[WarInEur] Barbarossa under options

Sat Jul 19 07:40:17 EDT 2008

There either is or is not a code issue. I just ran a test on the 44 
campaign and in the east the Germans have a ton of 1-5 at 0% attrition. 
When I combined 3 into 1 6-5 it has 0 attrition level.

However if you have a 1-5 at 10% attrition and the use a RP to flip it 
it will be a 6-5 at somewhere between 30-70% attrition.

Don

Bill Clancy wrote:
>
> Without knowing the detail of the proposed fatigue rules, would this 
> still allow a player to combine heavily fatigued units into a non 
> fatigued full strength unit?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Cheers
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net 
> [mailto:warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net] *On Behalf Of *John Pace
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 16 July 2008 1:26 PM
> *To:* warineur at mailman.halisp.net
> *Subject:* Re: [WarInEur] Barbarossa under options
>
>  
>
> I always remember in 1976 on reading the 1942 (and later) scenarios, 
> the number of 1-5 KG.  With a KG costing 4 Prod Points, and for only 2 
> Prod points more you upgrade to 1-5 to a 6-5, and thinking it madness 
> to keep 1-5 KG's in the front lines. 
>
>  
>
> However, with the attrition option, if you consider all those 1-5's 
> are really heavily fatigued 80-90% attrition 6-5’s, unable to retreat 
> back into supply by Hitler's no retreat orders, then having such weak 
> units in 1942 make some sense.
>
>  
>
> Maybe with CWiE-2 Scenario Editor, I think it would be good for Karl 
> to allow players to set the attrition levels for each unit.  In which 
> case, with the 1942 Stalingrad scenario (and others), players could 
> swap all those German KG’s (1-5, 2-8, etc.) for heavily fatigued 
> 80-90% attrition level units (6-5, 8-8, 10,8, etc.).
>
>  
>
> John
>
> --- On *Tue, 7/15/08, Carl Rupp /<carlaugustruppsr at aol.com>/* wrote:
>
> From: Carl Rupp <carlaugustruppsr at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Barbarossa under options
> To: "Don Lazov" <dlazov at comcast.net>
> Cc: "sgminfo" <sgminfo at aol.com>, "warineur at mailman.halisp.net" 
> <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
> Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 10:00 PM
>
> Of course, the interesting thing about attrition, as I have learned from 
> two campaigns against Steve in the East with attrition, and one without 
> it against another player, is that it turns to the Soviet advantage in 
> the winter. OOS and in the enemy ZOC, the tired German troops are unable 
> to gain strength, while the Soviets in supply, and able to attack at 
> incredibly low odds due to the special AR rules, are able to wear down 
> the Germans. So that capturing Moscow is much easier than holding it. 
> And following Hitler's "No Retreat" dictum can lead to disaster.
>  
> There are two tactics to prevent that. One it to damage the Soviets so 
> incredibly that they are unable to launch a counterrattack. However, 
> with fog of war the Germans have no idea what is lurking behind the 
> Soviet front lines and where they will launch their fiercest attacks. 
> And even if they do survive the winter counteroffensive, being out of 
> supply impedes their ability to be rested and ready for an full blown 
> Spring offensive in May 1942 when the mud dries.
>  
> The other tactic, which Hitler eschewed, is to withdraw to the safety of 
> the areas in supply, Of course, this means abandoning thousands of 
> square miles of territory and the personel centers of Orel, Kharhov, 
> and, of course Moscow, that were captured only a few months prior. But 
> by staying in supply, the Germans position themselves for a strong 
> spring offensive in 1942. And even though they will have to recapture 
> land they had won previously. they will end up (re)capturing Moscow, 
> Orel, and Kharhov, and also gaining Rostov, Voroshilev, Voronezh, and 
> possibly even Gorky, before the campaign season ends in in October 1942. 
> And this will push them over 75 political points, and open up the 
> Turkish front endangering the vital Russian resource centers. (This 
> assumes that the Germans have not invaded Turkey already in an attempt 
> to outflank the Soviets an capture their resources early on.)
>  
> All of this leaves the Russians teetering on the edge by Spring 1943, 
> when the Germans should be able to finish them off, assuming they have 
> at least held the West to a stalemate.
>  
> Carl
>  
>  
> Don Lazov wrote:
> > Interesting concepts.
> > 
> > 
> >> The only problem with that strategy is...
> >> ..it gives the Soviet player time to mobilise and get his newly 
> >> raised recruits knocked into somesort of order...
> > Very true (ask the French Commander this).
> >> The rate of advance after the initial rush is then still limited by 
> >> supply range from the slowly advancing railheads...
> >> 
> > True, but there is a counter to this in the campaign game (not telling 
> > right now, don't want to spoil it, it's not a cheat it's
> something one 
> > can discover if they have read enough on mech warfare and studied the 
> > attrition model a bit).
> >> Rushing Moscow before a crustal defence has a chance to gain 
> >> substance and firm up,
> >> might actually be the lower cost option.
> >> 
> > Crust defenses are easy to break with attrition.
> >> On the other hand...taking Moscow at the first rush, might leave a 
> >> tired and exhausted  force at the mercy of the Siberians, or any 
> >> reserves that the Soviets have formed and somehow kept back intact 
> >> for a late counterstroke...
> >> 
> > This is what Steve and I will test soon.
> >> During the initial test runs, no clear conclusions could be reached 
> >> upon this point, which augurs well for the longevity of the possible 
> >> permutations inherent in the model...
> >> 
> > As Steve has said we shall see.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080719/2f133250/attachment-0001.html