[WarInEur] RE: counting to 5 in the set up

Sat Feb 23 12:49:37 EST 2008

The why is this important part of Bob's reply is the reason why I asked the question.  I t makes a big difference for the Russians if the border hex counts as one or if the count  starts with the adjacent hex to the border hex.  It also makes a difference if the personnel center is hex one or if the count starts with the adjacent hex.  Whether or not Moscow consist of all three hexes or just the hex containing the Moscow dot doesn't really have an impact and the Leningrad two hex personnel center has none.

As part of the CWIE2 program, we are coding in the effects of a Soviet player active at Peace without the tedium of actually having to play the turns.  What this gives us is a changing Soviet OOB and on map dispositions on a turn by turn basis.  So if the Axis player decides to invade early then he will find a modified Soviet OOB that reflects Peacetime production from 0-10-39.

It is really critical that we follow the letter of the rules when doing this because Peace time production allows a much stronger Soviet OOB and the ability to fortify makes it even more difficult for the Axis.  How much stronger?  Well in addition to the forces specified for 2-5-41 there are 24x4-4, 20x0-1-10, 4x3-5 and 29 fortified units.  There are 12x3-5, 8x0-1-10, and 4x8-6 in progress.  One of the other things that peace time production gives is time, time to produce the 4-4's and AT units normally given as builds in progress before the Axis invasion starts and not having them arrive in the cycles immediately following the invasion.  (Really big difference when playing with attrition.)

Keeping with in the geographical limits can be done and still have overrun proof 1st and second lines.  The only other requirement regarding disposition is that the hexes adjacent to the border must be covered with infantry ZOC.  Taking advantage of the rule that allows a player to reinforce the border districts by stripping the interior reserve districts also gives an advantage.because the Soviet player can use them to reinforce critical areas of the line. (The Designers advise against this but I have found it to be worthwhile). The 20 extra 0-1-10 gives 29 AT units in the secondary line which help blunt the Axis armor and prevent any exploitation in the Mech phase which allows any surviving Soviet units to retreat back to the Minsk, Kiev, Leningrad, and Odessa fortified zones.  The extra units can be used in Minsk, Kiev, Odessa, and Leningrad..

Bottom line is the Soviets may be too strong.  The initial Soviet defense is predicated on losing as few personnel points as possible in the initial onslot, not allowing the Axis to kill the requisite 100 Soviet units, and retreat in good order where possible.  If I can set units in the hex adjacent to the border and count three units away from the border the Soviets may be blitz proof.

Kent
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Wardall Clark 
  To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net 
  Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:02 AM
  Subject: [WarInEur] RE: counting to 5 in the set up

  We always assumed in Louisville that within 5 hexes and no more than 5 hexes away meant the same thing. 
  Based on the posts, this is far from self-evident. As will be noted below, this is far from a trivial
  point. 

  If a unit is no more than 5 hexes away from a specified hex then it can land on the specified hex by 
  moving 5 hexes (or less) in the direction of the specified. THis is because the gap between the city 
  and the unit is never more than 4 hexes. 

  I always played that within five hexes of a city means a gap of 4 hexes is allowed: hence the count
  begins in the hex adjacent to the city and ends with the hex of the unit being placed (or supplied or 
  Air supported) 

  I always had a problem with the definition of border/border hex, as the rules never properly spelled out 
  what this meant except in one case that seemed to make no sense: FINNISH UNITS MAY NOT MOVE
  MORE THAN 10 HEXES FROM FINLAND (INCLUSIVE) I.E. BETWEEN THE UNITS HEX AND THE UNITS HEX
  AND THE FINNISH BORDER THERE MAY BE ONLY EIGHT HEXES. 

  The consensus I see regarding the border restriction is that the frontier is the dividing line between 
  the hexes rather than the adjacent hexes themselves. Thus within the hexes of the border/frontier 
  include only the adjecent hexes, the hexes adjacent to those, and the hexes adjacent to those hexes. 
  The biggest allowed gap between a unit and the frontier hexes is one hex.  Between the unit and the
  frontier itself there can be a gap of two hexes. 
  Given that the SPI rules added the word inclusive, this is the only acceptable interpretation: ALL UNITS 
  NOT INDICATED AS BEING PART OF A "RESERVE" must be placed within the geographical location given 
  AND WITHIN THREE HEXES (INCLUSIVE) OF START LINE.  

  The explanation for the goofy finnish example is that Hex #1 in the count is on the Finnish side of the 
  dividing line, Hex #2 is on the russian side, Hex #10 is the hex containing the unit.   The rule is miswritten:
  moving 10 hexes from a hex of finland would create a cap of 9 hexes.  What has been prohibbited is BEING 
  more than 10 inclusive hexes from Finland is.  However, a Finnish unit might be oblidged to retreat
  (rather than move) into such a hex which would supposedly be OK, hence the rule specified movement. 

  The proper rule should have been:  
      Finnish units may not move into any hex that more than 9 hexes past the Finnish border. 
  ============================================================================
  Regarding the reserves.  The SPI rule reads "RESERVE UNITS MAY BE PLACED ANYWHERE WITHIN FIVE 
  HEXES OF THE NAMED CITY HEX:   

  For me, the three salient features of this rule are  (a) 'inclusive' was not employed (b) the word named 
  would normally be redundent in this contex.(c) 'Hex' is singular rather than plural. 
  >From (B) and (C) I conclude that the count for Moscow and Leningrad eminates from the dot rather than 
  from the personnel center symbols. From (a) I conclude that a gap of four(4) hexes between the reserve 
  HQ city and the unit is perfectly acceptable. 

  If had written the rules I would have written 
  Defininition: A Frontier Hex is any hex which borders hexes controlled by an unfriendly power. 
  Set up rule: Units not in reserves must be either set up in frontier hexes, or no more than 2 
  hexes from a frontier hex. Units in Reserves may be set up no more than 5 hexes from the designated 
  HQ hex for its reserve. 
  ================================================================================
  WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? 

  To preclude an Axis Turn-1 break through, the USSR must set up a minimum number of combat factors in the 
  four hexes closest to the Frontier.   The forces detailed to Poland, Bessabarabia and LIthuania are insufficient 
  to set up both an overrun-proof first line and an overrun-proof back up line.  Soen in long as the Axis has an entirely
  free set up as if provided for in War in the East an masssive breakthrough will ensue. 

  But if the reserve forces are allowed to set up far enough westward or the Frontier forces are set up far enough eastward 
  the second line can be created using troops on map as of 4/6/41. The set up provided with CWIE-2 Barbarossa Scenario is 
  one such defense.  The Soviet situation after turn 1 of CWIE-2 is thus a far cry from its RW situation, in which Von Manstein's 56th Panzer Corp captured an intact bridge over the Divina on the 26th of June.   In WIE and WitE this sort of break through is exactly what happens whenever the Riga Reserve concentrates too close to the coast.  

  ALthough the long term threat is less acute in the vicinity of Odessa, the overall situation is the same. Unless the Reserve
  and Frontier troops intermingle, the rail lines into Odessa are in danger of being cut during the Axis mechanized phase. 

  Now as a so-called Panzer pusher I would delight in seeing the rules tightened to preclude the setups found in CWIE and also the 
  ones I normally employ for solo play in favor of something more historical. 

  BOB in Louisville 

  > Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:00:28 -0500

  > 1. Counting to 5 (Hansen)
  > 2. RE: Counting to 5 (Chuck Sutherland)
  > 
  > 
  > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  > 
  > Message: 1
  > Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:25:44 -0600
  > From: "Hansen" <ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net>
  > Subject: [WarInEur] Counting to 5
  > To: <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
  > Message-ID:
  > <200802211728.m1LHSGQp001351 at inet06.hamilton.harte-lyne.ca>
  > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
  > 
  > Kent writes:
  > Okay! Does anyone have a problem with this rules interpretation?
  > 
  > "Within" is inclusive of the hex adjacent to the border but exclusive of the
  > 
  > personnel center hex.
  > 
  > Would it be acceptable to expand this to cover those personnel centers which
  > 
  > consist of multiple hexes (Moscow & Leningrad) by inserting "a" in place of 
  > the "the" in the above sentence?
  > 
  > It would then read:
  > 
  > "Within" is inclusive of the hex adjacent to the border but exclusive of a 
  > personnel center hex.
  > 
  > This would allow Soviet units belonging to a Reserve District to setup up to
  > 
  > five hexes away from any of the Personnel Centers comprising the City.
  > 
  > The alternative is to use the hex containing the Moscow and Leningrad cities
  > 
  > as the center point.
  > 
  > John replies:
  > I always counted the personnel center hex as the first hex. But I can see
  > the argument both ways. One way of looking at this is not counting the hex
  > with the personnel center would say it is not included in the set up (i.e.
  > it was not counted out when you went 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). So you can't put troops
  > in the personnel center hex, which is obviously to me what was not intended
  > by the rule.
  > 
  > I don't have time to do this, but I would look at the map and see if one
  > interpretation or another would have a significant effect. Examples would be
  > reaching a Crimea choke point, access to a better rail road hex (not just
  > one further down the track), not being able to fit all the forces if the
  > personnel hex was not counted, crossing a bay, etc.
  > 
  > Absent some advantage or twist that just doesn't ring true historically, I
  > don't have heartburn for either interpretation.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ------------------------------
  > 
  > Message: 2
  > Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:42:12 -0500
  > From: Chuck Sutherland <csutherland at dpcs.org>
  > Subject: RE: [WarInEur] Counting to 5
  > To: Hansen <ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net>,
  > "warineur at mailman.halisp.net" <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
  > Message-ID:
  > <B31F76644FDF1C4289B14DDCC739294850DF523634 at exchsrvr.dpcs.org>
  > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
  > 
  > This is a non-issue! The border is a hexside the center is a hex, just count hexes, its really easy! ;)
  > 
  > 
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net [mailto:warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net] On Behalf Of Hansen
  > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:26 PM
  > To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net
  > Subject: [WarInEur] Counting to 5
  > 
  > Kent writes:
  > Okay! Does anyone have a problem with this rules interpretation?
  > 
  > "Within" is inclusive of the hex adjacent to the border but exclusive of the
  > 
  > personnel center hex.
  > 
  > Would it be acceptable to expand this to cover those personnel centers which
  > 
  > consist of multiple hexes (Moscow & Leningrad) by inserting "a" in place of
  > the "the" in the above sentence?
  > 
  > It would then read:
  > 
  > "Within" is inclusive of the hex adjacent to the border but exclusive of a
  > personnel center hex.
  > 
  > This would allow Soviet units belonging to a Reserve District to setup up to
  > 
  > five hexes away from any of the Personnel Centers comprising the City.
  > 
  > The alternative is to use the hex containing the Moscow and Leningrad cities
  > 
  > as the center point.
  > 
  > John replies:
  > I always counted the personnel center hex as the first hex. But I can see
  > the argument both ways. One way of looking at this is not counting the hex
  > with the personnel center would say it is not included in the set up (i.e.
  > it was not counted out when you went 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). So you can't put troops
  > in the personnel center hex, which is obviously to me what was not intended
  > by the rule.
  > 
  > I don't have time to do this, but I would look at the map and see if one
  > interpretation or another would have a significant effect. Examples would be
  > reaching a Crimea choke point, access to a better rail road hex (not just
  > one further down the track), not being able to fit all the forces if the
  > personnel hex was not counted, crossing a bay, etc.
  > 
  > Absent some advantage or twist that just doesn't ring true historically, I
  > don't have heartburn for either interpretation.
  > 
  > _______________________________________________
  > WarInEur mailing list
  > WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
  > http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ------------------------------
  > 
  > _______________________________________________
  > WarInEur mailing list
  > WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
  > http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
  > 
  > 
  > End of WarInEur Digest, Vol 43, Issue 9
  > ***************************************

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now! 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20080223/2fc1e867/attachment-0001.html