[WarInEur] RE: WarInEur Digest, Vol 47, Issue 3

Wed Jun 4 11:38:35 EDT 2008

There is not a lot of Leeway in the neutrality and Sea transport rules for the Axis player. 

Only three nations have the right to move Foreign troops across the Med to Africa: France, Italy, and the Commonwealth. The Axis may 
use the High Seas to land at Casablanca, but that exposes the movement to Extraordinary Air Sea Intervention in addition to the High Seas intervention and normal Air Sea intervention.  From a practical standpoint, this requires a friendly Mediterranean port, or an Axis Turkey to provide a land route. 

Since England and France are Hostile, the transit source has to be Italy. But so long as Italy is Neutral, no German Unit may move to an Italian Port.   Even worse, the current rules of BWIE do not allow the Italians to begin reinforcing Africa until Italy is at War. 
42.27  Italy Restrictions:
3) Italy is the only neutral county that can move while neutral. Italian units may be moved while Neutral within Italian Territory. NO ITALIAN UNITS MAY USE SEA MOVEMENT TO OR FROM AFRICA UNTIL ITALY IS AT WAR (see rule 47.0) <emphasis mine>

47.0 Armed neutrals:

................Armed neutrals may not be moved prior to the violation of their neutrality, EXCEPT FOR ITALIAN UNITS, WHICH CAN BE MOVED WITHIN ITALIAN TERRITORY. NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT NO UNITS MAY USE SEA MOVEMENT TO OR FROM AFRICA UNTIL ITALY IS AT WAR. <emphasis mine.>

This rules out any transport of an Axis unit from Europe to Africa unless Italy is at War, or the Axis has enherited the French Mediterranean naval capcity. 

>From the context of 47.0, It is fairly clear that the last sentence I quoted is talking about the units of Neutral nations.  However, that is not what it actually says.  It says "NO Units"   Now lets take a moment and consider what would be the game consequences if 47.0 is applied to nations already at war? 

First of all, there are two interprations of how the restriction would work. 
a) "No units may use Sea Movement to and from Africa"  does NOT prohibit sea movement between African ports. 
b) "No units may use Sea Movement to and from AFrica" DOES prohibit sea movement between African ports. 

Personally I would think that interpretion A makes more sense, but one could argue that rearranging one's forces using Sea Movement would be a threatening act that might invite preemptive naval intervention and B makes more historical sense. 

This proposed broad irestriction on use of Africa would 
1) Prohibit the French from Bringing their African (Foreign Legion?) divisions into the Battle for France (the Corsican Garrison and the Levant Units would still be available.) until Italian intensions are made clear. 
2) Prohibit ferrying French units from France, the Levant or Corsica to Africa until the Italians intensions are made clear. (ergo, the Allied player may not try to increase the number of Free French units in the event that Vichy Surrender is refused.) 
3) Prohibit the CW from sending any units to Africa in advance of the Italians' DOW (except units marching by foot from Iran and Palestine.)
4) Prohibit the CW from shifting any units on Malta or Gibraltor directly to the African Coast. (They must debark either in France or Palestine or invade Spanish, Italian, Greek, or Turkish ports.) 
5) Prevent reinforcement of France or Great Britain using the units currently stationed West of the Suez Canal.  They must first land move them from Africa into an Asian Port. 

Consider this: Until the strength of the Italian Invasion of France is known, the CW and French Governments would have no idea whether there was an immediate threat to Tunisia or Eqypt, nor what the magnitude of that threat would be. The only threatening move Italy had made so far was its "peaceful" anexation of Albania the previous year. Keeping Italy out of the war was a goal/hope of both Allied Governments, which nixes any provative moves like reinforcing Egypt of Tunisia.  

Furthermore, since the Fall of France would not have been assumed prior to the creation of a Vichy Government, prudence would require hesitation in stripping Africa of troops until it was clear that the Italians could not immediately overrun the African territorial forces.  This is one of the problems of playing wargames with no FOW--tBoth sides know how far away each enemy force concentation is, and the game has almost no "light units", the sort which can reach the front in a matter of hours rather than days or weeks. 

I would thus argue that while 47.0 is not meant to have the above five effects on Germany, Poland, France, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands and the Commonwealth, the game would not be in any way damaged if this interpretation is enforced in CWIE-2. It would prevent some major non-historical gambits and make it less necessary for the Axis Player to delay the entry of Italy into the war (which probably was not within Hitler's power to accomplish, since Mussilina wanted territorial concessions from France.) 
BOB 

> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:58:41 -0400> From: warineur-request at mailman.halisp.net> Subject: WarInEur Digest, Vol 47, Issue 3> 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. Re: RE: changing Sea lion rules & Keeping the Brits in> England & out of North Afrika (Carl Rupp)> 2. Re: RE: changing Sea lion rules (John Pace)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:35:49 -0400> From: Carl Rupp <carlaugustruppsr at aol.com>> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] RE: changing Sea lion rules & Keeping the> Brits in England & out of North Afrika> To: Warineur <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>> Message-ID: <48434E75.5030504 at aol.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed> > Previous discussions have mentioned how the lack of Sea Lion potential > has led to the Brits clearing the Italians out of North Africa with the > units they shifted out of England. I have to believe the Axis can use > some tactics to prevent this, even if it involves deferring the Italian > entry into the war ( which forces the Brits to give the Germans 10 more > political points if the Brits declare war on Italy) or just shifting > some panzers or infantry to support the Italians. Any thoughts on this?> > Thanks,> > Carl>
_________________________________________________________________
Now you can invite friends from Facebook and other groups to join you on Windows Live™ Messenger. Add now.
https://www.invite2messenger.net/im/?source=TXT_EML_WLH_AddNow_Now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080604/03485059/attachment.html