[WarInEur] strategic surprise rule.
Kent & Sue Haunschild
kentsue at cox.net
Wed Nov 7 10:09:43 EST 2007
Bob,
Question-
Could you simulate surprise in a computer game by giving players the option of repeating a single movement phase? This would normally be a Initial Movement phase or Mech phase.
So if a player wanted to shift front rapidly they could double up on their initial movment phase and attack in unexpected force. Likewise, if they have breached the line they might want to take a double mech movement and really bust a hole.
I think this would be fairly easy to code. Add some limits to the times a player could exercise the option and you would have your "surprise option."
The double mech phase might also give Chuck's attack on the march idea a test. It won't give a double attack, but....
Well I guess the Surprise Option could give you a choice of repeating any one phase. Then if you wanted you could do a double combat phase as well. That would really blow some holes in the lines.
Kent
Yep this is really really tinkering.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wardall Clark
To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:28 PM
Subject: [WarInEur] strategic surprise rule.
The KC addendums offer a very clunky and very drastic rule, that I have never heard anyone playing
in CWIE; The rule addressed the fact that a certain times during WWII, events developed
so fast that operational initiative passed so completely to one side that the other side's high command
was reduced temporarily to the role of observer for roughly a week.
The rule was simplicity itself. At the start of the initial movement phase a player can declares that he
will utilize one of his Strategic surprise options that turn. At the conclusion of his mechanized phase,
the phasing player restarts his turn. The Axis may do this six times throughout the game. The Russians
have three such opportunities and the Allies have three. Only one option may be used per cycle,and
the option applies only units within the designated Air Front.
This nicely simulates the major strategic surprises of the war by making possible tearing of enormous
holes in the opponent's defensive lines. Unfortunately, it also allowed violations of national capacity
rules such as railroad and sea transport limits. It has always seemed to me that this aspect of the
double turn would have to be clarified/proscribed in some way.
I note that players of WIE keep complaining that echeloned defenses keep frustrating their blitzkrieg
efforts and making the game look like WWI. In the RW, such deployments nearly always succeeded,
when ample forces were available and the defenders high command was able to discern the point of
attack. It failed when either (1) the defender had insufficient reserves or (2) the high command was
unable to figure out quickly enough which rear area units to reinforce.
The strategic surprise rule speaks to the second of these. By letting one side move&attack&mech move
and then do this a second time before the other side moves again, The classic double combat line can be
breached and penetrated in a single week. Great encirclements become possible again, and for weeks
and possibly even months afterwards the user of the option will be able to dictate the action as his
opponent scrambles to reconstruct his defenses well behind the original position.
BOB
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> ***************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20071107/59165311/attachment-0001.html
More information about the WarInEur
mailing list