[WarInEur] {Spam?} Another France 40 OOB question

[SGMINFO at aol.com]

Mathematically you are quite correct...
 
But the issue is a deeper one. and much more fundamental
 
'When' we find a logical inconsistency, or non sequiter, do we...
 
A) Correct the 'error'.
 
or
 
B) Implement the 'error'
 
Under the options if  we are implementing CWIE I, the case for the  devil's 
advocate is implementation 'warts and all
 
Under other options the desired objectives are not quite so self  evident
 
For example, under attrtition and changing unit strengths, the game has an  
entirely different feel, and changing IRP stocks has a very less significant  
effect than under the classic game.
 
This discussion surfaces repeatedly, and I do not think we have ever ended  
up with an answer that sits perfectly for us.
 
Are we 'recreating'
 
or,
 
Are we perfecting?
 
-|steve|-
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 27/03/2008 03:54:21 GMT Standard Time, kentsue at cox.net  
writes:

If a  game starts in 1939 the French will receive 8xIRP and 8xMRP by 5/40.   
There is no combat unless the French attack at Saarbrucken and therefore no  
casualties.  However, when  we get to the France 40 scenario this  accumulation 
of replacement points has disappeared.  Is this a typo?  Should these points 
be added back in the campaign scenario so that the  campaigns represent 
different start points but with all previous actions  assumed to have occurred more 
or less historically?

A related question  has to do with the British. The British have on map or 
receive in Britain  28x2-10, 1x8-10, 3x3-10 (1 Malta), 2x2-8bg, 3x3-8, 11xIRP, 
2xMRP.    By 5/40 all three 3-10 have disappeared and we can assume they were 
dissolved  to recover the IRP.  This would bring the total number of IRP 
available  to 14.

2x2-10 bg are deployed at Narvik. Since only 8-10 can leave  Britain I will 
presume the 8-10 were reduced to 2-10 in Norway by Axis Air/Sea  interception 
when they counter invaded.  This would reduce the total  number of 2-10bg from 
28 to 26 and the IRP pool from  14 to 12. 
There  are 10x8-10 deployed as part of the BEF in France.  This would further 
 reduce the numbers of 2-10bg from 26 to 16 and the IRP pool from 12 to  2.

There are six 8-10 in England and neither of the 8-10 Suez  reinforcements 
remain in Egypt. So again we will presume these were  transferred to Britain. 
However, this only total 3x8-10 another two can be  produced using the last two 
IRP and two more of the 2-10bg.  However,  this will reduce the number of IRP 
to zero and the 2-10bg from 16 to 14. This  still leaves the British short one 
8-10 which can only be produced by  combining three 2-10bg which would reduce 
the total remaining to  11.

However, the scenario setup lists 16x2-10bg remaining not  eleven.  Clearly 
something is amiss, but I think there is a workable  solution.

If we change the deployments so that the 2-10bg are actually  3-10's it would 
eliminate the IRP gain from dissolving them but it would also  leave two more 
2-10bg in Britain. Since the British actually only deployed  brigades to 
Norway this might be a more historical treatment. If we make this  change it will 
add 2x2-10bg back into Britain and reduce the shortage to 3  instead of five. 
Eliminating one 8-10 from the order of battle would give  three more 2-10gb 
back and make up the shortfall.

So, I guess my  recommendations are that the two 2-10bg in Norway be upgraded 
to 3-10 and one  8-10 be eliminated from Britain.  The alternative, would be 
for the  number of 2-10bg in Britain to be reduced to 11 instead of  16.

Thoughts! Comments! Alternatives?


 



   
-------------- next part --------------
Mathematically you are quite correct...
 
But the issue is a deeper one. and much more fundamental
 
'When' we find a logical inconsistency, or non sequiter, do we...
 
A) Correct the 'error'.
 
or
 
B) Implement the 'error'
 
Under the options if  we are implementing CWIE I, the case for the devil's advocate is implementation 'warts and all
 
Under other options the desired objectives are not quite so self evident
 
For example, under attrtition and changing unit strengths, the game has an entirely different feel, and changing IRP stocks has a very less significant effect than under the classic game.
 
This discussion surfaces repeatedly, and I do not think we have ever ended up with an answer that sits perfectly for us.
 
Are we 'recreating'
 
or,
 
Are we perfecting?
 
-|steve|-
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 27/03/2008 03:54:21 GMT Standard Time, kentsue at cox.net writes:
If a game starts in 1939 the French will receive 8xIRP and 8xMRP by 5/40.  There is no combat unless the French attack at Saarbrucken and therefore no casualties.  However, when  we get to the France 40 scenario this accumulation of replacement points has disappeared.  Is this a typo? Should these points be added back in the campaign scenario so that the campaigns represent different start points but with all previous actions assumed to have occurred more or less historically?
A related question has to do with the British. The British have on map or receive in Britain 28x2-10, 1x8-10, 3x3-10 (1 Malta), 2x2-8bg, 3x3-8, 11xIRP, 2xMRP.   By 5/40 all three 3-10 have disappeared and we can assume they were dissolved to recover the IRP.  This would bring the total number of IRP available to 14.
2x2-10 bg are deployed at Narvik. Since only 8-10 can leave Britain I will presume the 8-10 were reduced to 2-10 in Norway by Axis Air/Sea interception when they counter invaded.  This would reduce the total number of 2-10bg from 28 to 26 and the IRP pool from  14 to 12.
There are 10x8-10 deployed as part of the BEF in France.  This would further reduce the numbers of 2-10bg from 26 to 16 and the IRP pool from 12 to 2.
There are six 8-10 in England and neither of the 8-10 Suez reinforcements remain in Egypt. So again we will presume these were transferred to Britain. However, this only total 3x8-10 another two can be produced using the last two IRP and two more of the 2-10bg.  However, this will reduce the number of IRP to zero and the 2-10bg from 16 to 14. This still leaves the British short one 8-10 which can only be produced by combining three 2-10bg which would reduce the total remaining to 11.
However, the scenario setup lists 16x2-10bg remaining not eleven.  Clearly something is amiss, but I think there is a workable solution.
If we change the deployments so that the 2-10bg are actually 3-10's it would eliminate the IRP gain from dissolving them but it would also leave two more 2-10bg in Britain. Since the British actually only deployed brigades to Norway this might be a more historical treatment. If we make this change it will add 2x2-10bg back into Britain and reduce the shortage to 3 instead of five. Eliminating one 8-10 from the order of battle would give three more 2-10gb back and make up the shortfall.
So, I guess my recommendations are that the two 2-10bg in Norway be upgraded to 3-10 and one 8-10 be eliminated from Britain.  The alternative, would be for the number of 2-10bg in Britain to be reduced to 11 instead of 16.
Thoughts! Comments! Alternatives?