Option 47

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: bo



It should not happen period. When you are disorganized in real combat reality and MWIF reality, of course we are trying to keep the game realistic I assume, to reorganize in real combat you need supplies ammo food etc. To me it does not matter if a unit is next to you, it can be a full hex away or 2 hexes away as long as it is blocking all supply routes.

Any unit that is disorganized with no supply path should not be reorganized at the start of the next turn. This rule IMO should not even be optional.

But again my question is why do you think Harry and ADG made it an optional rule? If a unit is cut off from supply from all sources it should be disorganized and not reorganized again until a supply route is opened, and to be reorganized at the next turn is plain wrong. That should not be an optional rule, it should be a steadfast rule, part of the game.

I probably should not have posted as I am weak on this part of the game, because of no experience of actually playing the game and the brain is getting scrambled by all of this [:(]

Bo

Let me put it this way. The Italians had huge stockpiles of weapons, food and ammo stored in Addis Abeba. With no CW units within 1.000 miles with a closed Suez Canal they are out of supply and will not be reorganised if they Italians moves... That's ridiculous, IMHO...

Now, if one looks at a pocket like Stalingrad, surrounded with enemy troops, you are right...

This is the problem with option 47...

I hear you, I should have stayed out of it just do not like it as an optional rule. It should be part of the main game not optional.

Bo

Why? I like it as a optional rule. As long as you can not voluntary remove units I am not all that fond of playing with this optional so why I should be forced to do so eludes me.

[bo]

Orm not trying to be argumentative, fine leave the rule there, I am saying a unit who is disorganized should be IMO, not allowed to reorganize if no supply route can be found at the end of a turn, without rule 47 this will happen which makes no sense to me, just maybe ADG realized they made a mistake and rule 47 fixed that mistake so to speak.

If this is allowed then a powerful unit who became reorganized at the end of a turn would almost be like a partisan unit only much more powerful, would this unit without supply but reorganized be allowed to move and be allowed to attack enemy units or cut rail lines and supply lines, if that was the case I would like having rule 47 implemented.

But in their infinite wisdom [&:]they decided to do it this way which allows centuur's Italians units in Addis Ababa to be in supply or out of supply depending on the implementation or non implementation of rule 47, did I say that right. Getting confused[:(]

Last thing I have to say about it, the question is "should units who are disorganized be allowed to reorganize at the end of the turn if no supply can reach them," I do not understand why that is not cut and dried, your choice.[:(]

My problem is I keep adding to my post and other posters reply before I am done, this is my fault, as you have learned I am not good at short answers[:D]

Bo

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Bo, the problem is not the supply situation, but the fact that they get reorganised at the end of the turn. Some think that should not happen and others think that this should happen.

Option 47 says that you can only reorganise units which can trace a supply path of unlimited length to a primary supply source at the end of the turn. If you play without it, the units always will be reorganised (exception: oil units).

Personally, I believe that this option is too rigid in the way it has been written. If a unit isn't under attack (not adjacent to enemy positions), why should it not be reorganised while out of "unlimited" supply? If a unit is in such a position, it has the peace to get things back into order, hasn't it? The men can prepare defensive positions and can get ready for combat again. Now, if such a unit is adjacent to enemy land units, things are different, so than it shouldn't be reorganised. But that's a house rule I liked a lot in the past...

It should not happen period. When you are disorganized in real combat reality and MWIF reality, of course we are trying to keep the game realistic I assume, to reorganize in real combat you need supplies ammo food etc. To me it does not matter if a unit is next to you, it can be a full hex away or 2 hexes away as long as it is blocking all supply routes.

Any unit that is disorganized with no supply path should not be reorganized at the start of the next turn. This rule IMO should not even be optional.

But again my question is why do you think Harry and ADG made it an optional rule? If a unit is cut off from supply from all sources it should be disorganized and not reorganized again until a supply route is opened, and to be reorganized at the next turn is plain wrong. That should not be an optional rule, it should be a steadfast rule, part of the game.

I probably should not have posted as I am weak on this part of the game, because of no experience of actually playing the game and the brain is getting scrambled by all of this [:(]

Bo

A fully supplied unit can be disorganized, it still is in supply. As such, clearly supply and organization are independent issues. One has to do with a unit's ammunition, food, and fuel situation; the other has to do with cohesiveness.

Now while I can accept an optional rule to require supply to open up the game, the fact that it is optional points to a desire to compel destruction in detail during the player's turn. Perhaps the game's original play testing worked better with unsupplied reorganizations than not.

With the number of examples of long term isolation of units that would seem to have suffered a few "disorganization" results, I think there's a good argument for the norm to be that units can reorganize in the absence of supply. It represents the historically difficult proposition of destroying units in a defensive position.

[paulderynck]

Bo, I think you can now see from all the different viewpoints expressed above why ADG added it to the rules but left it optional.

[paulderynck]

deleted duplicate

[bo]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Bo, I think you can now see from all the different viewpoints expressed above why ADG added it to the rules but left it optional.

quote:

Ok paul please reread my post I added a few things, and let me know what you think or anybody else. I have a bad habit of thinking up things after I post, I probably should just do another post, call it senility setting in [:(]

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Bo, the problem is not the supply situation, but the fact that they get reorganised at the end of the turn. Some think that should not happen and others think that this should happen.

Option 47 says that you can only reorganise units which can trace a supply path of unlimited length to a primary supply source at the end of the turn. If you play without it, the units always will be reorganised (exception: oil units).

Personally, I believe that this option is too rigid in the way it has been written. If a unit isn't under attack (not adjacent to enemy positions), why should it not be reorganised while out of "unlimited" supply? If a unit is in such a position, it has the peace to get things back into order, hasn't it? The men can prepare defensive positions and can get ready for combat again. Now, if such a unit is adjacent to enemy land units, things are different, so than it shouldn't be reorganised. But that's a house rule I liked a lot in the past...

It should not happen period. When you are disorganized in real combat reality and MWIF reality, of course we are trying to keep the game realistic I assume, to reorganize in real combat you need supplies ammo food etc. To me it does not matter if a unit is next to you, it can be a full hex away or 2 hexes away as long as it is blocking all supply routes.

Any unit that is disorganized with no supply path should not be reorganized at the start of the next turn. This rule IMO should not even be optional.

But again my question is why do you think Harry and ADG made it an optional rule? If a unit is cut off from supply from all sources it should be disorganized and not reorganized again until a supply route is opened, and to be reorganized at the next turn is plain wrong. That should not be an optional rule, it should be a steadfast rule, part of the game.

I probably should not have posted as I am weak on this part of the game, because of no experience of actually playing the game and the brain is getting scrambled by all of this [:(]

Bo

A fully supplied unit can be disorganized, it still is in supply. As such, clearly supply and organization are independent issues. One has to do with a unit's ammunition, food, and fuel situation; the other has to do with cohesiveness.

Now while I can accept an optional rule to require supply to open up the game, the fact that it is optional points to a desire to compel destruction in detail during the player's turn. Perhaps the game's original play testing worked better with unsupplied reorganizations than not.

With the number of examples of long term isolation of units that would seem to have suffered a few "disorganization" results, I think there's a good argument for the norm to be that units can reorganize in the absence of supply. It represents the historically difficult proposition of destroying units in a defensive position.

I know a unit can be disorganized and be in supply, maybe I am wrong sewerfish or totally delusional but I thought we were talking about disorganized isolated units, if I am wrong I apologize.

Bo

[Sewerlobster]

Well we are, but if a supplied unit can be disorganized then it follows that the status of organization is not dependent on supply. So why then must an unsupplied unit not be able to reorganize?

What is about supply that has to do with organization? Disorganizing a unit does not rob it of it's food or ammo; so why then is more food and ammo needed to reorganize?

[bo]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

Well we are, but if a supplied unit can be disorganized then it follows that the status of organization is not dependent on supply. So why then must an unsupplied unit not be able to reorganize?

What is about supply that has to do with organization? Disorganizing a unit does not rob it of it's food or ammo; so why then is more food and ammo needed to reorganize?

I think my problem is I am not as astute as you are about the game as I have never played anyone. Let me explain form a newbies view point[me].

We have a supplied combat unit going into battle in MWIF, the unit gets a soso die roll and becomes disorganized which means in reality they have taken man power loses, equipment losses, and so on.

Now it calls on it's HQ's for supply and depending on the player he or [she[;)]] decides to resupply the disorganized unit at the cost of itself becoming disorganized and the HQ unit can not be reorganized even though it is in total supply, until the end of the turn. My question might be if no HQ unit is available, and no supply or reorg. transport plane unit available, and no supply path to any city, then supplied with troops and equipment by whom to be reorganized to it's fullest capacity for future combat.

Bo

[bo]

Maybe I do not understand supply correctly in MWIF, very possible. If someone suggested to me that a German infantry unit 7/3 got disorganized in combat and it was isolated and it was not able to get resupplied by either a supply path to a HQ unit or a supply transport air unit and it was allowed to be reorganized at the end of a turn but due to losses it became a 5/3 unit I could live with that but that does not fly in MWIF.

So for that reason I believe that optional rule 47 must be in the game [oh okay optional[;)]]

Bo

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

Well we are, but if a supplied unit can be disorganized then it follows that the status of organization is not dependent on supply. So why then must an unsupplied unit not be able to reorganize?

What is about supply that has to do with organization? Disorganizing a unit does not rob it of it's food or ammo; so why then is more food and ammo needed to reorganize?

I think my problem is I am not as astute as you are about the game as I have never played anyone. Let me explain form a newbies view point[me].

We have a supplied combat unit going into battle in MWIF, the unit gets a soso die roll and becomes disorganized which means in reality they have taken man power loses, equipment losses, and so on.

Now it calls on it's HQ's for supply and depending on the player he or [she[;)]] decides to resupply the disorganized unit at the cost of itself becoming disorganized and the HQ unit can not be reorganized even though it is in total supply, until the end of the turn. My question might be if no HQ unit is available, and no supply or reorg. transport plane unit available, then supplied by whom to be reorganized.

Bo

I claim no outstanding astuteness nor a wealth of experience but I have at one point owned all the editions. But it seems from the state of the rules that disorganization (when not using the optional rule) could be more about unit cohesiveness and ability to act and not supply; the HQ's though secondary supply sources are not reorganizing units with "extra supply" but with leadership and coordination of reserve units attached to the frontal HQ.

In the absence of an HQ, units require the remainder of the turn to "get their act together". Not because they need stuff but just because they have no individual initiative.


But abstractions aside: I suspect that the original playtesters probably ended up with better historical results (or perhaps less unrealistic results) by allowing unsupplied units to reorganize. One must remember that the original WiF was a very, very vanilla version of what we have today: almost no divisions, the capital ships were paired on a counter, and only the 1d10 combat. Everything evolved from there, the original rule was such and I don't think the optional rule appeared until edition 3 or 4.

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: bo

Maybe I do not understand supply correctly in MWIF, very possible. If someone suggested to me that a German infantry unit 7/3 got disorganized in combat and it was isolated and it was not able to get resupplied by either a supply path to a HQ unit or a supply transport air unit and it was allowed to be reorganized at the end of a turn but due to losses it became a 5/3 unit I could live with that but that does not fly in MWIF.

So for that reason I believe that optional rule 47 must be in the game [oh okay optional[;)]]

Bo

I think you're fixated on supply and the idea that disorganization involves the partial weakening of a counter by losses. I don't think that that is necessarily the case with this game. Corps level combat is an abstraction, and this game only has reduction in strength for supply situations. Units that survive combat are otherwise whole, even when disorganized they defend at their full strength.

That is, the German 7/3 is not disorganized because of any partial losses or use of material but because it is scattered all over the hex in away that is not conducive to combat initiative or going anywhere as a unit.

Of course the beauty of Rule 47 is that it incorporates the ideas you are quite correctly attributing to what's happening when playing with such rules. The rule adds depth but at the cost of complexity and perhaps to the odds of achieving a balanced game.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

ORIGINAL: bo

Maybe I do not understand supply correctly in MWIF, very possible. If someone suggested to me that a German infantry unit 7/3 got disorganized in combat and it was isolated and it was not able to get resupplied by either a supply path to a HQ unit or a supply transport air unit and it was allowed to be reorganized at the end of a turn but due to losses it became a 5/3 unit I could live with that but that does not fly in MWIF.

So for that reason I believe that optional rule 47 must be in the game [oh okay optional[;)]]

Bo

I think you're fixated on supply and the idea that disorganization involves the partial weakening of a counter by losses. I don't think that that is necessarily the case with this game. Corps level combat is an abstraction, and this game only has reduction in strength for supply situations. Units that survive combat are otherwise whole, even when disorganized they defend at their full strength.

That is, the German 7/3 is not disorganized because of any partial losses or use of material but because it is scattered all over the hex in away that is not conducive to combat initiative or going anywhere as a unit.

Of course the beauty of Rule 47 is that it incorporates the ideas you are quite correctly attributing to what's happening when playing with such rules. The rule adds depth but at the cost of complexity and perhaps to the odds of achieving a balanced game.

Ok agreed, it is strategic and not a tactical game and the scope is so large in scope that I guess you have to overlook things like being reorganized at the end of the turn and being isolated, thank you for your help.

Bo

[Admiral Delabroglio]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Consider Bordeaux, Calais, and Rabaul: the Axis forces in those places were out of supply and isolated for months, (Rabaul for years), but maintained their cohesion. Rabaul did so in the face of continuous bombing raids.

IIRC the German pockets on the Atlantic coast were ignored and kept bottled for three reasons, IMO in decreasing order :
1- The ports had been damaged to the point that they would have been useless
2- Therefore, the Allies did not wish to send good troops to root the Germans out when they could rely on poorly equipped French troops to wait them out
3- On the occasions when the US tried to attack entrenched Germans, they used shore bombardment and planes to "soften" the Germans and managed to inflict politically awkward casualties on French civilians. Therefore they decided not to become known as butchers and let the Germans starve the French civilians insead.

Isolated, face up unit : able to defend properly but unable to take offensive actions. If ignored, keeps enough ammunition to resist.
Isolated, face down : battle weary, ammunition depleted, especially the fancy artillery rounds. The unit has a limited defensive power, depending on its morale (white print elite or black print recruits); still enough of a fighting force to steal enoughb of the civilians' food.

German pocket at Stalingrad : the Russians partly starved them out, but kept pushing, i.e. attacking them. The trapped army could be represented in WiF terms by two corps (1 white print, 1 black print) and a division.
December : 1st Russian attack. Germans loose 1 or 2 units and the remaining one(s) gets flipped. Russian attackers flipped also, no more attack since Rokossovski was busy elsewhere and the remaining Germans were not a threat anymore.
January : 2nd Russian attack. Pocket eliminated.
WiF does not make the distinction between an eliminated unit, as in "every single soldier killed" and an eliminated unit, as in "the survivors surrendered".

Best regards

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Admiral Delabroglio

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Consider Bordeaux, Calais, and Rabaul: the Axis forces in those places were out of supply and isolated for months, (Rabaul for years), but maintained their cohesion. Rabaul did so in the face of continuous bombing raids.

IIRC the German pockets on the Atlantic coast were ignored and kept bottled for three reasons, IMO in decreasing order :
1- The ports had been damaged to the point that they would have been useless
2- Therefore, the Allies did not wish to send good troops to root the Germans out when they could rely on poorly equipped French troops to wait them out
3- On the occasions when the US tried to attack entrenched Germans, they used shore bombardment and planes to "soften" the Germans and managed to inflict politically awkward casualties on French civilians. Therefore they decided not to become known as butchers and let the Germans starve the French civilians insead.

Isolated, face up unit : able to defend properly but unable to take offensive actions. If ignored, keeps enough ammunition to resist.
Isolated, face down : battle weary, ammunition depleted, especially the fancy artillery rounds. The unit has a limited defensive power, depending on its morale (white print elite or black print recruits); still enough of a fighting force to steal enoughb of the civilians' food.

German pocket at Stalingrad : the Russians partly starved them out, but kept pushing, i.e. attacking them. The trapped army could be represented in WiF terms by two corps (1 white print, 1 black print) and a division.
December : 1st Russian attack. Germans loose 1 or 2 units and the remaining one(s) gets flipped. Russian attackers flipped also, no more attack since Rokossovski was busy elsewhere and the remaining Germans were not a threat anymore.
January : 2nd Russian attack. Pocket eliminated.
WiF does not make the distinction between an eliminated unit, as in "every single soldier killed" and an eliminated unit, as in "the survivors surrendered".

Best regards

Admiral you have been hiding from us [;)]thank you for your input.

Bo

[bo]

Finally dawning on me what sewerfish was trying to drive home to me about supply vs disorganized[:(] please it takes me awhile, its my age.

Okay a couple question about the screen below.

1-Using my beta tool I made the 2 Russian units [who already were out of supply] disorganized on purpose. Before I disorganized them the attack odds were 21.5:8=2:1 after I disorganized them the attack odds were 21:5:2=Automatic.

Of course any player would attack them and destroy them, they would not leave them there at those odds for being out of supply and disorganized.

But for arguments sake, they were just out of supply, two to one odds are shall we say not real good, but we attack them anyway and we all get disorganized both Russian units and German units.

Now speed is essential in the Barbarossa scenario the Fascist Tide scenario and the Global war scenario when dealing with Russia. So German HQ's reorganize the German units so they can move on the next impulse. In the next German land move the German units move on and leave the 2 Russian units Out of supply and disorganized for demonstration purposes only [;)]

Now those 2 Russian units seem to pose no threat to the Germans advancing deeper into Russia IMO. I agree they should have been destroyed but I did not do that so I could get to the impact of rule 47 if there is any.

We come to the end of the first turn of Barbarossa, those 2 Russian units now become organized [without rule 47 in effect] and still out of supply assuming that the city of Liepaja to the north was captured. Those 2 Russian units now have their defense factor of 8 back, which now would make them a lot more difficult to destroy if you went after them.

My question is what threat do those 2 units pose to the advancing Germans going deeper into Russia, weak on rules here. If they pose no threat then rule 47 being in effect does not bother me anymore. If there is a threat could someone identify the threat, like can they exert a zone of control if organized but out of supply.

Please not a trick question, I am assuming that they cannot move from where they are for the rest of the game, I could use some help and expertise on this thank you.

Bo

[bo]

sorry double post. I have to learn to hit edit and not quote[:D]

Bo

[bo]

Damn did it again, sorry been awhile since I did pictures.

Bo

[warspite1]

What threat are the units to the Germans?

- Well as they are out of supply they cannot attack.
- If they move (having been organised at the end of the turn) they become disorganised again) with all that means.
- They DO exert a Zone of Control as normal (I cannot see the rule here for disorganised but out of supply units keep theirs so assume the same).
- The units are on a rail line so they are potentially being a pain just being there - but that is no different whether face up or down.

In summary, the units are a pain - but whether a major pain or a mild inconvenience will depend on the situation on the overall Russian Front. They block rail lines, and thus movement of resources and troops. In this case they would also block the rail lines to the south if there were no German units there.

As the German player I would want them disposed of. Even if there nuisance factor is limited while the Germans steam east, they could become more of a complication when on the retreat.

[Extraneous]

land units that start out of supply that are not disorganized can move when starting in a ZoC but must stop when entering the nest ZoC.

Therefore if the two out of supply USSR land units shown are not disorganized they could move 1 hex. And durring reorganization the 6-4 motorized army could then be reorganized with or without option 47.

D2.3 Perform actions
The major powers that didn’t pass perform these steps in this order (their action choice will limit what they can do ~ see action limits table):
(a) Port attacks
(b) Naval air missions
(c) Naval movement
(d) Your naval combat
(e) Opponent’s naval combat
(f) Strategic bombardment
(g) Carpet bombing (option 32)
(h) Ground strike missions
(i) Rail movement
(j) Land movement
(k) Air transport
(l) Debark land units at sea
(m) Invasions
(n) Paradrops
(o) Land combat
(p) Air rebases
(q) Reorganisation

11.11 Land movement
Land movement is the normal way land units move around the maps.

Only face-up land units can make a land move.

11.11.1 How to move land units
Each land move allows you to move 1 land unit. You can only move a unit once in each land movement step.

Sometimes a unit will have unused movement points but not enough to enter the next hex. You can always move the unit into that next hex but you must then turn it face-down.

You can move a unit which starts its move out of supply but you must turn it face-down when you finish moving it.

A unit must always end its move when it enters an enemy ZOC (exception: it can continue moving if it then overruns a land unit in the next hex ~ see 11.11.6 Overruns). You can move a unit which starts its move in an enemy ZOC directly into another enemy ZOC (even a ZOC of the same unit).

11.18 Reorganisation
In the reorganisation step, you can turn some face-down units face-up. This will permit them to move and attack again in later impulses of the turn.

Option 47 is limited by enemy ZoC just like any other supply path. It is exactly the same as a basic supply path without the 4 hex limit.

Option 47: (Isolated reorganization) You can only turn a unit faceup if it can trace a path to a primary supply source for that unit. You trace the path in the same way as a basic supply path, including via overseas supply paths (see 2.4.2 Tracing supply) except that it can be of any length.

2.4.2 Tracing supply

Limits on supply paths
You can’t trace any supply path:
• into an enemy ZOC (unless the hex contains a friendly land unit); or
• into a hex controlled by another major power unless it agrees; or
• into a hex controlled by a neutral country (exception: Vichy territory ~ see 17.4 and Sweden ~ see 19.7); or
• across an alpine hexside; or
• across a lake hexside (except when frozen); or
• across an all sea hexside that isn’t a straits hexside (except as an overseas supply path); or
• for any Soviet unit, into a hex controlled by any other Allied major power (and vice versa) unless the USSR is at war with Germany.