[WarInEur] SB hits on Polesti

Fri May 2 23:44:30 EDT 2008

Dave,

You might also recall that we had submitted an 8th edition of the rules 
rewrite to DG, but for some reason (printer timing?) they used the not 
finally proof read 7th edition we had sent them, and made some further 
changes to it themselves.

Whether the 8th version dealt with any of the problems now being commented 
on is beyond my recollection, and my copy of it died on an old hard disk 
that crashed two computers ago. I am not sure if I kept back up on a CD, or 
where that would be now...

I do recall shortly after the game was published an errata with the Allied 
fixed reinforcements for use with the Allied production option was prepared 
for DG to use - probably on this list.

I also recall we had a slightly different version of the air drop rules 
designed to prevent the suicide-paratroopers-prevent-retreats-technique. It 
may have been as simple as providing that air assaults must all be 
determined before other ground combats.

Ian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dscharfe at sc.rr.com>
To: <dlazov at comcast.net>; <kentsue at cox.net>; <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: [WarInEur] SB hits on Polesti

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