[WarInEur] RE: Effects and repairs of Transportation hits

[sgm]

sgm wrote:
> Probably you are  both right, and at one and the sametime both missing 
> the point.
>
> Ask yourselves this:-
>
> 1.What is the effect of  the interpretation?
>
> Whether it is 'correct' or not may not be relevent in thefinal analysis.
>
> ??
>
> Yes....
>
> If the interpretation you settle on results in a strict interpretation 
> that gives the application of the rule such that Ploesti is shut down 
> simply
>
> Well...
>
> Where does that get us?
>
> Now we have an agreed interpretation that shuts down the game on a 
> German achilles heel.
>
> Then we have a new problem...
>
> The game does not really work because the rule has the wrong effect.we 
> have created a breakpoint  in the game...
>
> So now fixing the game means rewriting the rule?
>
> SO better to ask ourselves...
>
> What is the intended effect that we need to implement?
>
> Is it supportable by real world data?
> Is it supporting a logical and reasonable outcome to the simulation?
>
>
> If air attack on Ploesti was as damaging as this rule predicts....
>
> Why did the allied airforce not capitalise upon this when they first 
> attacked Ploesti?
> (When they attacked other choke points...Ultra soon screamed at them 
> that they had stumbled across just such a weak point.)
>
> In practice air attack did not seem to expose such a critical 
> vulnerability...ergo...individual targets should be able to be hit 
> individually and not mutually.  in the first attacks on the real world 
> plant damage was done immediately...but the military effect was 
> insignificant, because there was excess refining capacity, and this 
> multiple redundancy allowed the potential crisis to be masked and 
> reworked with no apparent damage. With no apparent military effect 
> attention turned to other more profitable targets.
>
> If such excess capacity were in the game then the RCs would outnumber 
> the factories that the German economy had. only when that excess 
> capacity had been denied the Germans, by ground  action, geography and 
> politics, did Ploesti  assume a more critical position in the economy.
>
>   Perhaps that is a consideration....
> Access to resource centers might need to be rejigged slightly.....
>
> We are trying to fix an interpretation, that may itself not have been 
> thought out well originally...
>
> Making Ploesti less vulnerable may work initially, but in the changing 
> world of 1944 does that distort the game the other way?
>
>
> -|steve|-

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080503/750a676d/attachment.html