[WarInEur] CWIE][
Don Lazov
dlazov at comcast.net
Sun Feb 18 09:51:37 EST 2007
Right, I do concur with Kent on this. I did say that I do like some
KC/LA rules, but some I don't, that said I do like a lot of Karl Gaarose
and the NMS's Chain of Command stuff.
I wonder where Karl is now, he has lived in IL, TX and KC AFAR, perhaps
he passed? Too bad if he did.
Kent & Sue Haunschild wrote:
> 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 <mailto:dlazov at comcast.net>
> *To:* sgminfo at aol.com <mailto:sgminfo at aol.com>
> *Cc:* WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> <mailto: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/e6ee9eca/attachment-0001.html
More information about the WarInEur
mailing list