[WarInEur] Queries

Sat Dec 15 18:21:16 EST 2007

Agree on the ramp up, but that was why I was suggesting the four Soviet 
personnel Center captured or "surrounded" (No LOC to Siberia) and the 100 
units lost.

The Soviet player has no business issuing a DOW, especially after the purge 
of their officer corps and the Penney Packeting of their armor like the 
French did.  It wasn't until after France fell that they tried to change 
back again and consolidated their armor in mechanized and tank corps.

Still if they want to try the game allows it, but at a price.  If the 
Soviets are the agressor, then it doesn't garner the same degree of support 
from the public.  And, until the soviet government feels sufficiently 
threatened it can't really put the screws to the population if the base 
support isn't there.

This ambivilance is what we have with limited war.  The Soviets can fight, 
but they don't have a total war economy to play with.  In the absence of 
rules defining a transition point, the players need to agree on some house 
rules in advance what that trigger point should be.

Personally, I like a random trigger where the general probability is known 
but the exact trigger date is unknown.  So merely crossing the border might 
be 1%, every 10 units lost is another 1%, each PC captured or surrounded is 
5%.

While these seem like low percentages if you roll each turn, the probibility 
of transitioning to Total War within 3 or four cycles is almost a certainty.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck Sutherland" <csutherland at gamewoodinc.com>
To: "Kent & Sue Haunschild" <kentsue at cox.net>
Cc: "Buckley, John D." <J.Buckley at wlv.ac.uk>; <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Queries

> Yep I'm wrong about the 6-5 I was thinking about a scenario where it was 
> already on the beach head.
>
> Sov losses used as a trigger will simply make the german use attacks that 
> cause DRs, and work to surround units instead, there is still room for 
> abuse. The limited war should slowly ramp up as things go wrong for the 
> Russians, a border crossing into Russia should be one of the triggers, 
> like an attack on Turkey should cause full mobilization.
>
> Kent & Sue Haunschild wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Sutherland" 
>> <csutherland at gamewoodinc.com>
>> To: "Buckley, John D." <J.Buckley at wlv.ac.uk>
>> Cc: <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
>> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 10:44 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Queries
>>
>>
>>> 6-5 should be able to opt for converting a retreat into a AEX
>>
>> Disagree!  The Amphibious Assault forces the Defender Retreat.  It trumps 
>> anything the defender can do.  If the 6-5 has no where to retreat to it 
>> is completely eliminated.
>>>
>>> 2 - I don't know for sure.
>>
>> The Allies cannot get to Oslo or Kristansand without passing through the 
>> Axis North Sea Interdiction Zone so they should have been intercepted. 
>> They might have survived, but they had to have been intercepted. 
>> Furthermore, both ports are in the Baltic and the Allies cannot trace 
>> either NTP or Amphibious Assault until one or other of the ports is 
>> Allied controlled first.
>>
>> So for the sequence of events you have described to have arisen, the 
>> Allies would first have needed  to capture one of the other Norwegian 
>> ports on the High Seas, then capture Kristansand or Oslo while fighting 
>> OOS.  It doesn't sound like this happened. Still regardless of whether or 
>> not they have captured a port they still would be subject to Axis North 
>> Sea Interdiction. By they way, the inability to sail into Kristiansand or 
>> Oslo stops the Allies from capturing Norway by sailing into the Neutral 
>> ports.
>>>
>>> 3 - LOL yep it needs to be totally rewritten, first if the Germans cross 
>>> the USSR border it should be total war. I've heard but not seen where 
>>> the germans actually avoid triggering total war by not taking the cities 
>>> that trigger it and bypassing them using MSU's etc. Its a total candy 
>>> arse rules lawyering gambit and I would not play with someone who did 
>>> this period!
>>>
>>> Limited War should end the moment the axis cross the Russian 1941 border 
>>> period. I mean realisticly if Stalin was seeing this he would be beating 
>>> the masses to get more equipment in a heart beat!
>>
>> There are a couple of rules that restrict Soviet abilities if they go to 
>> Limited War.  I am going to assume that the Soviet player tried to take 
>> out Rumania because that is the only way short of declaring war on 
>> Germany itself that will generally cause Limited War to arise.  While at 
>> Limited War the Soviet production is limited and they can't fortify.  SPI 
>> specifically stated that there was no justification for these rules other 
>> than to balance the risks for the Soviet player.  There is a rule based 
>> on Soviet Losses that allows the Soviet player to go from Limited to 
>> Total War based on the number of Soviet units eliminated, but I can't 
>> find it at the moment.
>>
>> As for realism, well that went out the window when the Soviet player 
>> decided to go to Limited War.  I do think that, the conditions for 
>> transisitioning from Limited to Total war are too restrictive.  A 
>> combinations of events, such as 100 Soviet Units destroyed and four 
>> Soviet personnel Centers captured OR unable to trace a Line of 
>> Communication to Siberia should suffice.  The 100 units lost will mean 
>> that the Soviet player will start Total war with his Production 
>> disrupted.  So the Soviet Union will be seriously compromised but not 
>> completely helpless.
>>
>> What the Soviet player should have done as an active player is used the 
>> peace time production to fortify and build the additional Corps sized 
>> units that the Prewar pools will allow.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Buckley, John D. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Didn't get much in the way of response to these questions. I know many 
>>>> of you may be debating the finer points of rewriting the game for CWIE2 
>>>> but any comments gratefully received.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm in the midst of a BWIE game and a couple of queries have emerged.
>>>>
>>>> 1. A 6-5 is amphibiously assaulted and has nowhere to retreat to, and 
>>>> thus is unable to fulfil the requirement to so as a result of combat. 
>>>> Is it completely destroyed i.e. does not form a 1-5?
>>>>
>>>> 2. The Axis North Sea coastal defence interdiction rule stretches to 
>>>> the southern ports of Norway but not Kristiansand or Oslo. In the game 
>>>> we are playing the Allies have reached Kristiansand and Oslo and opened 
>>>> them up for the RN. They can land troops without fear from the Axis 
>>>> coastal forces in those ports, but if they land in the High Seas ports 
>>>> in Southern Norway they are still subject to interdiction. Odd?
>>>>
>>>> 3. The Germans have pushed into the Soviet Union whilst the Soviets are 
>>>> at limited war. They have captured two starred cities and surrounded a 
>>>> couple more. They are closing in on Moscow and Leningrad. The Soviet 
>>>> player knew the rule and took the risk but is carping about realism. 
>>>> I'd be interested to see views on the historical underpinning of this 
>>>> rule. Two major cities will be captured, a couple completely 
>>>> surrounded, Leningrad isolated and German troops a few miles from 
>>>> Moscow, and the Soviet Union still not at total war. What's the 
>>>> rationale? It does raise the issue of whether there should a fixed 
>>>> gamey device of capturing three cities to trigger total war, or if 
>>>> there should be a more random sliding scale which would introduce an 
>>>> element of doubt into the German and Soviet players' planning.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ****************************************
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WarInEur mailing list
>>>> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
>>>> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Chuck Sutherland
>>> Technology Specialist
>>> Gamewood, Inc.
>>> 116 South Ridge Street
>>> Danville, VA 24541
>>> (434) 799-8407 x218
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WarInEur mailing list
>>> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
>>> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Chuck Sutherland
> Technology Specialist
> Gamewood, Inc.
> 116 South Ridge Street
> Danville, VA 24541
> (434) 799-8407 x218
>
> 