[WarInEur] RE: changing Sea lion rules

[cwsgamer at comcast.net]

Factoring in the optional airborne rules and units and its alot easier to obtain a foothold in england. Add the optional sea lion rules and you can suppress the navy and you have about a 75% chance of winning in england. I would postpone a Russian invasion until 42 to take out england. With Turkey in the war you can take out the Russian resource centers and win the game or at least cripple the russians.
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Wardall Clark <baseballnut570 at hotmail.com>
> 
> Dear Sirs > Also, those who want to quote past discussions on the list, when 
> they> weren't here (not you Steve) - 1)should get their facts right. 
>  
> Are you denying that more than one specific positing referred to sucessfull Axis 
> Invasions of England while none lamented failures. 
> Frankly, citing chapter and verse would not have contributed to the discussion 
> in terms of entertainment or historical enlightment 
> so I relied upon my lamentable memory, which is rotten about spoken 
> conversations but extremely sharp about things which I read more than one.  If I 
> recall correctly, (which in this case I probably do not) one of the postings I 
> am recalling came from 1997. 
>  
>  
> >Sure, using the Sealion option made an invasion of the UK possible (barely, if 
> the Brit is asleep)
>  
> Can't argue with you on this one. The conditions that made Sea Lion feasible 
> include the Dunkirk disaster, in which the British evacuated soldiers but not 
> equipment, thereby effectively destroying the units that were already BGs and 
> reducing the bulk of the BEF to BG status. 
> As a result of this Military disaster the ports and shores of England were 
> defended primarily by the Royal Navy and Royal AF.  If he rule is phased as 
> below, the Axis needs a lot of luck to get its ships ashore with a single SURF 
> for an escort. 
>  
> >but only for those who used the option. 
>  
> OF COURSE!!  Since under the original rules of WIE the High Sea Intervention 
> rules chew up even 6 Axis SURFs so fast as to make reinforcement and supply of 
> the Invading force impossible.  The whole point of the rule change (in this case 
> an Option.) was that "The basic rules for Allied Naval Interdiction (see Rule 
> 11.8) and German High Seas Naval Supply Attrition (see Rule 6.7) do not fully 
> reflect thestatus of the Air War and air assets in the Western Front".
>  
> >the option is pure fantasy [and it generally comes down to one critical attack, 
> which if it succeeds or fails, ends the> game - you can guess why.]
>  
> The option irepresents speculation . It askes what would have happened if 
> certain Historical events had turned out differently. The axis never did gain 
> Air superiority over Great Britain, which means that this rule represents a 
> "what if." situation.  And the truth of a historical counterfactual cannot be 
> directly tested without a time machine or a Multiverse of parallel Universes to 
> explore.  
>  
> Yet let us consider another sea invasion against superior Naval forces.  At 
> Guadalcanal the airforce units based out of Henderson Air established daytime 
> Air superiority over the immediate waters. This enabled them to land their own 
> reinforcements by day and restricted the Japanese to night time landings.  
> Meanwhile, the Japanese were winning most of the the naval battles, while the 
> other fights were no worse than draws from their point of view.   Thus if the 
> question is "Can air superiority negates the effects of naval inferiority?" the 
> answer is YES.  This is not the realm of fantasy. 
>  
> The stakes for a channel crossing would have been higher than the Japanese 
> perceived them to be at Guadalcanal. Also the Flyers of the 'Cactus' Air force 
> had been training in Ship Attacks than the Luftwaffe had in 1940. Hence should 
> expect that even with Air Superiority the British would be able to menace axis 
> troop convoys.  Well this is exactly what the rule you quoted grants, the Axis 
> player rolls the dice each time a TRANS unit traverses a high seas Hex.  If the 
> roll is 6 his Naval TRANSport Point is lost and the ground unit aboard suffers 
> casualties even if he has Air supremacy and has assighned 45 AP to Sea 
> Superiority. > >Under this option, if the Axis player is able to gain Air 
> Superiority or Supremacy in the Western>Front, assigns APs to Air-Sea, he can 
> impact the chances that German naval movement in the High 
> >Seas will be interdicted by the Allied Navy and that he will suffer an 
> attrition 
> >to supply High Seas ports. In other words, if the Axis gains control of the 
> skies, he can partially 
> >prevent the Allied Navy from interdicting German convoys by assigning APs to 
> bomb interdicting 
> >Allied warships. The effects are as follows for Allied Naval 
> Interdiction/German High Seas>Attrition.
> > APs   Superiority              Supremacy> 5         NE/NE                       
> -1/0> 10       -1/NE                        -2/0> 15       -2/NE                        
> -2/+1> 20       -3/+1                        -3/+1> 30        -4/+1                       
> -4/+2> 45        -4/+2                       -5/+2> 
> There is one area in which I do not know what I am talking about.  I never 
> played CWIE-1 and the games that were reported on the list may have been Board 
> Games rather than CWIE games.   The Board game used to have Air Supremacy rules 
> that completely negated 
> The High Seas Intervention routine, it was connected to the rules for using 
> ground support for changing combat odds.  When I read accounts that used these 
> rules, i assumed that these were about CWIE games  My Bad, (we all know the 
> saying about what happens when we ass-u-me too much.) 
>  
> In my defense:  Kent sent me a copy of the written CWIE-1 rule some years ago .  
> If did read them, but only so many times and since then I replaced them with the 
> released rules for CWIE-2.  I did not recall the above quoted version being part 
> of those rules. Apparently I overlooked the option quoted above. If so, I stand 
> corrected. 
> > Can we please get the real WIE programmed first, and worry about the fantasy 
> options later?
> Sea Lion never happened.  THE AXIS CHOOSE NOT TO INVADE.  However, Allied and 
> Axis preparations for Sea Lion did happen. The Battle of Britain did happen.  If 
> the RW Naval balance made invasion for all intents and purposes impossible then 
> why was the Battle of Britain initiated. What did Van Mansteins Infantry Corps 
> train for?  Why was barge traffic commandeered at no small economic expense? Why 
> did Churchill and his staff spend all those late hours reviewing the readiness 
> of their land forces.  Frankly, the only fantasy is the idea that it absolutely 
> could not have happened. The option above shifts the initial invasion from the 
> status of something that will not happen NO MATTER WHAT, to something that is 
> worth considering PROVIDED THAT the Axis gains West Front Air Superiority. Maybe 
> the Luftwaffe would have failed to hold off Allied Units, maybe not. The Axis 
> planners proceeded on the basis that it could do this.  Even Navy advocate 
> Churchill was quite worried that it would.  If you read what he told his cabinet 
> about the invasion they all haf expected to occur,  you find that this was the 
> one "WHAT IF" for which he would give no assurances.   THAT WAS THE REASON THE 
> BRITISH WERE UNWILLING TO CONCEDE AIR SUPERIORITY AT ANY TIME 
>  
> Unfortunately, if the Axis shipping is as bad is currently given in WIE then the 
> only time that a 1940 invasion may be considered is the 0/10/39.  If the Axis 
> player does not immediately do something which the RW axis did not, there is no 
> capacity AT ALL to cross the channel in 1940 Fall. This representation is not 
> only historically false, it distorts play of the game by giving the Brit player 
> too free a hand to redeploy to Africa. 
>  
> Personally, the flight of Fantasy involved here is the belief that even an 
> invasion is going to force the surrender of the UK.  The counter limit is 9 
> Trans and one is required to maintain supply.  So even under the best of 
> circumstances, the most reinforcement the Axis can send is 8 divisions.  Each 
> time they do that, 1d6 of their SURFs are sunk.  The above rule reduces those 
> casualties only insofar as having a die adjustments lets you protect the Naval 
> move with fewer surfs.  
>  
> For examWith 30 AP on Sea Superiority there is no need to assign more than 3 
> SURFS to escort, but the chance of losing all three is still 67%.  You can't 
> lose 6 at once, but you still run through all your availble Surf for 1940 in a 
> single attempt.  
>  
> A 1941 Invasion is another kettle of fish.  The objection to the old rules was 
> that it made it so hard to cross the Channel even in 1941 that no sane player 
> would bother to try even when the Islands had been denuded of defenders.  At 
> least with this rule, the AP have to stay in the home front. 
>  
> Regards house rules:  The RW british Government was under political constraints 
> that do not hinder a WIE Allied player.  In the Long run, a unsuccessful 
> invaision will probably set back the Germans more than having to call one off.  
> Hence the Allied player does not have any 
> motive to immediately repulse the invaders. A RW government is obligated to 
> defend all the citizens and every square mile of its territory.  It cannot send 
> all the full strength divisions to defend the empire and hope that the opponent 
> takes the bait and gets chewed up by the Royal Navy.  
>  
> The current garrison rule invites abuse, even when the above cited Sea Lion 
> Option is in use.  Before CWIE is finalized it would be usefull for all of us to 
> hear from those who have house rules forcing/encouraging the Allies to keep the 
> bulk of the British ground Units at home 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Give to a good cause with every e-mail. Join the i’m Initiative from Microsoft.
> http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?souce=EML_WL_ GoodCause


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Wardall Clark <baseballnut570 at hotmail.com>
Subject: [WarInEur] RE: changing Sea lion rules
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 14:21:28 +0000
Size: 22312
Url: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080602/dbbe5330/attachment-0001.mht