{Dangerous Content?} RE: [WarInEur] Anybody there?

[Chuck Sutherland]

On behalf of the soviet players they run because they have to, because they have 1/3 of their actual historical production abilities in the game! Secondly any gambit that is a 90% sure win for one side or the other should be broken by rules additions. Like the Turkish gambit is going to kill the soviets unless they are allowed to ramp up production.

Frankly the Swedish Gambit should bring about an increase in soviet production since the Germans are operating in an historical zone that the Russians generally considered theirs in past wars.

The French are WAY overvalued and should be a walk over as they were historically! The Russians are fine except there are not enough of them to fight against the attrition war the Germans can launch on them.

Chuck Sutherland
________________________________
From: warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net [mailto:warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net] On Behalf Of Kent & Sue Haunschild
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 8:47 AM
To: SGMINFO at aol.com; warineur at mailman.halisp.net
Subject: Re: {Dangerous Content?} RE: [WarInEur] Anybody there?

The problem with the game as a historic simulation is that the Allied and Soviet players want the benefit of hindsight but feel that extending the same to the Axis player is panzer pushing.

For example no Allied player I have ever played with in the last 32 years has been willing to play with the historic rules, and almost all Soviet players utilize the runaway defense to one degree or another.

Instead they constantly point out (some would say complain) that the French and Russian units are undervalued and should be stronger.

Kent

-----
From: SGMINFO at aol.com<mailto:SGMINFO at aol.com>
To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net<mailto:warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: {Dangerous Content?} RE: [WarInEur] Anybody there?

The whole thing is an uncomfortable mix.
the historical considerations or completely destroyed by modern hindsight.

So we are left with various artificial ruses to com[pel us to make he same historical choice. Those devices themselves serve to unsettle aspects of the game.

Our problem, and an inherent contradictory one,
pursue a militarily unsound policy
to comply with notional views

or be more 'sensible' and quite easily distort the whole game around the time of the fall of France and Dunkirk.

In a strictly military/operational simulation,
we are repeatdly faced with situations where entirely non military considerations actually governed the instigation and conduct of operations...

i.e. France in 1940,
Greece in 1941,

For a real life reiteration of this whole debate, one can look at Dowding's opposition to the despatch of large portions of fighter command to France in April and May 1940.

His words, at the time, neatly sum it up in a nutshell..

 "I believe that, if an adequate fighter force is kept in this country, if the fleet remains in being, and if Home Forces are suitably organized to resist invasion, we should be able to carry on the war single-handed for some time, if not indefinitely. But, if the Home Defence Force is drained away in desperate attempts to remedy the situation in France, defeat in France will involve the final, complete and irremediable defeat of this country."

(May 16th 1940)


How we can square this circle, is a problem, we have never really addressed and resolved to any fundamental degree...

-|steve|-


In a message dated 13/07/2008 04:49:45 Atlantic Daylight Time, emu at fwi.net.au writes:
I totally agree - but the game doesn't have an option to penalise the Brits
for it.  One could ask that, if the Brits had no intention of sending a BEF,
then why did they declare war in the first place?  So the whole situation is
up for grabs.

An option of say +10 PP +/- 1 for each full strength British division
not-deployed/deployed to the continent?  And when Paris falls, that is the
final position.  So, if the Brits have 6 full strength divisions in
continental Europe (north of Italy say), on the fall of Paris the Axis gets
4 PP permanently.  [Happy to discuss these numbers.]

regards,
Noel

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffery K. McGonagill [mailto:igmod at comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:47 PM
To: Noel & Pamela
Subject: Re: {Dangerous Content?} RE: [WarInEur] Anybody there?


Historically, the British didn't have the option of not providing a BEF to
France, it was not politically possible.  Why should the player have the
option not to deploy a BEF without cost?

~Jeffery~

________________________________
_______________________________________________
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/20080714/fb0ef7a5/attachment-0001.html