Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [wifdiscussion] Re: Rules that add more game time than they are worth?

Expand Messages
  • tfancher@saginaw-mi.com
    We played Classic at WIFCON with no oil, and I think it heavily favors the Axis. Of course we could not save oil, but that did not matter. There was no need
    Message 1 of 41 , Sep 24, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      We played Classic at WIFCON with no oil, and I think it heavily favors the
      Axis. Of course we could not save oil, but that did not matter. There
      was no need to do so, at least for the Axis. The Allies could still
      suffer if there was an end of turn CP hit in the Atlantic. There was
      always more total resources than factories for the Axis (from 1941), even
      with maxing out Italy.

      I was thinking of trying out Pablo's Rule and am interested in why you
      hated it. Also, can anyone give me a link to get to the text of Pablo's
      Rule easily?




      "Roger" <roger_dubbs@...>
      Sent by: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      09/23/2010 04:21 PM
      Please respond to
      wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com


      To
      wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      cc

      Subject
      [wifdiscussion] Re: Rules that add more game time than they are worth?







      My last 2 games used the WiF5 rule and then Pablo's rule - we hated both,
      and are now playing RaW oil.

      Any oil rule will add time though, since you now have something else to
      strategically balance out. More decisions = more time.

      I agree wholeheartedly that you shouldn't save oil if you don't play with
      an oil rule.

      --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "kenzclark" <kenzclark@...> wrote:
      >
      > RAW oil takes a long time, Pablo's oil rule or the WiFCon gas rule take
      a lot less time, or for that matter the WiF 5 production-based rule. I
      personally like Pablo's rule a lot, and the Wif 5 production rule as well.
      >
      > If you play without oil and avoid some of the problems that the extra
      prodution gives you, don't permit saving oil...
      >
      > Ken
      >
      > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Roger" <roger_dubbs@> wrote:
      > >
      > > It seems to me that the fastest way to play is to simply play RAW
      Classic with no optional rules. Adding counter sets is the surest way to
      slow down the game.
      > >
      > > Few optional rules actually speed up the game. Fractional odds is just
      about the only standard optional rule that has this effect. Some optionals
      have no real effect on time spent, and these could be included in a fast
      game.
      > >
      > > A good clock rule can also help with a fast game, as has recently been
      discussed.
      > >
      > > I guess whether individual rules add more time than its worth, that is
      a value judgement - Rich is right about the speed of oil, but many argue
      that the value outweighs it.
      > >
      > > Roger
      > >
      > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Richard Gause <RG1066@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I like all three rules and think they would all help speed up the
      game. Playing without oil also helps immensly in speeding things up.
      > > >
      > > > Rich Gause
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: Henrik Lawaetz <wiffe_henrik@>
      > > > To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Sent: Wed, Sep 22, 2010 2:53 pm
      > > > Subject: [wifdiscussion] Rules that add more game time than they are
      worth?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Spoiler warning: If you just love optimizing your US production
      schedule so that
      > > > every US 1941 CV can be started 'on time' and completed in the N/D
      1941: - READ
      > > > NO FURTHER
      > > >
      > > > Problem statement
      > > > ---------------------------
      > > > We play only about 4 hours a week and want to see the games progress
      at a
      > > > reasonable pace. Also, we have a playing style where everyone
      follows the key
      > > > theaters intensely, offering advice of varying quality to the 'point

      > > > players'. At one point we barely managed a turn per playing session.

      > > >
      > > > This made my gaming group investigate ways of shortening the game
      without
      > > > altering the core game mechanics or removing really essential stuff
      - we insist
      > > > on keeping the strategic choices and scale, but can do without some
      of the
      > > > chrome. Certainly the chrome that takes a lot of time and thought
      aways from
      > > > deciding on strategies and moving units. And absolutely the chrome
      that triggers
      > > > players performing strange exercises that bear no resemblance to
      real-life
      > > > decisions.
      > > >
      > > > Here are three such rules:
      > > >
      > > > 1. Random picking of units from force pools
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > > This is a way of simulating that not all R&D, organizational, and
      political
      > > > production choices make sense - which those of us who work in
      real-life R&D can
      > > > attest to first hand. However, in the game flow you make a lot of
      indirect
      > > > decisions to affect this, i.e. scrapping of certain units, not
      building some
      > > > types at all, e.g. the Germans might produce his LND-2 before any
      LND-3. Also,
      > > > having the Rumanian ARM and just one SS ARM in the force pool is a
      classic. I
      > > > realize, that without this the Germans will probably not repeat
      their Me210
      > > > debacle and similar production mishaps. But the dark side of this is
      that some
      > > > reasonable builds will produce completely useless units - just
      consider the
      > > > recent debate over CW CVPs.
      > > >
      > > > 2. Gearing
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > > I guess most players will agree that switching from building just
      ships one
      > > > month to just tanks the next is not realistic. But WIFFE production
      can be seen
      > > > on a broader level as representing just the expansion part of builds
      - there is
      > > > a lot of maintenance and replacement activity going on, e.g.
      servicing and
      > > > refitting ships and replacing ground and air losses below the whole
      unit level.
      > > > Again one might also take a look at the game effects this rule has:
      forcing
      > > > players to build inferior units just to keep the production
      apparatus ready for
      > > > any losses, or even worse the routine escalation up to the annual
      force pool
      > > > adds. Remember in teh old days building "phantom" MIL?
      > > >
      > > > 3. Saving build points
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > > Now this seems totally unrealistic to me - I could perhaps
      understand saving raw
      > > > materials, but building generic *stuff* that can be assembled at a
      later date
      > > > based on our needs at that time... ? Or the two worst effects: 1)
      Vichy France
      > > > saving up the max in their cities for later donation to their
      master: Germany,
      > > > and 2) China accumulating a lot of BP, then donating all of it to
      the USSR once
      > > > a railroad is opened up. What is this rule trying to acheive? The
      only thign I
      > > > can think of is to allow a way for smaller industrial powers to
      build a more
      > > > expensive unit, e.g. Free France building deGaulle (HQ ARM at 8 bp),
      or a
      > > > down-but-not-out China building more than just INF.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Here are my suggestions
      > > > ====================================
      > > > 1. When you setup or build a unit from the force pools (or halve a
      force pool,
      > > > etc, etc): Owner chooses the one you want. There is no scrapping.
      You save a lot
      > > > of time. Of course any player is free to place units he never
      intends to build
      > > > aside to have a better overview of his 'active' force pools - but he
      can always
      > > > change his mind and retrieve it. Alos, no need to ponder over
      whether to add
      > > > minor country units to your force pools - you just add them (whether
      you build
      > > > them or not, that is now up to you).
      > > >
      > > > 2. No gearing limits - build what you like.
      > > >
      > > > 3. No saving of build points - with the advent of Offensive Points
      (aka. "crack
      > > > points"), any left over can be psent on these. I suggest allowing
      any nation
      > > > building just a single unit in a turn to convert crack points 1-to-1
      into build
      > > > points (this will allow any nation to 'save up' and build an
      expensive unit).
      > > >
      > > > We have pretty much played the above for the last two games. We do
      not believe
      > > > these simplifications affect play balance.
      > > >
      > > > I realize that some or even most of you will not like these ideas,
      but I would
      > > > still be interested in hearing your comments.
      > > >
      > > > But more importantly, similar ideas or thoughts would be welcome.
      Especially
      > > > ones you have tried, are perhaps actually still using, or even ones
      that got
      > > > rejected but had some merit.
      > > >
      > > > /Henrik
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • kenzclark
      Which can be found at: http://capitalwif.wikidot.com/simple-oil-rule
      Message 41 of 41 , Oct 4, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Which can be found at:

        http://capitalwif.wikidot.com/simple-oil-rule

        --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Steve Balk <sajbalk@...> wrote:
        >
        > see the capital wif wikipedia for the most current version.
        >
        >
        > Steve
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: tfancher@...
        > To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 8:11 am
        > Subject: Re: [wifdiscussion] Re: Rules that add more game time than they are worth?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > We played Classic at WIFCON with no oil, and I think it heavily favors the
        > Axis. Of course we could not save oil, but that did not matter. There
        > was no need to do so, at least for the Axis. The Allies could still
        > suffer if there was an end of turn CP hit in the Atlantic. There was
        > always more total resources than factories for the Axis (from 1941), even
        > with maxing out Italy.
        >
        > I was thinking of trying out Pablo's Rule and am interested in why you
        > hated it. Also, can anyone give me a link to get to the text of Pablo's
        > Rule easily?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > "Roger" <roger_dubbs@...>
        > Sent by: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        > 09/23/2010 04:21 PM
        > Please respond to
        > wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        > To
        > wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        > cc
        >
        > Subject
        > [wifdiscussion] Re: Rules that add more game time than they are worth?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > My last 2 games used the WiF5 rule and then Pablo's rule - we hated both,
        > and are now playing RaW oil.
        >
        > Any oil rule will add time though, since you now have something else to
        > strategically balance out. More decisions = more time.
        >
        > I agree wholeheartedly that you shouldn't save oil if you don't play with
        > an oil rule.
        >
        > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "kenzclark" <kenzclark@> wrote:
        > >
        > > RAW oil takes a long time, Pablo's oil rule or the WiFCon gas rule take
        > a lot less time, or for that matter the WiF 5 production-based rule. I
        > personally like Pablo's rule a lot, and the Wif 5 production rule as well.
        > >
        > > If you play without oil and avoid some of the problems that the extra
        > prodution gives you, don't permit saving oil...
        > >
        > > Ken
        > >
        > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Roger" <roger_dubbs@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > It seems to me that the fastest way to play is to simply play RAW
        > Classic with no optional rules. Adding counter sets is the surest way to
        > slow down the game.
        > > >
        > > > Few optional rules actually speed up the game. Fractional odds is just
        > about the only standard optional rule that has this effect. Some optionals
        > have no real effect on time spent, and these could be included in a fast
        > game.
        > > >
        > > > A good clock rule can also help with a fast game, as has recently been
        > discussed.
        > > >
        > > > I guess whether individual rules add more time than its worth, that is
        > a value judgement - Rich is right about the speed of oil, but many argue
        > that the value outweighs it.
        > > >
        > > > Roger
        > > >
        > > > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Richard Gause <RG1066@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > I like all three rules and think they would all help speed up the
        > game. Playing without oil also helps immensly in speeding things up.
        > > > >
        > > > > Rich Gause
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > > From: Henrik Lawaetz <wiffe_henrik@>
        > > > > To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > Sent: Wed, Sep 22, 2010 2:53 pm
        > > > > Subject: [wifdiscussion] Rules that add more game time than they are
        > worth?
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Spoiler warning: If you just love optimizing your US production
        > schedule so that
        > > > > every US 1941 CV can be started 'on time' and completed in the N/D
        > 1941: - READ
        > > > > NO FURTHER
        > > > >
        > > > > Problem statement
        > > > > ---------------------------
        > > > > We play only about 4 hours a week and want to see the games progress
        > at a
        > > > > reasonable pace. Also, we have a playing style where everyone
        > follows the key
        > > > > theaters intensely, offering advice of varying quality to the 'point
        >
        > > > > players'. At one point we barely managed a turn per playing session.
        >
        > > > >
        > > > > This made my gaming group investigate ways of shortening the game
        > without
        > > > > altering the core game mechanics or removing really essential stuff
        > - we insist
        > > > > on keeping the strategic choices and scale, but can do without some
        > of the
        > > > > chrome. Certainly the chrome that takes a lot of time and thought
        > aways from
        > > > > deciding on strategies and moving units. And absolutely the chrome
        > that triggers
        > > > > players performing strange exercises that bear no resemblance to
        > real-life
        > > > > decisions.
        > > > >
        > > > > Here are three such rules:
        > > > >
        > > > > 1. Random picking of units from force pools
        > > > > ------------------------------------
        > > > > This is a way of simulating that not all R&D, organizational, and
        > political
        > > > > production choices make sense - which those of us who work in
        > real-life R&D can
        > > > > attest to first hand. However, in the game flow you make a lot of
        > indirect
        > > > > decisions to affect this, i.e. scrapping of certain units, not
        > building some
        > > > > types at all, e.g. the Germans might produce his LND-2 before any
        > LND-3. Also,
        > > > > having the Rumanian ARM and just one SS ARM in the force pool is a
        > classic. I
        > > > > realize, that without this the Germans will probably not repeat
        > their Me210
        > > > > debacle and similar production mishaps. But the dark side of this is
        > that some
        > > > > reasonable builds will produce completely useless units - just
        > consider the
        > > > > recent debate over CW CVPs.
        > > > >
        > > > > 2. Gearing
        > > > > ------------------------------------
        > > > > I guess most players will agree that switching from building just
        > ships one
        > > > > month to just tanks the next is not realistic. But WIFFE production
        > can be seen
        > > > > on a broader level as representing just the expansion part of builds
        > - there is
        > > > > a lot of maintenance and replacement activity going on, e.g.
        > servicing and
        > > > > refitting ships and replacing ground and air losses below the whole
        > unit level.
        > > > > Again one might also take a look at the game effects this rule has:
        > forcing
        > > > > players to build inferior units just to keep the production
        > apparatus ready for
        > > > > any losses, or even worse the routine escalation up to the annual
        > force pool
        > > > > adds. Remember in teh old days building "phantom" MIL?
        > > > >
        > > > > 3. Saving build points
        > > > > ------------------------------------
        > > > > Now this seems totally unrealistic to me - I could perhaps
        > understand saving raw
        > > > > materials, but building generic *stuff* that can be assembled at a
        > later date
        > > > > based on our needs at that time... ? Or the two worst effects: 1)
        > Vichy France
        > > > > saving up the max in their cities for later donation to their
        > master: Germany,
        > > > > and 2) China accumulating a lot of BP, then donating all of it to
        > the USSR once
        > > > > a railroad is opened up. What is this rule trying to acheive? The
        > only thign I
        > > > > can think of is to allow a way for smaller industrial powers to
        > build a more
        > > > > expensive unit, e.g. Free France building deGaulle (HQ ARM at 8 bp),
        > or a
        > > > > down-but-not-out China building more than just INF.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Here are my suggestions
        > > > > ====================================
        > > > > 1. When you setup or build a unit from the force pools (or halve a
        > force pool,
        > > > > etc, etc): Owner chooses the one you want. There is no scrapping.
        > You save a lot
        > > > > of time. Of course any player is free to place units he never
        > intends to build
        > > > > aside to have a better overview of his 'active' force pools - but he
        > can always
        > > > > change his mind and retrieve it. Alos, no need to ponder over
        > whether to add
        > > > > minor country units to your force pools - you just add them (whether
        > you build
        > > > > them or not, that is now up to you).
        > > > >
        > > > > 2. No gearing limits - build what you like.
        > > > >
        > > > > 3. No saving of build points - with the advent of Offensive Points
        > (aka. "crack
        > > > > points"), any left over can be psent on these. I suggest allowing
        > any nation
        > > > > building just a single unit in a turn to convert crack points 1-to-1
        > into build
        > > > > points (this will allow any nation to 'save up' and build an
        > expensive unit).
        > > > >
        > > > > We have pretty much played the above for the last two games. We do
        > not believe
        > > > > these simplifications affect play balance.
        > > > >
        > > > > I realize that some or even most of you will not like these ideas,
        > but I would
        > > > > still be interested in hearing your comments.
        > > > >
        > > > > But more importantly, similar ideas or thoughts would be welcome.
        > Especially
        > > > > ones you have tried, are perhaps actually still using, or even ones
        > that got
        > > > > rejected but had some merit.
        > > > >
        > > > > /Henrik
        > > > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.