[WarInEur] strategic surprise rule - more lipstick for the piggy! ;)

[sgminfo]

Well there should be a surfeit of players on the list here with 
experience of that particular animal, so these will not be slow in 
coming to the mark...

:-)

-|steve|-

Chuck Sutherland wrote:
> Yes but taking small baby steps to towards a mobile combat system 
> means that you have to rebalance and re playtest it anyway, so you are 
> already doing the extra work but not gaining the goal of showing off 
> the blitzkrieg style of combat. We we will take 20 small steps over 
> the course of what 20 years maybe and end up in the same place.
>
> Lets just make the quantum leap and get on with it! That way we are 
> talking about maybe 3-5 years to test the options.
>
> The subroutines are already there, the combat system just simply needs 
> to be able to be turned on when the overrun code is triggered, a flag 
> setting combat during movement on, the costs of overruns is already 
> recorded in the code at 2 mp. The Russian production system is already 
> coded, all that is needed is to make it work during the weekly turns, 
> again a flag to turn it on, the only change there might be moving from 
> a cycle count to a turn count for entry of units.
>
> After that its a matter of tuning the production to give increased 1-4 
> and 1-3 production while turning down the 4-4s to make them stay level 
> with that is currently being produced.
>
> Even if the AEX could be turned off by using a flag,
>
> If you move the Minsk training center to Lenningrad, the combat and 
> movement system should allow the Germans to reach and take Minsk on 
> the first turn of the war. If you use the historical 1940 scenario you 
> should be able to take france out in 6 weeks, if you can't then you 
> have not reached the proper mobility levels. I think the counter mix 
> will allow it without any renumbering of counter strengths.
>
> If I knew how to use cyberboard and thought there was an outside 
> chance that we could actually get to this level of change I would 
> playtest the hell out of the system proposals.
>
> sgminfo wrote:
>> The caveat is, as always, change only one thing at a time as you 
>> experiment, moving the goal posts in 3 dimensions simultaneously is 
>> apt to give unexpected results as players find new ways to exploit 
>> your new environment to the limits. Moving many variables tends to 
>> leave you with a new game and a heap load of playtesting to sort out 
>> the unexpected.
>>
>> ..as the beta test group have found...
>>
>>
>> -|steve|-
>>
>> Chuck Sutherland wrote:
>>> Oh its actually pretty easy, just allow the Russians to build units 
>>> each turn instead of every four turns and lower the number of units 
>>> built except for 1-3 and 1-4s to 1. Historically during the active 
>>> campaign the Russians lost between 3.5 and 4 million men in 41. 
>>> Based on the starting OOB and the militia that is added, you have to 
>>> be able to produce about 320-350 1-4 to match the manpower on the 
>>> eastern front. So in about 4 production cycles you need about 20 
>>> training centers pushing out 1-4s if you were using the normal 
>>> production rules.
>>>
>>> Thus my conclusion is the Russian 1-4 cannon fodder production is 
>>> way down, the reason is to compensate for the lack of mobility and 
>>> the AEX OOS supply effects.
>>>
>>> Every suggestion that has been talked about, is a bandage of sorts 
>>> for the flaw in the combat system and the lack of mobile combat that 
>>> is partially made up by parachute units. So the current combat 
>>> system has the Paras as the most important ground unit for taking 
>>> territory instead of armor, because armor can be stopped by 3 points 
>>> worth of defenders or less if there is a river involved!
>>>
>>> So we can apply a small bandage here and there like was done 
>>> originally aka lower then historical Russian production, over 
>>> modeled parachute effects and continue to past and plaster adding 
>>> additional lipstick to the pig in the hopes that something pretty 
>>> will finally show up, or you can bite the bullet and take apart the 
>>> combat system and restructure it so that is models historical results.
>>>
>>> Right now even with surprise, you can't model France 1940, you can't 
>>> model Russia 1941 on, and because France is broken you can't model 
>>> North Africa because Sealion is not as big a threat as it would be 
>>> in middle of summer 1940.
>>>
>>> Unless you can drop France in six weeks and take Minsk on turn one 
>>> of Barbarossa you have not modeled the historical abilities of the 
>>> German army in early WWII! Does the optional rule allow this to take 
>>> place????
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> sgminfo wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>