[WarInEur] RE: GAME SYSTEM BIAS

Wed Feb 27 09:29:47 EST 2008

As even those who play War in the West cannot help but notice, the Russian Campaign is the primary land campaign of WWII in the European Theatre.   HOWEVER, the Axis's inability to fight the Soviets to a standstill in RW 1943-1944 was largely due to the unwillingness/inability of the Axis Supreme command to shift temporarily idle or less critically needed forces from other fronts to Russia in a timely fashion.This largely holds true for the WIE game system; the Soviet Player can't possibly achieve better thana draw if Great Britain surrenders and\or the US does not enter the war.     By the same token, once the Axis failed to achieve a knockout of either Great Britain or the USSR by September of 1942, the inevitable result of the conflict was the surrender of Germany.  The RW Axis economies were not large enough to overcome the resources of the nations arrayed against them.  Again, the game system has this right; the axis player ususally does not win in WIE unless he has already knocked out either Russia or Great Britain.         WIE is contested over whether Germany surrenders by the designated end of game and whether the USSR or the Western Allies ends up in control of more valuable real estate. Whether the game systemproperly models this stage of the war is determined by how well the Strategic bombing and production rulesemulate the military capacities of the major powers economy and whether the movement rules are properly reflecting the mobility of the various units involved.  The gist of several strands on the LIst has been that  it is somewhat too easy for the "Grand Alliance" to crush the Axis.        It's just a hunch, but the problem may be caused by the lack of RW Fog of War in the original game. In standard WIE YOU KNOW FOR A FACT HOW FAR AWAY in distance and time YOUR OPPONENT'S FORCES ARE DEPLOYED.  With FOW, the side hoping to seize the RW initiative had reason to worry about traps, and as a result there will generally be fewer offensive gambles but more defensive gambles in which commanders hope that the opponent will misinterpret the meaning of the formations he is able to See".   The RW Allies tended to delay major operations for extra weeks in order to--as they saw it -"get all their ducks in a row".  For the western Allies, Patton's launching a three-division attack in winter on three days notice was unprecedented quickness of action for a large scale operation.  

Board games are quite diferent.  In WIE there NORMALLY is some stack which withdraws from a ZOC,  moves a hex or two and then attacks a completely different stack of enemy units. ALso, it is common practice to attack with locally available units under the expectation that units still moving to the area or not even on the map will provide one's reserves or form a 2nd wave to blunt or exploit the opponent's reaction to the initial attac. In a wargame w/o FOW wait until the follow up forces are on site wastes warfare's most irreplaceable requirement: time.        WIE does not start in Sep 1942, it starts 156 turns earlier. Thus while FOW might tend to shift the game back into historical track AFTER that date,  the combat system, movement rules, and a relative lack of political restrictions on the major powers, allow the game to proceed along some very non-historical lines of play, many of which are in contradiction to important military, economic or geopolitical realties. This presents twin design quandaries: (A) How can we make sure that the Major powers other than France will normally survive until Sep 1942? (A) what incentives/restrictions are necessary to keep the simulation aspects of the game on track.  Original BWIE had the following major defect: War in Europe has a combat system and movement system such that a Campaign that begins on 1/7/41 has a roughly 50% chance of either defeating or stalemating the USSR. This probability rises fairly dramatically each week earlier the Axis declares war. As a result, under original rules there was very little chance that a Soviet Player could emerge victorious in a WIE campaign game starting in 1939.  As Kent recited, between BWitE and CWIE-1 there have been a host of OFFICIAL rule "tweeks" that taken collectively will drastically reduce the chance of an Axis outright victory in the East. Although I approve of nearly all these adjustments, I cannot say that I think that the game remains historically accurate for the 19 months from April 1941 to Sept 1942.  The RW Allies lived this time as if they were on the brink of defeat.  The Axis in a number of situation believed that they might be just one big push away from achieving irreversible gains. (e.g. the destruction of Soviet Resource centers or the Suez canal.)   

As Kent and I can collectively document beyond the possibility of dispute, Germany productive capacity is under-modeled in WIE prior to 1942, badly under-modeled. The under-modeling is followed by a period of over-modelling.  UNfortunately for the Axis playher, the under production makes it nearly impossible to push BOTH Great Britain and the USSR to the edge of defeat in 1941-2.  Instead, the German player tends to be much less reckless in his initial objectives, which leads to so many fewer casualties on both sides that 1942 in WIE can be too much like WWI for many of us blitzkrieg aficionados.  I would fix the Eastern front roughly as follows:  a) introduce a variant of the Soviet Collapse rule, one that discounts any cities lost to Air Assault or Amphibious Assault.b) Allow players to use an optional map with a denser Rail Net for the UKraine.  Historically, the Axis chose not to repair many of these tracks, but the historical Axis never faced the threat of allied bombers targeting the East Front Rail net in 1943. To restore some historicity to play in 1941 we need to restore the Constanzia to Odessa to Sevastopol rail lines. c)  Modify the USSR's initially deployment so that any 1-4 within 3 hexes of the border may begin 3/9/39  in a Fortified state. Whenever the active border moves Westward only those units still within 3 hexes of the new border may remain in a fortified condition the following cycle, The others must "undig" themselves unless replaced by units from the interior of the USSR. d) Change the German on Line production so that they can achieve the 1940 France OOB without sacrificing either on-line production or their entire stock of Infantry Replacement points. This will likewise enable him to have enough U-boats for 1941.  e) Change the dates of the German production multiple increases so that more PP are available in 1940-1941 and less points are available in 1942-43. This will remove the necessity of the massive LOAN of PP found in War in the West, and enable the Axis to field historical forces for June to july of 1941.   f) Set the German Production multiples so that they are tied to the Total War/Limited War status for the Soviets. ------Should the USSR declare War on the Axis Alliance the German PM increases by 0.5 above the chart value. ------If the USSR and Germany are not at War on 0/8/41 then then reduce the German PM by 0.5. ---------Unless the USSR and Germany are at TOTAL war then the German PM for 0/8/41 through 0/12/42 is reduced by 1.  g) Raise the Soviet Stacking limit for detrained brigades and divisions from 3 to 8 with Corps counting as 3 divisions. But restrict entrained units to 3 divisions (i,e, 1 corp) per hex. h) Prohibit the use of replacements points in Hexes that are in enemy Zones of control.        Rationale: If the Soviets are allowed to bunch up enough to deny the Axis a specific hex, they will be much harder to knock completely out of the game.  Yet because the USSR is short on units until late 1942, this will simultaneously increase the number of units trapped when/if the Axis elects to bypass these hexes. This will also make play a bit more historical in that the temptation and ability for the Soviets to counter attack in 1941 and the Winter of 1941-42 will be a lot greater.  Overall, the first year of the Russian Campaign should bea lot bloodier.       According to the WitE reinforcements tracks, Historical casualties for the Axis for JUne 1941 to may 1941 are MUCH greater than anything I ever experienced in WIE or WitE.  Lack of such casualties is main reason Stalingrad-style campaigns so seldom develope in 1942. On the other hand, letting the USSR reinforce key hexes beyond the current 3 unit limit will enable Stalingrad or Leningrad or both to hold out so long as he Soviet player contrives to keep them supplied with ammo and fresh units.    i) Lower the Rail movement rate for Arms and Training centers back to 10 MP so that they may entrain and move or move and detrain in a single turn. <The Axis is supposed to destroy about 6-9 Arms centers in the initial campaign--if these centers make it to Siberia the USSR is very much stronger by 1943.>  The western Front for 1939 to 1941 suffers from the fact that the British have too free a hand in deploying forces: Historically they had made a deal with france involving a substantial BEF and made a public commitment to the defense of Belgium (one that made Belgium so unhappy that they didn't allow joint staff exercises)   
 The smart Allied Player in WIE either writes off France and Belgium as lost causes (which they are when playing reduced strength CW divisions) or makes an all-out commitment to France(only)  to force the German into a repeat of WWI. Those who don't think this can done need to read the rules for British reorganization. [Bde => IRP,  IRP+BG => Div, Div => 2 IRP;  2 IRP + 2 BG = 2 Div thus 3 BG + 1 BDe => 2 Divisions with time elapsed of 4 weeks !!!] 
Authers note:  I like this rule, I just happen to think that in standard BWIE and CWEI the Germans have too little Naval capacity for anything that even vaguely threatens the home islands unless he opts to forgo Operation Barbarossa until 1942. As a result the British play can get away with being very unhistorically cavalier about the safety of the home front.  See (J) below for part of the fix.  j) Allow for some sort of temporary fleet of TRANS and AMPH becoming available to the AXIS in the aftermath of a French Surrender.  Historically this assembly of craft was assembled in approximately a month and in remained in place for about 3 weeks before Hitler decided that the economic costs of keeping them in readiness for an invasion that might not happen that fall was too high, and so the invasion "fleet" dispersed.   Although there are good reasons to detest mandatory force deployment rules I am inclined to believe that it would be simpler to designate BEF deployment hexes in France than to try to concoct some set of adverse a-historical political consequences that make it diplomatically undesireable for the allied player to abandonFrance before its official surrender. 
K) Transform the Allies Permanent Naval transport capacity into a stock of national TRANS fleets for High seas use that recycle if destroyed by combat.  Give the Brits 5 such units, with the right to build more. The French get 3(one soley for Mediterrean use) the Belgiums 1,  and the Dutch 1.  
L) The unless Norway is at war, the first 10(?) CW Divisions of reinforcements/ruilds appear in French ports and for each such appearence temporarily remove 1 CW Trans from the Naval operations box. 

As for Belgium, BEF should be required to enter Belgion Hexes or else some political change is triggered.  Granted, at there is a German movement against the historical that can cut off the BEF from Belgium, but wouldnt the RW Brits and French have tried to break through into Belgium if this had happened? The game 
reality is that if the axis sets up such a single hex corridor the Allies might well succeed in reestablishing communications with the Belgium, In any event, the very effort will flip some Brits and attrition or kill some Frenchies.  
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080227/2acd409a/attachment-0001.html