[WarInEur] RE: WarInEur Digest, Vol 42, Issue 27

Tue Jan 15 12:21:49 EST 2008

Reading the list these past days has been quite enjoyable. The discussion of incentives for the BEF 
was especially fascinating, but has started to go in circles.  

Lets look at a couple of key Facts: 
a) The french Navy was a lot more powerful than the Italian Navy.
b) The British had to split their fleet to cover the Mediteranean, the Indian Ocean, the cape of Good Hope 
and the North and South Atlantic.
c) ITRW the Italians suffered a Mini- Pearl Harbor at Taranto with the effect that the Brits commitment to 
the Mediterranean was enough prevent loss of transport capacity even in the central Med. 
d) The Brits were so afraid of the French Navy that they attacked it after the Vichy Armistice. 
D: THE DECISION GAME RULES ALLOW FRANCE TO NAVAL TRANSPORT TO ANY PART OF THE MEDITERANEAN. 
This was (accidently?) changed in one of the rewrites and then put back in but missed being a part of CWIE.

 Proposal A:  The Allies maximum Permanent Naval transport Capacity of 15 units should be broken up by nations. 
1) The 3rd Republic French should have a total capacity of 2, one in the Mediterranean that may be used on the High Seas if Gibraltar is 
Friendly and 1 on the High Seas that may be used in the Mediterranean if Gibraltar is Friendly.  The Mediteranean capacity is inherited by 
Vichy France. The Atlantic capacity goes to England provided that Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands have also surrendered.
2) The UK Permanent Capacity for UK is 7, going to 8 after the Fall of France (due to addition of ships from occupied nations.)
If Gibraltar is unfriendly only 4 of this capacity may be used in the Mediterranean areas. 
3) The US Brings a HIgh Seas Capacity of 7 units with its entry into the war. Should the UK High Seas capacity be lost the US 
may increase its NTP capacity to 11 units for a single 4-week period (reflecting shipping brought through the Panama canal.) 
If Gibraltar is unfriendly but Alexandria and Suez are friendly the US may use a capacity of 3 in the Mediterranean areas. 

Proposal A1: Put these capacities on a time table so that they might grow or shrink in accordance with historical resources.

Rationale: Between them the USA and the UK had enough capacity for an 11 Division operation Husky and a much larger 
Operation Overlord; However, I seriously doubt that the UK alone could have duplicated this, especially in 1939-1941.  
My modest proposal limits UK adventurism in North Africa and Greece and emphasizes the importance of possession of Gibraltar. 
    Proposal B: Activation level for Spain as an Axis power is reduced to 60 PP.  This is increased by one(1) Point for each CW unit in France as of 
1/5/40 and one(1) additional point for each different Full strength CW Division that enters Luxemburg, Belgium, HOlland or Germany after Axis 
violation of these nations. 

Rationale: The chance that Spain would provide active support to the axis was historically rather small. If the CW follows the Historical line of play 
they keep it that way; Otherwise, it is a whole different ballgame. 

Proposal B1:  All activations/automatic surrenders should be randomly controlled over a range of 5 Political points. -2 points 10% chance, -1 points 30%, on the mark 50% chance, +1 point 70% chance +2 points 90% chance.  One roll should be made each 4th cycle that activation or surrender is possible. When ever the probability of an event increases a reroll is immediately made.  Activation is controlled by the player whose alliance received a new member but may not take place until 2 weeks after the roll. (i.e one full week passes with nothing happening.) alternative Proposal B: MANDATORY UK DEPLOYMENT: 
UK Reinforcements/New Builds are placed in French ports until a BEF of 9 infantry and 1 armored divisions is attained. If the Naval Transport capacity is 
used to move these units elsewhere, France rolls for CEASEFIRE starting with the loss of the First Hex of French Territory and there is no Political cost for the violation of Luxembourg, Belgium or the Netherlands (unless CW units enter these countries post-Violation) and no optional expatriate units for France, Belgium, HOlland, or Poland can be produced. 

CEASEFIRE:  France becomes a Pro-axis Neutral, surviving French units remain on the map and are redeployed to hexes within French Territory as the Axis wishes over the next 12 weeks.  Vichy territory is evacuated of non-french units but even at the end of the 12 weeks each High Seas Port may be occupied by Axis Infantry,Static, or Security division. Should England be forced to surrender the Axis looses the right to keep their units in the High Seas ports and must then entirely evacuate a Neutral France of Axis units.   French Mediterranean Naval capacity transfers to the Axis permanently, thereby doubling the number of Axis units that may deploy in Africa without rail supply.   The Axis puts three SURFS on its production line at no cost in Production Points and adds 3 NTP and 3 AMPH to its Naval operations box for the remainder of 1940. US violation of French territories re-activates France as a full axis ally and Free French Units cannot be formed using American replacement points until after Paris is allied controlled. Deployment of partisans within france is prohibited until Allied units reenter France proper and then only if this is the initial violation of (Vichy?)Territory by the allies. 

Rationale: If Britain had double-crossed France the diplomatic reverberations would almost certainly have included general french hostility to the Allied cause.
By surrending quickly, France attains slightly better terms in some areas but transfers the combat fleet to Germans and Italians for refitting.  The Axis likewise gains a grace period in which to use French Soil to host an invasion of Britain. 

PROPOSAL C:  Battle of Britain $ Seelowe.
1) Use the rule by which the Axis must assign AP to sea superiority in order to reduce the cost of ALLIED high seas intervention. 
2) Give the Axis 1 AMPH each after the surrender of France Belgium and Netherlands. These may not be recycled and disappear with 
the advent of Mud.  These Amphs may not be left in place to form beachhead supply points. 
3) Let the Axis purchase 6 provisional Naval Transport Points with 2 weeks Production time. These units cease to be available come Mud 
If any is destroyed its cost is deducted a second time from the pool. 
4) Supressed British Major Ports which are also Manufacturing centers lose 1/8 of their productive capacity for that Cycle.  (so that 2 ports 
that were both suppressed for all four turns would only count as 1 operational production center;)

Parts 2 and 3 provide the naval wherewithal for a 1940 invasion which could succeed if a Dunkirk Debacle has occurred, otherwise probably not.  
With the wherewithal in place, the RAF has to fly to prevent Axis Air Supremacy. Meanwhile, rule (4) allows the Axis to indirectly hinder CW AP 
production and explains why the bombing continued past the cancellation of Seelowe. 

Rationale: IN CWIE the Axis simply doesn't have time to build decent force of Amphs, Trans and so forth by 7/40.  ITRW they confiscated shipping that would have let them try to sieze ports if the Air and Naval combat situation allowed for a chance of success. This redirection of river shipping had an economic cost that would have been still greater if the barges had been lost in combat. 

--Bob in Louisville--

> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:25:19 -0500> From: warineur-request at mailman.halisp.net> Subject: WarInEur Digest, Vol 42, Issue 27> 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. BEF in France 1940 (Jean-Marc Charbin)> 2. Operation Sealion in CWiE II (Jean-Marc Charbin)> 3. Battle of Britain (Hansen)> 4. Re: Battle of Britain (sgminfo)> 5. Re: Battle of Britain (igmod at comcast.net)> 6. Re: Battle of Britain (noble1234 at aol.com)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:48:53 -0800 (PST)> From: Jean-Marc Charbin <jean-marc60 at sbcglobal.net>> Subject: [WarInEur] BEF in France 1940> To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net> Message-ID: <698597.63519.qm at web81113.mail.mud.yahoo.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > Greetings,> In CWiE II game terms the British player should have to send at least 9x infantry divisions and 1x armored division to Northern France by 5/1/40. Also, an additional British infantry division is to be stationed in the Maginot line bringing the total to 10x British infantry divisions in France. This should be part of the rules and a mandatory deployment. The British player can send more units to France if he wishes but the minimum should be 10x infantry and 1x armor divisions. To allow the UK player to not deploy the BEF is "gamey" and takes into account the hindsight of knowing what really happened in France during 1940. J.M> -------------- next part --------------> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080114/419216ad/attachment-0001.html> > ------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:37:46 -0800 (PST)> From: Jean-Marc Charbin <jean-marc60 at sbcglobal.net>> Subject: [WarInEur] Operation Sealion in CWiE II> To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net> Message-ID: <801226.56840.qm at web81102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > Hello,> Operation Sealion in CWiE II is a very difficult undertaking. The plans for Sealion were not really made until July 16th of 1940. There was no pre-war planning for Sealion by the Germans. This means in game terms that the Axis player does not plan, build, prepare or even start thinking about Sealion until July 16th of 1940. Historically the Germans only had 3x 2-5 para's, 1x 4-5 glider, 4x SURF's and 6x NTP's available in September 1940 which was the planned date of the invasion. The Germans had planned on using a large collection of small ships and barges to ferry the troops across the channel. To make a Sealion attempt possible I have added 9x amphibs to arrive as German reinforcements on the 9/0/40 cycle. The German amphibs have a range of only 6 hexes and cannot be reused or recycled. They can however be used as amphibious beachheads for supply and transport purposes. These 9x amphibs are only available for use during the 9 & 10 cycle of 1940. On the 11/1/40> turn these German amphib ships can no longer be used and are removed from play.> Even adding the 9x amphibs, Sealion is still risky. The main problem is that you do not have much time as the Germans to cause a UK surrender. The naval attrition rules even when using option #17 eventually results in the elimination of the Germans capacity to continue to supply his forces in the U.K. in just a few turns. Interestingly enough the Sealion planners expected the entire operation to be over within one month. (4x turns)> Example; The German will need to keep two surfs and two NTP's for Axis high seas supply. The reason you need two is that in case you lose one to attrition you will still have the other one in reserve since you need a minimum of one to continue to use Axis High Seas supply. This now leaves you with 2 surfs and 4 trans for use after the initial landings. If the Allied player were to roll a three each turn on his Allied High Seas Naval interdiction die roll then the German fleet would only survive 2 extra turns. Which means by the 9/4/40 turn the Axis will have no way of reinforcing the invasion. This translates into the fact the Germans must defeat the UK with the forces that they can land on the first turn of the invasion. This should be 9x 6-5's, 1x 4-5 glider, 3x 2-5 para and 1x 5-5 mtn for a total of 12 divisions. You can risk it for one turn and try to reinforce the invasion group with some armor on the second turn. Sadly though this means that you will have to capture> a port. The few Surfs and NTPs the Germans have should really only be used to ensure Axis High Seas Supply after turn two. > Basically what I am trying to say here is that under the current rules it takes a very skillful and extremely lucky Axis player that is against an inexperienced UK player for Sealion to even to stand a remote chance. I have playtested Sealion many times and the result is usually the same. The Germans simply do not have enough time, nor can they land enough forces to capture London, Liverpool and Glascow before running out of ships to reinforce and re-supply the invasion. As the UK player I would know this and realize that even if the Germans try Sealion that if I can just hold out a few turns his entire invasion army will be OOS and unable to evacuate.> For those of you that have actually attempted Sealion in CWiE, I would be very curious to know how many of you actually obtained a British Surrender? If yes, please explain. J.M.> -------------- next part --------------> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080114/9a25b8bf/attachment-0001.html> > ------------------------------> > Message: 3> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:27:44 -0600> From: "Hansen" <ultrasoundimages at sbcglobal.net>> Subject: [WarInEur] Battle of Britain> To: <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>> Message-ID:> <200801142031.m0EKVYlP014453 at inet06.hamilton.harte-lyne.ca>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"> > Like the idea of finding a way to encourage the BEF commitment to France> '40, the battle of Britain (BOB to his friends) is another of those> situations that the smart commanders do not engage in because the game has> no point to do so.> > As Steve has pointed out, whatever the realities of a cross channel> invasion, the world thought it possible (including at least for a time) the> Germans and the British. BOB was a precursor to such an invasion. As BOB> waxed then waned, it became clear that the invasion was off. As the Germans> invaded Russia in '41, it became clearer that it would never be back on. > > So using political points as an incentive for BOB is really saying that the> air war could have been fought to the point that people would have jumped> onto the Axis side before the invasion would have happened. I don't think we> would have seen that. They would have jumped after the invasion got a> respectable foot hold or succeeded. And from that perspective, we already> have that incentive. > > If the Axis can manage to get beyond the Egyptian border, take Poland,> Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Paris/ France then they are sitting at 62 points.> If they invade England and take London, they need only poke their nose into> French North Africa to get to the magical 75. At that point, even if they do> not win the invasion of England, they achieve the strategic goal of opening> up the Turkish front and threatening Gibraltar. > > So we already have a political point mechanism for pushing the Germans to> try the invasion (and fight the air war as part of making that invasion> work).> > But how do we provide an incentive for the BOB to be fought before the> invasion when the German does not really plan to invade (or in other words> to move the game along in historical terms). I would suggest something other> than political points.> > I like the idea of equating production points/reinforcement delays to> suppressing ports in England. It even makes a certain amount of sense as the> destruction of the ports would have had such an impact.> > The problem is that as is, the game has positive incentives for both sides> to avoid BOB. The allies get to keep their planes for use when they can do> something real in '43 or '44. Likewise, the Germans get to keep their planes> for Russia. And the Germans need every production point they can get for the> invasion of Russia. > > >From my experience, it is better to give up the U-Boat war and build for> Russia. So why would I spend production points (which is what conducting an> air war is doing) to remove production points/delay reinforcements when I> won't do so for the Uboat war. Thus the positive incentive is not likely to> persuade someone like me to go dancing with BOB. > > So what negative incentive can we put in the game to force the BOB? And like> the ideas for adding incentive to the BEF in France, you have to look at the> trade the player is being asked for. With the BEF, some of the proposed> trades were "UK player, give me 10 flips of 8-10 in '40 and in return you> keep the German from building twice as many 4-5 in '44 for double production> points but no personnel points". Not many UK players would see that as a> good deal. Especially since the ten 8-10 in the UK will do quite a bit to> deter an invasion.> > The most realistic negative I can come up with would be if the Germans don't> fight a BOB (whether that is getting air superiority or suppressing ports),> then the Russians get a free set up, or they fortify their border. It's not> a deal breaker for the Germans, but it is a powerful incentive.> > -John> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 4> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:31:39 +0000> From: sgminfo <sgminfo at aol.com>> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Battle of Britain> Cc: warineur at mailman.halisp.net> Message-ID: <478BE2CB.7030307 at aol.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed> > With regard to the Allied permanent Naval Capabilty...> > A simple rule for the board game, and perhaps for the computer variant.> > The med was vital to a surplus of allied merchant shipping, with the > extra distances involved, and the escorts required.> > A simple rule that might be approximately accurate to the gravity of its > effects.> > > If all the ports in Sicily are neutral or allied controlled, full naval > capacity.> if otherwise, Allied naval capacity is reduced by 10 transports...> > > > At the beginning of the war with the med open to traffic you can move > units almost with ease.> > > a coarse, but incentivising game rule, probably easy to programme in cwie> and easy to operate in BWIE> > Reopening the med to through traffic was a major priority to the allied > war effort.> > -|sterve|-> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 5> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:14:15 +0000> From: igmod at comcast.net> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Battle of Britain> Cc: warineur at mailman.halisp.net> Message-ID:> <011420082314.7887.478BECC7000601E100001ECF22073000330B01030907 at comcast.net>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"> > An interesting idea, however 5 NTP is extremely ahistorical even if Italy is neutral.> > ~Jeffery~> > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: sgminfo <sgminfo at aol.com> > > > With regard to the Allied permanent Naval Capabilty... > > > > A simple rule for the board game, and perhaps for the computer variant. > > > > The med was vital to a surplus of allied merchant shipping, with the > > extra distances involved, and the escorts required. > > > > A simple rule that might be approximately accurate to the gravity of its > > effects. > > > > > > If all the ports in Sicily are neutral or allied controlled, full naval > > capacity. > > if otherwise, Allied naval capacity is reduced by 10 transports... > > > > > > > > At the beginning of the war with the med open to traffic you can move > > units almost with ease. > > > > > > a coarse, but incentivising game rule, probably easy to programme in cwie > > and easy to operate in BWIE > > > > Reopening the med to through traffic was a major priority to the allied > > war effort. > > > > -|sterve|- > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20080114/be978dec/attachment-0001.html> > ------------------------------> > Message: 6> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:22:53 -0500> From: noble1234 at aol.com> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Battle of Britain> To: WarinEur at mailman.halisp.net> Message-ID: <8CA252C491CA8D4-CD8-2AE7 at webmail-db09.sysops.aol.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"> > The allies landed 11 divisions on Sicily.? How are they supposed to do that when they only have 5 NTP under your proposed rule.? Leave the 15 NTP capacity as is.? > > > -----Original Message-----> From: sgminfo <sgminfo at aol.com>> Cc: warineur at mailman.halisp.net> Sent: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 5:31 pm> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Battle of Britain> > > With regard to the Allied permanent Naval Capabilty...?> ?> A simple rule for the board game, and perhaps for the computer variant.?> ?> The med was vital to a surplus of allied merchant shipping, with the extra distances involved, and the escorts required.?> ?> A simple rule that might be approximately accurate to the gravity of its effects.?> ?> If all the ports in Sicily are neutral or allied controlled, full naval capacity.?> if otherwise, Allied naval capacity is reduced by 10 transports...?> ?> ?> At the beginning of the war with the med open to traffic you can move units almost with ease.?> ?> a coarse, but incentivising game rule, probably easy to programme in cwie?> and easy to operate in BWIE?> ?> Reopening the med to through traffic was a major priority to the allied war effort.?> ?> -|sterve|-?> _______________________________________________?> WarInEur mailing list?> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net?> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur?> > > ________________________________________________________________________> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com> -------------- next part --------------> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080114/9b3b8d6d/attachment.html> > ------------------------------> > _______________________________________________> WarInEur mailing list> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur> > > End of WarInEur Digest, Vol 42, Issue 27> ****************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080115/70b48853/attachment-0001.html