Date sent: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 20:16:01 +0200
From: Markus Stumptner
(This is actually a question to Ted Raicer, but I thought I'd get some other opinions on the background.)
We played TGWiNE for the first time on the weekend and found it a lot of fun. However, we are now in a dispute over the interpretation of attrition. my opponent refuses to believe that a stack that was in supply at the beginning of combat and is out of supply after combat would be eliminated in the directly following attrition phase. The question thus is: Is that so? I believe that is the intent as written in the rules.
However (and this is his main counterargument), the rules state that a defending unit that is out of supply (note that an attacking unit can never be out of supply) defends at half strength. But since a unit that is out of supply would be lost to attrition if the above rule is correct, why would anyone want to attack in such a situation? [Actually, I've come up with one case since we had the discussion, but it's a fairly tenuous one.]
So, who's right?
The interesting question (and here I have to agree with him) then would be, is that effect actually justified historically? Here I have a ZOCless game, and, say, a five-unit stack that would be in supply if it were in the next hex which is free of enemy units dies out completely? This seems really odd.
Date sent: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:09:39 -0400
From: Ted Raicer
TGWiE and TGWiNE both have a very unforgiving supply system-units oos in the attrition phase die-they don't get a chance to do anything. As for the half strength combat effect, you are right it doesn't come up that often, but then a lot of rules dont come up that often-just trying to be complete.
As for historical justification: each turn represents 1-2 months. A WWI army put oos for that long would dissolve into a mob of men waiting to be taken prisoner. In TGWiNE an army put oos wouldn't even be a mob-given the terrain and climate extremes they would probably be dead. The rule works in TGWiE (along with the no ZOC rules) to encourage players to spread their armies out in proper WWI linear fashion. In TGWiNE the rules work to limit the Allied advances to their historical pace.
As for dying in one hex, while surving in an adjacent hex-most games have supply rules that define in supply as this condition, oos that condition, and often one hex makes a difference. I see nothing unreal about that. At the time scales involved here, an army has supplies, or it doesn't. In reality the Turks lost most of the 3rd Army to this effect in the winter of 1914-15.
Date sent: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 22:17:32 +0200
From: Markus Stumptner
As for historical justification: each turn represents 1-2 months. A WWI army put oos for that long would dissolve into a mob of men waiting to be taken prisoner.
Completely correct, but then a month spent OOS would be represented by the turn *AFTER* the unit was put out of supply.
In TGWiNE an army put oos wouldn't even be a mob-given the terrain and climate extremes they would probably be dead.
Correct (I'm quite aware of Enver's 80,000 or so dead). In TGWiE, I'm not so sure if that is appropriate, but it's arguable that the larger number of units would cover that effect statistically, at least in the main theaters. I'm not so sure about Serbia and Italy.
The rule works in TGWiE (along with the no ZOC rules) to encourage players to spread their armies out in proper WWI linear fashion. In TGWiNE the rules work to limit the Allied advances to their historical pace.
Which would mean the cautiousness required to protect one's supply lines in TGWiNE represents the extra work needed to carry supplies to where they were needed? A bit counterintuitive, but probably ok.
I submit however that in our impression the effect was the opposite: because supply is so enormously vulnerable, it appears the rule actually supports the strategic attacker, i.e., the side that is stronger and has more units left to garrison the approach hexes to its supply lines.
As for dying in one hex, while surving in an adjacent hex-most games have supply rules that define in supply as this condition, oos that condition, and often one hex makes a difference. I see nothing unreal about that.
Nor do I, it's the combination with instant death that is problematic (and also absent in most games).
At the time scales involved here, an army has supplies, or it doesn't.
Yes, but the time needed to move into that neighboring hex would correspond to a fraction of that time.
In reality the Turks lost most of the 3rd Army to this effect in the winter of 1914-15.
Interesting detail - the operative word here is "winter". We did not notice any difference in tracing supply in winter in the game, did we miss anything?
This should not hide the fact that it's enormously satisfying to the Russian to land a small unit on the Black Sea coast and watch three Turkish divisions disappear instantly through lack of supply. :-)
Date sent: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 19:54:33 -0700
From: David Gregory Hunter
On this subject, the rules for TGWiE/TGWiNE rules state that units may not move out of supply at any point in their turns. Is it ahistorical in the WWI period for units to make a forced march out of range of their supply sources, in the hopes of receiving supply at the end of the march? For example, why can't a unit in TGWiNE march to a town that is 6 hexes from another friendly secondary supply source? The town would become a secondary supply source upon the unit's entry, preventing the unit from being oos.
Date sent: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:49:34 -0400
From: Allan Rothberg
Ted already responded to this by stating that just such a move is allowed. The rule, he says, is that a unit may not move in such a way as to be out of supply at the end of the unit's movement, not merely on a hex by hex basis. Thus, you could march through hexees that are out of supply, as long as you end your march in a supplied position. We, too had similiar problems, originally with the marching out of supply, until Ted clarified the phrasing of the rule.
Date sent: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:48:45 +0200
From: Markus Stumptner
On this subject, the rules for TGWiE/TGWiNE rules state that units may not move out of supply at any point in their turns. Is it ahistorical in the WWI period for units to make a forced march out of range of their supply sources, in the hopes of receiving supply at the end of the march? For example, why can't a unit in TGWiNE march to a town that is 6 hexes from another friendly secondary supply source? The town would become a secondary supply source upon the unit's entry, preventing the unit from being oos.
Actually, I think the errata make your interpretation the right one. I don't have them here at the moment, but they say literally that a unit may not *end its move* out of supply. Which means it *may* move out of supply to capture that town (and from that instant it is again in supply and can end its move there).
Date sent: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 08:49:44 -0400
From: Ted Raicer
The rules for TGWiE/TGWiNE DO NOT state that a unit may not move OOS at any point in the turn-they state a unit may not END its move OOS. A unit MAY move through an OOS hex to reach a hex where it would then be in supply. Frankly guys, this is about the 6th time I've posted this on consim-L, I thought it would have sunk in by now. Ted Raicer
Date sent: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:02:53 -0400
From: Ted Raicer
Markus,
What can I say-I disagree. The instant death supply works in the game system as I intended it to-if you didn't have it you would have pocket battles that belong in WWII not WWI. WWI armies were rarely pocketed (and against careful play in TGWiE are rarely pocketed) but when they were they died, they didn't break out. The ONLY exception was the Germans at Lodz, a small scale pocket, and there is an optional rule to cover that.
As for the supply rules in TGWiNE favoring the strategic attacker-it is the need to drop off units to protect his supply lines that hurts the attacker, as well as the defender's ability to figure out the limits of the Allied advance and concentrate his forces accordingly.
The change in the supply rules for winter is the winter offensive -2drm.
Date sent: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 18:46:42 -0400
From: Dave Powell
In a message dated 96-09-05 09:23:30 EDT, you write:
What can I say-I disagree.
The instant death supply works in the game system as I intended it to-if you didn't have it you would have pocket battles that belong in WWII not WWI. WWI armies were rarely pocketed (and against careful play in TGWiE are rarely pocketed) but when they were they died, they didn't break out. The ONLY exception was the Germans at Lodz, a small scale pocket, and there is an optional rule to cover that.
As for the supply rules in TGWiNE favoring the strategic attacker-it is the need to drop off units to protect his supply lines that hurts the attacker, as well as the defender's ability to figure out the limits of the Allied advance and concentrate his forces accordingly.
The change in the supply rules for winter is the winter offensive -2drm.
Having solitaired quite a bit of TGWIE, I'd say Ted has managed just the right feel here. Both sides must manage their forces carefully, because a poor positioning can leave a lot of guys oos and dead - hence the very real strategic fear of over-extension, which forced the Germans to falter in front of Paris, for instance.
I like the mechanic, despite taking a little while to let the full implications sink in. It works as a powerful counterweight to a successful offensive, and can catch the victor unawares in his moment of triumph.
Date sent: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 22:57:48 -0400
From: Mark Herman
I believe the rule has to be looked at from the perspective ofthe mindset and the tactics it forces you to play under and not the case by case logic of the attrition itself. This rule sets an important environmental condition on the players to play and think linearly. If you try to circumvent it you can get killed. The question is not whether the historical units would have suffered these effects, but the mindset it imposes upon the players. I for one like and play with the rule for the feel it gives the game. Take care. Mark
Date sent: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:37:13 -0400
From: Ted Raicer
As is often the case, Dave Powell and Mark Herman have made my point better than I could myself, for which to both my thanks. Ted Raicer
Date sent: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:01:00 +0200
From: Markus Stumptner
Having solitaired quite a bit of TGWIE, I'd say Ted has managed just the right feel here. Both sides must manage their forces carefully, because a poor positioning can leave a lot of guys oos and dead - hence the very real strategic fear of over-extension, which forced the Germans to falter in front of Paris, for instance.
I like the mechanic, despite taking a little while to let the full implications sink in. It works as a powerful counterweight to a successful offensive, and can catch the victor unawares in his moment of triumph.
Hm... phrased that way, I have to agree. While the detail effects may sometimes have the wrong reason, the overall influence on player's tactics appears to be correct. Guess I should make amends for a game that works smoothly at this huge scale.