The question to ask about The Italians

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Is this game still available to purchase. It looks fun!!

I hope to get TOAW to the point where it can be made as a scenario. Lot of coding left to do before that point, though.

[Zovs]

I have already created a TOAW scenario for WIE.

TOAW is not the perfect engine for WIE, CWIE2 is, it was designed by Karl and it incorporates all the SPI, DG, LA/KC rules which TOAW simply can't handle.

If you want to play WIE get CWIE or the board game.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

So, therefore, they should go to war with two of the greatest powers on Earth!! [X(]

warspite1

So in addition to asking me what I would do, and what I think, You now state the above - should there be a question mark there?

BUT Japan DID go to war with the USA and the CW, and what I think, what I would do, what Japan SHOULD DO is TOTALLY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

We are trying to understand what the Japanese leaders, those that took the decisions they did in the build up to WWII, would have done if Barbarossa didn’t happen. For the last time, what I would do, especially as I have the benefit of hindsight, simply shouldn’t be a consideration, shouldn’t enter your mind, shouldn’t be given a moment’s thought. This is a what-if and you are putting yourself in Japan’s shoes and with no hindsight allowed.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They only authorized the FIC and Rising Sun actions after Barbarossa.

warspite1

And I have also mentioned this second point so many times…… Once again you state that the Japanese move into the FIC was after Barbarossa. I’ve spelt the chronology out so many times, why do you keep getting it wrong?

I am not going to type the full chronology out for the umpteenth time as I really can’t be bothered. But the key point:

To assist their war in China, and buoyed by the problems facing Britain (and that have already befallen France and Holland) the Japanese moved into northern FIC in the autumn of 1940. This led to a tightening of the economic screw. Japan was now faced with an embargo of strategic materials – this was going to affect the military. Do you understand this now? FIC = before Barbarossa (tightening of the embargo including all scrap metals, aircraft lubricants etc). Second move into the FIC = after Barbarossa (Freeze of Assets and Oil)

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Clearly, they saw the Soviets as a threat.

warspite1

So you are saying the Japanese saw the Soviets as a threat, but not the USN? That is hogwash. Different factions within Japan each had their own thoughts on this.

So even though the Japanese had signed a peace treaty with the Soviets in early 1941, even though they could see what was happening in Europe (in your scenario), you believe that the Japanese wouldn’t possibly, under any circumstances, decide to move into southern FIC with a view to a move south.

However, the Japanese (who were on the verge of pulling out of most of China in 1940 before Hitler’s early success) decided that the US were not worth worrying about?? They were going to stay in China (with the economic problems that was bringing), they then decided to move in the FIC (knowing it would upset the CW and USA), they then signed the Tripartite Pact (which was aimed at the US). But according to you none of those aggressive acts should be taken into consideration when deciding on whether Japan would have headed south even without a Barbarossa? Newsflash: the USN was a factor in Japan's thinking - and yet she took the actions above anyway......

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You have to be blind not to see this, folks.

warspite1

No, contrary to what you say, you don’t have to be hard of sight to come to the conclusion that the Japanese needed to get out of the hole she had dug and, just as in real life, provided she could reasonably gamble that the USSR would not attack Manchuria, then a grab for oil was a ‘sensible’ move.

You ignore the possibility that Japan could possibly take the same course as real life and insist there are only two possible courses of action that they can take:

If there is no Barbarossa can one make the argument that the Japanese will decide to do nothing?

Having made the decision to stay in China, I don't think so no. After all the move into FIC in September 1940 was taken largely to help the war in China. This in turn has just brought a strategic embargo crashing round their heads. The message is clear, unless the Japanese get out of China, every time Japan moves, the US simply tighten the noose....

The Japanese 'missed the bus' faction decided there would be no withdrawal from China in 1940. That decision, from every possible angle, diplomatic, economic, military, means that doing nothing (and relying on a future course of action by Germany that may or may not happen) is simply not an option.

If there is no Barbarossa, can one make the argument that the Japanese will attack the NEI alone?

This is perhaps the easiest of all the questions raised in this entire scenario. NO not under any circumstances. In real life the Japanese felt that if they went for the oil they would need to hit the US first. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this scenario that has happened to make the Japanese (those who historically set Japan at war with the US) make any different decision. Not one single thing.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Yes, there is a political cost for invading Spain and Turkey.....But there is no immediate impact in the game.

warspite1

So completely unrelated to real life then?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

There is a large garrison requirement for Spain and (somewhat less) for Turkey. But, as I've said, that can be filled by Italy.

warspite1

So completely unrelated to real life then? Spain can be considered relative to Yugoslavia because of size. Spain can't be considered relative to Yugoslavia based on strategic position and the time in the war that troops were needed. Italian troops have better things to be doing than clearing up after Germany's mess in 1940. Furthermore, and as was shown in Yugoslavia, the Italians were not exactly brilliant at that job...... Whichever way you slice it, there will be a lot of Germans needed in Spain and in Spanish Morocco.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I'm just making the comparison between the shot of France and the shot of Spain.

But note that SPI gives Spain a total strength of 21. So the Force the Germans had at the start of France was 35 times the Spanish strength. It won't be a problem.

warspite1

But it only says so much. The number as between Germany and Spain will tell us who is going to win the regular war ultimately (although quite clearly the Germans are not going to be putting their entire army into the southwest of France so it is not a case of 735 vs 21).

What those numbers can't tell us - in exactly the same way that numbers alone could never tell someone what would happen in France 1940 - is how well each side will fight, what mistakes will be made, what help will be received, what the weather will do, the use of terrain and the state of the logistics battle etc. etc.

[UP844]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Italian troops have better things to be doing than clearing up after Germany's mess in 1940. Furthermore, and as was shown in Yugoslavia, the Italians were not exactly brilliant at that job......

I suspect Italian troops would be even less brilliant as occupiers of a nation where they fought just two years before to install Franco, with the attendance of many high-ranking Fascist and military leaders and the blessing of the Catholic Church.

I strongly doubt Mussolini would have taken part in this adventure, partly for internal political reasons and partly because at this time he was still pursuing his idea of a "parallel war" (this is before the reversals in Greece and North Africa).

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I'm just making the comparison between the shot of France and the shot of Spain.

But note that SPI gives Spain a total strength of 21. So the Force the Germans had at the start of France was 35 times the Spanish strength. It won't be a problem.

warspite1

But it only says so much. The number as between Germany and Spain will tell us who is going to win the regular war ultimately (although quite clearly the Germans are not going to be putting their entire army into the southwest of France so it is not a case of 735 vs 21).

What those numbers can't tell us - in exactly the same way that numbers alone could never tell someone what would happen in France 1940 - is how well each side will fight, what mistakes will be made, what help will be received, what the weather will do, the use of terrain and the state of the logistics battle etc. etc.

An old game by a defunct company that designed it with cookie cutter counters,(as in all German infantry is the same strength being used)....

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: UP844

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Italian troops have better things to be doing than clearing up after Germany's mess in 1940. Furthermore, and as was shown in Yugoslavia, the Italians were not exactly brilliant at that job......

I suspect Italian troops would be even less brilliant as occupiers of a nation where they fought just two years before to install Franco, with the attendance of many high-ranking Fascist and military leaders and the blessing of the Catholic Church.

I strongly doubt Mussolini would have taken part in this adventure, partly for internal political reasons and partly because at this time he was still pursuing his idea of a "parallel war" (this is before the reversals in Greece and North Africa).

warspite1

I suggested that Mussolini, like with the BoB, would want to be seen as 'contributing' to the German victory, but you raise a good point.

Like you, I still believe that Mussolini's focus would be on his 'New Roman Army' achieving its own success and earning its own glory by taking Egypt. And there is no reason for Hitler to have dissuaded him from that.

And you suggest getting involved in aggressive war in Spain (which would have been a MASSIVE decision for Hitler) would have been an even bigger deal for Mussolini.

You may well be right. After all the Italians suffered more losses in the Spanish Civil war than the Germans, got less out of it (surprise surprise Mussolini was too keen on grand gestures of generosity and less interested in actually getting paid - and unlike Germany who certainly got their pound of flesh - the Italians did not exploit the Spaniards natural resources) and spent more on the war (one of the reasons the Italians were still largely in biplanes at the start of WWII was the money spent on helping Franco assume power in Spain). So why, the Italians would be entitled to ask, are we happy for the Germans to get involved in Spain. It is a not unimportant point that Italy got involved in the Spanish Civil War on the understanding that Italy would be the main power in the Mediterranean after the war. Unlike a friendly Franco allowing German troops in, if Spain is to be run by a pro-German puppet that controls Gibraltar (and one exit to the Atlantic) then that is not necessarily a great development for Italy.....

Of course if the Italians decided that keeping out of Spain was the right thing to do, then it would be even more difficult for them to decide to suddenly provide the bulk of the occupation troops. But even if they did, the Spanish would no doubt scornfully remember the performance of some of the Italian troops in the Civil War (Guadalajara for example). I would imagine that for any would-be partisan, the sight of immobile Italians - largely shorn of vehicles - as their occupiers, would be of greater comfort than Germans.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Again, the British had just been thrown out of Greece.

warspite1

Why do you say that? In your scenario how can you have an Italo-Greek war? You said that 5th and 10th Armies are in and around Tripoli keeping the British in Tripolitania so that they can be conveniently surrounded (but of course ensuring that they don't actually lose Tripoli in the meantime). Apart from occupation troops in France and garrisons watching over Yugoslavia and Greece, you have some 30-odd divisions in Spain and Spanish Morocco. What troops have the Italians got to get involved in Greece?

And anyway, even if there were, I thought in your scenario Mussolini was a simple puppet of Hitler with no independent say over the movement of Italian troops. If Hitler wouldn't let Mussolini attack Egypt (and Mussolini meekly complied), why would he allow them into Greece (and why would Mussolini be any less compliant)?

If there is no Greece then why are the British in Greece to be thrown out of it?

This is why it makes no sense to debate this scenario in anything other than chronological order. And at the moment we are still waiting to understand what the Germans are doing to tie down British forces so that we can make assumptions over how the British may react to the attack on Spain when that kicks off.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

We are trying to understand what the Japanese leaders, those that took the decisions they did in the build up to WWII, would have done if Barbarossa didn’t happen. For the last time, what I would do, especially as I have the benefit of hindsight, simply shouldn’t be a consideration, shouldn’t enter your mind, shouldn’t be given a moment’s thought. This is a what-if and you are putting yourself in Japan’s shoes and with no hindsight allowed.

Right. And the wiki article clearly shows that they were (rightly) seeing the Soviets as a threat. We know that, historically, the Soviets occupied Japanese home islands and Manchuria at the end of the war - confirming that that threat wasn't just Japan's imagination. They can't do what they did historically while one of those three powers threating them is unencumbered. Barbarossa has to be a prerequisite for that. The Soviets are a particularly dangerous threat because they can base air power in range of the home islands they want. No navy needed.

And I have also mentioned this second point so many times…… Once again you state that the Japanese move into the FIC was after Barbarossa. I’ve spelt the chronology out so many times, why do you keep getting it wrong?

I am not going to type the full chronology out for the umpteenth time as I really can’t be bothered. But the key point:

To assist their war in China, and buoyed by the problems facing Britain (and that have already befallen France and Holland) the Japanese moved into northern FIC in the autumn of 1940. This led to a tightening of the economic screw. Japan was now faced with an embargo of strategic materials – this was going to affect the military. Do you understand this now? FIC = before Barbarossa (tightening of the embargo including all scrap metals, aircraft lubricants etc). Second move into the FIC = after Barbarossa (Freeze of Assets and Oil)

In bold is what I was referring to.

So you are saying the Japanese saw the Soviets as a threat, but not the USN? That is hogwash. Different factions within Japan each had their own thoughts on this.

No. But I'm saying that three major powers threatening them was more than they could deal with. At least one had to be canceled.

So even though the Japanese had signed a peace treaty with the Soviets in early 1941, even though they could see what was happening in Europe (in your scenario), you believe that the Japanese wouldn’t possibly, under any circumstances, decide to move into southern FIC with a view to a move south.

They were at peace with the US and the UK too. And, even the Soviets didn't see what was coming in Europe.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this scenario that has happened to make the Japanese (those who historically set Japan at war with the US) make any different decision. Not one single thing.

No Barbarossa is what is different.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Why do you say that? In your scenario how can you have an Italo-Greek war? You said that 5th and 10th Armies are in and around Tripoli keeping the British in Tripolitania so that they can be conveniently surrounded (but of course ensuring that they don't actually lose Tripoli in the meantime). Apart from occupation troops in France and garrisons watching over Yugoslavia and Greece, you have some 30-odd divisions in Spain and Spanish Morocco. What troops have the Italians got to get involved in Greece?

And anyway, even if there were, I thought in your scenario Mussolini was a simple puppet of Hitler with no independent say over the movement of Italian troops. If Hitler wouldn't let Mussolini attack Egypt (and Mussolini meekly complied), why would he allow them into Greece (and why would Mussolini be any less compliant)?

If there is no Greece then why are the British in Greece to be thrown out of it?

This is why it makes no sense to debate this scenario in anything other than chronological order. And at the moment we are still waiting to understand what the Germans are doing to tie down British forces so that we can make assumptions over how the British may react to the attack on Spain when that kicks off.

Great! Greece remains neutral. A definite win for the Axis.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

And you suggest getting involved in aggressive war in Spain (which would have been a MASSIVE decision for Hitler) would have been an even bigger deal for Mussolini.

A bigger deal than Barbarossa? (Which he was persuaded to join).

[Zovs]

We interrupt this program to...

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
An old game by a defunct company that designed it with cookie cutter counters,(as in all German infantry is the same strength being used)....

You are only 1/2 correct. War in Europe was first designed by SPI in 1976 and then it was revamped and somewhat redesigned in 1999. Decision Games did that revamping. Somewhere between 1980 and 1990 DG released a computer version which was based on one man's interpretation of the old SPI game but he relied 100% on the disputed official KC and LA errata groups. In 2004 or 2006 (I can no longer remember) DG release CWIE2 which was the second version of the board game in this one, I participated in and we included the rules for the original board game from SPI as well as (being mandated by DG) the DG version of the rules, we also included as optional rules the KC/LA rules. Lastly Steve Graham invented the attrition option and I helped him with that design.

So all this is to say that with CWIE2 you can explore the original SPI board game rules, the original DG board game rules, or use either as a starting point and add in some, none, or all of the LA/KC rules and lastly with all three of those options you can add in Steve's attrition option.

What I like about the attrition option that Steve came up with and Karl programmed is this. Whenever you move and or attack you units will be attrition-ed in some way. What that means is you may see on the map a "cookie-cutter" US 8-10 or German 6-5 but their actual combat values may be for the US 6.5 with a movement of 8 and for the German a 3.1 with a movement of 4. Or something to that effect. What this does is add in more uncertainty to what you have and what your opponent sees.

The WIE and CWIE2 systems are in no way as complex as say GG WitE/WitW for both combat and supply but they are still good for both board war games and with the attrition option.

My opinion is that CWIE2 is more of a typical old fashioned board type of war game with some of the newer features added in (attrition) and is more of a challenge and detailed than say Strategic Command or Warplan, but it does not have any AI nor the 'eye candy' that either of those two games have.

That said, I'll take GG WitW/WitE over WIE because GG games have a more realistic supply and combat simulation than any board war game could contrive.

Lastly, I think Bob Cross (aka Curtis Lemay) stated rather erroneously that one rail track could support an entire offensive consisting of Armies and Army Groups. The only truth to that kind of statement is that for a board war game he is right, the game designers used a super simplistic supply system in just about ever war game created from 1953 to 1999. You just can't create a board war game that has any supply rules based on reality because it would be a game in and of itself. The closest was SPI's Campaign for North Africa which was a sales flop and unplayable due to trying to do just that. That is where computer games outshine any board war game, in the data hiding of and implementation of supply rules.

The reason Bob Cross is so erroneously wrong on supply is most likely due to the fact that he has never played nor even understood GG WitE/WitW. That game reigns king above all games in not only it's supply model, but it's combat model and the level of details that are both under the hood and available to manipulate by the gamer.

Now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast...

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

An old game by a defunct company that designed it with cookie cutter counters,(as in all German infantry is the same strength being used)....

But if it produces realistic results...

That's why wargames are some of the best source material for all sorts of things. Playtesting, followed by adjustments creates a feedback loop that gives wargames a validity that non-simulations can't match.

I still remember reading Liddell Hart's "History of the Second World War". You come away thinking the Desert War was the equal of the Eastern Front (since he devoted just as many pages to each).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Right. And the wiki article clearly shows that they were (rightly) seeing the Soviets as a threat. We know that, historically, the Soviets occupied Japanese home islands and Manchuria at the end of the war - confirming that that threat wasn't just Japan's imagination. They can't do what they did historically while one of those three powers threating them is unencumbered. Barbarossa has to be a prerequisite for that. The Soviets are a particularly dangerous threat because they can base air power in range of the home islands they want. No navy needed.

warspite1

Yes the Soviets could be considered a threat - albeit for the reasons stated - less of one than might otherwise have been the case. But where does it state that the Japanese couldn't have taken the route they took? Where does it state that Barbarossa was a pre-requisite?

Japan had major issues to confront. If she didn't why was there even a debate about whether to go for a northern or southern strategy? Why was that even a thing? If the Soviets POINT BLANK, NO ARGUMENT, NO DEBATE, were so scared of the Soviet Union, why was there even a debate going on? That makes no sense.

I repeat, again, we know that having decided in 1940 that they were staying in China, the Japanese had to do something because their position was bad and only heading one way. Doing nothing was not an option for a country in their position. When someone has to do something then poor decisions are more likely to be made.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

In bold is what I was referring to.

warspite1

[&:]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. But I'm saying that three major powers threatening them was more than they could deal with. At least one had to be canceled.

warspite1

Nomonhan showed and WWII showed that either power alone confronting Japan was something they couldn't deal with. But you are treating Japan 1940 like having some rational, sensible, cool-headed Government. If that was so then they would have quit China (apart from the north) in 1940. If so they would not have antagonised the US to the extent they did. But we are taking Japan 1940. What Japan could deal with and what the Japanese leaders and hot heads thought they could deal with were billions of miles apart.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They were at peace with the US and the UK too.

warspite1

Except that is not the point. You are simply ignoring all the issues Japan has.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No Barbarossa is what is different.

warspite1

....and in the context of whether to attack NEI alone or NEI + CW + US, then No Barbarossa is simply irrelevant.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Why do you say that? In your scenario how can you have an Italo-Greek war? You said that 5th and 10th Armies are in and around Tripoli keeping the British in Tripolitania so that they can be conveniently surrounded (but of course ensuring that they don't actually lose Tripoli in the meantime). Apart from occupation troops in France and garrisons watching over Yugoslavia and Greece, you have some 30-odd divisions in Spain and Spanish Morocco. What troops have the Italians got to get involved in Greece?

And anyway, even if there were, I thought in your scenario Mussolini was a simple puppet of Hitler with no independent say over the movement of Italian troops. If Hitler wouldn't let Mussolini attack Egypt (and Mussolini meekly complied), why would he allow them into Greece (and why would Mussolini be any less compliant)?

If there is no Greece then why are the British in Greece to be thrown out of it?

This is why it makes no sense to debate this scenario in anything other than chronological order. And at the moment we are still waiting to understand what the Germans are doing to tie down British forces so that we can make assumptions over how the British may react to the attack on Spain when that kicks off.

Great! Greece remains neutral. A definite win for the Axis.

warspite1

Why does Greece stay neutral? How do you know? We've not got anywhere near Greece yet. We are still waiting to hear what the Luftwaffe are doing so we can get Spain moving.

[RangerJoe]

Curtis Lemay

We know that, historically, the Soviets occupied Japanese home islands

The Soviets did not occupy any of the Japanese Home Islands, MacArthur saw to that.

Curtis Lemay

No Barbarossa is what is different.

So without Barbarossa or any invasion of the Soviet Union, the Japanese have to wait. In the meantime, the Phillipines, Malaya, and the DEI get more men, weapons, equipment, and the men get more training.

Curtis Lemay

Great! Greece remains neutral. A definite win for the Axis.

Which then means with the Bulgarian-Turkish non-aggression pact, there is no invasion of Turkey. Bulgaria wanted to gain territory while its army did no fighting. It would have been difficult for the Germans to attack Turkey then from Bulgaria alone.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

And you suggest getting involved in aggressive war in Spain (which would have been a MASSIVE decision for Hitler) would have been an even bigger deal for Mussolini.

A bigger deal than Barbarossa? (Which he was persuaded to join).

warspite1

Curtis Lemay.... no..... What are you talking about? You've so missed the point of that whole exchange it's incredible.

Did you not read what UP844 said and the point he was making specifically about Italy and why Spain was a big deal? What has any of that got to do, even remotely, with Barbarossa?

Why would attacking the Communist Soviet Union be a big deal for a Fascist country? It's been mentioned before but you still just seem to have no concept of political considerations.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

We interrupt this program to...

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
An old game by a defunct company that designed it with cookie cutter counters,(as in all German infantry is the same strength being used)....

You are only 1/2 correct. War in Europe was first designed by SPI in 1976 and then it was revamped and somewhat redesigned in 1999. Decision Games did that revamping. Somewhere between 1980 and 1990 DG released a computer version which was based on one man's interpretation of the old SPI game but he relied 100% on the disputed official KC and LA errata groups. In 2004 or 2006 (I can no longer remember) DG release CWIE2 which was the second version of the board game in this one, I participated in and we included the rules for the original board game from SPI as well as (being mandated by DG) the DG version of the rules, we also included as optional rules the KC/LA rules. Lastly Steve Graham invented the attrition option and I helped him with that design.

So all this is to say that with CWIE2 you can explore the original SPI board game rules, the original DG board game rules, or use either as a starting point and add in some, none, or all of the LA/KC rules and lastly with all three of those options you can add in Steve's attrition option.

What I like about the attrition option that Steve came up with and Karl programmed is this. Whenever you move and or attack you units will be attrition-ed in some way. What that means is you may see on the map a "cookie-cutter" US 8-10 or German 6-5 but their actual combat values may be for the US 6.5 with a movement of 8 and for the German a 3.1 with a movement of 4. Or something to that effect. What this does is add in more uncertainty to what you have and what your opponent sees.

The WIE and CWIE2 systems are in no way as complex as say GG WitE/WitW for both combat and supply but they are still good for both board war games and with the attrition option.

My opinion is that CWIE2 is more of a typical old fashioned board type of war game with some of the newer features added in (attrition) and is more of a challenge and detailed than say Strategic Command or Warplan, but it does not have any AI nor the 'eye candy' that either of those two games have.

That said, I'll take GG WitW/WitE over WIE because GG games have a more realistic supply and combat simulation than any board war game could contrive.

Lastly, I think Bob Cross (aka Curtis Lemay) stated rather erroneously that one rail track could support an entire offensive consisting of Armies and Army Groups. The only truth to that kind of statement is that for a board war game he is right, the game designers used a super simplistic supply system in just about ever war game created from 1953 to 1999. You just can't create a board war game that has any supply rules based on reality because it would be a game in and of itself. The closest was SPI's Campaign for North Africa which was a sales flop and unplayable due to trying to do just that. That is where computer games outshine any board war game, in the data hiding of and implementation of supply rules.

The reason Bob Cross is so erroneously wrong on supply is most likely due to the fact that he has never played nor even understood GG WitE/WitW. That game reigns king above all games in not only it's supply model, but it's combat model and the level of details that are both under the hood and available to manipulate by the gamer.

Now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast...

I only have experience with the SPI originals, having owned WiTW and WITE.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Zovs

We interrupt this program to...

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
An old game by a defunct company that designed it with cookie cutter counters,(as in all German infantry is the same strength being used)....

You are only 1/2 correct. War in Europe was first designed by SPI in 1976 and then it was revamped and somewhat redesigned in 1999. Decision Games did that revamping. Somewhere between 1980 and 1990 DG released a computer version which was based on one man's interpretation of the old SPI game but he relied 100% on the disputed official KC and LA errata groups. In 2004 or 2006 (I can no longer remember) DG release CWIE2 which was the second version of the board game in this one, I participated in and we included the rules for the original board game from SPI as well as (being mandated by DG) the DG version of the rules, we also included as optional rules the KC/LA rules. Lastly Steve Graham invented the attrition option and I helped him with that design.

So all this is to say that with CWIE2 you can explore the original SPI board game rules, the original DG board game rules, or use either as a starting point and add in some, none, or all of the LA/KC rules and lastly with all three of those options you can add in Steve's attrition option.

What I like about the attrition option that Steve came up with and Karl programmed is this. Whenever you move and or attack you units will be attrition-ed in some way. What that means is you may see on the map a "cookie-cutter" US 8-10 or German 6-5 but their actual combat values may be for the US 6.5 with a movement of 8 and for the German a 3.1 with a movement of 4. Or something to that effect. What this does is add in more uncertainty to what you have and what your opponent sees.

The WIE and CWIE2 systems are in no way as complex as say GG WitE/WitW for both combat and supply but they are still good for both board war games and with the attrition option.

My opinion is that CWIE2 is more of a typical old fashioned board type of war game with some of the newer features added in (attrition) and is more of a challenge and detailed than say Strategic Command or Warplan, but it does not have any AI nor the 'eye candy' that either of those two games have.

That said, I'll take GG WitW/WitE over WIE because GG games have a more realistic supply and combat simulation than any board war game could contrive.

Lastly, I think Bob Cross (aka Curtis Lemay) stated rather erroneously that one rail track could support an entire offensive consisting of Armies and Army Groups. The only truth to that kind of statement is that for a board war game he is right, the game designers used a super simplistic supply system in just about ever war game created from 1953 to 1999. You just can't create a board war game that has any supply rules based on reality because it would be a game in and of itself. The closest was SPI's Campaign for North Africa which was a sales flop and unplayable due to trying to do just that. That is where computer games outshine any board war game, in the data hiding of and implementation of supply rules.

The reason Bob Cross is so erroneously wrong on supply is most likely due to the fact that he has never played nor even understood GG WitE/WitW. That game reigns king above all games in not only it's supply model, but it's combat model and the level of details that are both under the hood and available to manipulate by the gamer.

Now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast...

I only have experience with the SPI originals, having owned WiTW and WITE.

Decision Games has proposed to update the WIE boardgame, if enough people pledge. https://shop.decisiongames.com/ProductD ... Code=P3035
I agree with Zovs about supply.

It's interesting that SPI and GG followed the same development road map. War in the East --> War in the West --> WitE 2.0 --> War in Europe.