{Spam?} Re: {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} [WarInEur] {Spam?} Re: Another France
40 OOB question
John Pace
john_pace_ca at yahoo.com
Thu Mar 27 09:46:57 EDT 2008
Maybe, we could have a new option. Without the option we get the original setup inheritied from SPI. With the option, we get the corrected version, such as including additional units like the 3 * German 5-5 mountain divisions in the 1939 Poland setup.
John
Don Lazov <dlazov at comcast.net> wrote:
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"
> 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?
>
From: "Kent & Sue Haunschild" <kentsue at cox.net>
To: <SGMINFO at aol.com>, <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
CC:
Subject: {Spam?} [WarInEur] {Spam?} Re: Another France 40 OOB question
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:03:19 +0000
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?
_______________________________________________
WarInEur mailing list
WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
_______________________________________________
WarInEur mailing list
WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
Maybe, we could have a new option. Without the option we get the original setup inheritied from SPI. With the option, we get the corrected version, such as including additional units like the 3 * German 5-5 mountain divisions in the 1939 Poland setup.
John
Don Lazov <dlazov at comcast.net>
wrote:
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"
> 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?
>
From: "Kent & Sue Haunschild" <kentsue at cox.net>
To: <SGMINFO at aol.com>, <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
CC:
Subject: {Spam?} [WarInEur] {Spam?} Re: Another France 40 OOB question
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:03:19 +0000
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?
_______________________________________________
WarInEur mailing list
WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
_______________________________________________
WarInEur mailing list
WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
Looking for last minute shopping deals? http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
More information about the WarInEur
mailing list