[WarInEur] ZOC and borders

Tue Nov 6 22:44:58 EST 2007

When it comes to coding CWIE-2 may preference is simple: I want enforcement of Decision Games 
rules for the latest version of BWIE.   On closer reflection, It turns out that the reason for 
my preference is basically selfishness--I spent I countless hours reading, re-ordering, and memorizing
those provisions and Every time i see play of CWIE-1 or CWIE-2 described that involves a clear
violation of those rules it drives me nuts. 

Taking a step backward, i see that the last rules that everybody can accept as official is the LA groups
compilation of the SPI rules and all the official answers they received regarding the nooks and cranies
of the rules. I presume this is what is meant by RAW in previous postings.  

Now starting at the beginning:

A) the scenario instructions include some caveats about ZOC not extending across borders and we find these 
only in scenarios where some of the nations involved were currently at peace. 

B) In WIE there are a couple more armed countries whose neutrality is routinely violated and the computer needs
rules for the ZOC of their units when that happens.

Seen in this light, Kent's original request is rather reasonable, especially given that in the POLAND CWIE-2 demo the ZOC of 
Polish units are extending across the Border into Germany.  Based on my play of the Barbarossa Scenario it looks to me
as if Soviet ZOC are extending across the Border into Germany during that initial movement phase. 

Historically speaking, the diplomatic tension between Poland and Germany was so high for that entire week that complete tactical 
surprise was NOT attained. The actual attack marked the 2nd time that the Go order had been issued. German troops had
moved to jumping off positions within a few kilometers of the border once before that week. The methods of blitzkrieg caught the 
Poles off-guard but not the attacking German troops.  This perhaps should be be the one exception to Kent's general rule. 

On the other hand, the Soviet political authorities were caught off guard during Barbarossa and so Soviet Air and Ground units lacked 
the authority to take appropriate action when they initially came under fire.  In particular, artillery batteries could not get the 
go ahead to shell positions on the other side of the border.  Hence I would argue that Axis movements on its side of the border should
not be hindered by the ZOC of Soviet units on the other side of the border. 

By the same reasoning, until the Italians are at war, their units ZOC do not extend into France, Yugoslavia or Egypt. The only real issues
to be resolved are (1) Should the RAW limitations on ZOC be part of a general rule for Neutral nations, or continue as ad hoc scenario 
instructions?  (2) How do we handle the ZOC of two adjacent nations violated in the same turn? 

Although the KISS principle dictates otherwise, I would put in this limitation only for historical scenarios as the RW degree of politcal 
incompetance for the USSR and LOW countries is not something that should be exploited by gamer tactics as this was not something 
a military commander would be allowed to count upon. 

BOB 

With regards to units which cannot leave a country:  Why not simply prohibit attacks across the border?  
Once the country is activated 
it seems reasonable that in order to defend itself the unit would post artillery spotters, and patrols so that the zone of influence of 
the unit would be the usual surrounding hexes for that type of unit.  

> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 08:42:30 -0500> From: warineur-request at mailman.halisp.net> Subject: WarInEur Digest, Vol 40, Issue 7> To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net> > Send WarInEur mailing list submissions to> warineur at mailman.halisp.net> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to> warineur-request at mailman.halisp.net> > You can reach the person managing the list at> warineur-owner at mailman.halisp.net> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific> than "Re: Contents of WarInEur digest..."> > > Today's Topics:> > 1. Re: The Sergio option (game-beating up on Nazis issalubrious)> (Kent & Sue Haunschild)> 2. Lets stop the Political spinning before it goes any further!> (Chuck Sutherland)> 3. Re: ZOCs (Kent & Sue Haunschild)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:26:00 -0600> From: "Kent & Sue Haunschild" <kentsue at cox.net>> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] The Sergio option (game-beating up on Nazis> issalubrious)> To: "srm" <foufut at yahoo.com>, <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>> Message-ID: <000901c82078$92a17bc0$6401a8c0 at kent839ba1def4>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";> reply-type=original> > Gosh and Golly! I would never have guessed that you were a historical > revisionist and brought your political philosophy into rules > interpretations. I bet your students receive a daily dose of your > political views carefully inserted into the official curriculum also.> > You have obviously come away with a different lesson learned from WWII than > I did. I see it as the folly of appeasement. You see it as evidence of a > plot by the rich capitalists to get still richer.> > By the way, if this activity is unhealthy, why do you participate?> > Kent> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "srm" <foufut at yahoo.com>> To: <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 11:17 PM> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] The Sergio option (game-beating up on Nazis > issalubrious)> > > > Hansen, the youth of today are being educated> > regardless of what i say or do. After all, many of> > their parents voted for Bush. Twice.> >> > And please recall that apostrophes indicate> > possession, not plural. Nazis. Not " Nazi's" for> > plural.> >> >> > As for this goodness thing? The US Empire (and> > Argentina, Switzerland,and Sweden-- all for less than> > "noble" reasons) made scads of money off the death and> > mayhem of WWII (a world record!) if you want to make a> > point about "goodness" in war.> >> > So, all war sucks. Hitler was not "mad", either. He> > was an angry hateful man who took advantage of a> > corrupt geopolitical situation.> >> > WWII is thankfully over. Revisiting the worst of a bad> > war fighting lot (the Nazis, as opposed to the other> > "noble" warriors) is not psychologically healthy, in> > my opinion.> >> > --- Hansen <ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net> wrote:> >> >> Sergio writes:> >>> >> ...> >>> >> today's kids aren't interested in WWII "Give the> >> Whermacht a break" revisionism because what they do> >> glean out of WWII --however unfair that may sound--> >> is> >> that the Axis were bad and deserved to lose, period.> >>> >>> >> ...> >>> >> A strategic wargame has a definite built-in> >> favoritism, and kids today just do not favor the> >> nazi/fascists in WWII.> >>> >> ...> >>> >> I respond:> >>> >> It's a fair cop. The Nazi's were evil and it's a> >> good thing they lost. So I> >> propose a Sergio option for CWIE2.> >>> >> 1) All allies strength is increased by a factor of> >> 10. Because their hearts> >> are pure and they fight with the strength of 10.> >>> >> 2) The axis can only lose political points, not gain> >> them. To let the axis> >> gain political points is to imply that there was> >> some good in them.> >>> >> 3) Partisans can now be placed up to the limit of> >> available units every> >> turn, regardless of garrisons. Partisans will> >> initially be placed as a> >> cadre. A roll of 1 changes them to a (1)-1 unit. A> >> subsequent roll of 1> >> changes them to a unit from the nation's army.> >> Because we know that all> >> people resisted the Nazi's in all occupied> >> territories to the fullest extend> >> humanly possible all the time.> >>> >> 4) The Hitler was a mad man rule implies that he> >> must interfere with troop> >> movements periodically. '39-'40 - No rolls, '41 roll> >> of 1, '42 roll of 1 or> >> 2, '43 roll of 1, 2 or 3, '44 roll of 1,2,3 or 4,> >> '45 any roll but 6. Every> >> turn the dice is rolled. If the number comes up, the> >> all German troops in> >> enemy ZOC can not retreat or move except into hexes> >> controlled by the enemy.> >> This is the stand or die rule.> >>> >> 5) If the German player uses loot production points,> >> then random German> >> units will disappear as the heroic slave labor will> >> sabotage the weapons> >> produced, rendering the Nazi's helpless.> >>> >> 6) Allied production is doubled as the allies deploy> >> their secret weapon,> >> 'Rosie the riveter' who is able to turn out ships> >> planes and tanks 24/7> >> while leaving her children in the government> >> supplied day care.> >>> >>> >> With the Sergio option, it may not be a balanced> >> game, but we will pull in> >> the youth crowd. No more will their minds be tempted> >> to think about how> >> close things could have been to the allies losing,> >> they will be secure in> >> knowing that the Nazi's are bad and thus deserved to> >> lose. And I am sure you> >> will see that with this option, what the Nazi's> >> deserve will be what they> >> get.> >>> >> Isn't it nice to know that the youth of today are> >> receiving such a fine> >> education that they do not question the linking of> >> 'badness' and 'deserving> >> to lose'? That should set them up for anything in> >> the future.> >>> >> _______________________________________________> >> WarInEur mailing list> >> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net> >> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> >>> >> >> > __________________________________________________> > Do You Yahoo!?> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around> > http://mail.yahoo.com> > _______________________________________________> > WarInEur mailing list> > WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net> > http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> > > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:34:30 -0500> From: Chuck Sutherland <csutherland at gamewoodinc.com>> Subject: [WarInEur] Lets stop the Political spinning before it goes> any further!> To: Kent & Sue Haunschild <kentsue at cox.net>> Cc: warineur at mailman.halisp.net> Message-ID: <47306D66.9010703 at gamewoodinc.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed> > Anyone who wants to talk politics etc lets take it to private emails, > PLEASE!!!! I did!!> > > Kent & Sue Haunschild wrote:> > Gosh and Golly! I would never have guessed that you were a historical > > revisionist and brought your political philosophy into rules > > interpretations. I bet your students receive a daily dose of your > > political views carefully inserted into the official curriculum also.> >> > You have obviously come away with a different lesson learned from WWII > > than I did. I see it as the folly of appeasement. You see it as > > evidence of a plot by the rich capitalists to get still richer.> >> > By the way, if this activity is unhealthy, why do you participate?> >> > Kent> >> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "srm" <foufut at yahoo.com>> > To: <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>> > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 11:17 PM> > Subject: Re: [WarInEur] The Sergio option (game-beating up on Nazis > > issalubrious)> >> >> >> Hansen, the youth of today are being educated> >> regardless of what i say or do. After all, many of> >> their parents voted for Bush. Twice.> >>> >> And please recall that apostrophes indicate> >> possession, not plural. Nazis. Not " Nazi's" for> >> plural.> >>> >>> >> As for this goodness thing? The US Empire (and> >> Argentina, Switzerland,and Sweden-- all for less than> >> "noble" reasons) made scads of money off the death and> >> mayhem of WWII (a world record!) if you want to make a> >> point about "goodness" in war.> >>> >> So, all war sucks. Hitler was not "mad", either. He> >> was an angry hateful man who took advantage of a> >> corrupt geopolitical situation.> >>> >> WWII is thankfully over. Revisiting the worst of a bad> >> war fighting lot (the Nazis, as opposed to the other> >> "noble" warriors) is not psychologically healthy, in> >> my opinion.> >>> >> --- Hansen <ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net> wrote:> >>> >>> Sergio writes:> >>>> >>> ...> >>>> >>> today's kids aren't interested in WWII "Give the> >>> Whermacht a break" revisionism because what they do> >>> glean out of WWII --however unfair that may sound--> >>> is> >>> that the Axis were bad and deserved to lose, period.> >>>> >>>> >>> ...> >>>> >>> A strategic wargame has a definite built-in> >>> favoritism, and kids today just do not favor the> >>> nazi/fascists in WWII.> >>>> >>> ...> >>>> >>> I respond:> >>>> >>> It's a fair cop. The Nazi's were evil and it's a> >>> good thing they lost. So I> >>> propose a Sergio option for CWIE2.> >>>> >>> 1) All allies strength is increased by a factor of> >>> 10. Because their hearts> >>> are pure and they fight with the strength of 10.> >>>> >>> 2) The axis can only lose political points, not gain> >>> them. To let the axis> >>> gain political points is to imply that there was> >>> some good in them.> >>>> >>> 3) Partisans can now be placed up to the limit of> >>> available units every> >>> turn, regardless of garrisons. Partisans will> >>> initially be placed as a> >>> cadre. A roll of 1 changes them to a (1)-1 unit. A> >>> subsequent roll of 1> >>> changes them to a unit from the nation's army.> >>> Because we know that all> >>> people resisted the Nazi's in all occupied> >>> territories to the fullest extend> >>> humanly possible all the time.> >>>> >>> 4) The Hitler was a mad man rule implies that he> >>> must interfere with troop> >>> movements periodically. '39-'40 - No rolls, '41 roll> >>> of 1, '42 roll of 1 or> >>> 2, '43 roll of 1, 2 or 3, '44 roll of 1,2,3 or 4,> >>> '45 any roll but 6. Every> >>> turn the dice is rolled. If the number comes up, the> >>> all German troops in> >>> enemy ZOC can not retreat or move except into hexes> >>> controlled by the enemy.> >>> This is the stand or die rule.> >>>> >>> 5) If the German player uses loot production points,> >>> then random German> >>> units will disappear as the heroic slave labor will> >>> sabotage the weapons> >>> produced, rendering the Nazi's helpless.> >>>> >>> 6) Allied production is doubled as the allies deploy> >>> their secret weapon,> >>> 'Rosie the riveter' who is able to turn out ships> >>> planes and tanks 24/7> >>> while leaving her children in the government> >>> supplied day care.> >>>> >>>> >>> With the Sergio option, it may not be a balanced> >>> game, but we will pull in> >>> the youth crowd. No more will their minds be tempted> >>> to think about how> >>> close things could have been to the allies losing,> >>> they will be secure in> >>> knowing that the Nazi's are bad and thus deserved to> >>> lose. And I am sure you> >>> will see that with this option, what the Nazi's> >>> deserve will be what they> >>> get.> >>>> >>> Isn't it nice to know that the youth of today are> >>> receiving such a fine> >>> education that they do not question the linking of> >>> 'badness' and 'deserving> >>> to lose'? That should set them up for anything in> >>> the future.> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________> >>> WarInEur mailing list> >>> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net> >>> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> >>>> >>> >>> >> __________________________________________________> >> Do You Yahoo!?> >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around> >> http://mail.yahoo.com> >> _______________________________________________> >> 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> > > -- > Chuck Sutherland> Technology Specialist> Gamewood, Inc.> 116 South Ridge Street> Danville, VA 24541> (434) 799-8407 x218> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 3> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:42:26 -0600> From: "Kent & Sue Haunschild" <kentsue at cox.net>> Subject: [WarInEur] Re: ZOCs> To: "Lawrence Duffield" <lpdgraph at mcn.org>,> <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>> Message-ID: <001301c8207a$de314910$6401a8c0 at kent839ba1def4>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > Lawrence,> > I guess I need to quote the rule one again because you seem to be missing the point.> > "Allied ZOC do not extend across borders during this movement phase."> > Notice that the rule does not say "extend into enemy controlled hexes" and that the word "borders" is pluralized. Meaning that there is more than one border to consider.> > So the rule, as written means exactly what you are try to say it doesn't mean.> > During the initial movement phase during the of the lowlands: The French and CW units on the French border do not project a ZOC into Belgium. Belgian units do not project a ZOC into France, the Netherlands,Luxembourg, or Germany. Dutch units do not project a ZOC into Belgium or Germany.> > You may never have played this way, but this is what the rules says.> > Kent> > PS > As far as following history is concerned I assume that you always voluntarially follow the Dyle Plan even if not required to do so by your opponent because that is what the Allies did. Well no, that would be pro-axis and make it too easy for the Germans to knock France out of the War and decimate the BEF in the process.> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Lawrence Duffield > To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net > Cc: Kent & Sue Haunschild > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:54 PM> Subject: Re: ZOCs> > > > > > > On Nov 5, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Kent & Sue Haunschild wrote:> > > Proposal already ammended to read during the initial movement phase.> > SPI rules quoted in another email.> > While you might be correct in regard to units retain full abilities unless rules othewise direct. This beggers the questions: Are the rules complete and do they cover every situation? SPI designers answered these by saying no and that common sense must guide the players.> > > Agree> > > > Applying the common sense rule, it seems to me that if the designers took the time to write rules specifically curtailing the abilities of the major combatants, then these rules should apply equally to the minor combatants who were much less prepared and would be more restrained in their response than the major participants.> > > I see no reason why the designers mightn't have noticed that construing the rule to apply to each combatant in sequence within a turn would make invading Holland, then Belgium or Holland, then Belgium, then France unreasonably easy and declined to do so.> > > > What we have entered is the classic argument of "Original Intent" versus "Strict Construction." I am trying to develope universal rules applicable across the board that seem to be in accordance with the designers intentions and which guide the game into a historic pattern. I also think that the fewer special rules the better.> > > I'm not seeing an argument FOR original intent. I see one interpretation that is not privileged against any other interpretation, and prefer the original rule as written.> > > > I think you are arguing that the rules have a existance outside the game, and that game play must conform to the rules even when this results in non-historical outcomes.> > > No, I'm arguing that RAW has had the benefit of consistency within the game's history and that experience has shown that deviations from RAW (i.e. Kansas City amendments) have hurt more often than helped.> > > > I think this prevents us from learning anything about the historical dynamics of the situation. When we discuss the rules openly and are willing to try to write ones that better model history then I think we all learn something in the process.> > > Try away. I don't think this one succeeds.> > > > When we fail to discuss the suggestions to see if the enhance historical play or detract from it and instead immediately label something as Pro-Axis, or Pro-Soviet, or Pro-Allied then we let emotions rule our intellect and the whole process suffers.> > > I didn't "immediately" label it anything. That was done after mature consideration that the proposed change adds nothing to historicity and changes the balance without benefit. And that if a change must be made for the sake of consistency the one I proposed is better in every way.> > > > Every board gamer has his list of house rules that he insists that the other player abide by. This is next to impossible to code.> > Fully agree, which is why I prefer the game be playable by RAW to the utmost extent possible, even when this violates somebody ELSE's idea of historicity.> > -------------- next part --------------> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071106/eba28197/attachment.html> > ------------------------------> > _______________________________________________> WarInEur mailing list> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> > > End of WarInEur Digest, Vol 40, Issue 7> ***************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071106/150b1d3f/attachment-0001.html