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

[Noel & Pamela]

Both.  Actually, there are three.

You must recreate. [I will ALWAYS want to play the unchanged original -
warts and all.]

You must allow options for fixing. [Any particular errors - the ones I think
are errors.]

And you must perfect. [All the errors that the EXPERTS agree are errors,
even if I don't.]

;-)

In effect, we want the lot.

regards,
Noel 

-----Original Message-----
From: warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net
[mailto:warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net] On Behalf Of SGMINFO at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:04 PM
To: kentsue at cox.net; warineur at mailman.halisp.net
Subject: {Spam?} [WarInEur] {Spam?} 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?