[WarInEur] SB hits on Polesti

Thu May 1 03:25:19 EDT 2008

Coomments on my part in red

Kent & Sue Haunschild wrote:
> There is some confusion in the rules regarding a SB hit on Ploesti and 
> subsequent Denial of Centers
>  
> SPI [25.0 Ploesti
>  
> General rule:
> Ploesti has five Resource Centers located in the one hex.  This 
> requires a special treatment (when Ploesti is a target), governing the 
> placement of Flak, designation of target, and application of bombing.
>  
> SPI [25.14] A Transportation Hit on one of the Ploesti Centers does 
> *not* affect the other Ploesti Centers for the purposes of Production.
>  
> SPI [25.15] The same rules apply to the two Swedish and the two Iraqi 
> Resource Centers which are in the same hex.
>  
> SPI [26.71] Denial of Foreign Centers:
>  
> 3. Ploesti, Soviet Union, and Turkey: These Centers are available as 
> long as the Axis player can trace a Rail line free of enemy units from 
> them to Berlin.
>  
>  
>
>
>   DG [25.0] Ploesti
>
>             Ploesti has five Resource Centers located in the one hex. 
> This requires a special treatment (when Ploesti is a target), 
> governing the placement of Flak, designation of target, and 
> application of bombing.
>
>  
>
> DG [25.14] A Transportation Hit on one of the Ploesti Centers does not 
> affect the other Ploesti Centers for purposes of Production.
>
>  
>
> DG [25.15] The same rules apply to the two Swedish and the two Iraqi 
> Resource Centers that occupy the same hex.
>
>  
>
> DG [26.7] Denial of Centers
>
>  
>
> 3. Ploesti, Soviet Union and Turkey: These Centers are available so 
> long as the Axis Player can trace a Rail Line, free of Enemy units, 
> from them to Berlin.
>
Note is says a rail line 'free of enemy units'. Note this would imply 
that 'T' hits do not affect the 'availability' of RCs, as Kent says..
>
>  
>
> The bold type on the word "not" in SPI {25.14] was in the SPI printing 
> to give emphasis to the word.  It appears clear that in the original 
> version a T hit did not severe the connection between other RC in the 
> hex with Berlin.   Only a enemy unit was capable of accomplishing 
> that. At first glance the DG rules appear to mirror the original SPI 
> rules.
>  
> But then comes to clarifications that were not in the SPI rules and 
> change the understanding of a T hit.
>  
> DG _26.71 (clarification) Denial of Centers, Item 2 Sweden: Assuming 
> Germany owns a port on the Baltic Sea, sea passage from Narvik or a 
> Swedish port to a German Baltic Sea port and then rail to a German 
> Manufacturing Center is assumed to always succeed (regardless of 
> locations of enemy units or transportation hits on rail lines), once 
> the resource point reaches a neutral or Axis-controlled port from a 
> Swedish resource center._
This is not saying that a transport hit is without effect, merely that 
the passage to Germany can continue by 'other means' allow sea routes 
rather than through any disrupted rail hexes.
>  
> DG _26.71 (clarification) Denial of Centers; Item 3 Ploesti, Soviet 
> Unit and Turkey: The entire length of the rail line used to trace from 
> the resource center to Berlin must be free of a Transportation hit 
> after bomb damage repairs have been done.  Note this means that a 
> Transportation hit on Berlin that is not repaired has serious effects, 
> this can be considered political ramifications._
>  
> Both of these "clarifications" are numbered the same and contradict 
> each other.  When clarified in regard to the Swedish Resource Centers 
> transportation hits have no affect. Yet when clarified in regard to 
> Ploesti, Soviet Union or Turkey they do.  The clarification goes on to 
> expand the transportation hit effect to make Berlin a nexus which when 
> hit severs the rail line to "some" of the Foreign Centers but not all.

The reasoning behind this statement may be originating out of the SB 
rail hit controversy which raged through this period. Read in this 
light, the clarification is alluding to the fact that 'T's may be placed 
on hexes other than manufacturing and resource centers.
>  
> Now take a look at the Setup instructions for the WitW 1944 Campaign.
>  
>
> SPI & DG
>
> German Destroyed Resource Centers (Type Marker)
>
> Leuna (R)
>
> Brux (R)
>
> Dulmen (R,T)
>
> Reishoiz (R)
>
> Ploesti, 1st (T)
>
> Ploesti, 2nd (R)
>
>  
>
> Notice that the T hit on Ploesti,1st does not affect the other four RC 
> in the same hex.  The RC hit on Ploesti, 2nd is a separate event and 
> is listed separately.
>
>  
>
>  SPI/DG  [24.83] Definition of a Bombing Hit:
>
>  
>
> ....A Transportation Line Hit is effective against the Rail line and 
> *also* against *either* a Manufacturing Center or Resource Center in 
> the same hex....
>
>  
>
> Both DG and SPI have the same wording.  A transportation hit does two 
> things.  It cuts the rail and it damages the MC or RC.  These are 
> separate events.  It is not cutting the rail that affects the Center 
> but rather the secondary effects of the SB hit.
>
I tend to interpret the other way (although both interpretations may be 
considered valid). The resource center/manufacturing center fails 
because the supporting infrastructure is so damaged that effective 
deployment of resources and recovery of product from the center cannot 
be managed. So the destruction of transportation resources makes the 
rc/mc unable to function, although the direct degree of damage to the 
plant may be minor.

In the case of ploesti itrw, for example, the destruction of marshalling 
(switch yards) makes it impossible to hold the assets needed for bulk 
transportation on site for loading of product and marshalling of the 
wagons to create supply trains.
Marshalling yards contain large quantities of the one rail resource that 
is difficult to replace...pointwork(switches). These are specialised 
equipment that cannot be bypassed simply or easy at such a location by 
running a plain rail bypass in a couple of hours, the functionality of a 
device such as this is critical to the functionality of the yard, and 
hence the collection and storage of he trains, prior to loading. 

If you think about it, a damaged section of track is easily replaced, as 
Walter will confirm if he is about. You 'borrow' a length of track and 
bridge the gap, or lay around the obstruction/damage.

If you are parking up a thousand wagons preparatory to loading, 
'pinching' a bit of track does not help, as it is the totality of 
available track that is required to 'park up' some wagons. So repairs 
atthese places cause some trouble.

In modern terms, one might consider the effect on a city if one removed 
the parking spaces, or a large number, suddenly.

 This sort of consideration was never examined in such depth at the time 
of the simulation, rather they just observed that such an effect seemed 
to take place, and modelled it.

The effect modelled meant than an SB hit could not cut off 
'availability' RC in an intervening hex (the line running through the 
countryside). but it could break transport lines, and supply routes.

The zuckerman plan in 1944 against the west resulted in rail tonnages 
needed to supply the armies in the west falling to 5% of tonnages before 
interdiction took place.  This in turn lead to disruption of the 
fighting capacity of many units, with shortages of ammunition and fuel 
sporadically breaking out throughout the west. Whilst the effect of 
construction programmes was also noticable.
>
>  
>
> Both the DG rules 26.71 are underlined and in bold type indicating 
> that they are new errata incorporated in 2004.  I think it is obvious 
> that they were not well thought out, clearly reverse the understanding 
> of the published rules and should be ignored until they can be removed 
> in a later revision.  If we allow the clarifications to stand it means 
> that single T hits on Ploesti or Berlin can have a catastrophic effect 
> on German production which had no corollary in the real world.
>
Yes, the clarifications indicate to me that playtesting began to reveal 
these arguments developing, and whilst logical, were not having the 
effect that the designers intended. BUT, that is a long way from saying 
that they were right or wrong.
>
>  
>
> I therefore conclude that the clarifications are erroneous and 
> misleading because a transportation hit has no effect insofar as 
> denying a centers ability to trace a rail line to Berlin.
>
I would agree
>
> This means that as long as the hexes defining a rail line are free of 
> enemy units (or enemy controlled hexes) the Center is functional for 
> the purposes of production.  This understanding is in accordance with 
> published rules and the clarification with regard to the Swedish RC, 
> even if it contradicts the clarification for the Ploesti, Soviet 
> Union, and Turkish Centers.
>

yes
The attempted clarifications in the original rules would appear to be a 
last minute attempt to build a special case, as the designers found the 
application oftheir own rules being deployed against them by 
enthusiastic and  forceful field commanders
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Comments?
>
> __ 
>  
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080501/406633fc/attachment-0001.html