Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

John Prados' Third Reich» Forums » Rules

Subject: Contradiction between Client Status and Molotov/Ribbentrop rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ulrich A
Austria
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Case:

*Molotov/Ribbentrop is in effect.
*Soviet Union goes to war with Romania.
*Romania later becomes a German client.

Soviet Union must DoW Germany (5.48), but isn´t allowed to. shakeshakeshake
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Lapinou
France
flag msg tools
no es una contradiction.
I don't remember where, but I am 100% sure it is said somewhere in the rules that USSR must then stop war against romania, and Germany even gains a 1 or 2 bonus influence with Romania since it made the war stop. This maybe in the event desciption, or somewhere in the rulebook
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Luta
United States
Henderson
Nevada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The outcome is described in the text for the Molotov-Ribbentrop chit, as the previous posted noted. A war between the USSR and a minor nation can be stopped (must be stopped, actually) as soon as Germany achieves client status with this minor nation.

The obvious historical event this allows simulation of is the Winter War in Finland. Under game rules, most wars cannot be stopped between nations until one surrenders, at which point it can become conquered, or liberated. For most cases in the European Theater WWII, this is acceptable, but Finland is a notable exception, as this short war ended with a truce, and Finland then of course joined the Axis cause in time for the invasion of the Soviet Union. The incentive in this game for the Soviets to go to war early with Finland is to protect the northern approach to Leningrad, and the Finn 3-3 infantry can never be rebuilt to full strength once damaged. So there is the potential to seriously weaken a future German ally--Germany of course wants to stop this war as soon as possible, to limit the number of damaged 3-3 infantry, and so will normally work to quickly achieve client status.

However, it also works with Romania, or Turkey, with the problem that it is more difficult for Germany to gain client status over these nations.

The game designers even admit in the notes it would have been virtually impossible to consider every possible permuation of different combinations of event chits and alliance status. However, this particular one is clearly defined. But, in general, the idea is to notice what historical situation is being emulated, and apply the rules logically on that basis. For example, Greece and Turkey hate each other, so many things which sway one of these nations towards one's side will tend to hurt one's relations with the other. As I have noted in the past, unlike Advanced Third Reich, this is not a good game for rules lawyers. It is probably possible, using a close reading of the minor nation control rules, to come up with a scenario where a neutral Italy could end up controlling a minor nation attacked by Germany, but unless somehow Italy is leaning towards the Allies (e.g., in a game which starts with Why Die for Danzig), this is obviously not the intent--the idea is a nation on the 'other side' will be controlling the forces of an invaded minor nation. The 'other side' might be difficult to define for all possible combinations of neutral and belligerant major powers, but I submit reasonable players will recognize the 'other side' intuitively when they see it (i.e., the side which does not have incentive to leave an open path to an unnoccupied minor capitol for the invaders!).
 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ulrich A
Austria
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Quote:
The outcome is described in the text for the Molotov-Ribbentrop chit, as the previous posted noted.


Wrong! Please read the text before forcing me to write a rebuttal.

The Soviet Union may not declare war on Germany (or its clients or allies) for one year.

Thats all! There is nothing about a country later, after being at war with the Soviet Union, becoming a client. Dont read something into the rules that isnt there. shake
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Luta
United States
Henderson
Nevada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It would be really nice if you were a little less argumentative. Most people here want to explain their points, not engage in arguments. And particularly in a case such as this, where the answer is simply a question of looking at the proper rules section. (Parenthetically, I find it amazing you actually think you could have found such an incredible situation not covered in the rules, which no one else has ever noticed in all the years this game has been played!)

Once more, you need to look in the specific section for the event chits, the folio titled 'Political Marker Explanations'. The last sentence of the first paragraph under 'Molotov-Ribbentrop (three markers)' reads:

In addition, if any minor nation at war with Germany or the Soviet Union becomes a Soviet or German client or ally during those four turns, Soviet or German hostilities must cease.

The example following this sentence specifically details how this would happen in the case of Finland (showing how the historical outcome can result).
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ulrich A
Austria
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
markluta wrote:
It would be really nice if you were a little less argumentative. Most people here want to explain their points, not engage in arguments. And particularly in a case such as this, where the answer is simply a question of looking at the proper rules section. (Parenthetically, I find it amazing you actually think you could have found such an incredible situation not covered in the rules, which no one else has ever noticed in all the years this game has been played!)

Once more, you need to look in the specific section for the event chits, the folio titled 'Political Marker Explanations'. The last sentence of the first paragraph under 'Molotov-Ribbentrop (three markers)' reads:

In addition, if any minor nation at war with Germany or the Soviet Union becomes a Soviet or German client or ally during those four turns, Soviet or German hostilities must cease.

The example following this sentence specifically details how this would happen in the case of Finland (showing how the historical outcome can result).


I am not argumentative; I just want to follow the rules as written. And I *was* quoting precisely that booklet:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/98174/john-prados-third-r...
Sorry, I can´t find the sentence you refer to.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ulrich A
Austria
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Earl,

I agree. You have most likely resolved the contradiction. It appears that Mark Luta and I were both of the opinion the other was too lazy to look it up. blush

I am usually quoting the updated rules, but I didn´t know any other materials have been updated as well. AP should have put them online, otherwise how are those not having Pacific War supposed to know?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Lyons
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
The sentence in question is part of my Third Reich Political Marker Explanations. Looking at both the Third Reich booklet and the Second World War booklet, the text for the Molotov-Ribbentrop markers appears identical.

The sentence in question is at the end of a long paragraph, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop description is long. I've played half a dozen games of the 1939 scenario, and I still seem to be finding new things in the M-R description.

In the latest game, I do have a situation where a neutral Italy controls a Spain at war with Germany. Romania was a French client when the M-R marker was drawn. France decided to intervene and DOW'ed the USSR. Spain was also a Frence client at the time, moving to ally status as a result of the DOW. This meant that Spain was now at war with both Germany and the USSR! After France finally fell (Winter 1940), Spain was left with Italy as a client.

Italy was going to let Germany invade Spain and try to get Spain to switch sides. This idea died after I reread the switching sides part; Spain won't do it. Spain continues to be a thorn in the smooth conduct of the war.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ulrich A
Austria
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
dracos wrote:
Looking at both the Third Reich booklet and the Second World War booklet, the text for the Molotov-Ribbentrop markers appears identical.


Yes, perhaps if you have the newer edition. In the older edition, M-R explanation is short and confusing:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/98174/john-prados-third-r...

And the explanation you appear to have isn´t online! angry
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Luta
United States
Henderson
Nevada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As I have frequently pointed out, the designers of this game have clearly tried to allow the most likely historical outcome to result from any possible permutation and combination of events. So rules laywers be warned, you are not going to like John Prados Third Reich! But the rest of us wargamers will...

Something which is really clever about this game, is the distribution of the random events chits. Ala '1960' (and the famous 'bag of cubes') the practical effect of the chit cup becomes that even if the chits are skewing heavily towards one side, that means more and more chits favourable to the other side are accumulating. In one memorable game, starting in the 1942 scenario I was playing Britian and literally all three chits for the first part were very favourable to the Axis, I do not remember which exactly, though I do recall that fortunately the AFV License was not among what was pulled...Anyway, just as things appeared darkest for the Allies, the 'Martial India' chit came up, and suddenly North Africa was secure! The Axis had been placing 3 Italian and 1 German 5-4 TAC in the Western Med every turn and been getting a good number of hits, while the British TAC out of Gibraltar had for 3 turns gotten zero hits, and so Britain dared not place surface nor CV forces there. But suddenly, 'Martial India' plus the American invasion of Morocco, and a turn later it was just one bad die roll for the Americans against an Italian 2-5 armour that even kept the Axis in North Africa at all. Unfortunately, the USSR had virtually collapsed and so it ended in an Axis victory...But it was still glorious the Western Allies were able to over time overcome an Axis air blockade.

Again, I really think the rules have to be interpreted to allow the most likely historical outcome to occur. That is in the rules notes, that the only way to make the players plan for events which were considered possible by their historical contemporaries, is if those events actually can occur.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ulrich A
Austria
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
markluta wrote:
As I have frequently pointed out, the designers of this game have clearly tried to allow the most likely historical outcome to result from any possible permutation and combination of events. So rules laywers be warned, you are not going to like John Prados Third Reich!


Yup, and as I have frequently pointed out, one of the most basic rules of game design to is leave nothing about the rules to ad hoc decisions to be made by the players.

That has nothing to do with rules lawyering -the opposite in fact! I want rules that are so complete and logical that disputes (at least 90% of the time) are impossible!

Imagine playing football with some rules not clearly defined! Umpires would become murder victims every month or so. shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Luta
United States
Henderson
Nevada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Name a single complex game where the rules meet your standard? You are not going to have that result out of a game of this complexity. No practical amount of playtest could produce all the possible conflicting outcomes, and every time a fix is made, that potentially affects other rules conflicts.

In football, even a relatively simple rule relating to offside has produced incredible amounts of interpretation and explanation of how it should be applied to new situations as each comes up. It is impossible to simply read the FIFA rulebook and understand how offside will apply during many different real match situations. There are pages and pages of guidance and interpretation. But situations still come up from time to time where the referee has to decide how to apply the rules.

In the early days of football, before it was an international sport, the players were expected to know the rules themselves. They played by the rules and called their own fouls. The referee then was mainly a timekeeper who stood at the midfield touchline. But when the players did have a rules disagreement, the captain from each side would approach and ask for his decision on how to apply some aspect of the rules. Since we do not have a referee for most wargames, the only choice is for players to be reasonable in how they apply the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ulrich A
Austria
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
markluta wrote:
Name a single complex game where the rules meet your standard?


Chess.

Ok, I guess you want a wargame. Well, original 3R (with all available Q&As) does meet my standard.

It is quite possible that, over time, I may come to the conclusion, that some (or all) big changes made by JP3R are to the worse. I would actually have preferred an incrementally improved 3R 5th Edition with no profound changes to the original.

The chesslikeness of 3R is what I most like about that game. Apart from combat results (and one variant counter per side), there is next to nothing not considerable in advance, which makes analyses such as these:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/512048/operation-thanksg...
as interesting, if not even more so, as playing the game itself. This is precisely what I want from a game!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Just out of curiosity, is it possible that you prefer 3R because you have played it a lot and are therefore familiar with it and have found your 'sweet spot' for house rules and rulings?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ulrich A
Austria
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
martimer wrote:
Just out of curiosity, is it possible that you prefer 3R because you have played it a lot and are therefore familiar with it and have found your 'sweet spot' for house rules and rulings?


Interesting consideration; but I don´t really think so. I have not formed a definitive opinion about JP3R, but *if* I come to the conclusion, at some time in the future, that it has really changed to the worse, the reason would most likely be the addition of too many unpredictabilities, such as:
-Political Events
-Diplomacy Rolls
-Random Impulses
-Surrender Rolls,
that altogether force the player into a reactive mode, rather than allow him to be in control.

It all comes down to the fact that I prefer chess-likeness to 'realism'. (I don´t think that JP3R is really that realistic. Many Events are far from plausible, and close to Fantasy.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, good luck. It sounds like you have made up your mind already. Given your apparent need for total control this is probably not the game for you. Not every game is right for every person and I am not being facetious or snarky or in any way insulting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Luta
United States
Henderson
Nevada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
You said it well, Martin. If you really, really like the characteristics of chess and Advanced Third Reich, you are not going to like John Prados Third Reich, most likely. The whole point of the game is to create chaotic conditions that players have to consider in the same way the historical leaders had to consider--as they note in the design notes, the only way to force players to plan for an event which was considered likely to happen at the time, is if it can happen, whether or not in hindsight we think it particularly likely or not. The Allies can no longer count on American entering the war at the start of 1942, and when America does enter the immediate effect is some loss of resources for the Allies. Germany can no longer count on getting Romania as an ally, after all, historically this seems to have been a very unlikely outcome. Thus, the ability of players to use historical knowledge of what strategy worked in the European theater, is much reduced, and they have to react to a very changed strategic situation from what existed historically.

And to another point above, there were pages and pages of errata for the earlier incarnations of Third Reich--until the Third Edition map there was a questionable pair of hexes in Italy which were pretty important to an Italian campaign as to whether the hexes were connected by land or not!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
john bailey
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Some things confuse me. How can Vichy (essentially Nazi puppets with French accents--think Klaus Barbie) join the Allies? De Gaulle, the Free French, and the British would never have accepted them (or trusted the). We all know how collaborators were treated. If Vichy changes sides, there should be a rule that they disband.

Sure, we all like a variant or two; but some things are just plain ridiculous...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Luta
United States
Henderson
Nevada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
You have to look at the actual effects of something like Vichy joining the Allies, not just immediately deciding 'Vichy hated Britain and so would never join the Allies' to be fair to the design. In point of fact, the USA did try to maintain good relations with Vichy France, and this effort was several times frustrated by British or Free French actions elsewhere in the world. Nevertheless, it was certainly the Americans intent to be a friend to Vichy, into 1941, and this is something the Axis side ought to have to plan for.

More specifically, the actual advantages to Vichy joining the Allies are probably fairly small, so long as the Axis account for the possibility. Britain will probably want to occupy Syria early on, to prevent this from being used as a base of operations by the Axis, and this will move Vichy against the Allies. If Britain allows Syria to remain Vichy (and presumably they put down the uprising there), then that would seem a reasonable attempt by the British to warm relations. But in a 'normal' game, there is no chance of getting Vichy as an Allied ally by late 1942 when Torch becomes a possibility, and so invading those colonies in northwest Africa will further alienate Vichy. Even if the Allies did somehow manage to get Vichy as an ally early (where one might assume Laval et al were thrown out and others took over the government), most likely Germany would just invade and take them out of play, as was done later in the war in any event.

However, I have a fundamental problem with any statement that any dipolomatic outcome is impossible. By this criteria, it would have seemed that Romania joining the Axis, or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact itself, were impossible. If such events had never actually happened, today we would probably view those as well as impossible.

Specifically with regards Vichy, Germany did ask for use of their naval bases in north Africa, and Vichy refused. Germany never did press the issue. Later, the Vichy government protested work rules for Vichy citizens being employed in Germany, and again Germany made adjustments. And in late 1942, Admiral Darlan, certainly a Vichy hardliner, did switch sides and order the Vichy forces in north Africa to join the Allies. So while hardly a free and independent state, Vichy did have a degree of autonomy and was hardly completely a German puppet.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin Raitt
United Kingdom
Boston
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I aim to get Vichy as an ally by fall 1942. Britain or the US land in occupied France. This grants -2 on the Vichy track so US is client with Vichy. US troops enter the North African colonies each giving a further -1.

The landing can be any unmanned coastal hex down in the Bay of Biscay. They can be disbanded immediately if you aren't sure of supplying them in summer. I like to leave them till I see how the Germans react. A couple of panzer corps withdrawn from Case Blue is well worth the loss of 4BRP to replace an infantry.If the Germans don't drive them into the sea I slip into Vichy or build up a second front. Makes the Dieppe raid seem almost sensible!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.