Fw: [WarInEur] In re Finland panzer push

Tue Oct 16 18:12:18 EDT 2007

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kent & Sue Haunschild" <kentsue at cox.net>
Cc: "Sergio" <foufut at yahoo.com>; "Hansen" <ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WarInEur] In re Finland panzer push


> But to dismiss it as just "yet another pro-axis, anti-soviet allies
> "improvement"." is either to not understand the proposal or to be just
> another "the axis must have no realistic chance to win and must be crushed
> under the treads of the T-34" whine.
>
> Damn, Sergio, I think he nailed your ass with that volley.  Roflmao!
>
> As he also wrote,  the question is game realism and enforcement of the
> designer's intentions.  There is no doubt that the designer's felt that 
> ITRW
> the Finnish Front was fairly static.  The Finns are limited geographically
> and can't engage in much combat because once they have suffered the
> requisite flips they are pretty much useless for anythng but defense.
>
> WiE says that "If the Winter war is fought, the Soviet player is required 
> to
> garrison the 1941start line. (SPI 72.0)" They even went so far as to say 
> "If
> players want to ignore the whole area (SPI 62.0 section 7), just take 20
> Soviet 20x1-4's, all Finnish units, and 4x6-5 off the map. (SPI 64.7)"
>
> So, we cannot ignore the designer's intention or the rules.  The Finnish
> Frontier must be garrisoned throughout the war.  When playing the board 
> game
> this is easy to enforce, and we didn't have to get into the ramifications 
> of
> what happens if the Soviet's don't garrison the border.  I.E. if they
> garrison the border, the Murmansk rail way and Murmansk remain in Soviet
> hands and we don't need to consider the effect on lend lease.
>
> But in Computer War in Europe we do have to come up with some simple way 
> to
> either enforce the rules or penalize the players for not obeying the 
> rules.
> Personally, I like these type of "House rules for Computer Play" to have
> some real world logic behind them.  They may differ in wording from the
> original rules, but so long as the in game results are the same who cares.
>
> I offered the option of adding political points for control of Murmansk 
> and
> the railroad as the easiest to code.  The other option is to subtract Arms
> points per the table in SPI 77.81.  Either solution should work.  Both 
> will
> incentify the Soviet player to comply with the designer's intent without
> requiring him to do something that is no longer practical if he chooses 
> not
> to or the situation changes.
>
> By the same token, I would modify the Finn's geographic restrictions by
> stating that the Finn's may not enter a Soviet ZOC outside the current
> geographic limitations.  So if the Soviet player chooses to abandon or 
> move
> back from the area the Finn's are free to move into the vacuum.  This also
> seems a reasonable extension or expansion of the rules to me.
>
> As far as game balance goes, the original WitE had rules for lend lease 
> etc.
> It was only when it was released as part of WiE that the Lend lease became
> include into the Soviet base production and they then had to add rules if
> players wanted to back it back out.
>
> Bottomline, is still the Soviets are supposed to garrison the finish 
> border.
> The questions remaining are: What
> is the easiest way to code this? What happens if game play goes off in an
> ahistoric manner?  Should the players be required to comply with the rules
> in all situations or should the code be flexible enough to adapt?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Hansen" <ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net>
> To: "'srm'" <foufut at yahoo.com>; <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [WarInEur] In re Finland panzer push
>
>
>> The question is realism. Are the current rules which allows the soviets 
>> to
>> withdraw all forces from the Finnish front and ignore anything the 
>> Germans
>> might do to Murmansk realistic?
>>
>> Maybe, but it doesn't look like it to me. I would be interested in 
>> hearing
>> a
>> defense of the current rules more accurately modeling the real events of
>> the
>> war than the alternative rules I suggested.
>>
>> Now as I said, this hurts the soviets game wise. As an option, it would
>> allow more realism at a cost of game balance. It might not be a good
>> option
>> to pick because of game balance. It may not be a good thing to do because
>> it
>> is 'one more thing' to put on the programmers plate.
>>
>>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: srm [mailto:foufut at yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:54 PM
>> To: Hansen; warineur at mailman.halisp.net
>> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] In re Finland panzer push
>>
>> Wow, what a shocker. yet another pro-axis, anti-soviet
>> allies "improvement".
>>
>> ho hum.
>> --- Hansen <ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Kent brings up a good point in regards to Finland.
>>>
>>> I would suggest an alternative to how to handle the
>>> Finish front.
>>>
>>> 1) I would make the penalty for not maintaining the
>>> rail line (not just a
>>> LOC) from Murmansk to Siberia (the great motherland
>>> of Russian supply) to be
>>> a production penalty (say 5% or 10% reduction in
>>> Arms point production).
>>> This would generally be worth more to both sides (in
>>> keeping or removing)
>>> than political points and it better reflects the
>>> importance of Murmansk,
>>> which was not political but for Western supply.
>>>
>>> 2) I would change the Finnish restriction to not
>>> being able to enter a
>>> Soviet ZOC outside of Finland (or maybe X hexes
>>> outside of Finland) until
>>> Leningrad has fallen. So the Finns can move if the
>>> Russians don't shield
>>> them, but not much of a shield is needed. The
>>> beginning screen of 1-4 are
>>> sufficient to protect the Murmansk railroad and thus
>>> the western supply.
>>> After Leningrad falls, the normal restrictions can
>>> apply.
>>>
>>> Game wise this hurts the soviets as they lose the
>>> gamey use of the Finnish
>>> front troops, don't have the magical force field
>>> that pens the Finns up
>>> north and currently have no reason to protect
>>> Murmansk or the railhead. I
>>> honestly don't know enough about the real world
>>> Finnish front to know if the
>>> Soviets stripped it or not.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WarInEur mailing list
>>> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
>>> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________________
>> ________
>> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
>> Play
>> Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
>> http://sims.yahoo.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WarInEur mailing list
>> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
>> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>>
>