[WarInEur] RE: WarInEur Digest, Vol 39, Issue 4

Sat Oct 6 02:32:38 EDT 2007

I just "played" the Barbarossa Scenario without attrition or any any air units,  In the five weeks 
before the heavy Russian first Cycle's reinforcement could be railroaded to the front, my axis managed to 
fatally compromise the Soviets ability to hold, Odessa,  Minsk and Riga, and was manuevering to do the 
same with Keiv. How did this happen? I utilized the mobility to armor to wiggle into and often through 
any hole that emerged while my infantry ground up the bulk of his forces. When the situation called for it, 
I sent 5 mechanized division through the swamp.  Two were (temporarily) trapped by ZOC but the other three
emerged to spearhead a two-pronged advance on Kiev. The computer set up the Soviets so as to not allow any meaningful first week breakthroughs such as Hoepner and 
Guderian acheived . However, by the Axis second mechized phase I had units on the divina exactly when Von Mansteins 
panzer Corp crossed.  The break through at Brest-Livestok was hampered by the fact that my russion defense forced a panzer corp into the marches.  However by beefing up Army Group South with extra Panzers and sending the rest north
to reinforce AG North's spearheads I kept finding weak spots, and when I didn't have one I made one  by trading 
a few flips to annialate some Soviet stacks that were in the way. 

With the Front jumbled I attacked a lot out of supply Soviet stacks and my Panzers spent a lot of time out of supply, but that 
didn't stop them from using each mechanized phase to wiggle through holes to isolate Soviet units as they tried to fall back in an orderly manner. The famed panzer mobility is perfectly well captured by the Blitzkrieg rule along with the post combat mechanized
movement phase. 
All of this would work just as well in France except that the ratio of units to frontage is too high on both sides. This is 
a problem for other WWII games such as Third Reich as well, the plain truth is that the French and British have more than enough 
troops to cover from the channel to the maginot line twice over. The only way to create a breakthrough is if the Allies can be induced to create a crescent-shaped line, or if some sector is left improperly covered. The second of these requires a mistake by the allied player. the first is the natural result of the allies plan to defend the majority of Belgium. If the Allies advance all the way to the dutch border they are taking on a crescent-shaped position that taxes the available units. 

If the axis player wants to, he can drive to the channel between the Belgium forces and the primary allies on his opening opening turn. This cuts off Belgium and allows those units to be destroyed in detail.  Unfortunately, it creates a perfectly straight front, which the 
Major Allies will have no trouble adequately covering in Depth.   Eventually, the Germans has to resort to the taking of massing his
High combat factor units where the rivers fail to provide defensive doubling and battering his way forward one hex per week. 

Even if the Allies "cooperate" with a full scale defense of Belgium there are still so many units on the map that Overruns, bypasses
and breakthroughs will be few and far between by comparison to what can happen in Poland or the USSR. 

BOB. 
> From: warineur-request at mailman.halisp.net> Subject: WarInEur Digest, Vol 39, Issue 4> 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: Design issues:- cause &effect (Chuck Sutherland)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:43:34 -0400> From: Chuck Sutherland <csutherland at gamewoodinc.com>> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Design issues:- cause &effect> Cc: warineur at mailman.halisp.net> Message-ID: <47063176.8050402 at gamewoodinc.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed> > Sorry I was away due to a death in my family, so this is old news to you > but not to me! ;)> > > ------------------------------> SGMINFO at aol.com wrote:> One of the catch 22 pockets of design, is achieving the desired result, > but incorrecting perceiving the influences of real life pressures.> Take the perennial problem of airborne divisions. In the classic game, > gamers developed the "parachute & Panzer" tactical role of airborne, > dropping at every available opportunity to enforce the occupation of the > hex regardless.> Devastating in France against the 3rd Republic, yet impossible to > achieve in real life.> Airborne were never used repeatedly as part of any operational plan in > this manner, by either side, a sort of airborne super artillery.> Airborne ops were a relatively rare occurance, absolutely devastating in > effect when they went right, but needing meticulous planning and some > careful thought, before "getting away with it".> In the game, that doesn't happen.> The conclusion is:- some element is missing.> ------------------------------> > > I totally agree the airborne is much to powerful in this game. As for > their effect I would say they are over modeled because the armor is > under modeled and thus it balances things in game terms. The thing that > IS missing is the ability of armor to push through and exploit its > mobility, so if you "fix" the para issues no matter how you fix them, > unless you address the lack of mobility to exploit with you will be left > with even a more broken system that acts even more like WWI!> > > > ---------------------------------> SGMINFO at aol.com wrote:> Can that be fixed by changing the factors that influence? or introducing > a rule to strait jacket the players from straying off the straight and > narrow?> The latter is clearly the easier concept to apply, but usually > completely falls down in the application.> For example, cycle all the ATPs in the airdrop for 2 cycles.> After Normandy, Germans heave a big sigh of relief, now certain thaat > they are free of airborne ops for x turns. As one can see, you can > create circumstances where a careful panzer pusher can exploit the > nuances created.> The nearest method that might work, would be one adding uncertainty to > the equation> For example, ATPs do not cycle, but go to a pool. In the pool, each > survining ATP is subject to a die roll, on a roll of 1 it is recycled. > The rolls to be applied each turn, and the "winning" ATPs then take 4 > weeks to cycle, before being made available once again.> This might engender the feeling of restraint in their use, the players > realising that airborne resources are delicate, and need careful > handling, before all the elements can be brought to concert pitch > together again to repeat the exercise.> The uncertainty element, tends to act as a brake on the assumptions of > the defender, and as a restraining influence on wild continuous airborne > ops by the attacker.> At the moment, used in the classical roll, the units clearly dominate > the French campaign in a way that tends to completely skew the gamers' > experience of the campaign.> On the other hand in the standard game the combination of units and > application of the standard rules, almost force the attacker down the > same road to resolve the impasse inherent in the defensive interplay of > forces.> --------------------------------> > The simple fix is to make the owning player plot 4 turns ahead of time > where the drop will take place, this way if reflects the planning needed > to execute such an operation and also will add the element that says > drop even when it seems like a bad decision because they did not want to > wait another month for the updated plans like the allies did in late > summer at Arham. As for forcing a retreat everytime, perhaps retreats > should be forced no matter if airborne are used or not unless you are > defending a city or fortress or maybe a town, then you should be allowed > to take a EX to stay in the hex. But allowing attacks during movement > would stop people from taking EX's instead of retreats and thus would > make paras a moot point. You would have to make cities be able to ignore > retreats to allow the defenders to hold the hex at least until it was > flanked and cut off.> > -------------------------------> SGMINFO at aol.com wrote:> Experience of the attrition option raises the spectre of French Collapse > in 1940 almost every time, without using airborne, so some moderating > influence on their arrival may be a necessary balancing agent, to > prevent France 1940 going down the road of garranteed defeat in a > totally ahistorical manner.> I might point out that experience so far with attrition options, is that > Hitlers fundamental appraisal of the prospects of an autumn campaign > seem to be very accurate, more perhaps than he dreamed.> Only once have I managed to snatch stalemate (more by luck than design) > from the Jaws of defeat in France, and that was without the use of > airborne being available to beef up the German attack.> ------------------------------> What are the computer rules for attrition?> > > ------------------------------> SGMINFO at aol.com wrote:> So the questions on the strategic level are:-> Are the current rules overplaying the tactical role of airborne?> Is there a way of restraining without fatally compromising them?> If they are restrained, does this have the unintended effect of > destroying the balance in the standard classical French campaign? i.e. > Making the German mountain too high for them to climb?> ------------------------------> > Yes> Yes> Yes unless armor is also addressed.> > -- > Chuck Sutherland> Technology Specialist> Gamewood, Inc.> 116 South Ridge Street> Danville, VA 24541> (434) 799-8407 x218> > > > ------------------------------> > _______________________________________________> WarInEur mailing list> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> > > End of WarInEur Digest, Vol 39, Issue 4> ***************************************
_________________________________________________________________
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/20071006/be660a43/attachment.html