Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 09:13:24 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Re: GRD www site

Something strange is afoot.

>	I get a not found error at that URL, I can get to 
>www.icomplete.com tho'. Please repost.

This now seems to be correct.  The web site was active a couple of days ago, 
but now when I try to get there it doesn't seem to exist.  I'll write a 
letter to GRD via their AOL address to see what's going on.  Sorry, it I 
accidently raised any hopes which now may be dashed.

>	Agree completely on the need to get Europa off GEnie and onto 
>the net/web.
>
>	Larry

Peter Rogers
Center for African Studies
427 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
32611
USA
phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science)
fax: (904) 392-2435
e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu


Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 08:25:02 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: GRD www site


>	I get a not found error at that URL, I can get to 
>www.icomplete.com tho'. Please repost.
>

I get the same problem, even when using the full spec as recommended by the
message that followed Larry's.

                                                        - Bobby.


Date: Fri, 1 Dec 95 10:11:42 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: Re: GRD www site

Everybody,

I get the same error, but it worked fine yesterday. The server is probably 
just down for something today. Try again this afternoon or sometime. My 
guess is it's just another case of life on the superhighway.

Somebody post when it get's back up.

Frank

From: Mats Persson <map@ida.liu.se>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 16:16:22 +0100
Subject: Re: FitE/SE questions.

> > 1- Can a unit mix Administrative movement with operational (normal) 
> > movement within a movement phase?  
>No.

But the unit can mix Admin movement with operational rail movement.

> > 4- Why can't russian rail engineers change from standard to broad gauge?
>Can't they?

To quote rules "a railroad engineer may regauge a rail line, changing the gauge 
from broad to standard (or vice versa)."


Old messages to this mailing list has been archived on ftp.lysator.liu.se
in directory pub/europa. Unfortunately I lost messages from 1994 to summer
1995. If somebody have them I can put them on the archive.

Mats Persson

From: John Sloan <johns@unipalm.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: GRD www site
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 95 15:02:05 GMT

Frank E. Watson wrote on Fri, 01 Dec 95 15:11:42 GMT  

> Everybody,
> 
> I get the same error, but it worked fine yesterday. The server is probably 
> just down for something today. Try again this afternoon or sometime. My 
> guess is it's just another case of life on the superhighway.
> 
> Somebody post when it get's back up.
> 
> Frank

I don't think the server is down per se.  You can get through to 
http://www.icomplete.com/ no problem.  My guess is that the grdgames directory 
has been disabled while they build it.

John


From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: GRD www site
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:10:22 -0600 (CST)

> 
> Everybody,
> 
> I get the same error, but it worked fine yesterday. The server is probably 
> just down for something today. Try again this afternoon or sometime. My 
> guess is it's just another case of life on the superhighway.
> 
> Somebody post when it get's back up.
> 
> Frank

It is up, but the address has changed.  It was moved to
<URL:http://www.grdgames.com/>

-Charlie
-- 
Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com

Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...

Date: Fri, 1 Dec 95 15:25:45 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: SF Naval Gunfire

Question:

SF Allied TFs can provide gunfire support six times per year. Does this 
mean they can PREPARE to fire six times or does it mean that they can 
prepare without bound but can only pull the trigger six times?

Thanks,
Frank

From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: SF Naval Gunfire
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 15:04:19 -0600 (CST)

> 
> Question:
> 
> SF Allied TFs can provide gunfire support six times per year. Does this 
> mean they can PREPARE to fire six times or does it mean that they can 
> prepare without bound but can only pull the trigger six times?
> 
> Thanks,
> Frank
> 
We have always played that it means you can only pull the trigger 6 times.
If you could only setup 6 times it would make task forces a LOT less
useful.

-Charlie
-- 
Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com

Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...

From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: SF Naval Gunfire
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 15:39:13 -0600 (CST)

Frank E. Watson Said:
> 
> Question:
> 
> SF Allied TFs can provide gunfire support six times per year. Does this 
> mean they can PREPARE to fire six times or does it mean that they can 
> prepare without bound but can only pull the trigger six times?
> 

We've been playing with "pull the trigger" six times per year.  Makes sense.
If you don't fire, you're not wasting the ammo, barrel wear, and maintenance.
Setting up would be arranging fire support with the grunts, liason, getting
maps, etc.

While were on the subject, what are opinions about naval ships blowing
up ports, and airfields (ala plane bombings)?  There are historical
examples of this occuring...  Guadalcanal - plastering the air strip.
Mers-el-Kebir, ports and ships getting it.  

These types of missions would be different from gunfire support.  They
usually lasted a day or a night, and had a specific physical target.  Rather
than the week(s) of support for grunts.

-- 
Jeff White
ARS N0POY


Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 11:03:24 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Finn AWW Mk II

Here's the second incarnation of the Finnish deployment I posted the other 
day.  As I mentioned then, while posting the first setup I suddently 
realized that the Finnish Coastal Defense Command units can start in 4717 
(it's a coastal hex on the Gulf of Finland).  What follows is my revised 
setup based on this tardy observation.  There is also another signigicant 
difference which I'll discuss below.

Kannaksen Army (includes the Coastal Defense Command (CDC))

4716 - 1-2-8 ski, 1-8 ski, 1-6 ski (reserve, A) = 2 total defense strength

4717 - 4-5-6, 2-6 art, 0-1-0 art, 1-6 (CDC), 0-1-8 (CDC), 3 x 0- 1-6 (CDC) = 
13 total defense strength

4616 - 4-5-6, 0-1-6, 1-2-6 (reserve)

4615 - 4-5-6, 2 x 2-6*, 1-6* = 10 total defense strength

4614 - 4-5-6, 0-1-6 = 6 total defense strength

4613 - 4-5-6, 2-6*, 0-1-6, 1-6 art = 9 total defense strength

4514 - 1-8 ski, 0-6 arm

4516 - 0-1-5 cons

After rereading Peter Robbins's article in TEM # 38/39, I decided to think 
again about deploying some Finns forward of the M. Line.  I tried a more 
ambitious forward defense/delaying action in my first solitare game and the 
Finns got badly burned.  However, I now think that deploying the three ski 
units noted above in 4717 is a good idea.  It limits attacks on 4716 and 
4615 to one stack of Soviets only.  This makes it possible for the Finns to 
prevent any 3-1 attacks on the M. Line on turn 1.  Note that you need at 
least 2 defense strength in 4717 to avoid a 12:1 overrun by a 20 strength 
Soviet stack, but the Soviets don't have enough MPs for a 10:1 overrun.

December II is going to be a bit stickier.  With the reserve 4-5-6 shifted 
over to 4th Corps and all the CDC ants taking up space in 4716, it is 
impossible to prevent a 3:1 vs. that hex.  Using all the December I 
reinforcements and replacements, the Finns can make the other 4 hexes of the 
M. Line 3:1 proof.  Thus the stage is set for a very exciting die roll 
during the December II Soviet combat phase.

4th Army Corps

4210 - 4-5-6 (reserve)

3910- 3-4-6*

3711 - 3-4-6*

3512 - 1-2-6 ski

3412 - 1-6* ski

3513 - 0-1-5 cons

"Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy" says General Stimpy of the Finnish 4th Corps.  The 
4-5-6 reseve XX has arrived.  By massing their units the Soviets can get a 
1st turn 4-1 (-1) vs. one of the Finnish divisions, but all three have 
secure retreat paths.  The 0-1-5 cons should probably rail over to the M. 
Line area to assist in the construction of reserve forts.

Northern Finland Defense Area (all ski)

2912 - 1-2-6 

2715 - 1-6 (reserve)

2612 - 1-6*

2011 - 1-6*

1310 - 1-6

The only difference here is that with the arrival of the reserve 4-5-6 in 
4th Corps, one of the reserve 1-6 ski units now assumes the exalted title of 
the Northern Finland Strategic Reserve.

The RR eng and the air setups remain the same as in my first setup.

One hint to make life easier for the Soviet player.  Before you start xerox 
the area around Leningrad and then enlarge the copy.  This way you have 
somewhere to keep all your air units without cluttering up the map.

Peter Rogers


Center for African Studies
427 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
32611
USA
phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science)
fax: (904) 392-2435
e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu


Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 9:28:41 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: Mountain Hexsides

Rules Question:

If you attack into mountains your strength is halved.
If you attack across a mountain hexside your strength is halved.

If you attack from one mountain hex into another mountain hex, is the 
hexside a mountain hexside making you halved twice?

I have my own opinion on this but want to hear what other people think.

Frank

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 9:31:09 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: Disembarking

Rules Question:

Per the SF standard rules, you pay 1 MP to disembark.
Do you also pay the cost of the terrain for the hex you are entering?

I think the rules imply that you do, but I bet that is not the way most 
people play.

Frank

From: John Sloan <johns@unipalm.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Mountain Hexsides
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 95 14:34:16 GMT

Frank E. Watson wrote on Tue, 05 Dec 95 14:28:41 GMT  

> Rules Question:
> 
> If you attack into mountains your strength is halved.
> If you attack across a mountain hexside your strength is halved.
> 
> If you attack from one mountain hex into another mountain hex, is the 
> hexside a mountain hexside making you halved twice?
> 
> I have my own opinion on this but want to hear what other people think.
> 
> Frank

We played that it wasn't.  This, to me, makes the most sense.

John


From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: Mountain Hexsides
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 10:09:40 -0600 (CST)

Frank E. Watson Said:
> 
> Rules Question:
> 
> If you attack into mountains your strength is halved.
> If you attack across a mountain hexside your strength is halved.
> 
> If you attack from one mountain hex into another mountain hex, is the 
> hexside a mountain hexside making you halved twice?
> 
> I have my own opinion on this but want to hear what other people think.
> 
> Frank
> 

Our group has debated this in some fashion.  First off, attacking from
one mountain hex to another would be just halved (non-mountain) and -2.

Here's a better problem.  Right now I sit in a wooded rough hex, with
a mountain hexside between me and the Germans.  (I'm the Americans and
I've surrounded a Panzer Corps in La Speza in Italy.  They're in a port fort 
having been surrounded for the last couple of months.)  Anyway, if the
Germans attack across that mountain hexside into the wooded rough, are they
halved and -2 for mountain, or halved and -2 for mountain and -2 for wooded
rough?

I'd go with the worst terrain, halved and -2.


-- 
Jeff White
ARS N0POY


Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 11:26:51 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: re:Re: Mountain Hexsides

Jeff asks:
> ... I sit in a wooded rough hex, with a mountain hexside between me and 
> the Germans.  (I'm the Americans and I've surrounded a Panzer Corps in > 
La Speza in Italy.  They're in a port fort having been surrounded for > 
the last couple of months.)  Anyway, if the Germans attack across that > 
mountain hexside into the wooded rough, are they halved and -2 for > 
mountain, or halved and -2 for mountain and -2 for wooded rough?

I say they are halved for the mountain hexside and -2 for the wooded 
rough. If I remember correctly, the terrain effects chart doesn't specify 
-2 for a mountain HEXSIDE, only attacker halved. This MUST be true because 
some units could attack the hex from another place that wasn't across the 
mountain hexside - I don't think there are any precedence rules for that.

As for my original question, I think that you are not halved both for 
mountain hexside and mountain terrain, the reason being that the terrain 
effects chart shows a mountain hexside as a hexside without a mountain hex 
on each side.

Sorry if this has been debated here in the past. I missed it.

Frank

Date: Tue, 05 Dec 1995 14:24:20 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject:  Disembarking -Reply

Frank,

I've always played that:

1) If disembarking into a coastal hex, you also pay the regular
terrain entry cost of the hex [indicating a disembarkation unassisted
by any port facilities];

2) If disembarking into a port without a rail line connection, you
pay the clear terrain entry cost [indicating a disembarkation
assisted by bare-bones facilities (at least breakwater protection for
the port)];

3) If disembarking into a port with a rail connection, you pay the
road-rate entry cost [indicating a full-service disembarkation].

Notes
a) All ports with hits on the port, or on a rail line in a port hex,
are treated as ports without rail lines.
b) All demolished ports are treated as the first case, no port at
all, until repaired.

It may not be RAW, but it makes sense to me.

Ray


From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: Disembarking
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 16:00:26 -0600 (CST)

Frank E. Watson Said:
> 
> Rules Question:
> 
> Per the SF standard rules, you pay 1 MP to disembark.
> Do you also pay the cost of the terrain for the hex you are entering?
> 
> I think the rules imply that you do, but I bet that is not the way most 
> people play.
> 

We've been playing with the rule that it costs nothing to board, but 1 MP
(2 MP for c/m) for each naval step spent at sea in that phase.  So, if
you unloaded in step two of the movement phase, it would cost you 2 MPs
if you were a infantry unit, for instance.


I'm not so sure you should charge for the hex, since the ships "paid"
for putting you in that hex.

-- 
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."


Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:01:30 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: Mountain Hexsides

 > Here's a better problem.  Right now I sit in a wooded rough hex, with
 > a mountain hexside between me and the Germans.  (I'm the Americans and
 > I've surrounded a Panzer Corps in La Speza in Italy.  They're in a port fort 
 > having been surrounded for the last couple of months.)  Anyway, if the
 > Germans attack across that mountain hexside into the wooded rough, are they
 > halved and -2 for mountain, or halved and -2 for mountain and -2 for wooded
 > rough?
 > 
 > I'd go with the worst terrain, halved and -2.

If I'm not totally mistaken, terrain effects are cumulative which
makes it attacker halved and -4 in total. I believe the entry on the
TEC says 'As mountain' for mountain hexsides, which would remove any
doubt that the -2 should be used.

/Johan


Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 11:29:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Edward K Nam <ednam@umich.edu>
Subject: more FitE questions


	I am playing Scorched Earth and have afew more questions from the
rules:

RULE 20
A-	Interception:	According to the Sequence of play on the chart, only
the non-phasing player may intercept.  This means that the phasing player
may NOT intercept bombers on Defensive Air Support (DAS) or do naval patrol.
Also it may be possible for the phasing player to send fighters 
to a hex to escort ground support and NOT fight enemy planes in the same
hex providing DAS.  this is probably to prevent DAS bombers from getting
attacked twice in one turn, but it is still strange that planes can occupy
the same hex and ignore each other.  Am I interpreting these rules correctly?
	Also, if a defending fighter is the target of a tactical bombing
which is heavily escorted, that fighter may not scramble (since they 
are the subject of attack and not their airbase) BUT it may
evade attack if there is another enemy plane within interception range 
performing some other mission.  If there is no such mission it either can
stay over the airbase and fight or stay on the ground and hope it won't get
destroyed.  Am I also understanding this correctly?

RULE 31H Can Turkey and Iran share the same garrisons?  ie,. can the same 
unit garrison both countries?

Thanks,
Ed





Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:37:39 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: more FitE questions

 > 	I am playing Scorched Earth and have afew more questions from the
 > rules:
 > 
 > RULE 20
 > A-	Interception:	According to the Sequence of play on the chart, only
 > the non-phasing player may intercept.  This means that the phasing player
 > may NOT intercept bombers on Defensive Air Support (DAS) or do naval patrol.

As the DAS/Naval Patrol mission was flown in the previous player turn
the now phasing player had the opportunity to intercept it then.

 > Also it may be possible for the phasing player to send fighters 
 > to a hex to escort ground support and NOT fight enemy planes in the same
 > hex providing DAS.

Yes, this happened a lot with the old air rules.

 >  this is probably to prevent DAS bombers from getting
 > attacked twice in one turn, but it is still strange that planes can occupy
 > the same hex and ignore each other.  Am I interpreting these rules correctly?

No, not entirely 8-).

 > 	Also, if a defending fighter is the target of a tactical bombing
 > which is heavily escorted, that fighter may not scramble (since they 
 > are the subject of attack and not their airbase) BUT it may
 > evade attack if there is another enemy plane within interception range 
 > performing some other mission.

My memory is not too clear on the point of scrambling, but as missions
are flown sequentially there should exist possibilities for the
phasing player to trick the intercepting player into committing his
interceptors or vice versa with soak off missions etc.

 >  If there is no such mission it either can
 > stay over the airbase and fight or stay on the ground and hope it won't get
 > destroyed.  Am I also understanding this correctly?

Now I begin to remember the scrambling rule, is it not so that you may
not scramble _to_ an airbase that is under attack? In that case, to
force the defending fighter to either fight or be bombed on the
ground, you will have to send an airbase bombing mission to every
airbase within scramble range of that fighter.

 > RULE 31H Can Turkey and Iran share the same garrisons?  ie,. can the same 
 > unit garrison both countries?

I'm not sure, but I don't think a unit can count for more than one
garrison.

/Johan

Johan Herber                                    | Email: eraherr@lmera.ericsson.se
Rydsvagen 104A                                  | Phone: +46 13173013
S-582 48 LINKOPING                              | -Work: +46 13284160
SWEDEN                                          |

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:19:44 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Causeway Destruction

While playing AWW, I started to wonder about the possibilities of blowing up 
causeways.  AWW doesn't have any rules for destruction of bridges over 
rivers, which would be pretty pointless anyhow because there are only two 
bridges crossing an unfrozen river.  However, if the Finns could blow up 
causeways this would be a big help.  They could prevent any Soviet attacks 
on or movement into 4914.  In addition the blowing of causeways would slow 
the Soviets if and when they reach the lake region in the southeast portion 
of Finland.

I checked out the bridge destruction rules in BF and SF, and in both cases, 
the rules refer specifically to bridges over rivers.  Furthermore, SF 
distinguishes causeways from bridges, and this would seem to pretty 
conclusively rule out using the optional brdige rules in connection with 
causeways over either lake or sea hexsides.

This all leads up to some questions I would like to pose:

1. Does anyone out there allow for the destruction or capture of causeways, 
and, if so, how do you handle these situations?

2. Specifically, if anyone has played AWW with such rules, what has been the 
effect?

3. Historically, did the Finns make any attempts to destroy any of the 
causeways represented in AWW, especially the critical one in front of the 
Mannerheim Line which crosses L. Suvanto?  I've checked Allen Chew's book, 
_The White Death_, and he makes no mention of any such demolitions.  
Interestingly, at one point, Chew refers to a Soviet attack across "frozen 
Lake Suvanto," something which is impossible in the game.

4. Lastly, and this is for Gary Stagliano or anyone else involved in the 
design and development of AWW, did you consider causeway destruction or 
capture rules while creating the game?

Peter Rogers
Center for African Studies
427 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
32611
USA
phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science)
fax: (904) 392-2435
e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu


Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 16:37:39 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: re:Re: SF Naval Gunfire

> SF Allied TFs can provide gunfire support six times per year. Does this 
> mean they can PREPARE to fire six times or does it mean that they can 
> prepare without bound but can only pull the trigger six times?

I just got a message from John Astell - all the list answers were right, 
you can prepare to fire without bound, but only pull the trigger six times.

Frank

Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 00:46:56 -0800
From: steveh@UVic.CA (Steve Huhtala)
Subject: M-M or BF?

Hi,

I do not have Balkan Front, however, I have the chance to get
Markita-Merkur. What are the differences between the two? (Besides GDW and
GR/D) Does M-M mesh at all with FitE/SE. Should I just pass, and buy Balkan
Front instead? Confused.

Thanks,

SteveH
steveh@uvaix.uvic.ca 


Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 06:27:57 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: RR units and rail gauge

I've been looking ahead to what we might be playing when we finish AWW.  
I've been thinking about the Operation Felix scenario from FWTBT.  I came 
across something that has me a bit confused.  Can the German RR art units 
move on unconverted Spanish rail lines?  A strict reading of the rules would 
seem to indicate they can by making a strategic rail move and then spending 
20 of their rail move points to jump from one gauge to the next.  In 
addition, the Germans receive a number of RR art units with their first 
group of reinforcements.  They generally weren't that stupid, so it would 
seem that German plans for the attack on Gibraltor called for the use of RR 
art.  On the other hand, what little I do know about RR art makes me wonder 
exactly how they planned on converting these units to operate on Spanish 
rail lines. It's obviously not as simple as for other units who just get off 
one train and then climb on another.

Peter Rogers
Center for African Studies
427 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
32611
USA
phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science)
fax: (904) 392-2435
e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu


Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 14:25:56 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: M-M or BF?

 > I do not have Balkan Front, however, I have the chance to get
 > Markita-Merkur. What are the differences between the two? (Besides GDW and
 > GR/D) Does M-M mesh at all with FitE/SE. Should I just pass, and buy Balkan
 > Front instead? Confused.

Go for Balkan Front, it is much improved over Marita Merkur. You can
get MM just to see how much the rules/maps have improved since GRD
took over.

/Johan

Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 23:48:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Larry Woloshyn <woloshyn@io.org>
Subject: Re: RR units and rail gauge

On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Peter Rogers wrote:

> I've been looking ahead to what we might be playing when we finish AWW.  
> I've been thinking about the Operation Felix scenario from FWTBT.  I came 
> across something that has me a bit confused.  Can the German RR art units 
> move on unconverted Spanish rail lines?  A strict reading of the rules would 
> seem to indicate they can by making a strategic rail move and then spending 
> 20 of their rail move points to jump from one gauge to the next.  In 

	No dice!  I think the Spain & Portugal rules are more explict on 
this.  You can use the RR arty to overwhelm the border defenses.  I 
don't think you have a chance at taking Gib. without the big guns so the 
game becomes a race to regauge the Spanish net.  Count hexes along the 
various routes before you set up and after every turn!

	Larry


Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 07:25:12 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Re: RR units and rail gauge and More!

>>Can the German RR art units move on unconverted Spanish rail lines?  
>
>	No dice!  I think the Spain & Portugal rules are more explict on 
>this.  You can use the RR arty to overwhelm the border defenses.  I 
>don't think you have a chance at taking Gib. without the big guns so the 
>game becomes a race to regauge the Spanish net.  Count hexes along the 
>various routes before you set up and after every turn!

This would seem to rule out the use of the RR art. units in an attack on 
Gibraltar in the Operation Felix scenario.  The one and only German RR eng. 
unit arrives in Bordeaux on the Sep I turn, and this gives the Germans a 
total of 12.5 turns worth of reguaging (the RR eng has to spend a last one 
MP to move to border via rail).  It cost 2 MP to reguage a hex and at least 
1 MP to move from hex to hex.  This means that under ideal condition one RR 
eng can reguage 2 rail hexes per turn for a total of 25 hexes (this rate 
slows to 1.5 per turn on mud, winter, and snow turns).  According to my 
count, the shortest rail distance between Gibraltar and the Franco-Spanish 
border is 49 hexes.  The German player will be lucky if his RR art units are 
even half way to Gibraltor before the scenario ends.

This then leads me to some questions/comments on assualting Gibraltor.  
Johan Herber's recent contribution to the discussion on mountain hexsides 
fits in with my understanding of the rules, terrain effects on combat are 
cumulative. Though it should be noted that this is not explicitly stated 
anywhere I can find; rule 38A2 on the mtn unit status of the German G zvb XX 
when attacking Gibraltor would seem to be implicit confirmation of the 
cumulative effect of terrain.  This means that most units attacking 
Gibraltar will be quartered and subject to a -3 die modifier, as well as 
being subject to the mountain stacking rules.  

The best German attack force I can come up with is as follows:

     8-8 inf XX G zbv = 4
     15-5 art XX = 7.5
     2-8 eng III = 1
     5-3-10 pz III = 1.25
     12-6-4 siege art X = 12

     total = 25.75 attack strength with eng modifier 

The Germans can also throw in 5 air units with GS quartered for attacking a 
mountain improved fortress adding an additional 4.75 points.  Thus we have a 
grand total of 30.5 points able to attack Gibraltar.  By this point, the 
Germans are most definitely missing the extra 8 strength that their 4 LR 
siege art units could have provided.

Of course, the Brits will be having their own problems, mainly in the area 
of supply.  In theory, Gibraltar can defend with a total of 26 factors.  
However, Gibraltar lies in the danger zone cast by the Spanish naval base at 
Ceuta across the straits which makes the tracing of a naval supply line into 
Gibraltar impossible.  If the Germans can keep Gibraltar out of supply and 
isolated for long enough, perhaps they can get its defense strength down to 
10 which would allow for a 3:1, -2 attack (the -1=AE result on the 2:1 
column would scare me away from anything less).

Thus in the end, the Felix scenario would seem to revolve around the supply 
of Gibraltar.  In true Europa fashion, this leads me to one last question. 
What is the status of Tangier in the WWII scenarios?  Could the British 
invade as a prelude to attacking Ceuta and opening up a naval supply line to 
Gibraltar?

Peter Rogers
Center for African Studies
427 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
32611
USA
phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science)
fax: (904) 392-2435
e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu


From: Mats Persson <matpe@lysator.liu.se>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:17:44 +0100
Subject:  Re: M-M or BF?


Forwared to europa@lysator.liu.se:

> > I do not have Balkan Front, however, I have the chance to get
> > Markita-Merkur. What are the differences between the two? (Besides GDW and
> > GR/D) Does M-M mesh at all with FitE/SE. Should I just pass, and buy Balkan
> > Front instead? Confused.
>
>Go for Balkan Front, it is much improved over Marita Merkur. You can
>get MM just to see how much the rules/maps have improved since GRD
>took over.
 
There is no reason to get Marita Merkur.  Balkan Front has better maps,
better research, more scenarios and a cooler box. :)
 
 
 
Mark Pitcavage
Department of History
The Ohio State University    mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
 

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Witham, Tom G." <TGWITH@Inland.com>
Subject: A ? on Flak


I'm playing Lenningrad 41.  My illustrious panzer formations were attacking 
an important Russian defensive position last night.  To assist his defense 
my opponent called in DAS ( we are blending in some of the SF and FWTBT game 
rules).  In Fire in the East he would have had to guess which hexes I would 
be attacking before hand and then send his air units flying this mission and 
then hope he guessed correct.  In SF and beyond, players simply call DAS to 
the defending hex at the moment they need it.

Knowing that the Heroic Red Air Force was about to interfere with my desire 
for the hex I sent  some  Luftwaffe flak units with the 2 and 4 factor AA 
values to my attacking hexes to pump flak.  Questions arose.

Do those Flak units have to be literally attacking the defending hex in 
order to provide flak against the Red air force?  Or do they need only by in 
the hex(es) with attackers in order to shoot?  If they must attack, their 
lack of AECA will "muddy" the ratio and drop the attack from the optimal +3 
to +2.

Your opinions will be appreciated

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Witham, Tom G." <TGWITH@Inland.com>
Subject: A ? on Flak


I'm playing Lenningrad 41.  My illustrious panzer formations were attacking 
an important Russian defensive position last night.  To assist his defense 
my opponent called in DAS ( we are blending in some of the SF and FWTBT game 
rules).  In Fire in the East he would have had to guess which hexes I would 
be attacking before hand and then send his air units flying this mission and 
then hope he guessed correct.  In SF and beyond, players simply call DAS to 
the defending hex at the moment they need it.

Knowing that the Heroic Red Air Force was about to interfere with my desire 
for the hex I sent  some  Luftwaffe flak units with the 2 and 4 factor AA 
values to my attacking hexes to pump flak.  Questions arose.

Do those Flak units have to be literally attacking the defending hex in 
order to provide flak against the Red air force?  Or do they need only by in 
the hex(es) with attackers in order to shoot?  If they must attack, their 
lack of AECA will "muddy" the ratio and drop the attack from the optimal +3 
to +2.

Your opinions will be appreciated

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 21:35:51 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: A ? on Flak

 > From: "Witham, Tom G." <TGWITH@Inland.com>
 > 
 > Do those Flak units have to be literally attacking the defending hex in 
 > order to provide flak against the Red air force?  Or do they need only by in 
 > the hex(es) with attackers in order to shoot?  If they must attack, their 
 > lack of AECA will "muddy" the ratio and drop the attack from the optimal +3 
 > to +2.

Yes, you have to attack with them to receive any AA benefit. The
Germans are very lucky in having motorized AA (that is AEC
neutral). If you remove some of your other AEC neutral units from the
attack, I'm sure you can get +3 at a few points loss in attack
strength.

/Johan


From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: A ? on Flak
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:37:19 -0600 (CST)

> 
> 
> I'm playing Lenningrad 41.  My illustrious panzer formations were attacking 
> an important Russian defensive position last night.  To assist his defense 
> my opponent called in DAS ( we are blending in some of the SF and FWTBT game 
> rules).  In Fire in the East he would have had to guess which hexes I would 
> be attacking before hand and then send his air units flying this mission and 
> then hope he guessed correct.  In SF and beyond, players simply call DAS to 
> the defending hex at the moment they need it.
Not in the version of Second Front that I read.  During the combat phase
DAS is flown then GS then you declare where your attacking.  I usually fly
CAP over the hex I'm attacking if I think it's going to get DAS.
 
> Knowing that the Heroic Red Air Force was about to interfere with my desire 
> for the hex I sent  some  Luftwaffe flak units with the 2 and 4 factor AA 
> values to my attacking hexes to pump flak.  Questions arose.
> 
> Do those Flak units have to be literally attacking the defending hex in 
> order to provide flak against the Red air force?  Or do they need only by in 
> the hex(es) with attackers in order to shoot?  If they must attack, their 
> lack of AECA will "muddy" the ratio and drop the attack from the optimal +3 
> to +2.
> 
> Your opinions will be appreciated
> 
They have to be attacking I believe.  If the flak is motorized they are
neutral and therefore do not dilute your armor.

-Charlie
-- 
Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com

Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...

From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: A ? on Flak
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 17:27:00 -0600 (CST)

Charles Anderson Said:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > I'm playing Lenningrad 41.  My illustrious panzer formations were attacking 
> > an important Russian defensive position last night.  To assist his defense 
> > my opponent called in DAS ( we are blending in some of the SF and FWTBT game 
> > rules).  In Fire in the East he would have had to guess which hexes I would 
> > be attacking before hand and then send his air units flying this mission and 
> > then hope he guessed correct.  In SF and beyond, players simply call DAS to 
> > the defending hex at the moment they need it.
> Not in the version of Second Front that I read.  During the combat phase
> DAS is flown then GS then you declare where your attacking.  I usually fly
> CAP over the hex I'm attacking if I think it's going to get DAS.

Or even better, bounce any aircraft that could interfear with the 
operation before things get rolling.  (ie hit them on the ground
or otherwise inop them.)  When were gearing up to attack in
Second Front, we usually look over what the remnaints of the Luftwaffe
can do.  I recall in one attack we flew about a dozen Spit 7
fighters over the intended target hex.  This tends to deter 
the Luftwaffe.

This can get tricky....  The phasing player gets to fly CAP first
in the inital phase, then the non-phasing player.  Suppose I
am the phasing player and I intend to smack a hex. My opponent thinks
this will happen too.  So I decline to fly CAP in the inital phase.
He then puts CAP over the intended victim.  If I can't intercept or
patrol the CAP, it's "stuck" there.  That means I have to fly
escort on any GS I fly.  It also means I might have a harder time 
bouncing his DAS.

Flying CAP on the initial phase can be good if you're the
weaker air force.  You can't be hit on the ground at that point
and you might do some good.  You're also harder to contain with
CAP.  For example, the Luftwaffe in our game is down to about
12 planes.  They are as good as useless, since the moment they
fly, they get shot down (or least have a near-death experience).

>  
> > Knowing that the Heroic Red Air Force was about to interfere with my desire 
> > for the hex I sent  some  Luftwaffe flak units with the 2 and 4 factor AA 
> > values to my attacking hexes to pump flak.  Questions arose.
> > 
> > Do those Flak units have to be literally attacking the defending hex in 
> > order to provide flak against the Red air force?  Or do they need only by in 
> > the hex(es) with attackers in order to shoot?  If they must attack, their 
> > lack of AECA will "muddy" the ratio and drop the attack from the optimal +3 
> > to +2.
> > 
> > Your opinions will be appreciated
> > 
> They have to be attacking I believe.  If the flak is motorized they are
> neutral and therefore do not dilute your armor.
> 

Also keep in mind, if you're attacking from more than one hex, you
get divided by the number of attacking hexes.  For example if
you have 5 pts AA in one hex, 3 pts in another and 4 pts in another
you're shooting with a strength of 4 (5+3+4 / 3 = 4).

Shooting the AA also commits you to the attack.  You can change
your mind once they fly DAS, but not after you shoot your AA.

-- 
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."


Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 15:49:18 -0800
From: steveh@UVic.CA (Steve Huhtala)
Subject: Supermarina

Hello,

Thanks for all your replies about Markita-Merkur. I will wait to get Balkan
Front instead. 

On a different note:

What exactly is Supermarina? From a few articles in the Europa magazine, I
gather it was a naval add-on for Europa (and Grand Europa?) Was it an actual
boxed set like 'Urals' was, or was it created by Europa Magazine? My uncle
who played it said it wasn't that good, but the air system may have been
better. Does anyone know much about Supermarina? Is it going to be reprinted
or redesigned?


Thanks,

SteveH


Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 08:18:30 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: Supermarina

Supermarina is a naval rules set for Europa that was published in the
Europa Magazine. I think it is a bit more detailed than the rules in
the Europa naval module will be. I seem to remember that there were
large gaps both in the rules and in the OBs (for the Mediterranean)...

/Johan


Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 02:35:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Larry Woloshyn <woloshyn@io.org>
Subject: Re: RR units and rail gauge and More!

On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Peter Rogers wrote:

> >>Can the German RR art units move on unconverted Spanish rail lines?  
> >
> >	No dice!  I think the Spain & Portugal rules are more explict on 
> >this.

	From Spain and Portugal

	Rule 7.  "...German units may not use Iberian gauge rail lines for 
rail movement or for supply lines..."

	This game does not have RR engineers, 10 hexes in German control 
can be regauged.



> This would seem to rule out the use of the RR art. units in an attack on 
> Gibraltar in the Operation Felix scenario.  The one and only German RR eng. 
> unit arrives in Bordeaux on the Sep I turn,

	Hey, I always wait 'til '41.  You get the extra RR eng unit plus 
all that air power, mountain, engineer and air landing units(let them 
die if they're overstacked).


> total of 12.5 turns worth of reguaging (the RR eng has to spend a last one 
> MP to move to border via rail).  It cost 2 MP to reguage a hex and at least 
> 1 MP to move from hex to hex.  This means that under ideal condition one RR 
> eng can reguage 2 rail hexes per turn for a total of 25 hexes (this rate 
> slows to 1.5 per turn on mud, winter, and snow turns).  According to my 
> count, the shortest rail distance between Gibraltar and the Franco-Spanish 
> border is 49 hexes.  The German player will be lucky if his RR art units are 
> even half way to Gibraltor before the scenario ends.

	I also use the quick construction rules, add a cons eng unit to 
the stack and you can easily get to Gib., maybe even by two routes!



> The best German attack force I can come up with is as follows:
> 
>      8-8 inf XX G zbv = 4
>      15-5 art XX = 7.5
>      2-8 eng III = 1
>      5-3-10 pz III = 1.25
>      12-6-4 siege art X = 12
> 
>      total = 25.75 attack strength with eng modifier 
> 

	See my remarks about timing above, I'd try and get half combat 
engineers and the rest mountain vs Gib. die roll mods are deadly. Heck 
I'd hope to get 2-3 attacks against the rock.

	Larry




Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 02:43:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Larry Woloshyn <woloshyn@io.org>
Subject: Re: Supermarina

On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Johan Herber wrote:

> Supermarina is a naval rules set for Europa that was published in the
> Europa Magazine. I think it is a bit more detailed than the rules in
> the Europa naval module will be. I seem to remember that there were
> large gaps both in the rules and in the OBs (for the Mediterranean)...
> 
> /Johan
> 
> 
	It includes maps(all the med.), counters, etc. For the Italian
navy and the brit med fleet.  Includes naval supply rules.  I never
actually played it but it looks as good as any thing given the large time
scale problem (I think it has 28 naval movement phases per turn divided
amongst the various ground phases). 

	Larry


Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 07:40:05 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Re: RR units and rail gauge and More!

Thanks Larry, I do have a few comments and questions on your response to my 
post.

>	From Spain and Portugal
>
>	Rule 7.  "...German units may not use Iberian gauge rail lines for 
>rail movement or for supply lines..."
>
>	This game does not have RR engineers, 10 hexes in German control 
>can be regauged.

For whatever reason, the designers decided to tone down this reguaging 
ability in FWTBT.

>	Hey, I always wait 'til '41.  You get the extra RR eng unit plus 
>all that air power, mountain, engineer and air landing units(let them 
>die if they're overstacked).

This is true for the Invasion of Spain scenario, but the Operation Felix 
scenario ends on the Mar I 1941 turn before the large wave of German 
reinforcements you are refering to arrives.

Also, you seem to be saying that you can overstack during the combat phase 
and use the overstacked units to make an attack as long as the stacking 
limits are followed at the end of the combat phase, either through combat 
losses, advance after combat, or elimination of the overstacked units.  
However, the rules are very explicit in stating that stacking limits do 
effect the quantity of troops which can attack out of hex during an overrun 
or regular combat.

>	I also use the quick construction rules, add a cons eng unit to 
>the stack and you can easily get to Gib., maybe even by two routes!

The rules seem to indicate that quick construction can not be used for 
regauging.  The section of quick construction, 14A1b, is a subset of the 
construction rules, while rail gauging, 14A3, is a seperate case (yeah, I 
played a lot of SPI games when I was younger, so sue me).  In TEM #7, John 
Astell discusses quick construction/reguaging for FitE/SE, but explicitly 
states that both units must be RR eng.

>	See my remarks about timing above, I'd try and get half combat 
>engineers and the rest mountain vs Gib. die roll mods are deadly. Heck 
>I'd hope to get 2-3 attacks against the rock.

I thought there weren't any eng. modifiers greater than +1 for 1/7 eng 
participation and that there were no die mods for mtn units.  Also, in the 
Felix scenarios, the Germans don't receive any regular replacements so most 
of what they lose ain't ever coming back.  Thanks for your reply.  I hope it 
keeps this thread alive for a bit more.

Peter Rogers


Center for African Studies
427 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
32611
USA
phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science)
fax: (904) 392-2435
e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu


Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 11:39:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "J. Nelson" <attila@u.washington.edu>
Subject: FWTBT




         Hi Everyone,


         My opponent and I have been enjoying a rip-roaring campaign in 
the above.  I have not seen very much feedback from other Europa players 
regarding this game ( well, the Spanish Civil War scenarios ).  There 
seem to be some problems with national colors on counters, and with units 
listed on the orders of battle.  Despite the problems, we are still 
pretty happy with the game.  Since we are only into Dec. 1936, I was 
wondering what other players experiences have been.  Do the problems 
become worse later on in the game?  Does it tend to become wildly 
ahistorical ( as in very unlikely things happening )?  Are there any 
problems which I/ we should watch out for?  Thank you.


                                            Sincerely, 

                                            John Nelson

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 15:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Witham, Tom G." <TGWITH@Inland.com>
Subject: Mechanized As Neutral


Having had it pointed out to me that units with the mechanized symbology 
added to their unit symbol allows for them to be considered neutral for AECA 
benefits I wondered why I had not seen this privilege in the rules.  Now, 
granted that I indeed overlooked it somewhere, I did look last night into my 
For Whom The Bell Tolls rules and saw this information added to one of the 
charts on Unit Capabilities.  I do not recall seeing this information in the 
main body of the rules which is or should be around rule 10.  My question 
is... Is this the only place (the note on the chart) that this important 
information concerning treating mech symboled units as neutral is found or 
have I overlooked this information in the main body of the rules?  If so 
where?

From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 15:40:06 -0600 (CST)

It's in the chart.  The rules should refer to the chart to determine what
the AEC and ATEC capabilities for each unit is.  It's probably a waste of
paper to print it in the rule book since the chart shows it much more
consisely.  Another good thing about 1/2 capable units is that they can be
counted as neutrals, good for diluting down attacks so that ATEC doesn't
kick in.

-Charlie
-- 
Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com

Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...