[WarInEur] A thought on ports and things

[Chuck Sutherland]

With battlegroups the defender would never be eliminated and thus never lose the hex in the amph assault as I would make sure your best attack would net a DR and I would see all your troops drown because I had no retreat set!

As for Ports that are really messed up, the hole Leningrad supply of AGN is impossible, the Germans would never have the shipping to supply 20-30 divisions by sea. And the port would not have that ability either. There needs to be a limit on how many divisions a major and minor port can supply, otherwise Antwerp is not worth the effort for the allies to take because one port supplies all their needs! MSU's should be more mobile then rail repair period, there is never a red ball express in the west to supply Patton! Rail should repair 1 per turn, MSU's 2 per turn or allow them a third move in combat phase to supply combat. If ports were modeled correctly you could do away with the artificial unit limits in NA for the Axis and allow supply limits to dictate that. Maybe even add shipping points that have to be maintained for supply.

Chuck Sutherland

________________________________
From: warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net [mailto:warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net] On Behalf Of Kent & Sue Haunschild
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:35 PM
To: sgminfo; war in europe forum
Subject: Re: [WarInEur] A thought on ports and things

My problem with this idea is that if the Allies can land RR/MSU units at minor ports then the problems imposed by the "guaranteed" success of any Amph Assault are compounded.  ITRW the German Fortifications were much more extensive and durable than allowed in the game.

When placed in a port they should almost become Maginot Line type fortifications (greater defense against sea coast hexes than when attacked from the rear) and becoming self supplying for 3 cycles .  So, a straight Amph assault against a fortified port would probably fail, while one from the rear would probably succeed.

I would even consider changing the rules so Amph units attacked at full strength, but lost the "Guaranteed" success of mandatory Defender retreats.  That is normal combat odds and retreat orders would prevail.  So unless the defenders were eliminated completely then the Attacker would flip and return to their port of origination.

I think this would simulate the problems much better and force the Allies into a more historic course of action.  Remember the Axis have only 36 Fortification Markers available (which are considered units for the purposes of imposing counter limits).  If they fortify the West wall and three extra border hexes (which takes 18) they only have 18 more available.  It would take 21 to place a fort in every port hex that is within Amphibious assault range of Britain, so they can't even place a Fort in every port hex much less have any available for other beach areas.  Looking at these numbers one could almost justify an increase of 10 or so.  (Enough to place forts in those beach hexes, that while not ports, are shown as containing forts in the 1940 WitW scenario.

PS The reason Gibraltar has to be a Major port is because unless it is the attacks against Algeria can't take place.  I'd rather see it become a minor port and have an acceptation rule similar to the one allowing Amph assaults against Norway from Lerwick.
----- Original Message -----
From: sgminfo<mailto:sgminfo at aol.com>
To: war in europe forum<mailto:warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [WarInEur] A thought on ports and things

While your analysis is correct and I personally would like to "fix" many of the map errors, to some extent we are dealing with the "Law of Unintended Consequences." Or, some of the rules effects require that we adjust our perception of reality.

Ports are a good example.  Their status (major or minor) or even omission or inclusion on the map has to be seen through the eyes of the historical simulation designer.

For example- If you look at the game rules covering Amph assaults and compare them to the real risks you will find that the defender retreat result is not really justified.  However, if you consider the fact that the Allies never had a failure then the rule is perfectly satisfactory.

But, then you get into the "unintended consequences."  If the Allied invasion can't fail, then the quickest way to Germany is straight back through Belgium and Holland.  But that didn't happen either.

SPI's solution was to jigger the port status and rail net work so that only the major ports in north western France will be usable by the Allies this guiding game play in the historic direction.

My personal objection in this area has to do with the Allied Sealift capability.  Never in their wildest wet dreams could the Allies dredge up enough sealift for 15 divisions, much less Amph capability for 15 more.  Especially at the same time.  It's way to much of a good thing.

The addendum to that with the problems engendered by skewing ports etc is very much this example of unintended consequences...

In the Game it is pretty clear, to the German commanders, where and when (amphib assault). So you garrison the major ports and fight like hell and defend them to the death.
Other areas of fortress Europe go hang,
and makedo with garrison troops of the allies...

ITRW
Things were never so cosy and tidy.

1.Allied interntions were well concealed.
2.German estimations of Allied capability were seriously deficient.
   a)Theydid not fully understand what was required for the sealift to beaches.
   b) had not kept track of growing allied capabilities.

These were manifest in Hitler's preoccupation with Norway, and the potential threat to it.
The overwhelming desire to see the Pas de Calais as a certain route


Result in game terms. The German defense tended to be formulaic and to a serious degree lost focus.

He who would defend evrything defends nothing etc etc...

Developing the assault rules required much head scratching and simplification...

For example,
Its not the landings that were the key point for the Allies,
but the days following...
How fast they could project power ashore,
and gather forces to break out of any lodgement area,
which in itself seriously limited the possible options that could be used to advantage after hitting the beaches...hence the channel coast and normandy,
or the Pas de Calais.

The limited distances to travel for resupply,
availability of full air cover,
andport handling capacity
coupled with the distance from Germany,
made Normandy (but only in retrospect) the obvious choice.


Most of the considerations that would force you along the historical route are not simulated...
Hence the Major port/ minor port business.

But the positioning of that, in turn, cuts out Norway as a credible objective, which in turn saves the German commander 20 divisions wasted there itrw.

The juxtaposition of the various compromises mean that whilst amphibious warfare works, it doesn't work in quite the way that posed such conundrums for the Germans...
and at the same time, such devices as 'Mulberry' do not act to completely throw the theoretical basis of defense upon which the defender was banking.
We don't have 'mulberry' so the simulation breaks down a bit in that regard.

Usually its not a key regard, as capturing cherbourg so soon after getting ashore usually solves that problem. ITRW mulberry turned out tobe vital, and the effect of denial of this device, (the consequences of the 'Great Storm' in July) can clearly be seen in restrictions applied to allied operations for some small time, whilst the resulting snafu with logistics was sorted out.


In CWIE 1 I developed a hybrid unit that enabled us to geta rail unit or MSU ashore via a minor port, and this did much to muddy the waters as far as the German defender was concerned, the defensive task suddenly increased initially, and could now include Norwegian ports, but then was back to the problem of how to get more stuff to the allied beachead to seal it off before the alliesgot a stranglehold ashore...



-|steve|-
________________________________
_______________________________________________
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/20080818/4627faeb/attachment-0001.html