[WarInEur] SB hits on Polesti

Fri May 2 18:05:04 EDT 2008

I have the article and will send it along this weekend.

Don

--
Don Lazov
~Best Regards

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Kent & Sue Haunschild" <kentsue at cox.net>
> Dave, Good to hear from you.  It's been a while.
> 
> Glad you agree with me.  I don't recall ever playing any of the scenarios or 
> campaigns in the board game and only played some of the scenarios solitaire 
> for practice or to develop tactics.
> 
> I am currently involved with the CWIE2 project and discovering all the 
> "holes" in the setups.  I wish there was someway to make "corrections" that 
> could be incorporated into the Living Rules.  As it is, I have no choice but 
> to repeat the errors even when I know they are more than likely typos or 
> oversights.  I wish there was some mechanism for correcting the errors.
> 
> In regards to Personnel Point Pools, I have a spreadsheet that allows me to 
> build everything from 1939 to 1945. Using the starting forces, 
> reinforcements and builds in progress; as well as the snap shoots provided 
> by OOB listed in the varying setup instructions.  So I can calculate pretty 
> accurately what the personnel point pool levels should be in 40, 41, 42, 
> etc. assuming "historic" builds.
> 
> Of course using the spreadsheet I can show that the Axis are underfunded 
> through 41, while the Allies and Soviets are overfunded.  I don't have 
> access to the original article in which the Allied Production System was 
> first proposed but if anyone has access to it I'd like to read it..
> 
> Kent
> 
> 
> I wish I could remember where they came from.  I don't remember whether I
> included them or not, as there were changes to the rules after Will (Lape),
> Ian (Raine), and I were done.  Given this discussion and my agreement with
> Kent, it certainly would have been better to "unclarify" these particular
> cases.
> 
> The one that still irks me was neglecting to notice that there were no
> personnel point pool levels included in the scenarios.  Not that I had a
> clue what values to use anyway :^)
> 
>  Dave
> 
> 
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Don Lazov dlazov at comcast.net
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 06:14:06 -0500
> To: kentsue at cox.net, warineur at mailman.halisp.net
> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] SB hits on Polesti
> 
> 
> I concur and support Kent's interpretation. Remove the DG clarifications
> as they confuse the issue and stick with the SPI ruling. I think they
> pull this from either the non-official KC/LA errata (players groups).
> 
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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._
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.  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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > __
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WarInEur mailing list
> > WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> > http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
> >
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application
> hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur