From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
Subject: SF VPs
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 09:42:20 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
I read over everyone's remarks about Second Front with
interest. Perhaps the Victory Points system does need to be
readjusted. This isn't surprising for such a large game. After
all, how many times was this system tested?
I really like the disasterous operation rule. The Allies
can use airborne and amphibious invasions in any way they like,
but must pay a price in public opinion. Perhaps this rule should
be extended. Maybe the Allies should lose some VPs whenever they
take losses in an attack. This would make the Allies more cautious.
On the other hand, the Allies should get a VP bonus for
defeating Germany quickly, before the Soviets do.
Well, those are my half-baked ideas, formed in a few
minutes with little sleep and little coffee.
Best Wishes,
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 9:59:04 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: re: SJC Playtest
> but when dealing with the Pacific War I would think that a
> complete Naval system would be a necessity.
If I remember correctly, Phillipines 41 had a rather detailed naval system
when showed and played at Europafest last year. I don't know how it
worked, there was other fun to be had for me that weekend.
Frank
From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
Subject: supply
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 09:47:49 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
What do you all think about the supply systems in FWTBT and
Western Desert? Would it be too unwieldy to have a system involving
attack supply points in the other games? Mark, what does the supply
system in China look like?
I haven't had a chance to play more than a turn of FWTBT,
but in principal I like the supply system. One should halve to
plan offensives, after all. (Or, does that get too much in the
way of the game?)
Best Wishes,
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 09:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Witham, Tom G." <TGWITH@Inland.com>
Subject: Glory = Europa
Welcome M.royer3,
99% of us want to here what you and anyone else has to say about SJC,
The Damned Die Hard and any other Europa or "Europa related" material.
Let's face it lads Glory is Europa. I mean when GRD does a game on the
Pacific theatre which is to the same scale in hex size, unit size, time
frame etc. it doesn't take Werner Von Braun to figure out that Glory will
one day plug into Europa.
DDDDDUUUUUUHHHHH
It's not like I've worn out my monitor in recent days scrolling through all
the discussion taking place within our group on Europa. And if you or any
other person(s) knows or has some WW1 input please post it or send it to me
directly.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 10:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Witham, Tom G." <TGWITH@Inland.com>
Subject: Supply and the Rabbit
Supply changes made in FWTBT are one of its best contributions to the Europa
system. The old method requiring the tracing of a supply line off the map
is just too simple and leads to an ahistorical recreation. Supply had to
be amassed before an offensive (stockpiling). Mastering the coordination of
supply was an art that many generals never learned to their detriment.
Rommel was dogged on more that one occasion by his failure to embrace
supply distribution as paramount to a successful assault and exploitation.
The Russians, having much less finesse than their German opponents, were
almost always being held back by poor supply flow especially in their
exploitation of battlefield breakthroughs. Europa is finally paying more
attention to this condition. Many of mine and my opponents attacks during
my last playing of FWTBT had to wait do to lack of supply. It simply isn't
correct to assume that the little Spanish Republic or the Nationalist
insurgents or Russia or Germany for that matter can simulate the Everyready
Rabbit and just keep on Going and Going and Going without being reined in by
the finite limits of supply.
From: FJake@aol.com
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 11:48:17 -0500
Subject: Sudden Storm
Anyone have a favorite Russian setup for Sudden Storm? I'll be starting a
game soon & need some help! Thanks
Fred Jacobs
Bloomfield, Ca.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 09:36:50 PST
From: "Renaud.Gary" <renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil>
Subject: FWTBT vs. FITE/SE supply
"It simply isn't correct ... Russia or Germany for that matter ... without
being reined in by the finite limits of supply."
Well, I can tell you that if GRD tries to use the FWTBT system in FITE or
SE, or retrofits it to SF, then I will not buy them and will not play them.
For something on the scale of FWTBT or (someday...) WITD, the supply rules
are not too much trouble and add some realistic constraints. OTOH, for the
monster games, too much time will be spent moving those little supply
counters around. I have no desire to play Quartermasters in the East.
I agree that there is a problem with the Germans attacking along the entire
front from Leningrad to Grozny turn after turn, or the Allies pursuing a
broad-front strategry at narrow-front speeds. I just don't think this is
the solution.
I am not competent to design a better supply system. I will say that I play
the games for fun and anything which makes them tedious is unacceptable.
A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil
This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114
a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1
than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__
block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--'
`-----''(_/--' `-'\_)
DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge
I CAN'T speak for this administration; I tell the truth.
From: Italorican@aol.com
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 15:50:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Glory and Europa
material concerning Glory is directly relevant to Europa, and I would want to
see it posted here.
Antonio Lauria
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:05 GMT
Subject: Second Front battle
Dear Elias: Read your Second Front replay.
>I've only played it once, solitaire, but it really was an interesting
game.
>It was a while ago, so I don't remember all the details.
I have trouble finding opponents, myself, down here in New Zealand.
>I chose a hard-med strategy for the allies. I started with invasions of
>Sardinia and Corsica, with the intent of capturing air and naval bases
for
>a strike against southern France fast. Both invasions, especially the
>Corsican one, ran into trouble at first, but I still managed to get
ashore
>between Marseille and Italy by September (I think). Since this area was
>guarded by the italians, they received enough losses to make them
>surrender. This meant that Marseille was handed over intact to the
allies
>by defecting italians (I assumed the germans got no demolition try in
this
>peculiar situation). The invasion soon bogged down in bad weather, hard
>terrain and tough german fortified lines. The potential release of the
>balkan garrison definitely scared me from entering Italy.
I've been eyeing that strategy myself, which I call "Climbing the
long ladder," as it's based on climbing up the map from North Africa to
France, and given that a good chunk of the campaign is out of air range,
it's a tough proposition. One can see why the Allies chose more cautious
strategies, given the frail British manpower situation.
>Meanwhile, Italy was awfully thinly held by Germans. I parachuted Sicily
>and started preparing a land advance up Italy from there. At the same
time,
>I did a major invasion somewhere north of rome (I don't remember exactly
>where, but there was a big port in the area - Civitaveccio? I think that
>was it. That invasion turned into a near disaster with great losses, as
>most of the german panzer force in the west ganged up on it. It finally
>held out until bad weather, but it was an awfully close call. The
germans
>held them tight and built a line south of rome.
The Germans, of course, have some mobility in 1943, because elements
of the 1st and 2nd Parachute Divisions, when broken down, can be
airdropped as reinforcements, as the Germans did in Sicily.
>The battle in southern France turned meatgrinder, with an one hex
advance
>per turn (not forgetting the 6 week battle for Aix). In italy, the
>Civitaveccio beachhead managed to breakout after a long buildup and
panzer
>withdrawals to the east. The germans estabilished a new line through
>Firenze. That area also turned into a one hex a turn meatgrinder.
>This left northern France thinly held. I planned to invade massively the
>first clear turn close to Calais. By the time the invasion landed (Jun I
>44), the southern France beachhead had already hacked its way out. In
>Italy, a lucky attack managed to breakthrough into the Po valley by
>overrunning with a real killer stack in the exploitation phase. At the
same
>time, I started advancing into Italy from France. The Released Baklan
>garrison was enough to form a good line in the alpes, though. The
fighting
>terminally bogged down here.
Did you run into trouble in Calais from German mines and
fortifications?
>In France, the retreating panzers turned to fight as the allies were
>overextending themselves in pursuit. A major panzer battle across the
>entire central France erupted. In the end, The germans inflicted
>considerable losses on the allies, but a large part of the panzers got
>trapped. France was liberated about simultaneously from the north and
>south. The germans retreated to the Rhinewall, but it was awfully thinly
>held, and the allies would have time to assault it before bad weather. I
>quit playing here (sep I 44 I think). It is my estimate that the war
would
>have ended before the end of 44. (Whew! I guess I DID remember all the
>details!)
Sounds like the fields of France were strewn with wrecked cardboard
tanks. There's one of the holes in mega-games...individual units lose
their identity and uniqueness and become swallowed up by corps counters.
Sometimes I've lost track of my corps counters, and fall into the trap
Hitler had, where I see a 47 PZ Korps flag on the map and assume that it
must consist of three elite panzer divisions. However, when I check the
roster, I find out that the corps has taken hard fighting, and is down to
a grab-bag of Ost truppen cavalry and mobile flak.
>However, the allies would have lost on points! The VP penalties for
naval
>losses (due to suicide operations by the italian fleet, air attacks,
danger
>zones and even minesweeping!) and VP losses for disastrous operations
(they
>weren't disastrous, they were in all cases successful!) were
unrecoverable.
A death ride of the Italian Navy against an Allied invasion can
probably benefit the Germans in the long run. Historically, the Italian
Navy's surface fleet didn't show much intiative.
>The rules clarification about danger zones would have made a difference
in
>my particular game (especially in Corsica).
>As I interpret the rules, all losses in a beachead without an open port
is
>considered disastrous operations losses (since they aren't in regular
>supply). I found it very hard to avoid major VP penalties for this.
I have to get up to speed on those rules. The SF booklet is pretty
thick reading.
>Also, it annoys me a lot that you get no bonus whatsoever for ending the
>war early. In fact you lose points on it, since you get fewer victory
count
>opportunities! If you would hold your troops just before the germans
would
>surrender, you could gain a lot of extra points on it. This is fixable,
you
>just get additional points for holding the map times the missed VP check
>opportunities, but it still annoys me.
An interesting point...the results of an early Allied victory in
Europe would have had major impact on the British Pacific war effort.
Operation Zipper, the invasion of Malaya, would probably have taken
place.
Best,
Dave Lippman '80
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 15:31:38 -0800 (PST)
From: "J. Nelson" <attila@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: SJC Playtest
I welcome the opportunity to read about other theatres of
operations!
Since GRD is soon to release the Glory and WW I series, I find discussion
of those subjects a welcome addition to this ng. As much as I love the
ETO games, focusing on them exclusively can get a bit tedious ( and since
I plan on purchasing the new series, I'd like to learn more about them! ).
Digression: I don't see very much mention of FWTBTs around these parts.
Does that mean that everyones happy with it? I personally think its a
great game. Lots of room to improve on the historical performances of the
respective sides without getting too wildly improbable. The supply rules
in particular help minimize the amount of aggresiveness taking place each
turn, without being too cumbersome. The size of the game makes it
convenient for jotting down unit locations at the end of a session ( a
big plus for those of us who cannot devote a table and room for weeks on
end ).
WitD: Latest I've heard ( last week when I re-subbed for TEM ), WitD is
supposed to be released circa second to third week of March. Have any of
you heard what scenarios will be included in the game? I'm hoping that a
pre-December 1940 scenario featuring Graziani's 10th Army ( sans Germans )
is included. Also, since the counters for Italian East Africa will be
included, do any of you know if and/ or when a map ( s ) for the horn of
Africa will be released? ( The AOI game that S & T released a few years
back really sucked! )
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 14:07 GMT
Subject: Digressions
I enjoy hearing about Glory and WW1 games, myself, as I intend to
buy the darn things when they come out.
I haven't had a chance to crack FWTBT yet, partially because I still
haven't figured out the Spanish Civil War. My brother sent me a thick
book on the subject, so I'll read that before I hit the game. I still
can't figure out how one can have an army of Anarchists that includes
artillery brigades and whatnot. An organized army of anarchists sounds
like a contradiction in terms. Nonetheless, it happened.
I'd like to see a scenario in WitD on Graziani's advance and
O'Connor's riposte, myself. I just wrote an article on the campaign for a
stateside magazine and am greatly impressed by the high caliber of
British grasp of both the operational art and soldiering in that
campaign. Sadly, the advantages were all thrown away, including O'Connor
himself. And any scenarios on Italian East Africa would be welcome, as
that's a little-known campaign. My aunt's father served in the 1940
British invasion of Ethiopia with a South African battalion, an
all-Jewish outfit from Durban.
After the war, by the way, some Gurkha officers were asked who their
toughest opponent was, having faced Rommel in North Africa and the
Japanese in Burma. They said it was the Italian army in East Africa under
the Duke of Aosta. My understanding is that some of Italy's best
divisions were sent to Ethiopia and pretty much caught there by the
outbreak of WW2, and fought with the determination of those who have
nothing left to lose.
Soon GRD will make maps of the rest of Africa, Siberia, South
America, and then we'll have the ultimate game...the world at war at the
operational level from 1914 to 1946, complete with counters for the
German Antarctic research vessel Schwabenland, the Chaco War, the Bonus
Army, the Portuguese coast defense guns in Macao, North China Marines,
The Polizeitruppe in German Cameroons. Maybe even that German liner, the
Cap Trafalgar, that borrowed guns from a German gunboat off South
America, to become an armed merchant raider. The Cap Trafalgar removed a
funnel to disguise herself as a British armed liner, the Carmania.
Meanwhile, the real Carmania was sent into the Atlantic to hunt for
the Cap Trafalgar. The British liner decided to disguise itself as the
Cap Trafalgar, by sheer coincidence.
By even greater coincidence, the two ships met in battle.
Now there's a special rule for Europa.
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:05:39 -0800 (PST)
From: "J. Nelson" <attila@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Second Front
Hi Rich,
Wow! You guys are *dedicated*.
Just writing to say that I, for one, would be interested in seeing your SF
plans.
Good luck with your game!!
John Nelson
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 20:04:19 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Glory be!
I'm clearly outvoted; I'll withdraw my objections without further complaint.
- Bobby.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 22:57:04 -0600
From: conrad alan b <abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: greetings
greetings Europans,
I am a new-be at this, both for europa chatting, and list mailings
like this. On a good day I am lucky to read my e-mail. I always wanted to
get into the GEine discussions, but didn't have the opportunity (or the
money).
Can anyone tell me how many of us are reading each other's meanderings?
And, how many of the GRD/Europa VIPs are reading this? I see
already that Frank Watson is on line.
Alan Conrad
Champaign, Illinois
From: "Jim Kelly" <raven@bway.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 00:46:12 -0500
Subject: New Counters for BF and AWW
Greetings all,
As many of you know, GRD plans to reprint the counters for FTF and
SF the near future. But why stop there? My Germans and
Italians in BF are too light, and my Soviets in AWW look like
Greeks. If GRD is going to reprint the counters for FTF and SF,
why not reprint the counters for BF and AWW as well?
I spoke to Winston about this and he indicated GRD intends to
reprint the counters for BF and AWW when they reprint FTF and SF.
Good news, but to keep this reprint a priority the more people who
request the counters the better. If you are in the same position I
am regarding your BF Germans and Italians, and your AWW Soviets,
E-Mail Winston at Europaboss@aol.com and tell him how cool it would
be to have these counters printed correctly. I for one cannot wait
to see the counters for BF and AWW reprinted to the same high
standards as those in FWTBTs.
Jim Kelly
From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
Subject: Digressions
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 10:07:48 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
Dave wrote:
>
> I haven't had a chance to crack FWTBT yet, partially because I still
> haven't figured out the Spanish Civil War. My brother sent me a thick
> book on the subject, so I'll read that before I hit the game. I still
> can't figure out how one can have an army of Anarchists that includes
> artillery brigades and whatnot. An organized army of anarchists sounds
> like a contradiction in terms. Nonetheless, it happened.
See George Orwell's "Homage to Catlonia." Orwell went to Spain
as a journalist and then joined the POUM militia. He has alot to say
about the lack of armament and training in the POUM early in the book.
He hoped to transfer to the People's Army so as to have a greater impact,
but then the "Barcelona Revolt" happened, which he regards not so much
as a revolt as a purge of the Anarchists and POUM. He was involoved
in the fighting there and later fled Spain, for fear of being killed
by the gouvernment.
Orwell is a great writer and his book is a good read. It's
not necessary to subscribe to his politics to enjoy the book; he is
keenly aware that he doesn't have the final say on the events that he
describes.
> I'd like to see a scenario in WitD on Graziani's advance and
> O'Connor's riposte, myself. I just wrote an article on the campaign for a
> stateside magazine and am greatly impressed by the high caliber of
> British grasp of both the operational art and soldiering in that
> campaign. Sadly, the advantages were all thrown away, including O'Connor
> himself.
Sad, to be sure. The first few volumes of the UK official
history on the Second World War in "The Mediterranean and the Middle
East" by Playfair, are excellent. There is a thorough description of
O'Conner's offensive (as well as all other battles in North Africa,
Ethiopia, Syria and Iraq.) Playfair makes the case, which I haven't
seen elsewhere, that the offensive had exhausted itself logistically
and had to stop whether or not troops were to be sent to Greece. He
also has an interesting discussion of the decision to intrvene in Greece.
> And any scenarios on Italian East Africa would be welcome, as
> that's a little-known campaign.
Absolutely. I would love to see a good game on that campaign.
The little-known Nigerian army acheived great distinction in that
campaign.
> My aunt's father served in the 1940
> British invasion of Ethiopia with a South African battalion, an
> all-Jewish outfit from Durban.
You mentioned a book yesterday which dealt with Japan's
policies towards Jews. What is the title, and who is the author?
Best Wishes,
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
Subject: FWTBT vs. FITE/SE supply
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 10:12:39 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
Gary writes in response to (???):
> "It simply isn't correct ... Russia or Germany for that matter ... without
> being reined in by the finite limits of supply."
>
> Well, I can tell you that if GRD tries to use the FWTBT system in FITE or
> SE, or retrofits it to SF, then I will not buy them and will not play them.
>
> For something on the scale of FWTBT or (someday...) WITD, the supply rules
> are not too much trouble and add some realistic constraints. OTOH, for the
> monster games, too much time will be spent moving those little supply
> counters around. I have no desire to play Quartermasters in the East.
>
> I agree that there is a problem with the Germans attacking along the entire
> front from Leningrad to Grozny turn after turn, or the Allies pursuing a
> broad-front strategry at narrow-front speeds. I just don't think this is
> the solution.
>
> I am not competent to design a better supply system. I will say that I play
> the games for fun and anything which makes them tedious is unacceptable.
>
How about a system in which attack supply points are kept track
of, but not placed on the map? That would be less cumbersome than
retrofitting the detailed systems of the smaller games to FITE/SE.
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
Subject: New Counters for BF and AWW
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 10:16:30 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
Jim writes:
> I for one cannot wait
> to see the counters for BF and AWW reprinted to the same high
> standards as those in FWTBTs.
>
> Jim Kelly
>
I assume, Jim, that you are talking about the physical
quality of the counters and not the lack of misprints.
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 08:35:22 PST
From: "Renaud.Gary" <renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: FWTBT vs. FITE/SE supply
Mr. Pardue,
"How about a system in which attack supply points are kept track
of, but not placed on the map? That would be less cumbersome than
retrofitting the detailed systems of the smaller games to FITE/SE."
I would have no major objection to that amount of work. That
would reduce the number of attacks to something realistically
sustainable.
The only objection I can see would be that you are "beaming"
attack supply to the front line. I can see a scenario where AGN
and AGS, say, are attacking and using up the entire turn's quota
of supply. Amazingly, exactly the right amount makes it to each
AG, with no shortages because too much was sent the wrong way.
Of course, the current system has exactly the same problem, so it
wouldn't be any worse.
Far better minds than mine has grappled with this problem in TEM
and on GEnie (and CA I think), but no one has come up with a
solution that everyone else says "Yeah! That's great!"
Personally, I like the idea of HQs coordinating attacks, but
others have pointed out problems with that approach. At the
moment, I still use the RAW (at least in that narrow section; I'll
exercise my fifth amendment priviledge on the other sections.)
A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil
This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114
a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1
than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__
block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--'
`-----''(_/--' `-'\_)
DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge
I CAN'T speak for this administration; I tell the truth.
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 09:36 GMT
Subject: Spain, Orwell, and Libya
Dear Keith:
Thanks for your note.
Orwell was a heck of a writer, and his book is one of two that
everyone remembers on the Spanish conflict, the other being Hemingway's
little opus.
Eric Blair Jr. (as Orwell signed his tax returns) was actually sent
to Spain by an English newspaper chain to cover that affair, and like
most reporters who covered it, he didnt' report as much what went on, but
what he wanted readers back home to think, so as to make them act. In
short, he wore ideological blinders.
But he wasn't alone. In Paris, Willi Munzenberg and Otto Katz, two
flaks working for the Comintern, batted out anti-Franco propaganda from
the safety of the Left Bank. These articles were first-person accounts of
various Franco atrocities. My favorite was that Franco allegedly issued
"rape vouchers" which enabled his men to rape a woman in a captured city
and not be prosecuted. It didn't matter, Franco was committing atrocities
anyway.
Back in New York, Catholic copy editors at The New York Times edited
copy from their writers in Spain to reflect the pro-Franco bias of the
editors. In the Times, the Communists were burning churches.
The result was that a lot of people never found what was really
going on. The fictional war provided Tom Lehrer with one of his best
lines, on the folk song army, "Remember the war against Franco/that's the
kind where each of us belongs/though he may have won all the battles/we
had all the good songs."
Much of Orwell's experience became 1984. Orwell's bosses told him to
report what they wanted to hear. "Franco is in the right and is going to
win. We want a few battles, come incidents of bravery, and a colorful
entrance into Madrid."
The newspaper chains all universally faced a problem brought on by
techonlogy...sending telegrams to Spain was the only way to keep in touch
with the reporter, and telegrams cost money. Orwell and other writers
received telegrams from their bosses which read, "Rewrite fullwise
antefiling," which was gibberish, but cheaper than, "Please rewrite your
article on the battle completely before you file it to this newspaper."
This became the basis of Newspeak. The manner that the newspaper chains
rewrote history to satisfy the political views of the publishers and
their apparent omnipotence became the basis of the Ministry of Truth.
So did some of the tactics. Orwell's 1984 tossed atomic bombs around
like firecrackers, mostly because of his lack of grasp of their harsh
reality. In 1984, battleships were not obsolete...they'd become
unsinkable Floating Fortresses. But by the time 1984 was in galleys, the
world's biggest battleships...Bismarck, Hood, Yamato, Musashi, Tirpitz,
Prince of Wales, and Arizona, had all been sent to the bottom by
aircraft.
But what Orwell saw...futile battles over the same ground,
massacring PoWs...shooting "war criminals"...alliances that reversed
themselves at the drop of a hat...absurd lying propaganda that everyone
swallowed...Spaniards living in misery while Germans and Italians fought
Russians and Americans... all became part of 1984.
That book is also about Hitler, Stalin, and life in England in the
last two years of WW2, when the whole nation was at full stretch, trying
to win a war that seemed to go on forever, and Churchill was making
noises about Russia, the erstwhile enemy and present ally, being the new
enemy again. ("We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war
with Eastasia -- I mean Eurasia."
I also recommend the Australian and NZ official histories of WW2,
which even rattle off the service numbers of individual Diggers and Kiwis
who fought in battle. They offer detail and solid writing.
There's some dispute over whether the Brits had shot their bolt at
Beda Fomm. They might have. 7th Armoured's vehicles were all write-offs,
6th Australian had to ground theirs to keep supply moving. Granted that
2nd Armoured and 2nd New Zealand were moving up, but it's questionable as
to whether the British could have sustained a drive to Tripoli. O'Connor
thought so at the time. Certainly he had the psychological advantage.
But material I've read here suggests that the British had to commit
to Greece to show America that the British Empire could and would back up
its allies and fight Germans. Also at stake was one of the big prizes of
WW2, oil, mainly at Ploesti.
Either way, I'm not sure. One thing I do know...the British drive
under O'Connor was a masterpiece of warfare and is virtually unknown in
the United States, where British warriorship (and by extension, British
Commonwealth warriorship) is disparaged. The only thing Americans
generally know about British warfighting is from reading the battles of
Lexington and Concord (Americans in green ambushing British redcoats) or
from repeated viewings of the movie "Patton," in which the character of
the general is clearly and accurately defined, but there's not much
connection to reality. My impression of that movie is that the director
would have us believe that the real enemy of humanity in WW2 was not
Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, but the British, and Patton should have been
attacking them, not the Germans.
The Nigerian Army did fight well in East Africa, and then was
shipped off to Burma, where it did well against the Japanese. The 81st
and 82nd Divisions, I believe. One of their cooks was Dr. Field Marshal
President for Life Idi Amin Dada, al-hajji, holder of the Victoria Cross,
and "appointed by God almighty to be your saviour." He held the VC by
buying it at auction.
The book on the Japanese and the Jews is "Desperate Voyagers,"
originally titled "The Fugu Plan," and it's not well-written and somewhat
over-dramatized, but interesting and entertaining. I'll locate the author
this evening.
Hope that helps.
Best,
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:23:22 -0500
From: mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark Pitcavage)
Subject: Question
Have any of my messages been getting through?
Dr. Mark Pitcavage
mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
http://www.greyware.com/authors/pitman
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:23:23 -0500
From: mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark Pitcavage)
Subject: Question
Have any of my messages been getting through?
Dr. Mark Pitcavage
mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
http://www.greyware.com/authors/pitman
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 17:19:45 -0800
From: Peter Morris <PMORRIS@CCCIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Question
Mark Pitcavage wrote:
>
> Have any of my messages been getting through?
No.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:40:52 -0800 (PST)
From: "J. Nelson" <attila@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Spain, Orwell, and Libya
To add to your comments on the BEF sent to Greece in 41.
I imagine that other rationalizations for committing resources there included
proving to neutral states that Britain was still committed to opposing
the axis in Europe. If Britain had not backed-up her pledges to Greece
in any tangible way, the repercussions could have included Belgrade,
Athens, Ankara, Madrid, etc., adopting a pro-axis neutrality or joining
the axis outright ( not wanting to back a loser ).
I'm not arguing that the BEF in Greece was a particularly intelligent
move militarily, .......only that it was a political move primarily aimed
at buttressing support for Britain amoung those countries still neutral
in and around europe. Britain historically has searched for surrogates
to fight continental wars. Trying to influence Greece and Yugoslavia
into the allied camp was an extension of that policy ( and as misguided
as overestimating the military might of the Poles ).
Back to Europa: One of the reasons I so look forward to WitD is that I
hope to link it up with BF. I hope that the game mechanics allow for this,
as the old Marita Merkur never really addressed any force deployments, in
places like Crete, that could have had a significant effect on the N.
African campaign. It seems to me that an axis victory in Western Desert/
WitD is unlikely unless the axis player is allowed some freedom to use axis
resources more efficiently ( particularly naval and air ).
I'm also curious as to how Italian unit strengths will be handled. In
Western Desert, the Italian 10th and 5th armies have lots of those 2-6
and 3-6 infantry divisions, yet in other games portraying Italian units
from the same time period, the bulk of their infantry is rated at 3-4-6
and 4-6 strengths. Were the troops deployed to Libya the bottom of the
barrel? What were the limiting factors for not deploying additional,
higher quality troops to Libya ( i.e., why were not more of the of the
army and Regia Aeronautica deployed to Libya instead of the Balkans )?
I'm not advocating rules that assure an axis player victory, but rather
the freedom to suffer the consequences of my own stupid gaming decisions
( like whether or not to risk Italian surface naval forces in combat with
their British counterparts, whether or not to substantially assist Rashid
Ali, bomb ships in port at Alexandria, etc. ).
If any of you know how WitD is going to treat some of the above, please
share! I'm sure that I'm not the only person curious about the game.
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 14:28 GMT
Subject: The BEF to Greece
Hiya.
Your comments about the rationalization for Churchill sending his
AnAC troops to Greece is indeed one of the main points raised in a book I
have on the battle for Crete. The British and the Americans were eager at
the time to impress Europe's remaining wavering neutrals that democracy
could stop Nazi aggression. At the time, Turkey and Spain were wavering
towards Hitler, and the governments of Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria all
fell in with the Nazis. The Rumanians did so after Hitler gave away
chunks of their country, which is kind of amazing. Yugoslavia, of course,
went through a coup after Prince Paul, the regent, approved Yugoslavian
adherence to the Tripartite Pact.
So there was a lot going on in the Balkans, which have always been a
cockpit for European wars.
Overestimating the military might of the Poles: that's an old story,
of generals and politicians who prepare for the previous war, which was
most vividly seen in WW2. William Manchester comments that military
writers at the time, like George Fielding Eliot, who was CBS' radio's
military adviser, talked about Poland's poor roads and mud, as if WW2
could be called off due to weather. A Polish cavalry officer from 1939
told an interviewer in 1989 that the problem with the Germans was that
the Polish soldiers weren't afraid of the German panzers...the horses
were.
I'd like to see a link between BF and WitD myself, so as to give
both the Axis and Allied players some leeway in decision-making.
No sensible Italian player will hurl Visconti Prasca's
poorly-trained and badly-deployed army across the Salonikan mountains
against Greece in winter. On the other hand, a game about World War II in
Europe at the operational level might have realism problems if Benito
Mussolini's bombastic nature and disonnection with reality is not
simulated in some way beyond the low point strengths of Italian units
(0-8 mechanized cavalry battalions!).
I think some of the Italian troops in the 10th and 5th Armies were
pretty poor. The Blackshirt Divisions were long on rhetoric and short on
actual training. The Libyan native forces were not highly-motivated
units. The Italian Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was an accurate weapon (Lee
Harvey Oswald used one), but had low bullet velocity. The Italian Beretta
pistol and Breda machine gun looked useful, but "Red Devil" hand grenades
had a cute trick of going off in the hands of their user. WHen Australian
troops conquered Bardia and Tobruk, they inherited a lot of captured
arms, but threw away most of the grenades and rifles, keeping instead the
blankets, wine, and food stocks.
Italian artillery was plentiful, but not heavy. Still, when other
Italian units collapsed, Italian gunners fought on.
Supply, of course, was the main problem in North Africa. Graziani's
troops lacked transport of all varieties. The vacillating marshal pleaded
for contingents of mules to supplement his transport net, and he asked
for more mules than Italy's army had in its whole inventory.
Italian officers were also a very mixed bag. While some were skilled
at desert warfare, many were badly trained and created a huge gulf
between officers and enlisted, neglecting their troops. In North Africa,
that could lead to serious disasters. Officers were unable to navigate in
the trackless desert wastes with sextant and sunsight.
Airpower had numerous problems in the desert, ranging from fuel
overheating in tanks to sand ticks getting into engines. Neither side
sent their first-line aviation to the desert. The RAF kept its Spitfires
back for home defence, while Mussolini sold off the most modern Italian
planes to Turkey, Rumania, and Spain, easing his balance-of-payments
problem while weakening his own air force. Italian pilots, many of whom
were quite brave, had to fly antiquated CR-42 biplane fighters and
mediocre SM 79 bombers.
The Italian Navy had fine ships, but its officer corps was riddled
with anti-Fascists. Submarines were commanded by ensigns. Fuel was short,
and initiative lacking. According to some accounts, Italian naval
intelligence officers tried to aid the Allies.
But the big problem with the Italian war effort came at the top.
Benito Mussolini wanted a few thousand dead so as to gain land at the
peace table. Instead he sent an unwilling populace to a war that lasted
three years and wrecked the nation from Sicily to the Brenner Pass. Most
Italian troops were bagged or killed in Africa or froze in the Soviet
Union, an even more useless endeavour.
While Italians died near Stalingrad or Tobruk, Mussolini provided
virtually no war direction. His cabinet spent hours debating what day
traffic cops in Rome should change to summer uniform. Mussolini spent a
lot more time reading newspaper accounts of himself and determining how
the day's news should be presented in official Fascist newspapers, or in
the arms of his mistress, Claretta Petacci. While he dithered, Italian
arms crumbled.
It's a sorry story, on the whole.
Best,
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
From: m.royer3@genie.com
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 96 11:29:00 UTC 0000
Subject: SJC Playtest
Sino-Japanese Conflict Battle Report
Massachusetts Playtest
Sep I 37 Japanese Player Turn
As "elite" divisions of the Chinese Central Army pour into Shanghai, the
beleagered Japanese marines (SNLF) are pushed to the brink and make a desparate
last ditch stand against the onslaught with their backs to the Whangpoo river.
Only the fact that there is mud weather prevents serious loss on the Japanese
side. In Japan, the Shanghai Expeditionary Force (SEF) is organized and
launched to relieve the international concession. Since the mouth of the
Whangpoo is blocked and controlled by Chinese forces, the SEF is forced to
amphibiously assault the beaches near the port city of Woosung. The landing is
supported by naval gunfire from the Japanese 3rd fleet and aircraft from the
Kaga, Hosho, and Ryojo. Chinese Mxd F fighters cause a Mxd A attack bomber
unit to turn back, but the D1A1 dive bombers get through and provide the needed
punch to push the assault to 6:1 (-2 for mud) odds. The single Chinese
division retreats from the beach. Thus a land link has been established by the
Japanese forces to the International Concession, but the Whangpoo river is
still not secured for use.
Deep air raids by the G3M2 (Nells) long range bombers are launched from Formosa
with the Nankiang factories as their target, but no substantial damage was
reported by either side. New Japanese fighters (a unit of A5M2 Claudes)
finally arrive from Japan, but not in time to be effective this turn.
In the north, unseasonably heavy rains and mud continue to blunt the Japanese
spearheads. However, several rail hexes are attacked and taken. A broad front
assault (much of it riskily launched without attack supply) pushes the overall
front lines southward by about a hex between the Tsinpu and Pinghan rail lines.
In the attacks, at least 10 Chinese provincial divisions from a number of
warlord armies were reported destroyed. However, the Chinese are hailing a
glorious victory as a half-exchange forces the loss of a Japanese (2-6 Inf)
regiment, the first significant Japanese losses in the Conflict.
Meanwhile, swinging south out of inner mongolia, Mongolian and Manchukuoen
forces, supported by Kwantung Army units, capture Kalgan, the ancient capitol
of Chahar. The move severs the northern Peiping-Suiyuan rail line stranding
several Chinese divisions between Kalgan and Japanese owned Peiping, leaving
them only long roads to Taiyuan for escape.
Sep I 37 Chinese Player Turn
The Chinese move additional forces into Shanghai and its environs, and
ingeneral consolidate their units in the area. Due to the lingering mud
weather, they aren't able to muster an attack (the best would be a 2:1 -3).
In a surprise statement, the northern warlord Shang Chen, governor of the Hopei
and general of its forces, exhorts his dissatisfaction with the KMT and its
support for the northern provinces. Tribute to his province has been totally
lacking since the outset of the conflict. "How is one to organize an effective
defense when the Central Government practices a policy of fiscal abandonment?"
The warlord then pulled his units out of the defensive lines and refused to
allow units of other factions to operate in his territory. The KMT, of course
ignoring this dictate since the bulk of the fighting in the north is in Hopei,
further strained relations with the Hopei warlord.
Meanwhile, the Chinese repositioned supplies and replacement troops in rear
areas hoping to begin build up defensive lines behind the current front.
Scraping spare parts together, the Chinese Air Force manages to get both of its
aborted air units aloft again. The Northrup Gamma 2E is assigned to support
the northern theater and the Mxd B unit is sent to the Shanghai area.
The three communist divisions have divided up into two forces and have moved
into strategic mountain passes. Their ultimate goal remains unclear.
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 14:21:19 +0200
From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Re: AWW: Western Intervention throu hostile Sweden!
>A have run several solitaire runs with A Winter War.
>
>One case i used all optional rules and rolled for Wester Intervention DEC II.
>Norway did support the intervention, but not Sweden.
>
>The Rail line from Narwik to Finland is going through the hex which are marked
>Boden. This hex contains a BIG Fortress. Sweden is not going to let any
>near this fortress, for any reason. It is very unrealistic that the
>Intervention would fight the Swedes for the Boden Fortress, most probably
>would be that the Britts and French are stuck on Swedens Territory for
>Months if they try. They can try to protect the Rail line from Ski Jaegers
>if they can.
>
>What are the thoughts about Western Intervention? I think they are
>completly crasy and degenerate, as they are written.
Oh, no, they aren't. You're just nationalistic :-)
The planned operation was a stupid one to start with (perhaps fitting the
description crazy and degenerate), But the low chance for it occurring
seems appropriate. Perhaps there should be some kind of incremental die
rolls that triggered intervention when reaching a certain sum instead,
though. After all they DID intervene, finally, in april.
The whole situation with the winter war, the ore fields at Kiruna and
Norway is an interesting one, that would make a great mini-grand-europa
scenario. I hope to have something like it included in Narvik.
About the rules of Swedish resistance, you have to consider that it would
look really bad if Sweden fought the allies that were actually trying to
help Finland as much as Sweden. Resistance would probably have the
character of threats and deployed troops, but without actual firing. Thus
the garrison rule.
Mvh Elias Nordling
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 14:24:15 +0200
From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Danger zones (was Re: Second Front (long))
>Elias,
>
> What was the rules clarification about danger zones?
>
>Keith
Allied ports NEGATE axis danger zones within five hexes of them. An
important change.
Mvh Elias Nordling