[WarInEur] RE: WarInEur Digest, Vol 40, Issue 21

[Wardall Clark]

It would seem that one thread of the Strategic surprise thread veered of into the issue of whether the game 
system offers too much tactical surprise for a division level similation. 

One frequently cited "problem" with the comber, in at system is that no force, no matter how overwhelming, makes
significant weekly progress vs a defense in depth.  Defense in depth was the RW method of controlling 
armored thrusts devised by the WWII commanders and it pretty much always worked.  Howevever, it was NOT yet 
universally in use in the opening years of WWII, as too many supreme commanders retained a WWI mindset. 

 The Poland scenario, and thus the WIE campaign game starts with the Poles in a "crust" defense and so dramatic 
mechanized exploitation takes place. In the 1940 game, the French have the option of deploying into either type 
of defense prior to the onset of combat with the Germans, and thus the oppotunities for mechanized exploitation 
can be held to a minimum.  In the 1941 campaign season the Soviets don't have enough troops to maintain a defense 
in depth while the germans are in supply, hence the right operational reaction is to spend 3-5 weeks retreating like mad 
to places where a double of triple thick screen can be set up delay the germans at a less catastrophic rate of losses. 

The list seems to have broken into three groups. 
  one group concists of guys like me who basically say "live with the combat system, tinker somewhere else."    My solution 
for those desparate for a more fluid front is to either play scenarios with free set up, adopt some variation of the KC Strategic 
Surprise rule, or learn to better exploit the FOG of War and hidden production option of WIE. 
   Another group wants to scrape the current movement and combat system in favor of something like Chuck Sutherland's
Attack on the March, so that if the attacker is more willing to accept casualties than the defender he can chew exploitable 
holes in the otherside's line fairly regularly. 
     If  I understand the exchange below correclty, A third group seems to be saying,  "neither AOM nor Strategic Suprise would 
be at all realistic, since the RW defense can be just  as fluid as the attack is."  This group regardles mechanized exploitation of 
the results of combat w/o the other side being allowed to move as something of a kludge,  For them, the Surprise option 
is a total a-historical anathema because the defender is allowed even less opportunity to react in real time. 

I didn't propose Strategic supply for play testing because it is realistic.  I thought it might be worth consideration because its
use at certain historical points of the game could well push the game back onto a more historical track. e On the otherhand, use of 
of  Surprise to attain an non-historical objective would clearly push the game even further off the historical track 


BOB 


-> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:32:23 +0000> From: sgminfo >

 Subject: Re: [WarInEur] strategic surprise rule.> To: Don Lazov  


> Given that Chuck points out the 'hazards in terms of implementation, 
> i.e. additional work on ob and counter sets, nothing need be said on 
> that poont...but a consideration that might be useful in the> implementation of such a rule. 
>> Painting the extreme case,>> the penetration and exploitation of a line, without the defender being
> able to physically react because of the strictures of the game turn> (alternate phase sequencing)

...one might consider reaction movement, or> a variation thereto.>> i.e. The Arnhem situation, where airborne land and XXX corps double> match throught the German line, and past a SS Panzer division, through> Zocs and into a link up...

> Instead of the German division being totally passive, and the zoc being> totally fluid, one might have the ability to enmesh someone in a zoc, 

> such that they have to stop...>> This might thereby allow well found and rested reserves to really act as> a 'firebrigade ' style unit as operational reserves tend to do... 

>> There might be a trigger die roll, based on the strength (attrition) and> training (crt number) of the units in reserve, that modify the> capabilities...so an Italian 1-4 on crt 4 might not have reaction> abilities, or reaction abilities are resytricted to mechanised and or> elite units...>> But it is an idea to think about...

>> The key element is allowing the defender not to be so unhinged (given a> moderately balanced situation), that he is in defeat before he can roll> with the blow and punch back...>

>> -|steve|-> 


> Don Lazov wrote:> 

> Chuck,>>>> Are your combat on the move ideas similar to OCS during movement overruns? 

>>>> For those not in the know, in OCS during your movement phase (or the 
>> enemy's reaction movement phase) you may overrun units, in this sense
>> overrun is just like combat but you do it in the movement phase by 
>> expending MP to overrun a hex, you may not even take the hex, but
>> cause losses (to both your self and his forces). 

>>>> Again in OCS the only units that have a ZOC are units in Combat mode.>>>

>>> -->> Don Lazov>> ~Best Regards>>>>>> 


_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline