[WarInEur] CWIE][

[Don Lazov]

Steve,

There was no such official existing rule in *SPI *regarding the French 
to garrison the Italian border. This item was introduced (and Greg 
decided it was gospel, and hence DG incorporated it) by the unofficial 
KC Group Errata (on page 9 of the MS Word document I have dated: 
Original text: 11/29/96 | The Word Doc: 03/11/06).

[33.63] (Addition) France must Garrison the Italian border with units or 
Zones of Control until Italy enters the war.

This again raises my point that CWIE-][ should be fully configurable, so 
that you as a player have a choice of select the *Official SPI Rules 
*with the only /Official Errata/ (4/76) or the *DG /Living /Rules* or 
the *CWIE-1 Rules *(which has a lot of enforced non-official rules and 
G.P's interpretation of the rules), and then the slew of Optional Rules 
and hence the KC and LA concoctions and the NMS - National Monstergaming 
Society -  and there off-shoot the *Chain of Command* magazine variants 
as well.

 I have all of these "bastardizations" in one form or another on my HDD.

But the Classic is always SPI with the official Errata, everything else 
is a migration. (there are bits and pieces that I like from the KC/LA 
but it is very small, most of those are not WIE, that said I trust the 
NMS  stuff aka Karl Gaarose, Neil Hall and Joe Drummond and the CoC, 
which were written between 1982 and 1986, pre-G.P. stuff).

Don

sgminfo at aol.com wrote:
> Some questions have arisen on certain interpretations of the existing, 
> and not so existing, rules.
>
> In the current DG rules it is "verboten" for the  French commander to 
> uncover the Franco-Italian frontier. I.E. leave the frontier with any 
> hex that is not covered by a ZOC of a french unit.
>
> In CWIE-1 this is not an absolute ban.
>
> The rule is:-
>
> If the French player places himself in that position (failing to cover 
> the frontier),
> The German Commander _*has the option*_ of bringing Italy into the 
> war, /*but he is not bound to*./
>
>
> Now Greg went to some lengths to ensure that was coded,
> yet we can find no direct authority for that particular proposition.
>
> At the same time I have strong memories of being caught like that on 
> at least  one occasion by an enterprising German commander in the 
> board game.
> You tend to remember this,
> rather like the Saarbruken Gambit.
> :-)
>
>
> At present the coding being settled on "for the moment" actually 
> emulates Greg's position on this.
>
>
> 1.Can anyone find an authority for Greg's coding?
> 2.Does anyone have any strong views for or against either proposition?
>
> The reason for Greg's coding is obvious.
>
> The allied player so manoeuvres his forces as to create a blitzkreig 
> situation against Italian territories in North Africa,
> then uncovers the frontier, and forces the Italians into war.
>
>
> The problem with the DG interpretation.
> It effectively sterilises the French-Italian frontier
> taking the decision away from the French commander and trammelling the 
> game flow along certain routes.
>
> I.E. The Allies could threaten French North Africa,
> then,
> having secured the Italians into doing nothing (effectively real life 
> deterrence)
> allowing the French to strip the alpine frontier with impunity.
>
>
> IN THE BOARDGAME...
> This manifests itself as this problem...
>
> If it is an absolute ban,
> and the French unwittingly cause it,
> and the issue is discovered some time
> in the future
> /*What do the players do about it????
>
>
> */-|steve|-
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20070218/fd696fdf/attachment.html