to note that the other options were also possible.
Besides my self-imposed limmitations what exact
production options in the game are you saying
were not possible. (thats 'possible'.. If i withdraw the german army to the Kassel area in 1941 it is entirely possible and NO-ONE would argue that i could do it. Are you saying that
it is 'more' possible than a production change to FW190's?)

This is what i mean by 'Rationalise your Logic'

--------------------
"Its a play-style and preference argument."
----
Respectfully....Crap. That is your fall back, not my reason. If i decided to switch all production to 109's and Pz2's would you still make that statement? Even though it is just as 'ahistorical' I suspect you use it because you can find no other faults in my arguement.
Lets treat this as a proposal of a logical statement. I made my statement, you must disprove it.

Loki

_____________________________

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 26
- 5/11/2002 5:01:40 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
Loki : you seem to be taking all of this too personally.

Removing historical restrictions on production or anything else removes the game from being a historical simulation. Thats all. Remove production limitations, and you no longer have as good a historical simulation in regards to economics.

WIR is a great game. It does not have military deployment limitations to the extent the Germans and Russians had them historically. Nothing to prevent you from using Rumanian troops near Leningrad. I don't find this historical, but its a minor, extremely minor, issue in this respect.

Changing historical production limitations in WIR, however, has a fantastically unbalancing effect on the game, and is massively unhistorical. You are free to play that way and find opponents who like to play that way. Have fun. Just don't fool yourself or them into thinking that such a play style is still a good simulation of history. Its not.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 27
- 5/11/2002 5:17:18 PM   
Lokioftheaesir

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/26/2001
From: Oz
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]Loki : you seem to be taking all of this too personally.

Removing historical restrictions on production or anything else removes the game from being a historical simulation. Thats all. Remove production limitations, and you no longer have as good a historical simulation in regards to economics.

WIR is a great game. It does not have military deployment limitations to the extent the Germans and Russians had them historically. Nothing to prevent you from using Rumanian troops near Leningrad. I don't find this historical, but its a minor, extremely minor, issue in this respect.

Changing historical production limitations in WIR, however, has a fantastically unbalancing effect on the game, and is massively unhistorical. You are free to play that way and find opponents who like to play that way. Have fun. Just don't fool yourself or them into thinking that such a play style is still a good simulation of history. Its not. [/B][/QUOTE]

Dgaad

I must inform you my friend that i in no way take any of this personally, it is an interesting arguement to me and that is all. Would you like to discuse 'Moral absolutes' or 'Machine Intelligence'? I'm easy.
I dont know you from a bar of soap. How could i take anything you say personally?
---------------

"Just don't fool yourself or them into thinking that such a play style is still a good simulation of history. Its not."

Just do'nt fool yourself that you know anything about what i would be fooled by or what is my interpretation of a good simulation of history.
Wir is not a simulation of History. If you want that then read a history of the east front.
WiR is a simulation of 'what is possible' within objective reality.
I can leave production to the game and still withdraw the german army to Kassel in '41.
Is that a good simulation of History?

'Them'???? Are you saying i'm trying win support?
I dont need peers to support my statemnts Dgaad.
I'm a stand alone mechanism.

Loki

Anyway, i'm logging off now so feel free to have the last word. Maybe Ed will reply to these posts,
at least he uses specific facts and examples to support his side of an arguement. Not just opinions. :)

_____________________________

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 28
- 5/11/2002 5:50:50 PM   
Bernard

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/27/2002
From: Belgium
Status: offline
Hi guys,
you were quite active while i was sleeping.

I like it when i hear about historical reality.
- not on such a lenghtscale -
ok for replaying a battle (say, Zitadelle for example) but not in the long run.
Didi it occur to you that "historical" behaviour" were in fact adapted to results on the fields ?
like :
why were so many StugIII produced ? because it was cheaper to produce than tanks and they were badly needed then;
PzII were ok as long as they didn't have to face T34 well commanded. Once there were too many of these, Germans had to start producing massively good tanks. Me262 could actually have been into the field (or the game) one full year earlier if Hitler hadn't wanted to make a bomber out of it.
German production could have been much more in 1940 and 1941 if Hitler had mobilized all resources (level of output for 40-41 is ridiculous). it began to increase when Speer became reichminister for production. Delocalizing production in 43 and the disruption (yet highest level attained) that came with it is also an adaptation to allied bombings.

So, my point is, if the situation on the field had been different, "historical" behaviour would have also changed.

So yes, i scrap Bf (not Me) 109 as soon as i can.
yes i invade china with mandchurian troops and invade India through China (oops, wrong game, but same discussion can take place in Pacific War : why allow troops to be played in China when historically they were only a burden and had no impact on general course of action).

i would also love to be able to play the german parachute corps in Russia (also ahistorical) since Hitler grounded these troops after Merkur. Also be able to intervene with the Kriegsmarine (send the Tirpitz and sink the Merchants convoys ... they tried it actually). or bomb Leningrad with german ships ...

Also , on the Me262 subject, if i remenber, WIR allows you to produce me262 since start of the war. simply there is no output but production may be started earlier - like it could have been.

Conclusion : play it like you like it. i like it ahistorical.

best regards.

_____________________________

Ben

Verzage ni

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 29
- 5/11/2002 7:29:57 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
[B]

Just do'nt fool yourself that you know anything about what i would be fooled by or what is my interpretation of a good simulation of history.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Thats just the point, you don't know what a historical simulation is. You've used historical arguments like "the FW190 was in production in 1942, so there's nothing ahistorical about scrapping all 109 production and switching everything over to 190 production". That's not a historical argument. Production limitations are there for historical reasons. Remove them or change them, and you remove a historical aspect of the game. Why is that so hard to understand?

[QUOTE][B]

Wir is not a simulation of History. If you want that then read a history of the east front.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry, but WIR is a military-historical simulation. Thats why its about a period of history, that's why the units are from the Soviet Union and Fascist Germany, nations which no longer exist. Reading a history is not getting a military simulation. Only board wargames and computer wargames based on history can do that.

[QUOTE][B]


WiR is a simulation of 'what is possible' within objective reality.

[/B][/QUOTE]

That's an interesting definition of the game. I haven't been to the "What is Possible Within Objective Reality" shelf of my local computer game store lately. I'm not quite sure what you think you mean by "objective reality".

[QUOTE][B]

'Them'???? Are you saying i'm trying win support?
I dont need peers to support my statemnts Dgaad.
I'm a stand alone mechanism.

[/B][/QUOTE]

"Them" referred to your opponents.

[QUOTE][B]

Maybe Ed will reply to these posts,
at least he uses specific facts and examples to support his side of an arguement. Not just opinions. :) [/B][/QUOTE]

It is not an opinon to say that to the extent you remove historical biases and limitations from a game, you then lessen the accuracy of the military historical simulation. That is in fact a purely logical statement.

(in reply to bgiddings)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> War In Russia: The Matrix Edition >> Finn House Rule question Page: [1] 2 3 4   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

0.199