From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: Alternative CRT
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 13:55:49 -0600 (CST)
I had made a comment about an idea for simulating attrition in the europa
rules about a month ago. It didn't seem to generate any response then so
with this current thread being talked about, I'll throw it out for comment
again.
When attacking, every 30 points of ground troops costs 1 replacement point
(round to the nearest 100th). Proportional spending to the AEC for armor
vs infantry RPs.
The number 30 was picked because it "felt right" to me YMMV.
Comments?
-Charlie
--
Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com
Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 09:23:50 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Re: Alternative CRT
I think this thread is touching upon some of the issues which are critical
to the future development/evolution of the Europa series. With the arrival
of SF, we witnessed a revolution in the Europa air system. A revolution
that seems to have been very well received according to every comment I have
seen. However, the SF air system did not entail the wholescale scrapping of
all previous Europa air concepts or units. In that sense it was a
revolution born of evolution. Also as near as I can tell from reading TEM
and elsewhere, it was a revolution much influenced by discussion and debate
inside the Europa community. My impression is that John Astell and the
other Europa designers and developers are receptive and responsive to
comments from those of us who buy and play the games. (BTW, this is one of
the main reasons that I prefer Europa over other games, the relationship
between designer/developer and gamer seems to be more open and interactive
than is the case with most games or gaming systems (that, and it freaks out
other gamers when you tell them you're a Europa junkie))
The point to this rather meandering introduction is that I think we do have
a role to play in influencing the nature of future Europa releases through
discussions such as this. Thus I'd like to toss in a couple more cents
worth of "wisdom" on the subject in play.
>From Bob in Bogota
>I tend to agree with you, however, one would expect (hope!?) that in
>Europa the CRT would be divorced from replacement rates to a greater
>degree than in other wargames. We use essentially the same CRT for all
>our games, and for our "mini-scenarios", as well. Clearly the Germans
>will do the brunt of the attacking in the early war years, and the bulk of
>the defending later on.
Yes and no. Remember, Europa games generally have both regular and special
replacements. I agree the regular replacement rate should be divorced from
considerations. This represents new troops and material "produced" at home
to rebuild destroyed or badly depleted combat formations. I can't see a
good reason why this replacement rate should be directly related to the
combat system.
However, the situation is rather different for special reinforcements
generated by the loss of unisolated units. These represent the return to
service of combat assets temporarily lost in battle, wounded personnel
returned to service, routed forces which are later rallied, repair of
damaged AFVs, and possibly even intangibles such the recovery of unit
cohesion after a particullarly fierce engagement.
Special replacement rates are directly tied to the bloodiness of the CRT,
and this relationship represents a design choice on how to simulate combat
losses. If you alter the combat system to increase the level of attacker
losses, something I am in favor of, then you probably need to increase the
level of special replacements to simulate the eventual recovery of a
proportion of that part of the attacking force lost.
>From Charles Anderson
>When attacking, every 30 points of ground troops costs 1 replacement point
>(round to the nearest 100th). Proportional spending to the AEC for armor
>vs infantry RPs.
This seems to me to be a third form of replacements, one which is not
simulated by the Europa replacement rules, but rather by the supply system.
Supply is not just material, it is also men. Being "in supply" means that a
unit is receiving a small, but continual flow of personnel replacements
aimed at maintaining its combat effectiveness. Charles's suggestion seems
to be aimed at more directly simulating this practice, especially the case
of "topping off" units which are slated for offensive operations.
I don't think that his proposed rule is necessary, but it does focus our
attention on the weakness of the current Europa supply system and the
relationship between supply and replacements, particularly regular
replacements. Outside of WitD and FWTBT, supply is generally unlimited. I
have a lot of trouble with that and think there needs to be some sort of
restrictions on the quantity of supply a country can generate at any time.
However, such a supply restriction can not be calculated in a vacuum. The
production of supply is influenced by the production of replacements and
reinforcements. At this point, I'm getting very close to discussing the
economics of Grand Europa, so I'll end it here.
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: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 09:32:14 +0200 (EET)
From: Markku T Nieminen <mniemine@hila.hut.fi>
Hello!
Could you please add me on the europa mailing list. My email address is:
mniemine@hila.hut.fi
with best regards
Markku Nieminen
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 12:50:48 +0100
From: c-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: GRD homepage
Where has the GRD WWW-homepage moved? I can't find it anymore.
Mvh Elias Nordling
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 12:21:46 +0100
From: c-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Re: Alternative CRT
>I had made a comment about an idea for simulating attrition in the europa
>rules about a month ago. It didn't seem to generate any response then so
>with this current thread being talked about, I'll throw it out for comment
>again.
>
>When attacking, every 30 points of ground troops costs 1 replacement point
>(round to the nearest 100th). Proportional spending to the AEC for armor
>vs infantry RPs.
>
>The number 30 was picked because it "felt right" to me YMMV.
>
>Comments?
A very good suggestion!
All the time people are moaning about how attacker attrition isn't factored
into the game, but every suggestion I've seen so far seems to require at
the very least ten years of playtesting with a new CRT and at worst new
counters.
This idea, however, solves the problem without affecting the game too much.
It also seems fairy easy to test.
The details have to be worked out, though. If forced to cadre or remove a
unit because of attrition losses, you must get the extra losses as RPs for
example. Also, factors like weather should have a definitive effect on
attrition. Perhaps even some kind of table is needed to add some
randomness. But on the whole, the idea seems simple, clean and easy to
implement and play with.
I think you should try to get this one through to GRD.
Mvh Elias Nordling
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 13:48:02 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: GRD homepage
> From: c-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
>
> Where has the GRD WWW-homepage moved? I can't find it anymore.
It can be found at:
http://www.grdgames.com/
/Johan
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 95 10:42:50 GMT
From: kh@dcs.st-and.ac.uk (Kevin Hammond)
Subject: Re: Der Beverly Hillbillies
Charles Anderson writes:
>I don't remember the flip a truck rule.
I was just reading the SE rules last night. You can indeed flip a truck to
supply ALL units within truck supply range. It's in the supply section,
and not an optional rule! Having flipped the truck you can still use it
to extend the overland supply route, but it has to be replenished from
a recognised source (supplied rail hex) before you can flip it again.
Reminds me of Imperium Romanum's ox-driven supply waggons...
Kevin
----------
Division of Computer Science, Tel: 01334 463241 (Direct)
School of Mathematical Fax: 01334 463278
and Computational Sciences, URL:
http://www.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~kh/kh.html
University of St. Andrews, Fife, KY16 9SS.
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: Der Beverly Hillbillies
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 09:17:33 -0600 (CST)
Kevin Hammond Said:
>
> Charles Anderson writes:
> >I don't remember the flip a truck rule.
>
> I was just reading the SE rules last night. You can indeed flip a truck to
> supply ALL units within truck supply range. It's in the supply section,
> and not an optional rule! Having flipped the truck you can still use it
> to extend the overland supply route, but it has to be replenished from
> a recognised source (supplied rail hex) before you can flip it again.
It's not so crazy. A truck represents a way to stretch out the normal
supply lengths for the Germans. Flipping the truck would mean that
you're depleting the supply in the pipeline, thus you can't use the
truck to stretch it out until it "refills".
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 13:08:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Morten Hjertaas <morten@phy-server.phy.queensu.ca>
Subject: Naval transport of air units
I am playing the FWTBT invasion of Spain scenario. The Spaniards are
trying to fight off the german invasion, and the english are trying to
send as much aid as possible to Spain, the bottleneck of course being
avalibility of naval transport (NT).
In the rules concerning naval transport it says that air units can be
transported with NT, and in the rules I find no further references to
naval transport of air units. This leads to my questions:
What is the size of a wing in RE that is transported this way?
Does the wing have to embark in a hex with an air- strip/field?
What is the status after embarking? Is the unit operative or inoperative?
I find it strange that the rules does not mention anything about
transporting air units with a carrier group (CG). Historically this
happened both when British forces aided Norway, and several times when
Malta was about to run out of planes.
If I remember my 'Supermarina' right the rules here included transport of
air units on air craft carriers. In these rules each carrier capable air
unit was only of squadron size, so one 'normal' air unit occupied the
space of three carrier squadrons. Does anybody know if the size of a
carrier air unit is a wing or a squadron these days?
What about allowing a CG to use of its airbase capasity to transport
wings, and if the wing is of type F, the planes can take off from the CG
and make a normal transfer. (in Narvik expect to see an optional rule
allowing Hurricane fighters to roll 1D6, and land on a carrier if
successful)
==========================================================================
_/// Morten Hjertaas email:morten@phy-server.phy.queensu.ca
/ 31 Garrett St phone:(613) 544 8091
__/ K7L 1H7, Kingston
/ | Canada
\_/|
'It is much more difficult to judge oneself than to judge others. If you
succeed in judging yourself rightly, then you are indeed a man of true
wisdom'
Antoine de Saint-Exupery in 'The little prince'
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 15:29:29 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative CRT
>From Peter Rogers, responding to Bob from Bogota:
>>Europa the CRT would be divorced from replacement rates to a
greater >>degree than in other wargames. We use essentially the
same CRT for all >>our games, and for our "mini-scenarios", as well.
>Europa games generally have both regular and special >replacements.
I agree the regular replacement rate should >be divorced from
considerations. This represents new >troops and material "produced"
at home to rebuild >destroyed or badly depleted combat formations.
I can't see >a good reason why this replacement rate should be
>directly related to the combat system.
As I stated in my initial post, unless you know the algorithm used to
determine the regular replacement rate [since only a very little
research will show undeniably that nowhere near every single regular
replacement for any Europa army is accounted for in the replacement
rate], you can't divorce it from the CRT, since the two are connected
to produce 'relatively historical' overall combat results without
showing the monotony of day-to-day attrition rates, which represented
a certain, unshown, portion of the replacement rates.
In terms of adjusting the CRT to represent more attacker casualties,
and therefore adjusting the special replacement rates to reflect the
new interaction, note that the proportion of attacker casualties
recovered would be far less than the defender's rate, as the attacker
in many cases suffers higher numbers of nonreturnable casualties than
the defender. This is the essence of attrition warfare, that you can
defeat an enemy even though taking higher numbers of casualties. This
type of warfare was far more common in WW II [in terms of overall
time] than was mobile warfare.
>However, such a supply restriction can not be calculated in >a
vacuum. The production of supply is influenced by the >production
of replacements and reinforcements. At this >point, I'm getting
very close to discussing the economics of >Grand Europa, so I'll end
it here.
This is an area ripe for research and quantification, and
representation in Europa, Grand or otherwise. Someone should make
this their Master's or Doctoral thesis, or if anyone out there has
won a lottery and doesn't know what to do with their time, here's a
project. Otherwise, I can't see this being addressed in the near
future.
Ray
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 09:06:51 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Re: Naval transport of air units
My two cents on these questions.
>In the rules concerning naval transport it says that air units can be
>transported with NT, and in the rules I find no further references to
>naval transport of air units. This leads to my questions:
>
>What is the size of a wing in RE that is transported this way?
An air unit is one RE according to rule 3A3 on p. 3
>Does the wing have to embark in a hex with an air- strip/field?
I'm assuming you mean disembark, as the UK air units usually embark from the
UK off-map box. On-map naval movement of air units from port to port could
be done, though I have never seen it in any of my games.
I would say yes, air units must disembark in ports which also have an
operational airbase capacity. Otherwise, they are screwed and can't do
anything, since there are no rules for moving air units overland.
>What is the status after embarking? Is the unit operative or inoperative?
While the rules are not explicit on this point, I have played that air units
are operative when they disembark. This is based on rule 16B1, p. 17, which
states that units become inoperative after flying missions or if their
airbase lack the capacity to make all air units operative. This would seem
to mean that air units disembarked at an airbase which already contains air
units up to its capacity would not be operative. Otherwise, newly
disemabarked air units are operative and could even fly a mission in the
movement phase they disembarked.
>I find it strange that the rules does not mention anything about
>transporting air units with a carrier group (CG). Historically this
>happened both when British forces aided Norway, and several times when
>Malta was about to run out of planes.
>
>If I remember my 'Supermarina' right the rules here included transport of
>air units on air craft carriers. In these rules each carrier capable air
>unit was only of squadron size, so one 'normal' air unit occupied the
>space of three carrier squadrons. Does anybody know if the size of a
>carrier air unit is a wing or a squadron these days?
All air units are wing size in the SF/FWTBT naval rules. I think, but I'm
not positive here, that CG units in these rules represent two carriers plus
escorts.
>What about allowing a CG to use of its airbase capasity to transport
>wings, and if the wing is of type F, the planes can take off from the CG
>and make a normal transfer.
I'd let CG units carry one non-C type F air unit in addition to its normal
complement of air units. This non-C air unit may fly a transfer mission off
the CG to a land airbase. I would not let any of the CG's normal class C
units fly missions while it is carrying non-C units. Generally, non-carrier
planes had to be carried up on the flight deck, because they lacked the
folding wings necessary to move them down to the hanger deck.
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: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 09:46:15 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Re: Navies in Europa (Was: Pacific Europa)
I posted this response to a message on rec.games.board. I thought it might
be of interest to the Europa list.
Ah, naval rules, the great bug-a-boo of Europa.
>/* Written 1:48 AM Dec 26, 1995 by ppii@delta.hut.fi in igc:rec.games.boar */
>/* ---------- "Navies in Europa (Was: Pacific Euro" ---------- */
>In article <bgregory.819575354@nrel>,
>Brian Gregory <bgregory@nrel.nrel.gov> wrote:
>>mabellam@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mark Lee Bellamy) writes:
>>>My real reason for this post involves the old naval system used in
>>>Europa originally. Many of the modules have naval counters and I'm
>>>curious as to what the rules for their use was. Does anyone know how
>>>they were used??
The most complete naval rules for the "standard" Europa naval units are
Supermarina which can be found in Europa #s 17, version I, and 20, version
II. Even these rules use counters which are slightly different from the
naval counters included in games such as First to Fight or Balkan Front.
Supermarina aims to provide a naval module for the war in the Med, War in
the Desert and Balkan Front. I have never played it and don't plan on
trying. It's very, very complex with individual ships down to the DD sized
vessels and a naval phase of 7 naval action segments inserted in between the
initial and movement phases. Each naval action segment is structured as
follows:
Phasing player subsegment
recon step
naval movement step
combat step
non-phasing player subsegment
recon step
naval movement step
combat step
I think GRD as given up on Supermarina as too messy even for Europa, hard to
believe I know.
>>Indeed, I'd like to know which games included such counters ("deep sea"
>>navies only, please).
I believe Their Finest Hour and Fire in the East/Scorched Earth both contain
naval units at the individual ship level and rules for their use. Of the
latest Collector Series games, Balkan Front, A Winter War (optional naval
rules in Europa # 38/39), For Whom the Bell Tolls, and First to Fight all
contain such naval units, but no rules for their use.
>>So, it's really two questions:
>>
>>(1) Has anyone else seen Narvik with German naval counters?
>
> I haven't.
A Collector's Series Narvik is due out in 1996 and may have German naval units.
>>(2) What other Europa games have some provision for naval (ship-v-ship)
>>combat?
>
> Their Finest Hour. Most of the games had some naval counters, but no
> rules I think. (E.g. Polish DDs and Submarines in "Case White" - for
> The Grand Europa... ;-)
The best current naval rules were first introduced in Second Front and are
also used in For Whom the Bell Tolls. GRD wisely gave up on trying to use
individual ships and switched to a Task Force system. There are surface TFs
built around BBs and Carrier Groups which include their escorts, while Naval
Transports and Landing Craft are represented by points of cargo capacity
which assemble and breakdown as the owning player sees fit. Submarine
Squadrons are introduced in For Whom the Bell Tolls.
While I like the TF system much more than any previous attempts at a Europa
naval system, there are still a few improvements I would like to see.
1. The sub rules don't seem to work very well. In For Whom the Bell Tolls,
the British player can pretty much steamroller any and all subs at sea with
either his TF or CG units.
2. I'd like a little more flexibility in assembling TFs. Currently, you're
given a certain number of TFs with fixed strengths, from 2 to 16. There is
no provision for changing either the size or number of these TFs. There
must be a middle course between the madness of Supermarina and the current
TF system which would allow a player to tailor TFs for specific missions and
situations.
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: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: Navies in Europa (Was: Pacific Europa)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 10:05:03 -0600 (CST)
>
> I posted this response to a message on rec.games.board. I thought it might
> be of interest to the Europa list.
>
> Ah, naval rules, the great bug-a-boo of Europa.
>
The biggest problem that we've encountered with the task force style of
Navies in SF is sweeping of mines and danger zones. You have no mine
sweeper units so this must be done with a task force, and because mines
do more damage to larger task forces, you basically wait until you get the
smaller French or Italian task forces to sweep mines. Danger zones are
supposed to represent small patrol craft, and subs. They are much more
likely to damage large task forces, which should be able to defend themselves,
than they are to damage small task forces.
-Charlie
--
Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com
Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 17:25:30 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Re: Navies in Europa
Responding to Peter Rogers, who said:
>The most complete naval rules for the "standard" Europa >naval units
are Supermarina which can be found in >Europa #s 17, version I, and
20, version II. Even these >rules use counters which are slightly
different from the >naval counters included in games such as First
to Fight or >Balkan Front.
The original Their Finest Hour contained [in addition to a close-up
map of SE England at 8.33 mi/hex] counters for a majority of the 1940
RN and High Seas Fleet units at DD level and above, and intricate
rules for naval engagements, including exhaustive [and exhausting]
counters for German transport across the Channel, including type of
vessel group [barges, motor vessel, etc.], port of basing, and
whether it could beach-land units and/or carry heavy equipment. These
were the first actual ID-based naval counters [DNO/Unt had counters
marked simply BB, CL, and LC for the Soviet navy] in Europa.
While the SF naval system is far easier than either the Supermarina
or Their Finest Hour systems, my own opinion is that, overall, it
is still to onerous to integrate easily with the land war. I was
recently involved in a SF game scenario with Bill Stone dealing with
a 1943 Allied invasion of France, where we abstracted most of both
the naval and air operations, and it was immensely more fun than any
of my previous attempts at SF.
Narvik has never had German naval counters up until now, though as
Peter says, the latest incarnation due in 1996 may have them.
>1. The sub rules don't seem to work very well. In For >Whom the
Bell Tolls, the British player can pretty much >steamroller any and
all subs at sea with either his TF or >CG units.
Historical evidence would generally tend to support the efficacy of
TFs & CGs [escorts and speed being their two best weapons] in dealing
with subs.
>2. I'd like a little more flexibility in assembling TFs.
Given that people will use the SF system, there should, indeed be
more flexibility in TF assembly, but the lack of this may be an issue
of space on the countersheets, rather than intent on the part of GR/D.
Ray 'bibliographic references available on request' Kanarr
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 21:34:47 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: SF rules questions.
I'm going to start a "quick" game of Second Front before school starts back
up. Below are a number of questions I still have about the rules. Please
comment on any/all that you care to.
- Bobby.
--------------------
Are the effects of the unimproved fortress at Toulon cumulative with any
port fortification there? (I know that effects are usually cumulative in
Europa, but two different types of fortification in one hex seems rather odd.)
When there are too many units in an area to take advantage of a limited
supply source (rule 12.C.2), are the excess units isolated, or merely out of
supply?
If (for example) you have 30 REs of units that can only be supplied through
a minor port, may they use the port in groups of 15 REs on alternate turns
(so that none are ever worse than in the first turn out of supply)?
The first paragraph of rule 12.D gives an example that seems to be
incorrect. If the unit is "first judged to be out of supply in the Axis
initial phase of the Dec I 44 game turn", shouldn't its "first turn out of
supply" consist of the Dec I 44 Axis game turn and the Dec I 44 Allied game
turn?
Shouldn't the supported breakdown components of the Allied airborne
divisions have the full movement rating of the parent unit?
According to rule 20.G.2.h, air units on the naval patrol mission roll to
make contact during the mission movement step. Should this not be done after
interceptor movement? (As written, the interceptor pilots have an unusual
degree of prescience about which enemy missions they can safely ignore.)
What is the role of the "Invasion Reaction" information at the bottom of
the "Gr. Germany Strat Air OB"? This seems to be the referent of the
"Luftwaffe Alarm" section on page 15 of the Axis OB, but I cannot find a
rule that governs its use. (How long do the units stay in play? Is there
any penalty for their use?
Is there any interaction between this and rule 26.B, "German Strategic Air
Assets"? Was rule 26.B supposed to replace this OB material?).
If the Axis player has insufficient ARPs to replace losses when withdrawing
strategic air assets (per rule 26.B), and has not been able to pay off the
resulting deficit, is the full strategic air OB deemed to be available when
next called up for a special effort, or is the deficit deducted from the
available
pool?
Rule 33.A specifies that a task force "must fire all its NGS in the same
combat phase". This does not make a lot of sense, since it "remains prepared
as long as it remains in the same hex and does not fire during any naval
combat". Does this mean that NGS is considered to be a form of "naval
combat", so that the unit may not fire again until it has gone through the
preparation process? Does it mean that a task force firing NGS may only
fire in one combat phase of a turn? Does it have some other implication
that escapes me?
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: SF rules questions.
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 22:28:12 -0600 (CST)
Bobby D. Bryant Said:
>
> I'm going to start a "quick" game of Second Front before school starts back
> up. Below are a number of questions I still have about the rules. Please
> comment on any/all that you care to.
> - Bobby.
>
> --------------------
>
> Are the effects of the unimproved fortress at Toulon cumulative with any
> port fortification there? (I know that effects are usually cumulative in
> Europa, but two different types of fortification in one hex seems rather odd.)
They would be cumulative. You can have an ourvage and a fortified hexside,
plus a major river and wooded rough (how's that for fun).
>
>
> When there are too many units in an area to take advantage of a limited
> supply source (rule 12.C.2), are the excess units isolated, or merely out of
> supply?
Limited supply source has them isolated no matter what (cannot trace
to a full supply source). If there are excess, they are isolated and
out of supply.
>
>
> If (for example) you have 30 REs of units that can only be supplied through
> a minor port, may they use the port in groups of 15 REs on alternate turns
> (so that none are ever worse than in the first turn out of supply)?
Sure. Why not. It does halve the attack of armor though.
>
>
> Shouldn't the supported breakdown components of the Allied airborne
> divisions have the full movement rating of the parent unit?
The HQ probably has all the trucks. Airborne units are odd to start
with, so it makes sense.
>
>
> According to rule 20.G.2.h, air units on the naval patrol mission roll to
> make contact during the mission movement step. Should this not be done after
> interceptor movement? (As written, the interceptor pilots have an unusual
> degree of prescience about which enemy missions they can safely ignore.)
We always did that if the naval air units made contact, the
non-phasing player could fly intercepts and patrols.
>
>
> What is the role of the "Invasion Reaction" information at the bottom of
> the "Gr. Germany Strat Air OB"? This seems to be the referent of the
> "Luftwaffe Alarm" section on page 15 of the Axis OB, but I cannot find a
> rule that governs its use. (How long do the units stay in play? Is there
> any penalty for their use?
> Is there any interaction between this and rule 26.B, "German Strategic Air
> Assets"? Was rule 26.B supposed to replace this OB material?).
>
>
> If the Axis player has insufficient ARPs to replace losses when withdrawing
> strategic air assets (per rule 26.B), and has not been able to pay off the
> resulting deficit, is the full strategic air OB deemed to be available when
> next called up for a special effort, or is the deficit deducted from the
> available
> pool?
You get ARP's when you call up the strat air force. I would just keep
the deficit. The strat AF stays the same.
>
>
> Rule 33.A specifies that a task force "must fire all its NGS in the same
> combat phase". This does not make a lot of sense, since it "remains prepared
> as long as it remains in the same hex and does not fire during any naval
> combat". Does this mean that NGS is considered to be a form of "naval
> combat", so that the unit may not fire again until it has gone through the
> preparation process? Does it mean that a task force firing NGS may only
> fire in one combat phase of a turn? Does it have some other implication
> that escapes me?
Well, it can split up it's fire to multiple targets, but once it fires
off on NGS, it's depleted and needs to replenish, and then of course
set up again.
You could move in, setup, fire, replenish, come back, setup, and fire
again for defensive NGS.
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: SF rules questions.
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:23:58 -0600 (CST)
> Rule 33.A specifies that a task force "must fire all its NGS in the same
> combat phase". This does not make a lot of sense, since it "remains prepared
> as long as it remains in the same hex and does not fire during any naval
> combat". Does this mean that NGS is considered to be a form of "naval
> combat", so that the unit may not fire again until it has gone through the
> preparation process? Does it mean that a task force firing NGS may only
> fire in one combat phase of a turn? Does it have some other implication
> that escapes me?
The implication that this rule has is you can't "hold over" unused NGS.
For example the British TFs have 16 NGS, you setup and fire 8 NGS. You
do NOT have 8 more that you can use next turn, use it all or lose it. You
can split it and fire in two different attacks, as long as they are made in
the same combat phase. There is only one combat phase per player turn.
-Charlie
--
Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com
Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 95 9:55:40 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: re:SF rules questions.
Bobby Bryant asked:
>> When there are too many units in an area to take advantage of a
limited
>> supply source (rule 12.C.2), are the excess units isolated, or merely
out of
>> supply?
Jeff White responded:
> Limited supply source has them isolated no matter what (cannot trace
> to a full supply source). If there are excess, they are isolated and
> out of supply.
I'm not sure this is correct.
>From Second Front isolation rule:
"A unit or hex is isolated if the owning player cannot trace an overland
supply
line of any length from the item to any of his regular sources of
supply. "
>From Second Front supply rule:
"Supply sources are divided into the following categories:
o Regular Supply Sources: All full or limited supply sources.
o Special Supply Sources: All other supply sources."
Note the use of the term "regular" not "full." Hence I don't think units
tracing to a minor port are isolated.
>> If (for example) you have 30 REs of units that can only be supplied
through
>> a minor port, may they use the port in groups of 15 REs on alternate
turns
>> (so that none are ever worse than in the first turn out of supply)?
> Sure. Why not. It does halve the attack of armor though.
Why does it halve the attack of armor? Did I miss something? I thought
first turn out-of-supply halved the movement of c/m units, but basically
nothing else.
I agree that you can juggle the in-supply status of units supplied through
a limited source. This sort of makes sense; that's what you would do in
real life, I think.
The way I read it, this has a strange effect in combination with the limited
supply source rule. Since there is little bad effect on 1st turn out of
supply units, you can, in effect, supply double the supply source
capacity using this alternating technique with only effect being half
movement for some c/m units. With something less than 30 REs in the
"beachhead" you could possibly keep those c/m units supplied all the
time. I'm not 100% sure this is what was intended, but I think it is what
we have. Maybe it's not really too bad, since I suppose you would start
rationing gasoline offloads at the port before you would let units run out
of ammo.
I must confess that I am often wrong in rules interpretations.
Frank
From: Mats Persson <map@ida.liu.se>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 13:36:56 +0100
Subject: FWTBT & Black sea slime
Please use the address europa@lysator.liu.se when you send messages to
the mailinglist. Here are a forwarded message:
------------------------------------------------
Hello.
Just a few words on glitches in the civil war scenarios in FWTBT: The
Republican OB booklet and counter sheet are at odds. I assume that the
counter sheet is correct in representing the brigades as 1-2-6/2-6*, as per
the rules, rather than the OB booklet, i.e. appearing initially as
2-6(unsupported) with a later half point Art RP upgrade to 2-6*.
THe Basques non-divisional forces appear to have defected to the other
Gobernitos: this makes for a mess in the very congested zone of operations.
Hopefully there will be a corrected counter sheet at a later date.
Balkan aero-naval slime:
A slick trick for Scorched Earth is to use Rumanian AF fighters to escort
bombers flying the naval patrol mission. Once Bessarabia is retaken, it is
counted as part of Rumania proper, so any aircraft flying in this area do not
count against the 3 unit limit for Rumanian air units in the Soviet Union.
Several coastal hexes in Bessarabia are close enough to Odessa to use for the
hex to which the mission is flown. As any intercepts will be flown
against this hex, the bomber force can then bomb any naval force
entering its patrol zone without fear of being intercepted. In effect, this
allows for a large Rumanian fighter escort for the anti-shipping forces
protecting Odessa in 1943-1944
The gloriously sick variant of this move is to use Rumanian bombers as the
anti-shipping forces: A close reading of the rule shows that the aircraft
flying a naval patrol mission never leave the hex to which they were
originally flown. Thus, all AA fire and bombing attempts take place without
the air units actually leaving their original hex and flying to where the
ships actually are.( Yes I know that Flak at ~64 miles is silly, and no
anti-shipping forces in the world had stand-off devices like this in
1941-45, but just because it's physically impossible dosent mean it can't
be done, as I always say.)
In defence of this pair of flying balls of slime, I would offer the rationale
that coastal patrols are one of the things that the Rumanians should be
doing with their air force: their navy was just not up to the task. I also
believe that Odessa was annexed to Rumania from 1942-1944, at least in
theory, as a sort of New Order consolation prize for having lost Transylvania
to Hungary and much of the lower Danube to Bulgaria.
What is the status of the WD/NE/Torch replacement? My local game store
is unsure of whether it exists or not.
Why is the Europa association page on the Web all white-out?
Haya Safari,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------
Mats Persson
From: pardue@hilda.mast.queensu.ca (Keith Pardue)
Subject: Requred Losses
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 10:57:10 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
Before the holidays, there was some discussion about whether
or not you can voluntarily reduce your AEC/ATEC or combat engineer
proportion to avoid taking required losses. I had assumed for a long
time that you could; but this raises some questions about in which
order the players make their decisions in this regard.
In any case, I was just looking over some SF questions
which I sent to Rules Court last year. One of the questions was:
"May a player voluntarily reduce his AECA/AECD/ATEC or combat
engineer proportion in order to avoid "Required Losses"?"
The answer:
"No."
I had two pages of questions. If I find can find the
time in the next few days, I'll type them into the computer
and post them.
Best Wishes,
Keith Pardue
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 13:10:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "Steven C. Petras" <stilgar@wam.umd.edu>
Subject: Newbie Questions
I hope the subject didn't scare anyone away.
I'm new to this list and have a few questions:
1. Is there a FAQ(s) and if so where?
2. Is there any ftp sites and if so where?
Europa Question:
I was playing Balkan Front over the holiday (pretty apropos),
and ran into a minor question. In the Apr I 41 turn, the Germans
intervened. It states in the OB that the forces detailed for
the invasion of Yugoslavia are only setup if Yugo has joined the
Allies, at this point in my game Yugo was still Neutral.
Now I didn't want to have to send my Germans over the Mataxas
Line when just a quick detour through Macedonia would be so
much easier. It just seemed a little ahistorical for me to
have to repsect Yugo neutrality at this point in the campaign.
The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia,
they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they?
I ended up setting up all the Germ forces and smashing Yugo in
the free turn before the Apr I Axis turn. (I took Beograd but
the Yugo Govt escaped) I believe I ended up violating the
letter of the rules, but it seemed the correct thing to do 8).
Is there errata on this? How should it have been played?
One last question:
When is GR/D going to update their web page? The errata links
haven't been updated in 6 months and would be extremely useful.
Thanks for your time,
Steve Petras
stilgar@wam.umd.edu
Silver Spring, MD, USA
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 10:21:10 -0800
From: graham@ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Newbie Questions
At 1:10 PM 4/1/96, Steven C. Petras wrote:
>The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia,
>they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they?
>I ended up setting up all the Germ forces and smashing Yugo in
>the free turn before the Apr I Axis turn. (I took Beograd but
>the Yugo Govt escaped) I believe I ended up violating the
>letter of the rules, but it seemed the correct thing to do 8).
>Is there errata on this? How should it have been played?
The German goal was to get Yugoslavia into the war on their side.
My gut feeling is that they would have respected Yugoslav neutrality.
Besides, the game is more interesting if you have to go through the
Metaxas Line.
---
Stephen Graham
graham@ee.washington.edu
graham@cs.washington.edu
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 19:28:52 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Re: Newbie Questions
>>The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia,
>>they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they?
>>I ended up setting up all the Germ forces and smashing Yugo in
>>the free turn before the Apr I Axis turn. (I took Beograd but
>>the Yugo Govt escaped) I believe I ended up violating the
>>letter of the rules, but it seemed the correct thing to do 8).
>>Is there errata on this? How should it have been played?
>
>The German goal was to get Yugoslavia into the war on their side.
>My gut feeling is that they would have respected Yugoslav neutrality.
>Besides, the game is more interesting if you have to go through the
>Metaxas Line.
I don't even think the Germans wanted Yugoslavia as an ally. A truly
neutral Yugoslavia would have suited the Germans just fine as they were
preparing for the invasion of the USSR. The main German objectives were
a. a quiet Balkans on their southern flank
b. ejection of the British from Europe, the Brits having gotten a foothold
in Greece after the moronic Italian invasion of that country; the big German
concern here was a British air or ground threat against the oil fields of
Rummania
Two problems with BF's simulation of these political concerns might be the
Axis VP chart and the German withdrawal schedule (mind you in all of my BF
games, the Germans have had to invade an Allied Yugoslavia so this is based
on conjecture rather than experience).
One, the Germans lose 12 VP for intervention even if only the Greek invasion
force is used. Perhaps a lower VP penalty for a Greece only invasion might
be appropriate.
Two, the German withdrawal of forces seemed to be based on a combined
invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia. For example, the Greece invasion forces
only receives 15 air units, but the Germans have to withdraw a total of 13
air units even if the air units tasked to the invasion of Yugoslavia are
never use. Once again, perhaps a less harsh withdrawal schedule might be
appropriate in the case of a Greece only invasion.
The end result of these two features of BF is that the Germans want to
invade Yugoslavia even though in the real war, that was the last thing that
the Germans wanted to be forced to do.
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, 5 Jan 1996 12:47:08 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Re: Newbie Questions
One other thing. I found an article in TEM #26 which provides a revised VP
schedule for BF. It goes part way to dealing with some of the problems I
raised in my earlier post. For example, the Germans get 10 VP for a
pro-Axis Yugoslavia. The article is "Balkan Front Revisited: New Strategies
and Revised Victory Conditions" by Flavio Carrillo and Jason Long.
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: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 10:35:16 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Death of GDW
Europa-Folk:
I just found out this morning from AOL and rec.games.board that GDW is going
out of business as of the end of Feb. Winston Hamilton has several times
mentioned the assitance provided by GDW to GRD after GRD established itself
to continue the production of Europa. I was wondering if anyone knows who
the demise of GDW might effect GRD?
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: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 12:24:16 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Death of GDW -Reply
The demise of GDW, lamentable as it might be in the historical sense
[as having been the company that gave birth to Europa, and in fact
the concept of monster-gaming], will in no way affect Europa, as they
had already sold all right to the titles to Winston & GR/D, and no
current GDW employees are involved with Europa.
Ray
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 11:15:40 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: Neutral Yugoslavia (was Newbie...)
>The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia,
>they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they?
Yes, they are. It is my understanding that...
The German / Yugoslav agreement from early April (or was it late March)
1941 guaranteed Yugoslav neutrality and NO PASSAGE of German
troops. This appalled the German high command who desperately
needed the high capacity rail line through Macedonia for the invasion of
Greece. Politician Hitler apparently decided that a neutral Yugoslavia
was better than use of the railroad. Neutral Yugoslavia also guaranteed
supply of certain important raw materials such as bauxite from Mostar
and others (maybe antimony but my memory lapses).
The Yugoslav's pro-Allied coup obviously solved the immediate railroad
problem for the Wehrmacht as they could just take it during the invasion.
Don't remember exactly where I read this info, but I think I've found it in
more than one place. I remember it surprised me. I too, would not have
thought Yugoslavian neutrality would have made Hitler pause.
Frank
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 12:06:14 -0800
From: bstone@sonic.net (Bill Stone)
Subject: Re: Neutral Yugoslavia
>>The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia,
>>they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they?
>
>Yes, they are. It is my understanding that...
>
>The German / Yugoslav agreement from early April (or was it late March)
>1941 guaranteed Yugoslav neutrality and NO PASSAGE of German
>troops
SNIP
The Germans guaranteed:
1) No passage of troops.
2) Respect Yugo sovereignty and territorial integrity.
3) No request for Yugo military assistance.
4) "Consideration" of Yugo interests in Salonika during peace settlement.
The first two points were publicly broadcast; the latter two remained secret.
There are several useful books on Yugoslavia in the war. Two which contain
text of the protocol and side notes:
Hoptner, J. B. YUGOSLAVIA IN CRISIS, 1943-1941. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1962.
Littlefield, Frank C. GERMANY AND YUGOSLAVIA, 1933-1941: THE GERMAN
CONQUEST OF YUGOSLAVIA. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1988.
----------------------------
Bill Stone
Santa Rosa, CA
bstone@sonic.net
World War II Web Site:
http://www.sonic.net/~bstone
----------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 17:16:14 -0700
From: jfratesi@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Jeffrey Fratesi)
Subject: How do I remove myself from this list? (sorry)
Sorry about this message, but can someone tell me how to get off
this mailing list? Thanks.
Jeff Fratesi
jfratesi@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
http://www.ualberta.ca/~jfratesi/jeffy.html
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 20:33:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Larry Woloshyn <woloshyn@io.org>
Subject: Re: Neutral Yugoslavia
On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, Bill Stone wrote:
> >>The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia,
> >>they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they?
> >Yes, they are. It is my understanding that...
> >The German / Yugoslav agreement from early April (or was it late March)
> The Germans guaranteed:
> There are several useful books on Yugoslavia in the war. Two which contain
> text of the protocol and side notes:
> Hoptner, J. B. YUGOSLAVIA IN CRISIS, 1943-1941. New York: Columbia
> University Press, 1962.
> Littlefield, Frank C. GERMANY AND YUGOSLAVIA, 1933-1941: THE GERMAN
> CONQUEST OF YUGOSLAVIA. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1988.
A neutral Yugo was very desirable for Hitler since he and
Mussolini had both been after it for some time. That is to say after
it's resources, while letting it remain nominally sovereign. Italy was
well ahead in this contest and when the German invasion occurred Hitler
had to hand over Croatia to the Italians. Check out:
Smith, Dennis Mack MUSSOLINI'S ROMAN EMPIRE
Knox, MacGregor MUSSOLINI UNLEASHED 1939 - 1941
both good reads.
The twisted history of the German/Italian occupation plus the
British/Soviet aid to the "resistance" is largely responsible for
current events in "the former Yugo", much more than the "centuries of
hate" which commentators refer to.
Larry
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 13:27:17 +0200
From: c-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Re: Neutral Yugoslavia (was Newbie...)
>>The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia,
>>they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they?
>
>Yes, they are. It is my understanding that...
On another, related, subject:
Am I the only one who has noticed that the germans can't attack the
yugoslavs before they start their mobilization, with the BF
rules-as-written.
It was a while since I checked the rules, but it goes something like this:
Germany can't check for yugoslav participation after their invasion is
triggered. The way the rules are phrased, the invasion is triggered before
the participation check in the turn. Thus the germans must check the
yugoslavs the turn before, which gets them a free round of mobilization if
they remain neutral or hostile.
Worse yet, the rules state that the germans must invade the first
clear-wheather turn if they are to invade at all. Now the germans can't
know for sure which turn that is, so to be absolutely certain about
yugoslavia, they must try to pressure them the turn before the first
possible clear-wheather turn! This most likely gives the yugoslavs two free
turns of mobilization.
Needless to say, this is absurd, and I assume it's wrong. The german
invasion scenario don't allow for any yugoslav mobilization. When I play
the game, I simply ignore the passage that states that you can't try to
pressure yugoslavia after the geman invasion is triggered.
By the way, I find this treatment of yugoslav neutrality in the game
stupid. As several mails on this subject has stated, The germans wanted the
Yugoslavs neutral. In the game, if the germans want the yugoslavs neutral,
they remain neutral. If anybody was pressuring the yugoslavs, it was the
allies, but they can do nothing to affect Yugoslavia in the game.
Personally, I think that the old Marita-Merkur game did a much better job
at portraying this, among a lot of other things. Anyone agrees?
Mvh Elias Nordling
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 07:04:18 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Bye Bye
Europa Folk:
It's been fun, but now I've got to go. I hope this list continues and
increases in activity. As I said in an earlier post, I think this is the
proper internet forum for Europa discussion, rather than GENIE or AOL which
some folk are unable to access. I'm off to Tanzania for my dissertation
work and will be back in mid-November. In the meantime, good luck knocking
down the interior walls of your houses to play (drum roll please) Clash of
the Titans. BTW, I never did discover Tangier's status in the FWTBT WWII
scenarios.
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: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 13:25:31 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: WitD, magazines etc
I hope you have had as nice a Christmas and New Years leave as I have
had. Someone mentioned 'Clash of Giants' on the Europa mailing lists
today. Is this the name of the 1943 Grand Europa scenario? Does this
mean that Europa 43-44 is out?
A status report on WitD would also be appreciated. Does it for
instance include complete OBs for Italian East Africa and Vichy French
North Africa? And the BIG question, when can we expect it?
/Johan
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 18:45:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Larry Woloshyn <woloshyn@io.org>
Subject: Re: Neutral Yugoslavia (was Newbie...)
On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Elias Nordling wrote:
> On another, related, subject:
> Am I the only one who has noticed that the germans can't attack the
> yugoslavs before they start their mobilization, with the BF
> rules-as-written.
> Needless to say, this is absurd, and I assume it's wrong. The german
> By the way, I find this treatment of yugoslav neutrality in the game
> stupid. As several mails on this subject has stated, The germans wanted the
> Personally, I think that the old Marita-Merkur game did a much better job
> at portraying this, among a lot of other things. Anyone agrees?
As was mentioned earlier in relation to FWTBT the Germans
_cannot_ get their RR arty to Gibralter within the rules as written.
Does anyone playtest these scenarios before they are published? Well GRD?
Larry
From: Kevin Maroney <kjm@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Death of GDW -Reply
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 23:39:02 -0500 (EST)
> The demise of GDW, lamentable as it might be in the historical sense
> [as having been the company that gave birth to Europa, and in fact
> the concept of monster-gaming], will in no way affect Europa, as they
> had already sold all right to the titles to Winston & GR/D, and no
> current GDW employees are involved with Europa.
There might conceivably be a John Astell design or two freed up by the
end of GDW, but I'm by no means sure. Many of the non-Europa games he did
were Traveller tie-ins (Invasion Earth, Fifth Frontier War, Azhanti High
Lightning?), and Traveller is going to Mark Miller.
But yes, all of Europa, as far as I know, is already in GR/D's possession.
--
Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker
Oh no, it's the apocalypse.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 09:46:24 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Latest on WitD
I've managed to wrestle some information out of Winston concerning
WitD, although he seems quite tight-lipped on release dates...
OBs (or at least counters?):
Italian: Africa from 1930 on
US: 1939 on (not including the Pacific I guess)
British: lots (whatever that means)
Vichy: complete OB
9 maps covering NA and NE (including all of Turkey and somewhat more
to the east).
/Johan
From: viktor@mgr.hjf.org (Viktor Kaufmann)
Subject: How long to play FWTBT?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 13:13:34 -0500 (EST)
How long does it take to play any of the scenarios available in For
Whom the Bell Tolls? An acquaintance of mine is interested in
playing, but only if the game is of short enough length. I've only
skimmed through the rules and setups, and I can't judge from that.
Thanks,
Viktor
Date: 17 Jan 96 14:03:29 EST
From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com>
Subject: Computer-supported BF & FWTBT
I'm looking for a few playtesters for DOS-based computer-support programs for
EUROPA which handle weather, alerts, political events, VPs, etc,. For FWTBT,
there is support for pacification and purification, replacements, and factories.
They are designed to speed and enhance play by reducing the administrative tasks
and providing timely reminders.
Anyone interested please Email me at 74133.1765@compuserve.com, and state your
preference - Balkan Front or For Whom the Bell Tolls.
Jim Arnold
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 96 17:58 GMT
From: nicklaw@cix.compulink.co.uk (Nicholas Law)
Subject: Re: How long to play FWTBT?
In-Reply-To: <9601171813.AA07414@mgr.hjf.org>
Viktor asked:
> How long does it take to play any of the scenarios available in
> ForWhom the Bell Tolls? An acquaintance of mine is interested in
> playing, but only if the game is of short enough length.
In that case you should stick to the Operation Felix scenario,
which can be got through in one day. The Civil War scenario is a
monster -- I played it for six days straight, eight hours a day --
so it's probably not for your friend.An alternative 'shorty' is a
hypothetical Spanish invasion of Portugal, based on the Grand
Europa orders of battle.
Nick
From: Mats Persson <map@ida.liu.se>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 18:02:36 +0100
Subject: Opponent search for a new comer
Forwarded mail:
------------------------------------------------------------
To all of you,
Hello !!
My name is Cassina Giorgio, I'm from Italy and I'm playing Europa
Serie Games since 1989.
I would like to play a PBeM game of one Europa game: all of them are
OK except for Narvik and For Whom the Bell Tolls.
I have the software Aide Camp, from HPS, and so I can play even
with the support of this software.
Contact me at this e-mail address if interested:
lame@pol88b.polito.it
One more question: do you know if there is an ftp site dedicated
to Europa Games from which I can download some interesting stuff ?
Giorgio
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 19:05:56 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: GRD errata pages fixed (sort of).
Folks,
I notice that the GRD web site now has the on-line errata working for BF,
WW, and FWBT (Second Front is, unfortunately, still not available). The WW
errata has a date of Jan '96, but BF looks like an older file. Still, it's
nice to see that they have it working.
For those of you who have joined the list recently, the web site is at:
http://www.grdgames.com/
Or you can go straight to the errata-selection page at:
http://www.grdgames.com/errata.htm
- Bobby.