From: nobody@upmc.edu
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 15:34:43 -0500
Subject: Test from Europa Homepage
Hello Europa enthusiasts ! This is a fun home page to use !
Hope to see many good discussions here.
Peace,
Jim
--
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 17:08:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Courtenay Footman <cpf@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: amphibious invasions
> Did the allies really have the capability to plan and carry-out
> large frequent amphibious operations with two weeks notice? Personally,
> I am inclined toward tying the number of turns that the operation must be
> planned during to the number of REs involved in the amphibious landing.
> The larger the landing, the larger the number of turns during which the
> operation must be planned.
No, the allies did not have the ability to plan large amphibious operations
in two weeks; it took months. (See S. E. Morrison's U. S. Naval Operations
in World War II.) On the other hand, Axis defenses were much more static
than they are in the game; once an infantry division deployed, it usually
stayed there, and even the mechanized units did not move around much. Thus
the allies plans did not have to be as flexible as they do in the game.
Also, plans were made while the troops that would carry them out were
still fighting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtenay Footman I have again gotten back on the net, and
cpf@lightlink.com again I will never get anything done.
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 17:34:39 -0400
From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell)
Subject: Re: amphibious invasions
> Did the allies really have the capability to plan and carry-out
>large frequent amphibious operations with two weeks notice? Personally,
>I am inclined toward tying the number of turns that the operation must be
>planned during to the number of REs involved in the amphibious landing.
>The larger the landing, the larger the number of turns during which the
>operation must be planned.
>
>Of course, if the allies *could* have pulled off landings in fairly rapid
>succession, then I suspect its just tough luck for the axis.
>I'm not writing this as a perpetual axis player spouting sour grapes, but
>as someone who plays both sides in various europa games who is concerned
>with either side having too great a capability for something that they
>did not have historically.
Don't let the long preparations for D-Day fool you. While much of it was
necessary, much was just paper shuffling and hand wringing by people who
had nothing better to do until the invasion occurred -- and you can do a
lot of paper shuffing when your invasion is delayed for a year!
Also, "amphibious operation planning" is almost a misnomer -- "amphibious
operation preparation" is better. At Europa level, most of the planning
goes on in the background and does not affect the forces under your
control. What the planning rule does is have
you get your invasion forces ready, which doesn't require months of work.
Again, ignoring the special case of D-Day, take a look at Operation Husky.
The invasion force was virtually the same size as Overlord's (both landed
around 140,000 men), yet Husky's planning took far less than Overlord's.
Sicily was selected at the Casablanca Conference in later January 1943, the
invasion day was set only in April, the "final plans" were set only in
early May, and some of the divisions for the operations were busy fighting
in Tunisia until the Axis surrender there.
For another example, take a look at Salerno. While not as big as the
Sicilian invasion, it was fair sized. It was also planned quickly, in
response to events in the Med. On 27 July 1943, the US 5th Army was ordered
to come up with a plan to invade mainland Italy and capture Naples -- and
Operation Avalanche went off on 9 Sept. 43, just over a month later.
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: Second Front Plans
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 12:13:14 -0600 (CST)
Jay Steiger/Forte Said:
>
> Since I don't have my SF maps handy, I would be very interested in a brief
> explanation of each plan (and whether it was executed).
I don't have my maps handy, but here's a quick overview.
Operation Silver was against the Western shore of Sicily with
the Americans. That was executed on schedule.
Operation Platinum was against the South West shore of Sardinia with
the Brits. It was executed on schedule.
Gold was delayed to become Gold-II against Elba. That was mostly a Brit
operation with an aerial overrun and taking out the other hex to
take all of Elba.
Iron was a small op against those islands just North of Messina.
Bronze was against the South Western shore of Corsica.
Uranium was against the Southern foot of Italy. It's right near
a minor port (name escapes me) at the end of flat part of
the foot. This formed a retreatable pocket (as most of
our landings did). The Germans counterattacked and DR'ed a Brit
stack, to no effect.
Plutonium was against Naples. That was an American Operation
taking out Naples and forcing (with no die roll) the Italians
out of the war.
I think Copper was an end around to flank the Cassino line.
I think Iridium was another end around at (been there, done
that) Anzio.
Pyrite was against the Northern French Island in the Bay of
Biscay. It was a useful airbase, especially for redeploying
planes from the Med to Britan.
Blue Monkey was not executed. It was a plan for a Winter
invasion of France, around Britianny.
Skybolt was a sneaky one. Right near the Spanish-French border on
the Med, there's a reference city (our favorite target) one hex
inland. That part of the coast was very weakly defended. Here's
the drill. The big invasion fleet for Blue Monkey moves from England right
up to that part of Southern France on movement (exactly 150 hexes).
Para Commando's take the reference cities airfield. 101st Airborne
flies in. Assembles into the full division. Smacks a 2-3-6 Inf X guarding
the coast. ZOCs take ownership of coastal hexes. Brit armor rolls
ashore. Runs down another 2-3-6 Inf X. Make a big pocket in Southern
France....
I think Fullback, and Quarterback were End-arounds in France.
Halfback was an end-around in Italy that flanked another line around
Rome.
Hammer was another beauty. This is the operation that destroyed
the German army in Italy. It also precipitated the biggest airbattle
I have ever seen. 60+ Germans fighters and bombers, and 80+ Allied
fighters. They tried to get the Invasion fleet in the Adriatic
before the blow fell. Three Fw190 fighters made it through
all of the Allied fighters and flak. No hits on the ships.
This attack was against Venice, and the cities to the North
of Venice. Paratroopers took out Verona and cleared the roads for
Armor to roll. Taking out Verona and holding the river just east of there
plus a commando drop in France (near the French alps) cut off
the Germans from supply in Italy for a turn. The next turn I was able
to trap and digest a fairly huge German army in Italy.
Black Adder was against Emden Germany. It's main goal is and was
to stretch the German line as long as possible.
Pannekoeken was to secure a supply line to the Emden pocket and prode
Germans to leave Netherlands.
That about covers it. Questions?
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
jwhite@ghq.com
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
jwhite@ghq.com
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: Second Front Plans (lon
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 12:12:21 -0600 (CST)
Rich Velay Said:
>
> Hi Jeff.
> Enjoyed your plans; what a lot of work! My records never look
> so good... :(
> A couple of questions. I noticed that you used the Br 52 Lowland div
> in its Glider incarnation; I have always found it more usefull as a mountain
> div. I find that the Allies are better supplied with airborne than they are
> Mountain stuff. You weren't pulling a sick trick and switching it back and
> forth, now were you. One of my Allied opponents tried that one on me. :)
No, we needed it as glider early on for the grabbing of Elba. That
was pretty useful and a major thorn in the German side for some time.
We left it as Glider until just recently (December 1944). Never have
enough sky gangsters. :)
> I noticed you used the Fr LE Training X in a follow up wave. What
> balls; the Fr already have few replacements without paying the penalties they
> do for even having one of those guys in a ZOC, let alone lost in combat. What
> was so important about using it that the risks were worth taking?
That was to hold a single hex island North of Messina. I just needed
some points to hold the island in case of some goofy counter attack. The
unit was available, had no heavy equipment, and a fair defense.
> One of your operations looked like, but I could be wrong, it was using
> the sick trick of dropping airborne to friendly a beach and then moving other
> guys in using regular transport during the same phase. I hope I'm wrong,
> 'cause that little maneuver is illegal; another of my opponents tried that one
> once as well. These tricky Allies! :)
No, the beach changes ownership after the combat phase. We would drop
paratroopers on a beach on Movement, unopposed, the follow up on explotation
with amphibious transport. We ALWAYS had C/M units to back up the invasion.
The c/m units would mech forward to create a pocket. That was of prime
consideration. Also, airfields change ownership immediatly.
So, we could grab a reference city with a commando and air transport,
not drop, airborne divisions.
Another slimy maneuver was we needed to get the airborne HQ's up to
Elba, but the Krauts had fighters all over the place, so we called up
a British Strat wing and used it as transport at night. Krauts could
not do a thing about it.
> Anyway, it looks like you run a tight ship and are really well
> organized. I guess not all of these special ops got run, did they? Some
> times as the Axis I wonder if the Allies will ever just go three turns without
> somebody charging off an LCT or diving out of a C-47. The ops are a lot of
> fun to plan and execute though. Just wish I had more than the San Marco
> Marines and a couple of 3-5 Para regts to work with as the Axis. :)
In general, the allied side took about 2 hours to plan each invasion. I
guess almost all of those plans were executed. The Germans have the
advantage of interior lines and being the defender. Our advantage is
mobility. The Kraut team is excellent, very good at draging battles
out over time.
> Best special op I ever pulled off was a invasion airdrop on Elba
> following the Allies having done so the turn before (I had mine planned as a
> contingency for the previous three turns). The Italian fleet provided NGS and
> the single Italian Marine-Commando batt was left after the exchange to
> re-friendly the hex. Lost Elba two turns later, but my moment of glory was
> fun while it lasted!
I figured that was going to happen when we took Elba, that's why it was
important that we got the airborne HQ's in. Then we had like 15+ points
in each hex, AA, and coastal defense from forts.
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
jwhite@ghq.com
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 15:17:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Mark H Danley <danley@ksu.ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: mail
Hey Everybody - even though I've been a member of the Europa
Player's Assoc since its inception (yeah, I remember and still have that
first issue printed on a couple of 8 1/2 x 11 sheets) this is the first
time I've subscribed to the list and delved into the on-line provinces of
the Europa world. I envy you guys having the time to examine all the
permutations of Second Front play. I'm afraid I got my copy, marveled at
the maps and counters, did a quick recon and attempted decipherment of
the rules, and lamented the fact that I'd never have time to play it. In
the latest issue of the magazine someone noted how interesting it was
just to go through the orders of battles and watch the Allied forces grow
and grow and the Germans reraise their whole army. The part of the
former that intrigues me is how the re-entrance of France into
belligerency is shown in SF. Sure, I realize some wargamers seem
to be either latent or active Francophobes (I wonder why), but it's still
fun to talk about.
I am enjoying current dialogue on the list that emphasizes the
fun, operational side of SF (after all, Europa _IS_ an operational
simulation!), but I hope everyone doesn't mind to much if I rattle on
about the Ever Ongoing Debate on Europa Political rules. Seeing France's
reentry into the war in SF got me thinking about how we might handle 1940
someday in Grand Europa. We never had to deal with it in Fall of France,
because of how the designers defined the game - an operational simulation
- what becomes of the Third Republic after the battle of France is beyond
the scope of the game. How Vichy authorities behaved in 1941-42 was
represented in the desert games, and was particularly important in
Torch. I found the political rules concerning Vichy possessions and
forces in the Desert games pretty good, though I remember someone (Frank
Watson?) pointing out that the Allies never have a practical incentive in
the play of War in the Desert to invade the Levant that is comparable to
the real-life incentive that the British government felt.
Someday, though in Grand Europa, we will have to figure how to
handle the fall of the Third Republic and whatever regime or regimes
replace it. I would assert that we should not take for GRANTED that when
faced with disastrous military defeat (as happened historically) the
Third Republic will not finally self-destruct juridically as it did in
reality. Why? At least some of the major historical studies of the
fall of France argue that had premier Reynaud asserted himself between
the 14th and 18th of June, the government would have agreed to continue
the war from North Africa, and surrender the army in Metropolitan France
(legally different from asking for an armistice - a simple military
surrender - regarless of its scope - would still leave the French state
in a state of active belligerency against the Axis, this is the route the
Netherlands chose for example, but I digress into the fineries of
international law) William Shirer in _The Collapse of the Third
Republic_ argues that there were several cabinet meeting in the last days
of the war in which IF Reynaud had asked for a vote on whether or not to
high-tail it for Algiers, a majority of the cabinet would have agreed.
He suspected this, but feared if he was wrong, a negative decision would
turn into total abdication and a request for an armistice). That's
right, even in all the mass confusion as the government skedaddled across
France as the armies collapsed, even in Bordeaux, Reynaud might have
gotten the cabinet to agree to continue the war from the Empire
Well, one might easily answer "but our beloved Europa concerns itself
with fighting the war, and certain political realities are taken for
granted! For
example, we don't roll to see if Germany will turn into a fascist
dictatorship with an agressive foreign policy in the 1930s before we start
the game - to make THAT a variable of play calls into the question the
whole premise of a game
about World War Two!" Yes, indeed. In Europa we DO take for granted
basic historical realities about the fundumental nature of each power's
polity and culture. BUT the designers clearly believed in the possibilty
of the Third Republic acquiring some determination to ensure its
survival.
Way WAY back in the Europa supplement to the Fall of France,
John Astell noted in the Order of Battle for the France up to the end of
1941 that the reinforcement and production schedules assumed that the
French government would organize itself to win the war, and that there
was SOME indications that this was beginning to happen in the spring of
1940. So perhaps it is not so unreasonable to NOT take for granted that
the Third Republic will implode in the face of military defeat.
I have other thoughts about this, but if anybody who wades
through my turgid ranting wants to respond, I'd rather hear Your thoughts
before I rant onward. Again, hope nobody minds a lengthy political note
in the midst of your interesting discussions about actually PLAYING the
games - (novel idea - I vaguely remember the concept I think ...)
Mark Danley
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 96 23:42:00 -0100
From: Perry de Havilland <cloister@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Air War
I would be interested in cooresponding with any Europa grognards who are
interested in any aspect of the Strategic Air War or ever the Air Rules
in general. I am particularly interested in the duel between the
RAF/Luftwaffe at night over Germany and the RAF & Luftwaffe's intruder
operations (but by one means limited to that).
This is an area in which I think Europa, love it though I do, has the
most unrealised potential.
I am convinced that the Strategic Air War should be delt with via
modular air rules. Those who are hard core enough to deal with the
nitty gritty of managing such a campaign should have the mechanisms for
doing so (loonies like me), whilst having a more abstrated option for
those who would rather deal with more operational matter.
I have put considerable thought into simulating the various technical
systems that were central to the air war and in particular, the
electronic war, something that is impossible to ignore when simulating
the night air war.
Comments anyone?
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: AREONAVAL
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 04:22:11 PST
Hi everyone.
Saw the post about Air war thoughts.
Myself, if Europa *never* included a strategic air
war module I would be quite happy. As a player, I am drawn
to Europa for the lushness and depth of its representation
of *operational* ground and air combat. Anything more
detailed than the SF system is beyond my needs, or my
desires.
Sure as an optional system, for those who really want
it, but I would be concerned about where the time to work on
such a scheme was coming from. There is only so much design
time available (and only one man "spending" that time) and I
would worry what else *wasn't* getting done so that we could
have a couple of hundred extra HB and NHB counters to monkey
around with.
I guess as a Europist, I am attracted to the "purer"
aspects of Europa. I don't want to see this become a
divisional level version of Third Reich (TM) or World in
Flames (TM). I have strategic level representations of WW II
and they serve my needs. Europa, for all its vastness and
complexity, is still *not* a strategic scale game. And I
for one, hope it never becomes such a thing.
Same thing for naval matters. I *love* the task force
system introduced in SF and used in FWTBT. If I never have
to see another Paris Commune or Hood, it won't be too soon
for me. Individual ships have no place in a game devoted to
Corps level ground combat, IMO. We maneuver *Armies* over
16 mile hexes within two week game turns. Having to worry
about whether or not the Ajax has a full torpedo re-load or
not is not my idea of Europa. Extending things to submarine
flotillas and differentiating DEs from DDs is *way* too much
for me.
But then, I guess that is part of what makes Europa so
wonderful; it is big enough and detailed enough to be all
things to all people. Just as long as *I* don't have to
worry about 80 groups of B 17/24's bombing Germany this
turn, or 300+ DE class ships escorting grain and oil across
the Atlantic... :)
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: INVASION!
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 04:20:13 PST
Hi everyone.
The SF invasion plans and re-caps that have
appeared are fascinating and very well done. It's good to
see other Europa Obsessive-Compulsives out there! :)
I have done most of my SF time as the Axis, so it is
interesting to see what Allies have been doing; and how that
may be different from what I have been up against.
One thing I have noticed is the number of invasions that
seem to be behind German lines; reading about landings in
Naples and NW Italy and the like. How are other Axis
handling beach defence?
Perhaps I am doing it in a way different from others; I
get my rear taken care of and what is *left* makes up the
front line. Like Naples. I don't think I have ever had
*less* than 15 DF, 10 A-A and 5 levels of CD in that hex
before it has fallen. Plus a mine. I can't imagine how
anyone could take that on with any hope of success.
Let's look: 25 NGS (the maximum)
11 air GS (generous, I know...)
4.5 Ground att
for a grand total of 39.5 att factors. I don't use decimal
dice, so a 2:1 attack. And that's assuming that the mine
doesn't reduce NGS, the CD doesn't reduce NGS or sink any
LCs and that the Allies have six 3-8 Engineer X/III without
using a mixed nationality attack AND that they have four 4
TBF planes within range. The Engineer mod get's rid of the
fort DRM but the Full hex city DRM remains so the attack
goes through at 2:1 -1. The Allies have a printed strength
of 18 so they "win" any EX or HX.
So there is a 4 in 6 chance of them losing 36 VPs and
not taking the hex, a 1 in 6 chance of losing 30 VPs and
taking the hex and a 1 in 6 chance of losing 18 VPs and
taking the hex. This assumes, of course, that none of the
CD was left unsuppressed and thus added nothing to the
ground strength of the Axis.
Even if they could muster a 3:1, which they can't, they
would only get the hex without loss on 2 die rolls in 6.
I'd be happy to be up against any Allied player willing to
play those odds.
One of the keys is to make every port a one hex attack
for the invaders. Easy enough to do, since units have to
attack units they are stacked with, to the exclusion of any
others. Since the Allies can't muster better than 11 or so
AF for an airborne or amphibious overrun, two DF (supported)
or 3 DF (unsupported) is all you need as flank defence
around any port to insure that it will be a one hex attack.
Considering the large VP awards for failure (or even for
winning, w/ an EX or HX), the Axis should be happy if any
such attempts are mounted. Especially if any specialst
"Elite" units are involved.
In over ten playings of the 43' time period (but using
all theatres) I have never had a successful behind the front
invasion mounted against me as the Axis. This versus three
different opponents/teams.
At least three quarters of my time, each turn, is spent
on rear area concerns; I figure the front line can look
pretty much after itself...
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GURU
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 04:24:13 PST
Hi everyone.
I just wanted to make something clear here to all
of the people getting Europa@lysator.
There could be some confusion, on some people's part,
about my position as Rules Court Editor, with regards to
posts I put up and the things I say in them.
First of all, most of the time I will be speaking as
just another gamer. I don't design the games, publish the
games or have anything to do with where Europa is going.
The opinions I express are my own and should not be
misconstrued as being in any way connected to Europa, GRD or
TEM.
This does not mean that I won't try to help anyone who
needs it, with such things as addresses, questions about GRD
or how to get in touch with whomever *can* help. Ask away,
I will be happy to help. But if I rant on about what *I*
think should be done about a particular game mechanic or
system, realize that that is me as gamer, and not in any way
a reflection of design or business plans by GRD.
When you post me to me in my position as jr. poohbah,
aka Rules Court judge, by using the subject line format I
have specified, ie Subject: Guru:<game title>, things are a
little different. My answers to you, as rules judge, can be
taken as official rules judgements, with the caveat that ALL
rules decisions are John Astell's business. The Rules judge
can make mistakes, and can be over ruled by JMA. He
*always* has the last word on his designs and that is
exactly as it should be. I can correct mistakes and explain
the rules, but I do *not* design the games, nor do I write
the rules.
So if you write to me as the Rules judge, you can be
assured that my response represents the way things are meant
to be, unless over ruled by John. If I have anything to
add, in the manner of optional treatment or house rules,
they will be plainly labeled as such, so there will be no
confusion over what is RAW and what is me.
This concept has been dealt with in the past in the
magazine, but I felt that for those of you who haven't or
won't see this information in the mag, it was useful to make
things crystal clear as to my role.
So please, ask away. This medium is a great addition to
those questions sent into GRD and/or the magazine. I have
been trying to get to your questions as quickly as possible
and this medium, certainly, is the best bet for a speedy
reply. Instantaneous, if you ask me an easy one. :)
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: John Sloan <johns@unipalm.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: INVASION!
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 96 14:30:17 GMT
Rich Velay wrote on Sun, 03 Mar 96 12:20:13 GMT
> Hi everyone.
> The SF invasion plans and re-caps that have
> appeared are fascinating and very well done. It's good to
> see other Europa Obsessive-Compulsives out there! :)
> I have done most of my SF time as the Axis, so it is
> interesting to see what Allies have been doing; and how that
> may be different from what I have been up against.
> One thing I have noticed is the number of invasions that
> seem to be behind German lines; reading about landings in
> Naples and NW Italy and the like. How are other Axis
> handling beach defence?
> Perhaps I am doing it in a way different from others; I
> get my rear taken care of and what is *left* makes up the
> front line. Like Naples. I don't think I have ever had
> *less* than 15 DF, 10 A-A and 5 levels of CD in that hex
> before it has fallen. Plus a mine. I can't imagine how
> anyone could take that on with any hope of success.
> Let's look: 25 NGS (the maximum)
> 11 air GS (generous, I know...)
> 4.5 Ground att
11 air GS generous? Hah! As the allies, we were usually getting
through much more than that.
Anyway, I digress from my my point. If you have allies who will take
on a major port like Naples head on, then the axis are going to be
grinning all the way to the VP bank.
I don't think we ever took on a major port that was seriously
defended from the sea. Typically our invasions started with planned
air-drops on every minor port we could see, beach landings on hexes
near them, and a followup wave in the exploitation phase bringing
Mech into the newly captured ports. The way we captured major ports
was by land.
I do see your point about defending the rear. In our game the
Germans/Italians had formed a strong line in the south around Taranto
to hold off the British invasion. Naples was also strongly defended,
so the American invasion went north of Rome. [There is a major port
up there which wasn't defended well]. This nearly went badly wrong
as the Italians surrendered, and the major port was blown up. We had
a hectic couple of turns as hordes of combat engineers built
airfields and the port engineers repaired the port. We had captured
Rome in the turn we had landed, though, so it's airbase capacity and
the carrier and the new airbases was _just_ about enough.
Similarly in France. We didn't invade at Marseilles, or any major
atlantic port. There are about 5 minor ports near Brest on the
Brittany coast. Those, together with the mulberries and some
airdropped supply, were enough to supply the invasion till it had
captured Brest by land and repaired it.
On this front we were never counterattacked since we had landed far
enough away from the panzers that they couldn't get there in time.
Attacking port fortifications head on from the sea is a mugs game.
John
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 18:26:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Mark H Danley <danley@ksu.ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: Air War
On Sat, 2 Mar 1996, Perry de Havilland wrote:
> I would be interested in cooresponding with any Europa grognards who are
> interested in any aspect of the Strategic Air War or ever the Air Rules
> in general. I am particularly interested in the duel between the
> RAF/Luftwaffe at night over Germany and the RAF & Luftwaffe's intruder
> operations (but by one means limited to that).
>
> This is an area in which I think Europa, love it though I do, has the
> most unrealised potential.
>
> I am convinced that the Strategic Air War should be delt with via
> modular air rules. Those who are hard core enough to deal with the
> nitty gritty of managing such a campaign should have the mechanisms for
> doing so (loonies like me), whilst having a more abstrated option for
> those who would rather deal with more operational matter.
Your interesting suggestion seems indicative of an ever-ongoing
debate about Europa - how much _strategic_ activity do we show directly
as a dynamic of play. Those who debate about how much "detail" should be
included in naval rules (abstracted TF's vs. individual ships) sometimes
reach a conclusion similar to yours - abstract it for GE purposes, but
with optional rules in more detail for those who feel the players can and
should manipulate strategic as well as operational activity.
>
> I have put considerable thought into simulating the various technical
> systems that were central to the air war and in particular, the
> electronic war, something that is impossible to ignore when simulating
> the night air war.
>
> Comments anyone?
>
>
>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 10:49:06 +0100
From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Re: amphibious invasions
>you get your invasion forces ready, which doesn't require months of work.
>Again, ignoring the special case of D-Day, take a look at Operation Husky.
>The invasion force was virtually the same size as Overlord's (both landed
>around 140,000 men), yet Husky's planning took far less than Overlord's.
>Sicily was selected at the Casablanca Conference in later January 1943, the
>invasion day was set only in April, the "final plans" were set only in
>early May, and some of the divisions for the operations were busy fighting
>in Tunisia until the Axis surrender there.
>
>For another example, take a look at Salerno. While not as big as the
>Sicilian invasion, it was fair sized. It was also planned quickly, in
>response to events in the Med. On 27 July 1943, the US 5th Army was ordered
>to come up with a plan to invade mainland Italy and capture Naples -- and
>Operation Avalanche went off on 9 Sept. 43, just over a month later.
In none of your examples the preparations time was less than two turns for
game purposes. Perhaps the planning time should be two turns ahead, then
(with the posibility for rolling delay due to weather.)
Mvh Elias Nordling
o-noreli@jmk.su.se
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 11:23:35 +0100
From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Scandinavian Europa association
Anyone on this list knows who I should e-mail if I want to join the
scandinavian Europa association? (I DO have the snail-mail address)
Mvh Elias Nordling
o-noreli@jmk.su.se
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 10:34 GMT
Subject: France Falls Again
Hi ho from ChCh.
I just read Mark Danley's post on the fall of France. I'm reading
Shirer's book myself, and I'm just up to the next-to-last chapter, in
which General Huntziger is surrendering to Keitel.
It's interesting that a coup that overthrew France was led by
generals who were defeated. Normally, one would expect victorious
generals to be the ones who ride on horseback to power. But defeated
ones?
As far as the creation of Vichy France, that's a strategic and
political can of worms that may be beyond the Europa framework...not
under the operational art. Hitler had a lot of options in June 1940, and
it would be interesting to see what if he'd taken some of them...seizing
the French fleet, for example, or giving Tunisia to Italy.
War In Europe by SPI handled the fall of France as follows: They
made it inevitable. The game was predicated that France would collapse.
The German player could then create Vichy France or occupy the whole
country. Creating Vichy France neutralized North Africa and Syria, but
left them open to Operation Torch. When the Germans reached Paris, Italy
automatically entered the war, and bright red Fascist divisions advanced
in Libya.
The Third Republic had tons and tons of weaknesses, and Bill Shirer
dissects them in detail. WW1 bled it politically and morally, and the
leadership of 1934-1940 lacked the steel and sense of duty to maintain
the fight. Weygand was more obsessed with maintaining order in a defeated
country than repelling the invaders, for example. The double-dealing and
chicanery of that government is quite appalling. Basically, they blamed
the British for not coming to their aid with aircraft, while the newest
planes and best pilots in the French Air Force sat back in the rear, the
planes idle, the pilots drinking.
Still, the question remains, what if Reynaud had appointed De Gaulle
as defense minister vice Petain, putting a more fiery leader at the top.
The creation of Vichy France was not a done deal. I'd like to see options
aweigh in the case of the fall of France.
Let's not forget that one of the leading causes of the fall of
France was the weakness of the French position in the Ardennes. A Europa
player of today in Grand Europa (or whatever), armed with 20/20 hindsight
is not likely to follow Gamelin's Dyle Plan with lock-step precision.
Furthermore, the 9th Army is not going to be as weak as it was
historically. A Europa player in Marshal Gamelin's shoes will probably
try to create that "Masse de Maneuvre."
When I played The Fall of France, I noted a lot of 6-6 divisions
(some Polish) standing around behind the Maginot Line, unable to
intervene in the struggle. Had I my druthers, I would have posted at
least one in Sedan. It may not have defeated 19th Panzer Corps, but it
certainly would have given Guderian a run for his money.
All these concerns are going to certainly give GRD's designers more
reason to reach for the Extra-Strength Tylenol.
Best,
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
Subject: supply
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 18:02:06 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
I was away, so I haven't been responding to the many
interesting posts on the list. While I was on the train, I
spent some time thinking about the various comments that people
made on supply in Europa.
It does seem to me that offensives (not requiring
special operations) don't require much planning in the Europa
games. Construction, on the other hand, does. You not only have
to move your engineers so that they are in the right place in
the initial phase, but you have to move resource points during
the movement phase so that they will be in the right place
during the initial phase as well. But, for major offensives,
you often don't even need to have the troops in the area the
turn before, as they might be brought in by a massive rail
and air effort.
But, as Elias pointed out, Headquarters might help
with both problems; they could reduce the amount of planning
that is needed for construction and they could regulate
the distribution of attack supply.
Let's try out a radical idea for a moment. Say that
the land element of a supply line can be traced only *one*
hex to a road, or a number of hexes to a headquarters
depending on the size of the headquarters. (e.g. maybe
two hexes to a corps headquarters, more to an army HQ)
The HQ could then trace to a higher HQ or trace a normal
supply line (the land element being of reduced length if
this rule is used).
All attack supply and resource points are stored with
HQs and kept on a secret offmap display. Attack supply and resource
points are never put on the map! But, attack supply and resource points
may be moved and immediately expended during any phase (e.g. the initial
phase or the combat phase). The HQ has a certain number of SMP to
move these things about, or to move itself with all of its points.
Resource points may use rail movement in the initial phase, but
attack points may not use rail movement in the attack phase. Only
a limited number (depending on the HQ) of attack supply points may
be moved by the HQ during the combat phase, although an unlimited
number of units can trace attack supply to the HQ itself, if
they are within the HQ's land element supply range.
There should be some nationality restrictions on units tracing
to HQs of other nationalities.
HQs can be bombed. Bombing reduces their SMPs, or perhaps their
supply range, or perhaps bombing should even destroy some of the points
that the HQ has stored up. I don't know.
It seems to me that such a rule, of which the above is only
a rough approximation, would simplify some aspects of bookkeeping
in the game, while increasing some others. But, it would shift
some of the planning emphasis away from construction and towards
offensives. Also, the truck rule could probably be done away with;
a HQ would fulfill the functions of a truck.
"World in Flames" has HQ units which act as supply conduits
and also abstractly represent major efforts. Although the WIF
system represents WWII on a different scale and with a different
design philosophy, maybe we can still draw some inspiration
from that elegant idea.
I have no time or space these days to develp or
playtest such a rule. But, do any of you more active players
have any thoughts on this subject? Or, does John Astell have
a statement? (You can ignore that; I don't want to put you
on the spot for every design decision.)
Best Wishes,
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 18:00:45 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: France Falls Again
> Let's not forget that one of the leading causes of the fall of
>France was the weakness of the French position in the Ardennes. A Europa
>player of today in Grand Europa (or whatever), armed with 20/20 hindsight
>is not likely to follow Gamelin's Dyle Plan with lock-step precision.
>Furthermore, the 9th Army is not going to be as weak as it was
>historically. A Europa player in Marshal Gamelin's shoes will probably
>try to create that "Masse de Maneuvre."
I suspect -- and I don't think that I can even claim to be the first to say
this -- that any "grand" campaign will pretty much have to either strong-arm
the French or else start in mid '40, after the damage is done. The result of
any failure to Fall is fascinating ground for speculation, but whatever else
that result might be, it would *not* be WWII-as-we-know-it. I don't think
any game system can allow for all the possibilities and still maintain its
character as a historical game. It's not much different from saying "What if
the war started in '38?" -- we could do it with generic armies and
production rules (as in the aforementioned SPI game), but it wouldn't be
satisfying in the way the Europa games have been.
Granted, the "what if" approach is one of the foundations of wargaming, but
so is the notion of "simulation". I just can't see using an OB with armies
evolving in battalion-level detail for a campaign where a different set of
major powers is in play (maybe vastly different, if German failure in the
West prevented their invasion of Russia and gave the USA less cause to get
involved). An OB can make certain mobilizations conditional, based on the
on-map situation, but there seems to be a practical limit to the number of
conditions specified, and the more flexibility offered the more speculation
would be necessary. "Speculation" leads us either to "generic" or else to
"fiction".
I think a '39-'40 "Blitzkrieg" campaign without a straitjacket for the
French player would be fun to play, or even experimental "grand" campaigns,
but I think the historical orders of battle (even for nations other than
France) depended very much on the course of the war. Not to mention the
political rules: it looks like it's going to be very difficult to write such
rules for the various nations even if things generally follow their
historical course for the major players. How much more difficult to cover
situations that only remotely resemble history?
Bobby.
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: France falls
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:24:03 PST
Hi everyone, from the Great White North.
Looking at the France posts, I wonder how GRD, meaning John
Astell, will handle this in the re-write of FoF.
As Europa grows and develops, we will see more involved political
rules, and I'm sure, more limitations placed upon the abilities of various
nations.
France is a good example. In a strict "count the tubes" method of
representing the 1940 French Forces, they come out looking pretty good. And
yet they performed abyssmally during the war. Sure things got a little better
with the Weygand Plan, but it was all over save the crying by then.
Having a big tough army free of restrictions, operational and
deployment, would be fun (for the Allies!), but it wouldn't be history. The
failure of the Saar offensive springs to mind. So how do you show the
complete inability of the French to operate ina post 1918 environment?
Idiot rules. Which everyone hates. The offensive power of the French
has to be reduced from respectable to problematic, their air ground
cooperation has to be suspect, their ability to move and fight has to be
limited, their C/M units have to be hobbled, etc, etc.
I suspect that lots of restrctions from FoF will be retrofitted in any
re-release of the game, they *have* to be. France fell, thus, France *must*
fall, given equal play. They were routed, even a vast improvement in their
abilities vis a vis the operational arts should have them still lose, though
perhaps not as badly. If all of the French mistakes can be corrected before
playing, why not the German ones too? Think of the can of worms *that* opens
up!
Two things spring to my mind on this topic; one, Europa is *not* World
in Flames (TM) on steroids! and two, we players do *not* represent political
leadership when playing the game. The Axis in SF or FoF is not Hitler and the
Ally in FoF is not the Premier of France, nor Churchill. We don't get to
challange a surrender; if the rules (the national leader/s) say we give up, we
give up. The rules have to represent the political forces at work, that we
players, as the military commanders, have to deal with and work within.
Making us players Churchill or Stalin is beyond the abilities of
Europa, IMO. And Churchill and Hitler, regardless of any meddlesome quirks,
have no place in a divisional level representation of ground and air combat in
WW II. Again, in my opinion.
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 14:41 GMT
Subject: More on the fall of France
Obviously if the French had not taken counsel of their fears and
made use of their advantages...more firepower, better tanks...and not had
the crippling weaknesses of 1940...antiquated command structure, useless
leadership, demoralized troops, outdated tactics and logistics, poor use
of intelligence...the 1940 campaign would have turned out differently.
I suspect that what will happen is that we'll be given Fall of
France (2nd version) with straitjackets, but we'll see optional rules to
remove the straitjackets, so we can re-stage history on Monday, and
rewrite history on Tuesday.
In my misspent days playing SPI's War in Europe, the German player
usually knocked off Poland in 1939 in jig time (historical deployments do
that), and then railroaded the whole Wehrmacht back to the Rhineland,
hitting the French in October or November 1939, as the original Nazi
plans for the invasion of the West (I think it was called Fall Gelb)
proposed.
The resulting breakthrough was not the classic Blitzkrieg of panzer
divisions creating a pinprick and dashing to the sea, but more of a
general wearing down of inferior forces by superior ones. The German tank
divisions in that game were 10-8s vice a few French 3-6s, while the
German 6-5 infantry division outgunned the French 3-4. The British
military was not a factor in this campaign as it usually took place
before the BEF could cross the channel.
In Grand Europa, doubtless the would-be Field Marshal Brautchisch
will have the option of hitting France in November '39 before the snow
falls. In Fall of France, that option does not exist.
The real issue is, as Rich points out, what level is this war being
fought? Where is the player? Europa says our game player is Gamelin or
Brautchisch or Ironside, not Chamberlain or Daladier. So we're donning a
straitjacket from the start, in that we're not making certain political
decisions, and we're saddled with the mindset and ethos of the various
political leadership...French defeatism, British determination, Nazi
nihilism, Italian grandiosity. So we have to factor those functions into
the games.
Yet the player gets some decisions. In Grand Europa, the German
player will probably roll up Poland and France in 1939-40 just like the
war movies, and then have to decide what to do next....Scandinavia (if it
hasn't been done)? The Balkans? Russia? Africa? Spain? England? Those ARE
political decisions being undertaken at the operational level. Keitel did
not make the decision to cancel Seelowe, Hitler did. From what I've read
of Keitel, he never really decided to do anything more important than
pick a uniform to wear on a given day.
My personal feeling is that I'd like to be able to look at the fall
of France both as the historical situation and with the "what ifs" as
optional rules.
Here's another one that will give Europa players something to think
about on cold nights...November, 1940, is not the time to invade Greece
from Albania. The weather is bad and getting worse, the communications
are poor. The Italian army in Albania is badly placed, ill-equipped for
mountain and winter warfare, and feebly led. Anybody playing the Italian
side in Europa would look at that equation and say, "Hmm, guess I'll send
those troops in Albania to North Africa to shore up Graziani."
But Mussolini's decision was to invade Greece. And we know what
happened.
It's a similar problem to the French in 1940.
I don't have a solution to this beyond the idea of offering gamers
rules to simulate historicity and optional rules to allow them to ignore
it, but it's something to think about.
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 19:30:30 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: supply
Keith said:
> I was away, so I haven't been responding to the many
>interesting posts on the list. While I was on the train, I
>spent some time thinking about the various comments that people
>made on supply in Europa.
I have been considering a modification to the supply system along the
following lines. It is somewhat more abstract than Keith's proposal, with
corresponding advantages in simplicity and disadvantages in detail. (I may
have sent a version of this to a fanzine years ago -- can't remember whether
I ever got around to writing it up!)
Notice at the outset that some of the suggestions will have a big effect
on play balance (at least in terms of slaughter rate), and will thus require
adjustments in other areas to compensate. But this is going to happen no
matter what we do in tampering with the supply system. To a greater degree
than Keith did, I will propose offering advantages to units participating in
a planned offensive and compensate with across-the-board disadvantages for
those that are not. (The details are strictly "for example" -- this has not
been playtested. The general scheme is what I would like to suggest.)
Bobby.
-----
Let a player plan an offensive simply by writing down a hex number and a
turn of effect, say two turns in advance. The hex is the "locus" of the
offensive: on the indicated turn, all units within a certain number of hexes
of it are able to take advantage of the offensive; those farther away are
not. Notice that units are *not* specified in the plan. (The assumption is
that HQ will arrange for extensive recon, improvement of communications,
stockpiles of supply, provision for transport, and detailed tactical plans
-- all throughout the region. I leave out unit specifications to leave some
fun in the game; we can assume the staff handled that part!)
There will need to be a limit to the number of offensives that can be
planned simultaneously. This can be specified in the OB, or perhaps better,
be based on the player's current railcap in the theatre. (Say one per ten or
fraction-of-ten points of railcap currently on the net. This lets the
bigger/more industrialized nations prepare for more action than the smaller
ones, and makes Germany's capabilities go down the tubes as strategic
bombing progresses. Maybe have the fraction vary by nationality if you think
Soviet or French planning should be more restrained. And of course the
Allies will need some arrangements after returning to the continent.)
For elaboration, allow planning of "major" offensives by plotting them
further in advance. On the turn of effect, the radius of effect and benefits
to the participating units would be greater. (This might be a way to
implement the "surprize turns" without special rules, and indeed would let
you create your own surprizes as the game progresses. Notice that there is
not much advantage in planning an offensive along a moving front: you may
not have units in the area when the turn comes up. But behind static fronts
you can plan them far in advance, and this is just where surprizes are most
likely to happen on real battlefields. So, for example, have the setup for
FE/SE or FoF specify that the Axis player has x number of offensives planned
for turn 1, as if written down y number of turns before the start of the
game. For an Ardennes '44, let the Axis player plan an offensive along a
quiet spot on the front [Note that I don't postulate an ahistorical supply
buildup, because the strategic bombing rules will still reduce mechanized
movement, etc.].)
As to the effects of participation in an offensive, my first guess is
something like this: Allow a +1 to attack die rolls for all units in the
radius of the locus of the offensive, say for one turn; compensate with a -1
for all units *not* operating in such a zone. For "major" offensives (i.e.,
longer planning), allow +2 instead (or maybe +2 for one turn and +1 for the
next). This will be easy to mark by deploying a marker on the map during the
turns of effect (as units exploit out of the radius of the marker, they
should loose the advantages it confers).
I know I'm leaving any number of details unspecified (e.g., does your
offensive disrupt the one I had planned facing you), and the parameters can
be changed as best suits the game (e.g., maybe just modify the CRT and give
no handicap to units not in offensives, or use strength modifiers rather
than die-roll modifiers).
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 22:11:37 -0600
From: conrad alan b <abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: SF game
My first Second Front Game; as Germans. My opponent had solitaired the
game once, and the game was set up at his place. Both of these were
useful since it takes the allies a lot of time and knowledge of the
system to plan and execute invasions. Both of us have played europa
games since DNO.
The Allied player was very cautious, both because of the VP dangers
and because he is the kind of player that hates to lose troops. So his
progress was very slow. He took a usual Sicily, then Sardinia, then
Taranto set of invasions, but got bottled up every time. The last of
Sicily (Messina) did not fall until January 44. Naples did not fall
until September 44.
France was invaded in Britany in April II 44, with a Biscay flanking
invasion in July. Breakout took a couple more turns, but progress across
France was slow. For one thing in the europa system it is impossible for
an army to run away. You must either sacrifice your entire line or fight
a slow withdrawl, which may or may not be worth the effort.
As the German I was reasonable pleased with how things were going.
I was lucky in some ways. I got the one in six chance of Italy surviving
the first surrender roll and the one in three of the second. So Italy
did not surrender until March II 44. Rome did not fall until
December II. And both the mulberries sunk which didn't hurt either.
Paris did not fall until April I 45, and the Allies were just able
to cross the border of the Reich as the game ended. So I thought I had
done pretty well. But the VP count was 297, just 3 points shy of an
Allied Substantial Victory.
And to show how cautious the Allies were they ended the game with
523 replacement points still saved. Just in case they were needed
against the Russians I guess. So he could have attacked a great deal
more and got that substantial victory and I don't know what I could have
done to stop him.
There were mistakes I made in the way I defended things. Experience
will teach that. But my opponent would not let me get and VPs through
allied losses. I only made about four attacks the entire game
This does lead into the VP question several have brought up. I'll
address that topic in the next note.
Alan Conrad
Champaign, Illinois
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:59:39 +0100
From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Message backlog
How do I access the backlog of messages of this list?
Mvh Elias Nordling
o-noreli@jmk.su.se
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:18:10 +0100
From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Re: supply
> Let's try out a radical idea for a moment. Say that
>the land element of a supply line can be traced only *one*
>hex to a road, or a number of hexes to a headquarters
>depending on the size of the headquarters. (e.g. maybe
>two hexes to a corps headquarters, more to an army HQ)
>The HQ could then trace to a higher HQ or trace a normal
>supply line (the land element being of reduced length if
>this rule is used).
>
> All attack supply and resource points are stored with
>HQs and kept on a secret offmap display. Attack supply and resource
>points are never put on the map! But, attack supply and resource points
>may be moved and immediately expended during any phase (e.g. the initial
>phase or the combat phase). The HQ has a certain number of SMP to
>move these things about, or to move itself with all of its points.
>Resource points may use rail movement in the initial phase, but
>attack points may not use rail movement in the attack phase. Only
>a limited number (depending on the HQ) of attack supply points may
>be moved by the HQ during the combat phase, although an unlimited
>number of units can trace attack supply to the HQ itself, if
>they are within the HQ's land element supply range.
>
> There should be some nationality restrictions on units tracing
>to HQs of other nationalities.
>
> HQs can be bombed. Bombing reduces their SMPs, or perhaps their
>supply range, or perhaps bombing should even destroy some of the points
>that the HQ has stored up. I don't know.
>
> It seems to me that such a rule, of which the above is only
>a rough approximation, would simplify some aspects of bookkeeping
>in the game, while increasing some others. But, it would shift
>some of the planning emphasis away from construction and towards
>offensives. Also, the truck rule could probably be done away with;
>a HQ would fulfill the functions of a truck.
How would you get supplies to the arctic, then?
I preferred my version, where you could simply break out attack supply
points and resource points from the HQs and use them the old FWTBT way.
This seems simpler and more intuitive.
Mvh Elias Nordling
o-noreli@jmk.su.se
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:43:33 +0100
From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Re: France Falls Again
>> Let's not forget that one of the leading causes of the fall of
>>France was the weakness of the French position in the Ardennes. A Europa
>>player of today in Grand Europa (or whatever), armed with 20/20 hindsight
>>is not likely to follow Gamelin's Dyle Plan with lock-step precision.
>>Furthermore, the 9th Army is not going to be as weak as it was
>>historically. A Europa player in Marshal Gamelin's shoes will probably
>>try to create that "Masse de Maneuvre."
>I think a '39-'40 "Blitzkrieg" campaign without a straitjacket for the
>French player would be fun to play, or even experimental "grand" campaigns,
>but I think the historical orders of battle (even for nations other than
>France) depended very much on the course of the war. Not to mention the
>political rules: it looks like it's going to be very difficult to write such
>rules for the various nations even if things generally follow their
>historical course for the major players. How much more difficult to cover
>situations that only remotely resemble history?
But basically, that's what happens when you play Second Front!
After all, the historical allied campaign in Italy was very close to a
worst-case scenario, and most allied players would probably take an
alternate route. Because of hindsight few SF games resemble history.
Mvh Elias Nordling
o-noreli@jmk.su.se
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 12:22:00 +0100
From: peterlj@smab.se (Peter Ljungberg)
Subject: Re: supply
Thought I`d add my ECU/50 to the supply debate:
First of all: what are the problems we want to solve by adding a more complex supply system to the major Europa games (FiTE/SE/SF)? The way I see it, there are two slightly different aspects:
1) We want to prevent the whole Wehrmacht/Red Army/Allied Expeditionary Force to continually attack with every unit all year round.
2) We want to introduce a measure of pre-planning of major offensives.
Adressing these two points would, for example, enable us to more accurately model the stop-start nature of the Red Army Offensives of 44-45.
Introducing a pool of attack points will adress 1) but not 2). Introducing die-roll modifiers for planned offensives might adress 2) but not 1).
The best idea I`ve seen regarding this, which comes very close to my own ideas, is the supply system for FiTE/SE proposed in an article in the Clash of Titans issue of TEM
Short recap for those not familiar:
HQs are introduced. Armies for Axis, fronts for Soviets. These can be active or inactive. A logistics point is needed to activate an HQ.
i) An active HQ can give attack supply to x number of divisions, an inactive to a much smaller number (local counterattacks).
ii)Thes LPs are assigned one turn in advance.
i) above will adress problem 1), since there should never be enough logistics points for the whole eastern or western front to attack continually. ii) should adress 2), since offensives will now be planned one turn in advance by assigning LPs to the appropriate HQs.
Personally, I believe that counting divisions or RE might be a bit cumbersome, the number of attacks a HQ can supply might be a more playable albeit crude method. Maybe 5 attacks for an active and 1 attack for an inactive HQ? In addition, it could be possible to model major offensives by, for example, giving a HQ two LPs for a turn, which would then give all attacks a +1 DRM. Perhaps coupled to a requirement for the HQ not to move in order to plan etc.
Peripheral theatres (North Africa, the Arctic, Norway etc. might have to be handled a bit differently. In Norway, for example, only one HQ is historically motivated, but this would not be able to support attacks all over Norway with this system. Instead, maybe LPs should be allowed to be exchanged for attack supply points a la Western Desert, for use in peripheral theatres?
The key is to keep things as simple as possible and still try to achieve the required goal, i.e. 1) and 2) above.
Peter Ljungberg
(Peterlj@smab.se)