[SPAM] - RE: [SPAM] - [WarInEur] Severe Weather Effects - Email found in subject - Email found in subject

Mon Mar 17 14:42:33 EDT 2008

Fog of War is simple either have some numbered blank counters and use charts to hold part of the forces say 20 for each major country. And or don't allow anyone to look into the stacks until an attack is declared or you roll on to see if you can recon using air support. Do it like the naval suppression tables, 1 for each air unit used. So if you fly 5 you have a 1-5 out of six knowing what the units are. You could fly recon anytime during the turn.

Chuck Sutherland
Network Support Technician
Danville-Pittsylvania Community Services
245 Hairston Street
Danville, VA  24540
(434)799-0456 x3113
csutherland at dpcs.org<mailto:csutherland at dpcs.org>
________________________________
From: John Pace [mailto:john_pace_ca at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:34 PM
To: Chuck Sutherland; Karl Gaarsoe; warineur at mailman.halisp.net
Subject: RE: [SPAM] - RE: [SPAM] - [WarInEur] Severe Weather Effects - Email found in subject - Email found in subject

Sadly, I can imagine there will be a lot of good stuff in the computer game that cannot be translated into any board game, such as the Fog-Of-War rules.  Likewise there is a lot of good stuff in the original board game that cannot be realistically translated into the computer.  For me, the computer game and the board game will similar, but sadly they can never be seamless.

Chuck Sutherland <csutherland at dpcs.org> wrote:
But how do you implement this in the board game? The change needs to be easily moving to the board game so that the transition to and from the computer is seamless or you will have moved CWIE into the realm of a new game.

Chuck Sutherland
Network Support Technician
Danville-Pittsylvania Community Services
245 Hairston Street
Danville, VA  24540
(434)799-0456 x3113
csutherland at dpcs.org<mailto:csutherland at dpcs.org>
________________________________
From: John Pace [mailto:john_pace_ca at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:09 PM
To: Chuck Sutherland; Karl Gaarsoe; warineur at mailman.halisp.net
Subject: [SPAM] - RE: [SPAM] - [WarInEur] Severe Weather Effects - Email found in subject - Email found in subject

Even when victorious, active operations during war consumes men and material, the OOS rule tries to simulate this consumption, for example in 1941 even the victorious German army suffered a hell of a lot of wear and tear.  With CWiC-2, the new attrition option nicely reders the OOS rule obsolete.

Chuck Sutherland <csutherland at dpcs.org> wrote:
It's not an issue of resources, it is one of game effects. The OOS rules are just wrong in how they work. Having the attacker falling on their grenades because they don't have full supply is a bad effect all around and causes strange use of that effect like the quickstep. One reason it has been done this way is because the Russian production ability is to low! The Russian army grew during the critical summer offensives that saw it suffering huge losses yet by December 41 it was 4 million strong, up from a low of 2 million. In game terms giving the 1-4 an average strength of 10 thousand men the Russians grew around 200x1-4 in a few months above and beyond the losses taken! That's 100 divisions above and beyond losses, yet the Russians are lucky to maintain strength when trying to build out 2 5-5 sets of units. Assuming the German has geared his production to attrition the Russians through massive 6-5 build outs and the use of all the 2-4 he can lay his hands on along with 1-6 etc.

The OOS effected need to change but also the Russian's ability to build 1-4 needs to be upped! Secondly the Russians were contesting for air control in the summer of 43. This is not possible for the Russians to do in this game until late in 43 if not 44. Even then the Germans can and will bring all their air to the east to wear down the Russians limited rebuilding ability.

Its wrong and it needs to be addressed! If I am low in supply and attack, I will be weakened in combat ability but this does not translate to additional losses if the enemy is more weak then I am.

The Quickstep defense needs to die and the reasons that cause it need to be fixed!

The chaining of MSU could be allowed if Russian production levels are fixed by lowering the combat table by one for each msu in the chain. So with 3 msu in the chain you would be attacking on the forth combat table. You could combine that with lowering the combat strengths of each attacking unit by 1 or 2 for each msu they are chaining from. But you will have to allow the Russians to build enough 1-4 and still be able to kick out 4-4 and or 5-5 for the next year.

What can happen now is the Germans will attrition the Russians down using minors and 6-5 and have the Russians in a position where Para drops are possible at 1-1 or sometimes 2-1 odds. Once the Russian is pushed out of a fortified defense he will suffer great losses in 42. This will be caused because the Germans were able to attrition the Russians down. This is wrong, its totally opposite from what really happened, where the Russians gave up ground but died to attrition the Germans who slowly lost combat power from the losses and the supply limits. Its not a supply issue, it is a cause and effect in the game. The thing that screams out to prove it is the AR option for the Russians in the winter of 41! They can suffer no losses to make up for the low production issues. Yet we know the Russians lost a lot of troops in those attacks! You are looking at the symptoms and not the root cause of all of this. OOS effects and Russian production are the real issues, not chaining MSU until you address the root cause, history isn't served!

________________________________
From: warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net [mailto:warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net] On Behalf Of Karl Gaarsoe
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:45 PM
To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net
Subject: [SPAM] - [WarInEur] Severe Weather Effects - Email found in subject

OK, Reality Check guys.

READ (Again?) The Relevant chapter in Martin van Creveld, Supplying War. Chapter 5, "Russian Roulette",  (pp 142-180) (Cambridge Univ Press, 1977)

Then think about it for a couple of days, and read the whole book.

Supporting evidence:  Achtung-Panzer, Heinz Guderian, Translated by Christopher Duffy, Arms & Armor, London, 1992.  (originally in German, 1937) See the appendix, especially the chart reproduced below.

Production of Motor Vehicles:

1935

US 74.1%
UK  9.1%
France 5.3%
Germany 4.7%
Canada 3.1%
Italy  1.2%
Others  2.5%

1936

US 77.2%
Britain 7.8%
Germany 4.8%
France 3.5%
Canada  3.4&
Italy  0.9%
Others 2.4%

OK, Motor Vehicel production at this time is pretty much a reflection of the state of the industrial base and the societies preparation to wage mechanied warfare.  Duh, Hitler was INSANE.  Even after occupying France.  The French GM plant manufactured an unknown number of the standard 3t trucks (Opel Blitz) for the Germans;  Somewhere on the Web a couple of years ago I saw how a surviving example was being restored by a French reenactor.  But the records have been conveniently lost.....

But I think if we are going to continue to call it a historical model, no chaining MSU in Severe weather areas.  The Germans just didn't have the resources.

Karl Gaarsoe
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of hte intended receipent(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended receipent, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the originial message.
_______________________________________________
WarInEur mailing list
WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur

________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http:/www.yahoo.com/r/hs>

________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http:/www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080317/2c2c56d0/attachment-0001.html