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

[Don Lazov]

Actually I implemented all the errors in the original scenarios/campaigns that I created for CWIE-II and unless told otherwise I will still do so with the final edits I am making. Unless the powers that be don't want the updated scenarios/campaigns.

--
Don Lazov
~Best Regards

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Kent & Sue Haunschild" <kentsue at cox.net>
> True! Do we want to impliment the error or correct it?  I am implimenting the 
> errors at the moment and the message was more asking if there is anyone who 
> thinks we should correct the errors at this point.
> 
> 
> My basic inclination is that the campaigns should logically follow what has gone 
> before or in other words if I was playing a game from 1939 and engaged in 
> historical actions and produced the historical OOB, then the setup for 1940 
> should replicate what is possible in the 1939 campaign. If it doesn't, then 
> something is wrong with either the reinforcement/build allowances in the 1939 
> campaign or the setup instructions for the 1940 campaign are wrong.  The 
> question is which and do the possible solutions cause more problems than they 
> cure.
> 
> Kent
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: SGMINFO at aol.com 
>   To: kentsue at cox.net ; warineur at mailman.halisp.net 
>   Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:03 AM
>   Subject: Another France 40 OOB question
> 
> 
>   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 --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Kent & Sue Haunschild" <kentsue at cox.net>
Subject: {Spam?} [WarInEur] {Spam?} Re: Another France 40 OOB question
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:03:19 +0000
Size: 10482
Url: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080327/1b10867b/attachment-0001.mht