[WarInEur] Re: Games with a Game WIE vs WitE

Wed Oct 24 02:10:30 EDT 2007

War in the East preceded War in Europe. So far as I know, either side had roughly the same odds of 
'winning either the Barbarossa Scenario or the Campaign game in the 1st Edition.  The Axis could 
win the Campaign game either by forcing a surrender, crippling the Soviet production system, or 
attrition the Soviet Army to the point that the front stalemates in 1943-44.  The combined odds 
of any of these three happening are probably somewhere close to 50%. 

Unfortunately, should any of these non-historical outcomes come to pass, then WIE is going to 
completely fail as simulation of WWII. Furthermore, War in Europe allows the aggressor a chance 
to avoid traps into which the historical aggressors fell. For example, the Axis commander may choose 
to start Barbarossa before all the units are in place in order to seize and repair more railroad hexes 
before the weather turns bad. If War in Europe is not to go completely off the rails in 1941, then 
either the combat capabilities of the Axis are going to have to be a-historically curtailed or the Soviet 
player needs either options or capabilities which were not employed by the Historical Soviets. If one looks at the rule changes and map changes between SPI War in the East and Decision Game WIE
one sees that with surprisingly few exceptions, the differences each make it less likely that USSR will be 
forced to surrender or have its production system crippled when playing War in the East. 

 For most WIE players these "tweeks" are probably regarded as exceptible precautions against an a-historical 
Axis Victory. Perhaps so, but in terms of WitE and its scenarios, these constitute a stacking of the deck against 
the Axis player's success in 1941 and 1942 and against a soviet victory in 1943 or 1944. What we so-called 
Panzer Pushers are advocating is that CWIE-2 make it possible to fight the Russian campaign 
with a set of rules under which the survival of the USSR is very much in doubt, rather than a foregone 
conclusion. While I personally would rather that the basic rules of CWIE-2 be more like those of 1st Edition 
WitE, I understand why the original rules can only be restored as options rather than basic code. 
BOB

> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:48:32 -0400> From: warineur-request at mailman.halisp.net> Subject: WarInEur Digest, Vol 39, Issue 29> 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: RE: first edition rules for the Russian campaign> (Kent & Sue Haunschild)> 2. Fw: Alternative Soviet rail costs (Kent & Sue Haunschild)> 3. Re: Fw: Alternative Soviet rail costs (srm)> 4. Re: Fw: Alternative Soviet rail costs (Kent & Sue Haunschild)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:19:26 -0500> From: "Kent & Sue Haunschild" <kentsue at cox.net>> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] RE: first edition rules for the Russian> campaign> To: "Wardall Clark" <baseballnut570 at hotmail.com>, "war in europe> forum" <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>> Message-ID: <001301c815db$eb6f7330$6501a8c0 at kent839ba1def4>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > I'm not sure it's the hex orientation that is to blame. Did a little rail hex counting. The distance to Kiev and Minsk is the same in both editions. Due to the germandering the rail line does in Lithuania two extra rail hexes have been added on the line to Riga. But it is 24 hexes for Odessa in ed 2 and only 6 in ed 1. This could be rectified with the use of an MSU, but the scenario instruction specifically state that the three German MSU are to be set up in Poland or Prussia. So unless the players are willing to amend the setup instructions the Axis is screwed from the start. Even more so if chaining is not allowed.> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Wardall Clark > To: war in europe forum > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:24 AM> Subject: [WarInEur] RE: first edition rules for the Russian campaign> > > 1st edition War in the East was too tough to play in the campaign version because the weekly Russian Production was so > cumbersome to implement. However, I have found that using a spreadsheet instead of 15 to 20 production tracks eliminated that > deficiency quite nicely. > > The reinforcement schedules for the scenarios were so far from what the players can achieve via production that I wondered how the > Soviets ever won. I note with approval that the 2nd edition scenario schedules are quite different. Presumably the new schedule is more> historically accurate. it certainly gives the Soviet player more of a fighting chance. I admit that with exception of some missing railroad > segments I like the new more heavily forested Map board better. > > On the other hand, counting supply by hexes was easier to implement and the fact that there were multiple checks for victory forced the pace of the German advance and also encouraged the Soviets to fight in order to knock the Germans off schedule. As mentioned in my earlier post the relocation and destruction of the Arms centers tends to follow a more historic path than in the 2nd edition, in which a careful soviet player can extract every arms center and deliberately sacrifice his training centers as a simple means of avoiding the Collapse of Government. The Soviets in 2nd edition have 2 more training centers than in 1st edition and given the way the 2nd edition production is handled 20 TC is actually more training centers than they can conveniently employ. > > Perhaps the most important difference is the way that RR repair/conversion is handled. The Axis RR units may convert in Mud but not in snow. This makes for > an extra 10 hexes of repair for the start of the 1942 campaign and makes possible an attack such as the Axis launched in 1942. Another advantage was that> the Map board was laid out so that east to west hex counting was more efficient than north to south. The current grid is the other way around, which makes it > harder to extend supply forward and easier to shift troops along the front line to the point of the enemies attack than it was in 1st edition WitE. I would not > advocate an entirely new map, but I would advocate that the supply rules for operation on the new map should be somewhat MORE liberal in order to make up > for this change. (e.g. introducing MSU which outpace the RR units' progress.) > > Another important change is that the 2nd edition Axis is required to garrison the cities, but not required to maintain a continuous line. In 1st edition > WitE the Soviets picked up extra Personnel Points whenever a line of communication could be traced into captured territory at the end of an axis turn. Furthermore, if they could bring a partisan unit into supply it became a 1-4. > > Partisan cadre were handled in a manner much more like that of Yugoslav partisans, but there was a special Air Drop rule that let the Soviets > place Partisans in a manner much like they do in 2nd edition. If I recall correctly, partisans could create cuts and block supplies, making them > much more dangerous than the partisans in CWIE-1. > > What 1st Edition WitE lack was the counter set and off map areas for certain "what if's". What if Axis used paratroop drops rather than converting the only two airborne unit into 'leg' units for the campaign. How did the Balkan campaign impact on the Launch of Barbarossa? Would weakening Barbarossa> have freed enough resources for Rommel to prevail? How many Soviet troops would have been necessary to hold the border against a hostile Turkey? > Did the Axis invade with the right type of army--would more motorized infantry have been decisive? Could the Axis have held off the Soviet Juggernaut> if they had built defensive fortifications and retreated in good order instead of trying the Kursk counteroffensive to preempt the coming Soviet one?> > CWIE-2 with an extended 1st edition rule book would be really, really cool. > > BOB> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > _______________________________________________> WarInEur mailing list> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> -------------- next part --------------> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071023/4b672ada/attachment-0001.html> > ------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:48:09 -0500> From: "Kent & Sue Haunschild" <kentsue at cox.net>> Subject: [WarInEur] Fw: Alternative Soviet rail costs> To: "Warineur" <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>, "Graham-Merrett, Steve"> <SGMINFO at aol.com>> Message-ID: <001901c815e8$50141af0$6501a8c0 at kent839ba1def4>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > > > > We have a chance to have the WitE 1st ed rail movement costs for coded as an Option for CWIE2 if there is enough interest. Please read the include threads and if you think you'd like to try it in a game sometime let me know by sending me a reply either way. I will tabulate the results and forward them to Karl.> > Basically, the choices are:> > Yes include it> > No, do not include it> > or, I don't care.> > If you would care to comment on why you do or don't want to include it I will forward you comments as well.> > > Karl wrote:> > You should prepare this as a formal rule, and submit it to test group and/or the mailing list for discussion. If we get a general feel that at least a few people like the option then I'll run it past Doc and (probably) add it.> > Not a lot of work in this ... but I'm wary of adding too many options, each of which is only played by one or two people.> > Kent wrote:> > Bit of discussion on the List at the moment about the changes in the rail costs for Arms and Training Centers between the first and second editions of WitE. Any chance of coding an option while we wait?> > If so, call it the Alt. AC/TC rail costs, applicable to WiE and WitE> > Basically the changes are:> > cost to entrain or detrain a TC/AC is 50 rail points not 10.> > AC counts as 20 Divisions> > TC count as 10 Divisions> > AC and TC have a movement rate of 10 rail hexes (best way to think of this is the have the 50 everyone else does but it costs them 5 rail points per hex to advance along a rail line.> > Rail capacity is 60 at all times.> > Kent> -------------- next part --------------> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071023/7c842f18/attachment-0001.html> > ------------------------------> > Message: 3> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:11:55 -0700 (PDT)> From: srm <foufut at yahoo.com>> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Fw: Alternative Soviet rail costs> To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net> Message-ID: <997353.30190.qm at web32408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1> > more pro-Axis, anti-Soviet/Allied stuff.> > > This just goes on and on and on.> > > my vote (and i've played a several thousand hours of> WIE since 1981): NO> > > > > > > > -- Kent & Sue Haunschild <kentsue at cox.net> wrote:> > > > > > > > > We have a chance to have the WitE 1st ed rail> > movement costs for coded as an Option for CWIE2 if> > there is enough interest. Please read the include> > threads and if you think you'd like to try it in a> > game sometime let me know by sending me a reply> > either way. I will tabulate the results and forward> > them to Karl.> > > > Basically, the choices are:> > > > Yes include it> > > > No, do not include it> > > > or, I don't care.> > > > If you would care to comment on why you do or don't> > want to include it I will forward you comments as> > well.> > > > > > Karl wrote:> > > > You should prepare this as a formal rule, and submit> > it to test group and/or the mailing list for> > discussion. If we get a general feel that at least> > a few people like the option then I'll run it past> > Doc and (probably) add it.> > > > Not a lot of work in this ... but I'm wary of adding> > too many options, each of which is only played by> > one or two people.> > > > Kent wrote:> > > > Bit of discussion on the List at the moment about> > the changes in the rail costs for Arms and Training> > Centers between the first and second editions of> > WitE. Any chance of coding an option while we wait?> > > > If so, call it the Alt. AC/TC rail costs,> > applicable to WiE and WitE> > > > Basically the changes are:> > > > cost to entrain or detrain a TC/AC is 50 rail> > points not 10.> > > > AC counts as 20 Divisions> > > > TC count as 10 Divisions> > > > AC and TC have a movement rate of 10 rail hexes> > (best way to think of this is the have the 50> > everyone else does but it costs them 5 rail points> > per hex to advance along a rail line.> > > > Rail capacity is 60 at all times.> > > > Kent>> _______________________________________________> > WarInEur mailing list> > WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net> > http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> > > > > __________________________________________________> Do You Yahoo!?> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 4> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:48:31 -0500> From: "Kent & Sue Haunschild" <kentsue at cox.net>> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Fw: Alternative Soviet rail costs> To: "srm" <foufut at yahoo.com>, <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>> Message-ID: <000f01c815f0$bf467820$6501a8c0 at kent839ba1def4>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";> reply-type=original> > Sergio,> > I really don't see this as you describe it:> > > > more pro-Axis, anti-Soviet/Allied stuff.> >> What it is is the desire of some players to explore the differences between > the first and second edition of War in the East. It appears that, for some > unknown reason, the game became skewed in the Soviet's favor when it was > released as part of War in Europe. Unless we code it as an option we are > unable to test it and see which treatment gives more historical results.> > Looking at the scenario setups in War in Europe you cannot avoid noticing > that "some" of the Arms Centers have disappeared. That is they are not > still on the board, and they are not in the Siberia box. Therefore, the > implication is that the designers expected "some" of them to be overrun > before they could be evacuated.> > This does not happen in War in Europe, but happened routinely in War in the > East ed 1. Something has gotten glitched if none of the Soviet Arms Centers > can be captured. So, I really really do not see it as more > anti-Soviet/Allied stuff.> > We know the German's lose, that is history and the result is built into the > game design. The real question is how badly they lose. I think we can have > a better game if we are willing to explore some alternatives. In a board > game we can easily make up our own house rules and enforce them on the spot. > With the computer we have to build the houserules into the code. Players > then have the option of turning them on if they want to try them or off if > they want to play the game "out of the box."> > Of course, I'm sure you being an "out of the box" type of guy would never > consider playing a game where the Axis player was restricted from chaining > MSU's or any of the other post SPI publication game tweaks that have curbed > the Axis capabilities on the East Front. (BUT I WOULDN'T BET ON IT). > > > > > ------------------------------> > _______________________________________________> WarInEur mailing list> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> > > End of WarInEur Digest, Vol 39, Issue 29> ****************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last.  Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20071024/34720050/attachment-0001.html