[WarInEur] CWIE][

[Kent & Sue Haunschild]

That concurrs with my investigations as well.

Now having said that, it doesn't mean that I agree with the "Lack" of a SPI rule or believe that SPI got everything right.  There are a number of "oversights" in the SPI rules that were exploited by players in actual game play.  One of these is the Italian border situation.

In the original game there is no downside to the Allied player stripping the Italian border of all troops and beefing up the Belgian border.  This was not done in the real world because Italy was still regarded as a threat.

The errata rule, that Greg incorporated, is a better interpetation of reality and I have no problem with the rule.

DG has gone overboard by making the garrison mandatory, which gives the players no choice.  I think this tips the balance too far the other way.

If it is in the realm of possibilities, I suppose it could be coded all three ways and linked either to the rule sets or as options.

Kent
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Don Lazov 
  To: sgminfo at aol.com 
  Cc: WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net 
  Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 8:19 AM
  Subject: Re: [WarInEur] CWIE][


  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
  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20070218/94d5478a/attachment.html