[WarInEur] RE: breaking through to Minsk

Thu Nov 15 14:17:32 EST 2007

Its an historical game, mimic history would be a good thing to try for! ;)

Wardall Clark wrote:
> What events should WIE be able to replicate through routine play?  
>  
> >>> 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????
> > >>>
>  
> > Attack on the March, limited to only the Mech phase. Germans attack on
> > several hex fronts and move 20 miles in the combat phase. During the
> > Mech move phase they hit the second line at 3-1 or higher with 2x 8-8
> > and 2x10-8, using air they get a DR, thats 2+1 mp, they hit a second
> > stack, another 3-1 or better, they have gained 3 hexes total for 60
> > miles and if they are free of enemy ZOC they move another 2 hexes for a
> > total of 5! Historical gains in one week!
> >
> > Attack on the March using both phases, movement phase they hit twice at
> > 3-1, attack again in the combat phase at 3-1 or better and finish up
> > with 2 more attacks for a total of 5 hexes taken. If there is a gap 
> they
> > may do better then 5 hexes if the French player has not defended very
> > deep. And considering there is a real chance of an exchange or BR the
> > germns will flip a few units in order to gain territory.
> >
>
> Chuck seems to feel that if something occurred once in WWII, then the 
> rules ought not to make it
> impossible. On the surface, this seems a reasonable position.  The 
> problem is that a war game
> may not be able to model some of the RW factors that made the event 
> possible.
>  
> The classic example of this is the Ardennes breakthrough, with 
> Blitzkrieg ZOC and some overruns
> at least one mech unit should be able to advance a total of 8 hexes in 
> a single week. However as this
> may involve weaving between allied stacks so that the distance as the 
> crow flies is somewhat less
> than  160 miles.   The gimmick to this example is that the allies are 
> not deployed in solid lines of units.
>
> How could such a set up occur? Well, in WIE with an experienced allied 
> player, it simply won't. The experienced
> Allied player knows that ultimately the Axis can't be stopped, so any 
> defense is really just a play for time. Any
> French or Belgium units will ultimately be lost to his cause so 
> the best way to use them is to trade them for time
> rather than try to bunch up and stop the Panzers in their tracks.  
>
> The situation in Russia is ultimately the same.  Set up in one way and 
> the Soviets lose Minsk on turn one.  Set
> up another way and the Axis is lucky to end turn one 3 hexes past the 
> 1941 start line.  I do not know what is
> the basis for the computer set ups in CWIE but I doubt it come from 
> the Historical files of the red Army.  If the
> Soviets employ a radically A-historical set up, then the first turn 
> will transpire rather differently than the corresponding
> first week of WWII.
>  
> Thus my response to Chuck is this;   The game already allows the Units 
> to do most everything that could be done historically,
> the problem is that the players refuse to cooperate by making 
> historical mistakes.
>  
> My second response is that he made a great case that certain forms of 
> defense in depth work way too well in WIE. The
> Soviets can get away with something that takes absurdly a-historical 
> advantage of the OOS Aex, the layout of the
> grid and exaggerated difference in combat value between a 6-5 and its 
> KG and of the fact that half of 8 MP is less than the 5
> movement points needed to move from one ZOC to another or overrun a 
> hex that is in another unit's ZOC.  
>  
> Against a purely west-to-east advance the lattice of 1-4's defense is 
> impenetrable except by Motorized units. And given the
> standard Axis OOB the and the only way to advance is to trade Flips of 
> 6-5's or complete destruction of 2-4's for single 1-4's. 
> A rate of attrition not favorable to the Germans, at least from 
> Chucks' point of view. (economically speaking the cost to replace
> a annihilated 1-4 is roughly the same as rebuilding a 1-5 into a full 
> division.)
>  
> One can hear Chuck Sutherland thinking, "If only just one of the 1-4s 
> in the lattice could be shoved aside by movement-related combat, 
> the next line can be attacked and likewise either retreated or killed, 
> creating the opportunity to push on to a third and even fourth hex all
> in the same week".   He is convinced this really happened on a regular 
> basis. 
>  
> I think it did too, but the units involved would not all qualify for 
> combat factors and/or ZOCs.  I also think that such 100-mile weeks didn't
> happen when the units involved were beyond optimal supply distance.
>
> While nothing can done about the distortions of the hex grid on 
> movement and combat, Attrition in WIE is well on its way replacing the OOS
> Aex result in favor of increased unit degradation.  Another remedy to 
> this attrition trap is to come to war with regiments to take the
> casualties.  The fact that these regiments can be 3-10's capable of 
> interpenetrating the lattice and taking down 2 or even three 1-4s when
> they go is a sweet bonus.   Chuck replied that he would just retreat 
> when they get close. I say that if I am out of supply and advancing 
> without
> casualties then I am the one winning, because his cities will be that 
> much closer to the front next year.
>  
> The computer with its ability to assign tiny fractions for combat 
> values and strip off zones of control allows for the creation of what 
> i like to
> think of as pseudo-units. The appear in the historical OOBs, but due 
> to deficiencies in training or TOE were rendered combat ineffective within
> hours of coming under fire for the first time.  The new attrition 
> rules allow for German divisions and Soviet Corps with no greater combat
> effectiveness than a 1-4. It is no great reach to imagine a Soviet 
> militia 1/4 -4 with no ZOC than can be overrun at a cost of a grand 
> total of +1 MP.
>  
> As I mentioned in an earlier post, there simply is no reason that a 
> unit with sufficient movement points should not be allowed to make 
> more than
> on overrun in a week.   There absolutely ought to be the capacity to 
> overrun two adjacent units simultaneously without loss of MP to either
> units' ZOC. This has been promised,  but so far as my beta testing is 
> concerned not yet delivered.  There is still a problem with the 
> assembly of
> stacks in front of the unit to be overrun, the 2 MP charged as the 
> stack comes together is not restored if the overrun unit is removed 
> from play.
> Worse, the computer sometimes refuses the overrun on grounds that the 
> stack has insufficient MP for overrun.
>  
> This is one of the reasons that players wishing greater fluidity of on 
> the front lines might opt to try some variation of KC's Strategic 
> surprise.
> And to answer chuck's question: If the the Training Center is 
> adjactent rather than on top of the personnel center hex, then Minsk can
> indeed fall on turn 1.
>  
> BOB 
>  
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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> 
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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