Option 47

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: 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.

warspite1

How does that differ from a unit in supply?

[Larry Smith]

They would be a threat if the German force bypassed them and continued on, and failed to leave sufficient forces behind to contain them. That would allow those Russians to move across the supply paths of the German units that had moved deeper into Russia. Now, those particular Russian would most likely die, as they began their move out of supply, and so would end it disorganized and out of supply, unless they managed to get within range of a still viable Russian supply source. If such a move were to be coordinated with ground strikes and other attacks by Russian forces facing those Germans that went deep, it might be disastrous for those Germans, if the strikes were to leave them disrupted.

However, if one goes by the example you have posted above, assuming that was the last move of the turn for all players, and thus those disorganized Russians are still facing the main German force, then at best, those Russians would simply delay the main force.

I recall one of the tips from my 5th edition rules - they recommended the Soviet player try to get units that survived the initial strikes and attacks to move into the Pripet Marshes, then leave them there to hang as a threat over the Germans, since just by moving two strategically placed Cav units out of the marshes had the potential to make a real mess of the German supply situation. Historically, a lot of Russians did get shouldered aside into the marshes, and for much of the rest of 1941, German commanders [mostly in the Ukraine] were very much aware of the threat that hung over them from that area. And that was before they started printing the rail lines on the map! Back then, we could pretend every hex had rail capacity! I remember, after my introduction to Europa and Fire in the East, I decided that WiF needed to consider the issue of regauging the Soviet rail network to extend their supply lines, so I made rail-head counters, and moved them one or two hexes a turn, depending on the weather, and my HQ's in Russia drew supply from them. THAT slowed things down, but not as much as I was expecting.

The point is that with the original rules, forces that get bypassed could be moved into positions where they were less likely to be fussed with - favorable terrain - but could still have the potential to cause trouble. Option 47 was a good idea, but its always been incomplete, and as someone else pointed out earlier in the thread, several House Rules finessed that option, probably by requiring a unit to be in enemy ZOC's - thus, to be in contact - before 47 could be implemented. If Steve were to implement that - require the isolated unit to be in enemy ZOC's and not in contact with friendly forces [supplied or otherwise] in another hex - then the rule 47 could come into play. That would cut down on a lot of calculations. But the better way is to just not leave them be - if the targets are disrupted and out of supply, go kill them!

[bo]

Truthfully I did not even notice that the 2 Russian units were on a train line, I was showing them for other reasons, of course I would have eliminated them warspite but then that would have ruined my rule 47 Quandary [;)]

Ok so whether in supply and organized or Out of supply and disorganized that rail line is blocked for German use, it seems to be a major line for Latvia and Lithuania, that would not be too good.

This is no criticism of whether optional rule 47 is good or bad but what effects it will have on the screen I show above. Extraneous, at the end of the first turn the Russians are automatically reorganized but they are not in supply are they, how then can they move?

Might be a nightmare to program, [rule 47] only Steve knows about that.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Larry Smith

They would be a threat if the German force bypassed them and continued on, and failed to leave sufficient forces behind to contain them. That would allow those Russians to move across the supply paths of the German units that had moved deeper into Russia. Now, those particular Russian would most likely die, as they began their move out of supply, and so would end it disorganized and out of supply, unless they managed to get within range of a still viable Russian supply source. If such a move were to be coordinated with ground strikes and other attacks by Russian forces facing those Germans that went deep, it might be disastrous for those Germans, if the strikes were to leave them disrupted.

However, if one goes by the example you have posted above, assuming that was the last move of the turn for all players, and thus those disorganized Russians are still facing the main German force, then at best, those Russians would simply delay the main force.

I recall one of the tips from my 5th edition rules - they recommended the Soviet player try to get units that survived the initial strikes and attacks to move into the Pripet Marshes, then leave them there to hang as a threat over the Germans, since just by moving two strategically placed Cav units out of the marshes had the potential to make a real mess of the German supply situation. Historically, a lot of Russians did get shouldered aside into the marshes, and for much of the rest of 1941, German commanders [mostly in the Ukraine] were very much aware of the threat that hung over them from that area. And that was before they started printing the rail lines on the map! Back then, we could pretend every hex had rail capacity! I remember, after my introduction to Europa and Fire in the East, I decided that WiF needed to consider the issue of regauging the Soviet rail network to extend their supply lines, so I made rail-head counters, and moved them one or two hexes a turn, depending on the weather, and my HQ's in Russia drew supply from them. THAT slowed things down, but not as much as I was expecting.

The point is that with the original rules, forces that get bypassed could be moved into positions where they were less likely to be fussed with - favorable terrain - but could still have the potential to cause trouble. Option 47 was a good idea, but its always been incomplete, and as someone else pointed out earlier in the thread, several House Rules finessed that option, probably by requiring a unit to be in enemy ZOC's - thus, to be in contact - before 47 could be implemented. If Steve were to implement that - require the isolated unit to be in enemy ZOC's and not in contact with friendly forces [supplied or otherwise] in another hex - then the rule 47 could come into play. That would cut down on a lot of calculations. But the better way is to just not leave them be - if the targets are disrupted and out of supply, go kill them!

Thank you Larry well said, I was writing the post above and you posted yours before I did so I just now got to see your post. I am not rules savvy Larry, of course that's on me, it is best not to leave them where they are, understandable, but to see how rule 47 is negative or positive I left them where they are. I probably should not have left them on a rail hex and see what the opinions might be but they were there in the fast start Barbarossa scenario.

If they were in another hex next to the railroad organized in the new turn but not in supply would they still have a ZOC over the rail hex line and block German supplies and rail movement by German units. I believe that warspite said they do exercise a ZOC over hexes around them.

Look I do not want to beleaguer this rule 47 but the post was started on June 11th 2014 by Warhunter, I did not follow it closely because I did not understand it having never seen it used, of course no one in MWIF has seen it used either [;)] board game players have used it I would think but I find it very interesting after some of the current comments.

Bo

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: bo

Truthfully I did not even notice that the 2 Russian units were on a train line, I was showing them for other reasons, of course I would have eliminated them warspite but then that would have ruined my rule 47 Quandary [;)]

Ok so whether in supply and organized or Out of supply and disorganized that rail line is blocked for German use, it seems to be a major line for Latvia and Lithuania, that would not be too good.

This is no criticism of whether optional rule 47 is good or bad but what effects it will have on the screen I show above. Extraneous, at the end of the first turn the Russians are automatically reorganized but they are not in supply are they, how then can they move?

Might be a nightmare to program, [rule 47] only Steve knows about that.

Bo

warspite1

As per my post - units out of supply can move - albeit they are disorganised in so doing.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: bo

Truthfully I did not even notice that the 2 Russian units were on a train line, I was showing them for other reasons, of course I would have eliminated them warspite but then that would have ruined my rule 47 Quandary [;)]

Ok so whether in supply and organized or Out of supply and disorganized that rail line is blocked for German use, it seems to be a major line for Latvia and Lithuania, that would not be too good.

This is no criticism of whether optional rule 47 is good or bad but what effects it will have on the screen I show above. Extraneous, at the end of the first turn the Russians are automatically reorganized but they are not in supply are they, how then can they move?

Might be a nightmare to program, [rule 47] only Steve knows about that.

Bo

warspite1

As per my post - units out of supply can move - albeit they are disorganised in so doing.

I did acknowledge that warspite as I was editing my post for that, you posted and beat me to it [:(]

I just went back and read Zorachus99 post # 32 and found it very very interesting, brilliantly conceived and right on the mark, well at least to me, well said Zorachus99!. Never read it back then because I did not understand rule 47 but I sure do now.

Bo

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: bo

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.

Bo

This can relate to why Orm said he disliked Option 47. Imagine instead those aren't two crap early war Russian units, imagine it's just Zhukov. RAW7 has no rule saying you can destroy your own isolated units. So (yes it is gamey) - an obvious available tactic for Germany would be to leave Zhukov in his own little PoW camp for the duration. Why kill him when the Russian will eventually rebuild him to lead their late war counter-offensives? He's the best unit Russia has.

I had this happen to me as Russia one time with Vatutin (the 7-3-3) HQ. He was left flipped and isolated in the hinterlands east of Moscow with two poor German units on either side of him. He was in jail there for a couple years before the Russian steamroller came back west and much to my opponents dismay, when it got close to Vatutin I played an Offensive chit to flip all my HQs face-up. The Germans should have disposed of him a turn or two before that!

So what's wrong with this picture? Two things - both now will be fixed in the next generation of the rules. One is you will be able to destroy your own isolated units and two is you won't be able to use an Offensive chit to reorganize an isolated HQ - after all an offensive chit represents the stockpiling of supplies, so how would all those supplies have got to an isolated position?

But anyway, the crux here is that there is a lot of polarization with the current rules on whether Option 47 should be used - which is why it isn't standard.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: bo

Truthfully I did not even notice that the 2 Russian units were on a train line, I was showing them for other reasons, of course I would have eliminated them warspite but then that would have ruined my rule 47 Quandary [;)]

Ok so whether in supply and organized or Out of supply and disorganized that rail line is blocked for German use, it seems to be a major line for Latvia and Lithuania, that would not be too good.

This is no criticism of whether optional rule 47 is good or bad but what effects it will have on the screen I show above. Extraneous, at the end of the first turn the Russians are automatically reorganized but they are not in supply are they, how then can they move?

Might be a nightmare to program, [rule 47] only Steve knows about that.

Bo

warspite1

As per my post - units out of supply can move - albeit they are disorganised in so doing.

I did acknowledge that warspite as I was editing my post for that, you posted and beat me to it [:(]

I just went back and read Zorachus99 post # 32 and found it very very interesting, brilliantly conceived and right on the mark, well at least to me, well said Zorachus99!. Never read it back then because I did not understand rule 47 but I sure do now.

Bo

warspite1

I disagree. Don't get me wrong, this is not to say Zorachus99 is wrong to want the option or that I would not use Option 47 (as said earlier, on balance I probably would). But for a slightly different look….

Using the Stalingrad example from earlier:

Yes, the Soviets surrounded 6th Army and elements of 4th Panzer Army as a result of Operation Uranus. They did not go for the direct assault but broke through the poorly defended Italian, Romanian and Hungarian lines and the two pincers met at Kalach to trap Paulus and his men. Those Axis units are now OUT OF SUPPLY. The German assault has been blunted (allowing the Soviets strike) and so in (M)WIF terms the Axis units are likely either to be completely or partially disorganised.

- As per real life, as surrounded and out of supply, the Germans could not mount a properly co-ordinated attack - that is replicated in (M)WIF.
- As per real life, where Paulus felt he could not send his army west to meet up with Manstein, if organised Axis units do move, they are immediately disorganised for their trouble.

Having closed the trap, the Soviets can a) carry on west (the idea of Uranus was not simply to trap 6th Army, but to encircle all German units in the south!) and/or b) reduce the Stalingrad pocket. The Soviets of course need to do both – and in so doing needed to use large numbers of troops and aircraft to reduce the pocket and defeat the Germans – nothwithstanding the fact they are out of supply. This is no different in (M)WIF. If the Soviets can disorganise the Germans, the task will be much easier (as the value of the units will go down to 1 or 3) but of course the Soviets will need to bring air assets to bear. They should not be allowed just to ignore the Germans and pile west.

But what if the Soviets do (unrealistically) decide to continue west and ignore the surrounded units? Or what if the numbers they employed are insufficient for the task? The surrounded but well dug-in German troops now have time to re-organise and re-group. Okay the Germans cannot:

- Reinforce (they cannot in (M)WIF) – any losses incurred during the Soviets attempts to reduce the pocket cannot be made good
- They cannot get re-supplied (without Luftwaffe assistance – they cannot in (M)WIF). Importantly as a result, they cannot now attack and movement is limited.
- But what they can do is re-organise, so that the Soviets need to re-group themselves and attack again.

No, the above is not perfect as there is no “whittling” away of supplies and men (other than whole units being destroyed) but at a strategic level, I can live with this.

[bo]

Thanks paul and warspite, can't say that rule does not have life, I know the screen I showed was only a small portion of a much larger picture that centuur talked about in his post how the Italians were out of supply and the British were 1,000 miles away, still a very interesting rule.

Bo

[Larry Smith]

What if there was an HQ stuck in Stalingrad with the pocket? Then you could use the Emergency Supply rule. I did that once with the British in Egypt after the Italians did away with the Allied East Med convoys, and shattered the stack. And that was after already shattering another stack in a previous turn. Bear in mind that during the initial set up, the Italians have the option of putting an HQ in their isolated colony in East Africa, and they also have a supply unit that they have no choice but to set up there. In global games I usually withdraw all I can before Italy needs to declare war, but in game terms it is possible for those isolated Italians to pose a significant problem, especially when one considers that the territorials can draw supply from their home capitals. So defend with the more potent [even if just for the one turn that they expend the supply unit] Italians, while being as much of a pain as one can with the territorials. It is this potential that I believe someone was considering when they strongly pointed out to me that the Belgian Congo, if the French are allowed to align Belgium, can go to Vichy France, and thus, to the Germans as that would spell the end of the Belgians. As it was, no sooner did I state that that had never happened to me, it did, and as I was setting up reinforcements I realized just how much of a pain in the backside the Belgian Congo territorials could be if I could be bothered to move them.

It really is never the same game twice.

And i think I got off my point - just that there are not too many rules - optional or otherwise - that can cover the whole spectrum of possibilities. I have implemented Option 47 in a few instances, but usually it doesn't pose much of an issue for me. I can probably count on one hand the number of times some unit has been disrupted and isolated, and was too far from an enemy unit to be attacked before the turn ended. But I do feel 47 needs some more thought.

Now, I would like to see the Japanese-Soviet compulsory peace implemented, but apparently the new map is making that difficult to implement. But that's another issue for now, and the easiest solution is for the Japanese to just wait until the Russians are at war with Germany, then take what they can before the Russian player asks for an armistice, and then put it on the players' honor to implement properly. If we can't do that much, then we shouldn't be playing with other children, should we!

[bo]

Just got off of skype with Jose discussing optional rule 47.

As much as I have tested Barbarossa and Fascist Tide I never had an isolated and disorganized unit to my knowledge, so rule # 47 never took life for me until now.

I just tested rule 47 in Barbarossa, using the screen I have in the above post I bypassed those units and left them out of supply and disorganized, I then did passes and got to the end of the turn and lo and behold those 2 units were reorganized but still out of supply.

It may have happened before in my testing but I never noticed it, if Steve gets net play up and running and if he cannot implement rule 47 for whatever reasons, how will this be handled between 2 players right now and maybe up to 6 players in the future.

Or my question should be, can you handle it, in other words if there is no debug feature put into the main game by Steve [this means you could disorganize these units again at the end of every turn] how could this be handled by players assuming that you would ever let this situation even occur in the first place which I doubt you would.

Bo

[Centuur]

Option 47 is an optional rule. As long as it hasn't been coded, it's not in the game. But Steve needs to code it sometimes, because it's an important optional rule for some (and hated by others for good reasons too)...

It all comes back on this: if you leave large fighting forces alone, they will become a nuisance if you play without this optional rule.
Now that's completely OK, where I'm concerned. You simply can't bypass 100.000 enemy soldiers without committing forces to kill them. If you bypass them, they can move and are somewhat more dangerous, even when they can't attack and get disorganised when they move.

[warspite1]

bo as Centuur says, its optional. As its not coded there is no way to "handle it" - its just not there to be played at present.

Sorry but that is where we are right now. I want Convoy in Flames coded - but it isn't yet, it could be done next year or it may never be [:(] Until it is, like Optional 47, there is nothing to be practically done.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: bo

Or my question should be, can you handle it, in other words if there is no debug feature put into the main game by Steve [this means you could disorganize these units again at the end of every turn] how could this be handled by players assuming that you would ever let this situation even occur in the first place which I doubt you would.

Bo

You do what you'd do if Option 47 never existed. Ground strike them and kill them. If you miss the ground strike you leave units adjacent and keep them OOS. The best they can do next turn is "ooze" to somewhere and disorganize, knowing you can then probably kill them unless they try to time it with the turn ending. Also you place your units adjacent in a manner that if they do ooze, it is you who controls where they ooze to.

In the next turn you try to ground strike them again.

If Option 47 never existed this would just be standard play in WiF with no one knowing any different.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

bo as Centuur says, its optional. As its not coded there is no way to "handle it" - its just not there to be played at present.

Sorry but that is where we are right now. I want Convoy in Flames coded - but it isn't yet, it could be done next year or it may never be [:(] Until it is, like Optional 47, there is nothing to be practically done.

Actually warspite I could care less whether its in or out or if Steve ever puts it in, sometimes people do not read posts correctly, of course not you and centuur[;)] I asked how you will handle it in a MWIF game if the situation does occur without the debug tool. Please tell me what you players will do in a net play game, just ignore it? I do realize you most likely will never let this happen

Ok paul answered my question while I was composing my post thank you paul.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: bo

Or my question should be, can you handle it, in other words if there is no debug feature put into the main game by Steve [this means you could disorganize these units again at the end of every turn] how could this be handled by players assuming that you would ever let this situation even occur in the first place which I doubt you would.

Bo

You do what you'd do if Option 47 never existed. Ground strike them and kill them. If you miss the ground strike you leave units adjacent and keep them OOS. The best they can do next turn is "ooze" to somewhere and disorganize, knowing you can then probably kill them unless they try to time it with the turn ending. Also you place your units adjacent in a manner that if they do ooze, it is you who controls where they ooze to.

In the next turn you try to ground strike them again.

If Option 47 never existed this would just be standard play in WiF with no one knowing any different.

Sounds sensible paul but aren't you tying up ground units to keep them out of supply that could be used elsewhere? Also they still have a zone of control and can still disrupt supply lines and RR lines that are in their ZOC, right.

Bo

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: warspite1

bo as Centuur says, its optional. As its not coded there is no way to "handle it" - its just not there to be played at present.

Sorry but that is where we are right now. I want Convoy in Flames coded - but it isn't yet, it could be done next year or it may never be [:(] Until it is, like Optional 47, there is nothing to be practically done.

Actually warspite I could care less whether its in or out or if Steve ever puts it in, sometimes people do not read posts correctly, of course not you and centuur[;)] I asked how you will handle it in a MWIF game if the situation does occur without the debug tool. Please tell me what you players will do in a net play game, just ignore it? I do realize you most likely will never let this happen

Ok paul answered my question while I was composing my post thank you paul.

Bo

warspite1

Sorry bo if I am being thick (a regular occurence) but I seem to be missing the point. I have no idea why there is any talk of a de-bug tool when playing the game as is.

If it (disorganised and out of supply) occurs in a MWIF game then the player deals with it as per the rules - no de-bug, no get around. It happens all the time - or at least it does to me as I suck at the game.

Sorry bo am trying to be helpful. What am I missing?

[bo]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: warspite1

bo as Centuur says, its optional. As its not coded there is no way to "handle it" - its just not there to be played at present.

Sorry but that is where we are right now. I want Convoy in Flames coded - but it isn't yet, it could be done next year or it may never be [:(] Until it is, like Optional 47, there is nothing to be practically done.

Actually warspite I could care less whether its in or out or if Steve ever puts it in, sometimes people do not read posts correctly, of course not you and centuur[;)] I asked how you will handle it in a MWIF game if the situation does occur without the debug tool. Please tell me what you players will do in a net play game, just ignore it? I do realize you most likely will never let this happen

Ok paul answered my question while I was composing my post thank you paul.

Bo

warspite1

Sorry bo if I am being thick (a regular occurence) but I seem to be missing the point. I have no idea why there is any talk of a de-bug tool when playing the game as is.

If it (disorganised and out of supply) occurs in a MWIF game then the player deals with it as per the rules - no de-bug, no get around. It happens all the time - or at least it does to me as I suck at the game.

Sorry bo am trying to be helpful. What am I missing?

It is probably me not you, If an enemy unit should be behind your units out of supply and disorganized and you need to move your units forward without going back and destroying that unit, it will be continually reorganized every game turn, now if you do not like that situation [not meaning you per say] there is nothing you can do about it under the present rules, I do not how else to explain that to you.

This unit could cause trouble if left there I assume, as I have never played this game. If Steve does not put optional rule 47 into the game again I could care less, but if 2 players agree that this is annoying maybe Steve could leave the debug tool in the game so people who just happen to like rule 47 to keep the unit or units disorganized or the other option just ignore those disorganized units when they become organized units at the turns end.

Of course you need to trust the other player,[:(] hmmm

It must be me but I do not see what I am saying is so complicated. Actually I am a little nervous because I understand what I am saying even if that is a first for me [:D]

Bo

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: bo



Actually warspite I could care less whether its in or out or if Steve ever puts it in, sometimes people do not read posts correctly, of course not you and centuur[;)] I asked how you will handle it in a MWIF game if the situation does occur without the debug tool. Please tell me what you players will do in a net play game, just ignore it? I do realize you most likely will never let this happen

Ok paul answered my question while I was composing my post thank you paul.

Bo

warspite1

Sorry bo if I am being thick (a regular occurence) but I seem to be missing the point. I have no idea why there is any talk of a de-bug tool when playing the game as is.

If it (disorganised and out of supply) occurs in a MWIF game then the player deals with it as per the rules - no de-bug, no get around. It happens all the time - or at least it does to me as I suck at the game.

Sorry bo am trying to be helpful. What am I missing?

It is probably me not you, If an enemy unit should be behind your units out of supply and disorganized and you need to move your units forward without going back and destroying that unit, it will be continually reorganized every game turn, now if you do not like that situation [not meaning you per say] there is nothing you can do about it under the present rules, I do not how else to explain that to you.

This unit could cause trouble if left there I assume, as I have never played this game. If Steve does not put optional rule 47 into the game again I could care less, but if 2 players agree that this is annoying maybe Steve could leave the debug tool in the game so people who just happen to like rule 47 to keep the unit or units disorganized or the other option just ignore those disorganized or organized units at the turns end.

Of course you need to trust the other player,[:(] hmmm

It must be me but I do not see what I am saying is so complicated.

Bo

warspite1

I think from what has been said previously there is nil chance of the de-bug feature or editor being available generally due to the problems this causes.

I think it is simply a case of, if Option 47 is a deal-breaker for a player then at the moment its not the game for them. If a player does not like that situation then join the club - there are plenty of optional rules, one map campaigns and even standard rules that are not yet functioning - and that matter to others - so I do not see that Option 47 is a special case.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: warspite1

bo as Centuur says, its optional. As its not coded there is no way to "handle it" - its just not there to be played at present.

Sorry but that is where we are right now. I want Convoy in Flames coded - but it isn't yet, it could be done next year or it may never be [:(] Until it is, like Optional 47, there is nothing to be practically done.

Actually warspite I could care less whether its in or out or if Steve ever puts it in, sometimes people do not read posts correctly, of course not you and centuur[;)] I asked how you will handle it in a MWIF game if the situation does occur without the debug tool. Please tell me what you players will do in a net play game, just ignore it? I do realize you most likely will never let this happen

Ok paul answered my question while I was composing my post thank you paul.

Bo

warspite1

Sorry bo if I am being thick (a regular occurence) but I seem to be missing the point. I have no idea why there is any talk of a de-bug tool when playing the game as is.

If it (disorganised and out of supply) occurs in a MWIF game then the player deals with it as per the rules - no de-bug, no get around. It happens all the time - or at least it does to me as I suck at the game.

Sorry bo am trying to be helpful. What am I missing?

You say it happens all the time, when is that? Are you referring to the board game, if you are, then after whatever house rule or whatever optional rules you and your opponent have agreed to. I Imagine in the board game you could just turn the unit upside down and leave it here for the rest of the game with rule 47 in effect.

If you are talking about Matrix's MWIF where does that happen all the time when no one has ever played an actual game with another person as of yet because we have no net play, I am not talking about games that paul plays or e-mail games or vassel, I am talking about MWIF on the computer.

Bo