[WarInEur] RE: Anybody there?

[Kent & Sue Haunschild]

Which is where the "game" departs from history and the "simulation" breaks down.

If the British don't deploy the BEF and lose the better part of 12 divisions then the simulation immediately departs from History because the Allied player is no longer faced with the historical choices. I.E. Sea Lion is not a real threat and so is free to reinforce Egypt and try and quickly knock Italy out of the War.

If the French and Allies don't abide by the historical rules then it is more costly and takes longer to subdue France, which impacts on the size of the invasion force going in to Russia.

The Allied Production Option is flawed in that it allows the CW to build a much larger force than they were able to field historically because there is no upper limit on the expansion. Also, the Alternative U-boat tables that are bundled with it require a much larger expenditure of resources to maintain a historic Allied build rate than is the case when playing with the original SPI tables.  This is critical because it has been proven mathematically several times that even with 'NO" German casualties it is impossible to build the German OOB available at the start of Barbarossa.  So a larger U-boat requirement can only come at the expense of the ground forces which further exaborates the disparity on the East Front.

Maybe we should adjust the German Production Multiple upwards by 2 for the later half of 40 and all of 41 if there is no BEF.  This would be a logical response to the German recognition that the war was going to require much more commitment to production than is provided for in the game (which presumes that events have proceeded historically and the Germans partially demobilize in 40 after the successful conclusion of the campaign in France).

Alternatively we could increase the Loot points available from France in the absence of a BEF commitment or provide a Political point trigger in which Vichy France would join the Axis (or both).

Personally, I feel that the game must incorporate some mechanism to penalize the Allied player if he fails to deploy the BEF in reasonably historic numbers for roughly the historic time period.  The game includes rules whereby a larger than historic BEF commitment can delay the formation of Vichy or increase the operational area, but the idea of no BEF commitment is completely ignored.  

Kent

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Pace 
  To: Jeffery K. McGonagill ; sgminfo 
  Cc: warineur at mailman.halisp.net 
  Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [WarInEur] RE: Anybody there?


        One of the problems with games in comparison with real life, us gamers have the advantage of experience and hindsight.  The fact we know what is going to happen affects our planning.  Similar situation on the Eastern Front in 1941, I remember the comment that you could tell an inexperienced WiE Soviet player from an experienced player by the fact the inexperienced Soviet deploys his units 3 hexes in front and the experienced player deploys 3 hexes behind (and runs like hell for Moscow).  In real May 1940, NOBODY expected the french to collapse in 7 weeks (including Hitler), everybody (except a few Modern thinking generals like Guderian and De Gaul) believed it would be a re-run of WW1, and deployed accordingly.
       




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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20080713/48af41d8/attachment.html