From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: my 1.5 cents
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 02:30:36 PST
Hi Ray.
Quoted material from a message to me...
[ ... ]
>However, all that this means is that there
>is an excellent argument for computerizing these
>functions, as well as things like supply [operational
>and strategic], rail, naval, and air transport, and a
>number of other time-intensive operations. The
>arguments that used to be valid objections against
>computerization of some or all of Europa, namely
>storage capacity and processing speed, no longer
>exist.
I don't know nothin' 'bout computer Europa. I do
know that there might be people out there who would not
be happy to discover they had to purchase a 386 or
better computer to "play" a paper wargame. I think
that there might be some distress on the part of some
consumers who discover that GE was to be released
*only* as a "computer game".
I know that my *personal* antipathy towards
computer simulations would put me in the P O'd section
of the peanut gallery if GE could only be played with
computer assistance. As an option to consumers, like
the Aide de Camp computer Europa support program, great
stuff. Just so long as there is no question of my
*having* to buy...
>As for taking time from other Europa-related projects
>to devote time to developing strategic air or detailed
>naval systems, with the statement that only one person
>is devoting time to development [I would presume that
>person is John Astell], I stated here months ago that
>more people should get involved in Europa, and there
>were several VOLUNTEERS to do just that, and this is a
>tune that I've been playing for years. The fact that
>the powers that be have not investigated or exploited
>the resource of the Europa hobbyists is not for lack
>of people wanting to get involved. And if the Europa
>development team is not going to do anything about
>things like Strategic Air; Detailed Naval; and Balkan
>Partisan systems anyhow, then what is the harm in
>letting some of the other people who have a love of
>all things Europa to have a crack at it? At worst,
>they produce something which doesn't get an official
>stamp of approval; at best, they produce a
>breakthrough that elevates the system even more.
First of all, I have always felt that Europa was
the *best* system around, as far as incorporating
player input and suggestions. GRD, and in the past
GDW, have always seemed to me to be more than willing
to listen to, and act upon, good design input, no
matter where it came from. The Europa press, whether
ETO, Combined Arms or TEM, and all the equally fine
others I haven't mentioned, have been crammed with
player input and suggestions; some of this makes it
into games as official changes. Look at any Europa
game's credits to see the many "volunteer" players who
have been involved in producing *our* games. Rick
Gayler, often cited, was *just* a gamer. Arthur
Goodwin was *just* a gamer, as were Jeff Millefoglie,
John Gee and many, many others. Europa, as an entity,
has always, IMO, sought out and made good use of the
pool of "amateur" designers, developers and historians
out there.
There is no harm what so ever in this, and I'm
sorry if I expressed myself so poorly as to leave you
with that impression.
I will endeavour to make myself clearer. Personally,
I don't want John Astell to be spending much design
time on what I personally believe are systems which are
peripheral to the game as a whole. Others will
disagree with this, both as to whether or not the load
should be mostly on John as it is, and also with what I
term "peripheral"; honest, open difference of opinion is
expected and healthy.
*I* believe that the design load *is* mostly
shouldered by John Astell; whether or not it should be
this way is a moot question, IMO, since I believe
things are this way and I don't believe that my or any
other gamer's opinion is going to change this. Perhaps
it is not a moot question for other people. That may
be.
On a personal note, I'm a volunteer Europa
hobbyist, and GRD is making use of my questionable
talents. :)
I got to be the Rules Court Editor through
making my name known to Rick Gayler; bombarding him
with questions and letting him know that I wanted the
job. I offered advice (unsolicited), suggestions,
support and opinions. When Rick decided to step down,
he thought of me and went to bat for me with Winston
Hamilton and John Astell, who make these decisions.
And so here I am, jr. poohbah. Just a volunteer
hobbyist; and one who hopes to have some small positive
impact on *my* game. So GRD certainly *does* make use
of whatever talent is out there, make no mistake.
Many, many others who have had their part in
developing Europa over the years would echo that
sentiment. The fact that John or Winston don't act
upon a particular suggestion doesn't mean they aren't
listening, they are.
But only so much can go in each game; only so much,
for that matter, can be covered in Grand Europa. Major
changes to systems may take years, if ever, to be
adequately designed, tested and found worthy. That
being the case, it is my personal opinion and personal
preference that ALL the campaign games get produced
(and played, dissected and examined) BEFORE major
system changes get carved in stone.
Others are, of course, free to disagree. (and
others will, no doubt, do so! <grin>)
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: 7 Mar 1996 06:50:52 U
From: "Merrill, Robert C" <merrill@txpcap.hou.xwh.bp.com>
Subject: Computer Europa
I'd like to add my 2 cents to the discussion regarding the future of a
"computer" assisted Europa.
I have Aide de Camp (or rather had, since during my recent relocation my 386
went to the great chip-bin in the sky). I think the program is outstanding,
for what it does, which is track a paper wargame's progress and/or simplify
PBM.
But it's not an "assistance" program per-se. It doesn't actually contain any
Europa rules. As such, I'd like to exclude it from the discussion.
I share Rich's concern that one wouldn't want a computer to be _necessary_ to
play Europa. On the other hand, if it were possible to include OPTIONAL bits
and pieces via computer I'd be all for it. You may have seen my earlier
comments vis-a-vis AERONAVAL. I think that the Europa system has "lost"
something by going to the anonymous TF counters. My first Europa game was
"Their Finest Hour", and I enjoyed pushing the capital (and escort) ships
around. They add character, just like having the 82nd airborne instead of an
anonymous "paratroop" unit adds character. However, those of us who have
"experienced" Supermarina know that individual ships could rapidly overwhelm
the land game. We could bring back the ships and make their play optional
via an assistance program.
A word of caution. The program would need to be designed by someone who
knew what they were doing. It is very difficult to make a usable program.
I'm not talking just about _pretty_ graphical interfaces, but rather a logical
interface that was usable across platforms. Command line interfaces
aren't necessarily bad. Furthermore, I wouldn't want to deal with a black box.
I'd want to be able to understand what was going on within the program so that
I could sensibly plan play.
I think that it's a bigger project than GRD, or volunteers, would want to
tackle prior to the re-issuance of FiTE/SE. You'd really need those games
available in order to make the program broad enough to be generally useful.
Bob in Bogota
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GURU: l-o-n-g-!
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 06:03:03 PST
From: stefan <Stefan.Farrelly@barclays.co.uk>
>Rich, Nice reply...anyone would think theyre paying you and
>seeing as u asked for it heres the first of many ive been
>stockpiling; 1. If a TF is sitting in a coastal hex whilst
>a landing is continuing then how is an anti-naval patrol
>air unit supposed to make contact with it because the TF
>can start each naval step as night - when anti naval patrol
>attacks cant be made, and they may only attempt contact
>when a TF enters or starts a step in a hex. Logically, of
>course, they should be able to delay attempting contact
>until the night movement points are used and day arrives,
>but we cant see anything in the rules or erratas or mags
>about this.
Thanks for the kind words, Stefan.
I guess you missed my earlier post concerning format for
games questions. Since I post here as both a simple gamer,
as well as the jr. poohbah, I like to keep my mail separate.
For anyone else who didn't see it, please indicate game
question posts by using GURU: <game> as the subject in your
post. Thanks so much.
Entering GURU mode....
Your question covers quite a few concepts of the naval
rules and a situation that everyone has to face, so I
thought I would go into this in much more detail than I
normally would when answering such a question.
First of all, presumably the TF is there to help protect
the LC making the landing, as well as possibly providing
NGS. To do the former, it must be part of a Naval Group
that includes the LC/NTs. (Naval groups are defined in Rule
27B2 & their impact on movement is covered in Rule 28)
Simply being in the same hex is not enough. So I will
assume first that the naval TF *is* part of a naval group
which contains the LCs.
In this case, reference to Rule 34A4, movement at night,
comes into play. Amphibious landings may not be made at
night, so no naval group which contains LC/NTs making an
amphibious landing can be "moving" at night.
Therefore, the naval group containing the TF is a
legitimate target for the Naval Patrol air mission (Rule
20G2h). It not only will begin the naval movement step in
the landing hex, but will also have to expend 30 MPs each
naval movement step until the LCs have unloaded their cargo.
And since the NG can't be "moving" at night, it can not
begin a friendly naval movement step "at night" while
conducting an amphibious invasion.
By being part of the naval group with the LC/NTs, the TF
will be able to provide AA strength, if it is either the
unit with the largest AA strength, or, of course, if it is
the only TF in the NG. Also, as naval bombing hits are
applied randomly and in a descending order of precedence,
beginning with TFs, the TF will also "absorb" some of the
bombing hits achieved. And of course, by being part of the
LC/NT naval group, the TF protects the naval group should
enemy TF/s initiate naval combat against the naval group.
But say you don't *want* the TF to be part of the naval
group containing the LC/NTs. This is fine as well; Any
number of naval groups can be in the same hex *during* a
turn (they all automatically become one single naval group
at the end of each player turn). Just keep in mind that the
TF, if not in the same naval group as the LC/NTs, can not
protect them from enemy TFs or be included in any naval
patrol mission declared against the naval group containing
the LC/NTs. This may or not be a good idea.
So what if our TF is in the hex, but not part of the
LC/NT naval group? Let's say it is preparing to fire NGS
during the combat phase following the amphibious landing.
First of all, it could not have entered the hex using
night movement *and* begin the next naval movement step also
considered to be "moving" at night; it must expend 20 MPs
during the daytime before it can use night movement at
night. This means the enemy can run a naval bombing mission
when it entered the hex *or* that they will be able to run
naval bombing missions in the *next* naval movement step, if
it arrived in the hex at night.
Also note well what Rule 28 says about naval units
expending MPs; they can be expended to enter adjacent hexes
and to perform other activities. There is no provision for
"burning" MPs, ie remaining in a hex, expending MPs by
choice without doing anything. To expend one or more MPs
the naval unit must either move, or perform one of the
activities referred to in Rule 28.
This means that if the TF declares itself to be
protected by the night movement rule at the beginning of a
naval movement step in which it does not expend any MPs,
then it can *not* be considered to be moving at night in the
immediately following naval movement step, since it did not
expend the 20 MPs required to do so, by Rule 34A4.
But our naval commander is tricky and willing to do
whatever it takes to protect this TF! The TF will handle
things so that it expends its 60th MP to enter the hex in
question. At the beginning of the next naval movement step,
it declares itself "moving at night" while expending the
first 10 MPs of 30 MPs this step to prepare for NGS. This
way, it will always have expended 20 MPs prior to beginning
the next naval movement step. Crafty bugger.
But note that the TF still had to *arrive* in the hex
using day movement, giving the enemy at least one crack at
running naval bombing missions against our perfidious TF.
Much of the difficulty with this kind of situation is
contained in the rules regarding naval bombing missions; if
the rules said that one could fly such a mission when an
enemy naval group "expended any MPs in a hex", instead of
the perhaps too vague "enters", all of this would be simple.
I would recommend such a change be used as a "House
Rule"; that's how I play it, anyway.
I don't believe the intent of the rules is to provide
some kind of mystical protection against air attack for
naval units sitting *in* a hex, as opposed to *entering* it.
What would prevent the bombers from choosing to *not* fly at
night against a naval unit sitting in a hex? Surely, if the
naval unit can only spend one third of its MPs at night in a
hex, it follows that it must be spending two thirds of its
MPs during the day, when air units *can* attack it.
Hope this little look into the way I work is both
helpful and informative. I thought it might be interesting
for people to see.
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 08:55:22 -0500
From: mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark Pitcavage)
Subject: Slogan
> RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
>
> Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
>
Delivered some time in the distant future?
Dr. Mark Pitcavage
mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
http://www.greyware.com/authors/pitman
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: Q & A's
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 07:33:42 PST
Hi everyone.
Instead of sending my answers to some questions only to the
people who asked the question, I put them up here for all to see.
What do you think of this? Do people want to see the GURU stuff sent
out to <All> or should I just email the answer direct to the questioner?
Let the masses decide...
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 07:22:57 PST
From: "Renaud.Gary" <renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil>
Subject: CAE?
My 1.5mg of 24k Au:
We may wish to go the "other way around" in computerizing some of the
political/economic/logistic rules in Europa. It would be easy to set up a
whole slew of conditions and then have a computer go through them all.
What is more difficult is stripping down to the bare minimum necessary to
have a playable, yet realistic, game. How about this:
For the first cut, we throw in everything in a computer program. Even the
most involved logistical stuff would be completed blindingly fast by even
something like a Commodore 64 (remember those?), as long as there is no
effort to have the computer optimize things, just simply follow rules.
Now, the program could keep track of how many times each event or decision
occurred. After a while, we can strip out the unimportant things and
release it as a much simplified model suitable for hand play.
For example, I've been working on a production system that involves 3 types
of raw resources, different factories, differentiates between trained and
untrained people, produces batallions which then constitute divisions, etc.
For actually play by hand, it is an unwieldy mess. OTOP, a computer could
handle it extremely quickly, with the longest and slowest portion being the
player looking at the screen and getting the 8x7-6 Inf XX from the tray.
I'm willing to bet that many of the contingencies will NEVER be used, but I
lack the extensive wargaming experience and knowledge (I'd probably be a
very historical Soviet in AWW...) to know WHICH.
Similarly, there is the deal with the Surrender of France. We could plug
in all these variables, such as turns before city XXX fell, ratio of REs
lost, number of Brits on the continent, if Italy is in it, what the Germans
will ask for, etc. We could then look at the statistics of the games
played and pare down the unnecessary stuff.
Thanks for listening.
A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil
This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114
a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1
than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__ W: 909-273-5378
block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--' H: 714-750-9243
`-----''(_/--' `-'\_)
DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge
I CAN'T speak for this administration; I tell the truth.
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GE options
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 08:05:38 PST
Hi everybody.
Europa's most outspoken reactionary conservative here again.
Been thinking about what can or can't get into GE. Where do we begin the line
of what "affects" Europa, let alone where do we draw the line.
Imagine... 2006. You have just spent three weeks setting up the game.
Your computer assistant spits out the following: "Hitler killed in WW I, no
game." Ridiculous? Sure, but you see where I'm going...
You have conquered Poland and are moving troops west. The CPU spits
out: "Loss of Airborne Battalion to AS result in Poland ends German faith in
airborne forces; no airborne landings may be conducted by the Axis." Now deal
with Eben Emal. "Enough DEs were caused by Light Divisions in combat to
strengthen position of Cavalry in German Army; no Light XX may convert to Pz
XX and one Light XX must be created for each two Pz XX.)
What is the effect of having your first JU 88 air unit shot down?
What if *any* of the principles die in the pre-game phase? After getting 12
players together and playing for two years of real time, how will people react
to having the Turks declare war? Are British fortunes really going to depend
on a series of die rolls for US entry? In a game that will take years to
play?
Even WIF or 3rdR have to operate within some kind of reasonable
framework if they are to at least approximate WW II. Do we want to make die
rolls to see if x and y politicians make it to N.Afr. after the French
Armistace? Killing Hitler? Assasinating Darlan, Horthy, Antonescu as well as
Giraud? And then of course there are atomic bombs and Me 262s and Walther
U-Boats and JU 90s and no reduction in the Luftwaffe in '40 and the Z-plan, ad
infinitum, ad nauseum.
I know I am a voice crying in the wilderness. It seems that the
open-endeness and breadth that attracts some Europists just scares the pants
off of me.
And to those who say, "Don't just complain, offer solutions!", I'll
say this: Europa should have as little politics, in a military game, as is
possible. Deal as strictly with the military what-ifs as possible. Give the
gamer the historical situation in Sep '39 and take it from there. No player
control over major production questions, no player control over guns vs
butter, no die rolls for technological breakthroughs, no building all 20-10s
or jets, no player control over international economies, etc.
Given a choice between an optional rule on "mine dog units" and
"flexible disposition of the French Fleet based on location of Darlan at
time of Torch", well..., woof, woof. :)
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 08:42:23 PST
From: "Renaud.Gary" <renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil>
Subject: ADMIN: Q&As
"Instead of sending my answers to some questions only to the
people who asked the question, I put them up here for all to see.
What do you think of this? Do people want to see the GURU stuff sent
out to <All> or should I just email the answer direct to the questioner?"
I for one like to see the responses (with questions to provide context. Just
seeing "no" or "3" doesn't help much).
Sometimes I have not asked a question because I thought I knew exactly how a
rule worked. I then see a Q&A and found out I was exactly wrong.
From: psmith@hpmail2.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Paul Smith)
Subject: Send GURU stuff here
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:58:23 -0600 (CST)
I vote to put the GURU answers here.
--
Paul F. Smith
Ft. Worth Research Laboratories | Phone: (817) 245-6097
Motorola | Fax : (817) 245-6148
5555 N. Beach St | email: psmith@ftw.mot.com
Ft. Worth, Tx 76137 | QPS001@email.mot.com
"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement."
--
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:36:18 -0800
From: bstone@sub.sonic.net (Bill Stone)
Subject: Re: GE options
Rich,
I personally prefer to leave the mutts at the kennel when given a choice
between geo-political/grand strategic considerations and mine dogs. On the
other hand, despite Jim Arnold's persuasive whisperings about computer
assistance for Grand Europa, I'm not sure he's on the right track here. CAE
for production, naval module, combined bomber offensive-- maybe; politics
and diplomacy-- I don't think so.
What's required here is a gamemaster. It may not always prove possible to
round up a qualified person, but any serious attempt to settle hash --
especially with teams of players -- at Grand Europa's scope and scale needs
a gamemaster (or guru or junior poobah) on hand to administer the game,
mediate rules disputes, and handle the consequences of unforseen
developments (because not even the best rulebook can predict every
permutation of events).
Back in the 80s, the local Europa bros put together campaigns like "Berlin
to Baghdad" and "Hitler Turns South" and ran them a number of times at
various conventions. I think the presence of a gamemaster at each of these
events added immeasurably to the overall success of the campaigns. (In one
campaign in particular, while I was the Axis CinC, it also allowed the
gamemaster and Allied CinC to secretly simulate ULTRA and do a pretty damn
good job of fixing my little red wagon.)
----------------------------
Bill Stone
Santa Rosa, CA
bstone@sonic.net
World War II Web Site:
http://www.sonic.net/~bstone
----------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 11:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Witham, Tom G." <TGWITH@Inland.com>
Subject: Guru Q&A
Keep the Guru Q&A public. Most of us learn from the answers don't we?
From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
Subject: GE options
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 12:53:09 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
Rich is right that one can go overboard with political
minutae, but I don't think that that is what people have been
trying to do in the France discussion. I don't expect that
we will make a die roll for Darlan's location every time
something happens with Vichy France. I do expect that we
will make die rolls for what Vichy France does when needed
because, operationally, the Allies and the Axis didn't know
how Vichy France would react to this and that. John is well
informed of the possibilities, and probably better informed
now than he was a few days ago (I certainly am), and will
make a simple rule to reflect them.
The smaller individual games are truly on an operational
level and don't offer many strategic decisions. Grand Europa
will offer strategic decisions, unless those decisions are
somehow mandated by the rules. One can write a schedule:
invade Poland in September, then Norway and Denmark in April,
France and the Low Countries in May, Egypt in September (I think)
Greece in November, and so on. This wouldn't be very satisfying,
and it would be pretty easy to break such a system. One can modify
the above system for contingencies, such as France holding on. But,
this still wouldn't be that interesting. When DO you get to use
all those nice counters for the Swiss army, anyways. And you
might as well forget about a Mediterranean strategy.
Now, you can decide to remove all restrictions. But, then
the players really are representing political leaders, which
everyone seems to be opposed to. Invading this or that country is
a decision that military leaders may have less influence on than
war production.
Finally, political decisions by the major participants
might be decided randomly. Players would then have to implement
these decisions militarily. I think that this would have to be
pretty involved, if it's to be carried out with the same attention to
historical reality (not detail) that Europa has been given so far.
But, this seems like the route that would be most consistant with
what we understand Europa players to represent: military leaders.
Also, it shouldn't require any more work than keeping track of unit
conversions in all of those Nazi garrison boxes.
This sounds a bit like what I think that Rich was complaining
about. But, I think it is also what the system needs if, as I think
Rich wants, we are to represent military and not political leaders
when playing Grand Europa.
Enough ranting for now. I'll probably rant more later, if
I'm not shouted down.
But seriously, John, how do you plan to address the players'
operational roles in a game that will be strategic in scope?
Best Wishes,
Keith
From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
Subject: Q&As
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 12:54:37 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
I would like to see all of the questions that Rich is sent
with his answers. Thanks, Rich. It's a great service.
Best Wishes,
Keith
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 18:09:23 0800
From: "Dr. Zaius" <zaius@teleport.com>
Subject: (no subject)
I am writing regarding the notion that Grand Europa will not involve the players in grand strategic
decisions. Usually some caustic remark is made that Europa is not a "
Third Reich' or 'World In Flames' on steroids."
Well, those games are extremely generic and large scale-low detail games. Europa is much more highly
detailed but deals with precisely the same subject matter. I fail to see any rational reason to assume that the
players of Europa will be unable to make intelligent decisions on the level of Stalin (or whomever).
Based on the level of discourse in this forum, it is clear that all of you/us are well versed in all aspects of
WW2- some more than others.
I have made study of the politics and diplomacy in WW2 my primary focus and I feel that I know enough
about what motivated, say Hitler to feel confident that I can play that role in a large wargame.
General Staffs did not run WW2- particularly in the dictatorships of Germany and the USSR. Hitler was not
merely meddlesome as someone pointed out here- he was the heart and mastermind of the German war effort
He was also not a moron.=, requiring 'idiot rules' to reflect his bad decisions.
Players will make bad decisions of their own, so in my mind hindsight is no more of a factor in playing a
recreation of WW2 than it was for the strategists of the French General Staff in the 1920's, assuming their
perfect hindsight would win them the next war with Germany.
I respect the views of those who want to leave politics out of the game, but must we all adhere to that view?
I will continue to advocate a head-on approach to the addressing of political decisions, options, &c. in any
Grand Europa.
Steven Phillips.
"Freedom is always against the law" --J.R."Bob" Dobbs
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:21:32 -0800 (PST)
From: George Diez <radicus@kaiwan.com>
Subject: DIGEST version of list available?
Now that the traffic on this list has finally gotten good, I find my
mailbox swamped. Anyone know if there is a digest version and the details
to sub.
Thanks in advance,
George
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
radicus@kaiwan.com | "The Harder they come, the Harder
George L. Diez III | they fall, One and All"
| ---Jimmy Cliff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 10:28:47 PST
From: "Renaud.Gary" <renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: GE options
Mr. Velay
A couple of the cases you mentioned should be handled by the players
directly. They should have the choice of building Light XXs or not.
They know the costs and can see the benefits. Similarly, if they are
allowed to build (or not) airborne and have a rule something like SF's
"disastrous operations," then something like Crete might well BE the
last AB operation.
"Europa should have as little politics...as is possible."
...and no less. How do you feel about the already existing political
rules for Finland (not the cards, but the surrender rules), the Balkans,
Italy, etc? Are you willing to go a little further? A LOT further?
Besides, what if France DOESN'T fall right away. If you don't have an
"idiot rule," France just MIGHT hold out until the fall of 1940. Then
what? What would happen in Romania if Germany is still distracted? Will
Italy still come in? I can bet that even if they do, they won't mess
around with Greece if France is still around.
What is the POINT of playing the game if nothing you do can make any
changes? If you DO have a rule that basically guarantees France's fall,
then what's the point in having the BEF? Send the troops to Egypt (or
coast defense of the channel). If you REQUIRE the BEF to be sent (and
basically lost), then why bother playing the campaign? Let's just start
in Jun II 41. We can't start any sooner than that, because we aren't
allowed to consider the possibility of the Germans conserving their arms
and thereby having their troops ready earlier.
Frankly, there is little point in the whole GE idea if everything is
going to happen lock-step historically. Let's just play the separate
games.
"Give the gamer the historical situation in Sep '39 ..."
Absolutely. Though I think some way of tying FWTBT into Europa would be
nice, we don't need (want) that for the main line. Once past 1939,
though, I can see divergence.
Here are my choices for Must Happen:
1. German takes Austria, Czechoslovakia, Memel without war.
2. All countries have their historical 1939-40 armies, though they
can make greater and greater changes for the outlying years.
3. Germany attacks Poland. Britain and France declare war.
4. No peace after Poland Falls.
5. Italy starts off neutral.
6. The US is "neutral," but helps the Allies more and more.
7. The US enters the war on DEC I 41 +/- 2 months.
Other than that, though, I don't see a problem with more variability.
In fact, I would INSIST that certain decisions not be required:
1. The Norway campaign basically means that you can write off Sealion.
Can't invade without a navy, don't you know.
2. Attacking Russia (though Russia should be allowed to attack, perhaps
at the same times as the US?).
3. North Africa and Greece. Just assign victory points to helping/
abandoning your allies and everything else will take care of itself.
4. The Winter War.
"No player control over major production questions, "
What do you define as major?
1. Organization of the economy
2. % assigned to military
3. % to each service
4. which factories will produce what
5. When to changeover to new model aircraft
6. What type of ground units to build
7. Which units to refit and upgrade.
8. Where to spend RPs.
Now, no one wants to mess with #1 and darn few with #2. I'm more in the
4-5 range myself, while current rules are in the 7-8 range. In a long
game, some production might make no sense. The classical example is the
5-7-6 conversions in mid-43, but there are lots of others. If the
Germans abandon the Italians in Libya, then by mid-41 or so, the Brits
won't be needing to constantly raise tank units and can spend more on
airplanes and LCs.
"...no die rolls for technological breakthroughs..."
I agree mostly, but would like to see a SLIGHT variation over the
arrival times for new model aircraft. Perhaps 2d6-7, with a 0 meaning
the historical date, <0 meaning X turns early, and >0 X turns late.
That would only be a swing of +/- 1 month for 90% of the cases, but
still prevent the case from planning your attack on some units that you
KNOW are about to arrive (The delays at Kursk come to mind).
Otherwise, yes. The Me-262 should be mid-44, not much sooner and not
much later. The Panther in mid-43 (late 43 for a workable version),
etc. The players should not even be able to influence the RATE of
development.
"...no building all 20-10s ..."
Well, I don't know. Would it be so terrible to allow the players to
break up existing units and reorganize them more efficiently.
Currently, players will break down units to make Killer Wads, etc. This
just allows them to make more permanent changes to the OOB.
We'll have to see what the new FiTE/SE does. THe USSR would be the
obvious place to start work since it's a major country yet essentially
only fought one theatre/campaign.
_____________________________________________________________________
Wheh! Considering how little I know, that's a lot of posting. Anyway,
I think GE should not really be considered Europa. Rather, it should be
the overarching economic and political rules that will ALLOW but not
force the various campaigns to occur.
A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil
This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114
a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1
than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__ W: 909-273-5378
block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--' H: 714-750-9243
`-----''(_/--' `-'\_)
DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge
I CAN'T speak for this administration; I tell the truth.
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: Democracy in action
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 11:08:11 PST
Hi everyone.
As of 11:00 am PST, the vote stands at 5 for GURU posts to
all, and naught against. Unless we get a big swing out of the blue, looks
like I have my mandate.
I think what I will do is post the questions and answers to Lysator
without anything in my post to indicate who it came from, to spare anyone from
feeling like they may look stupid if they ask an "easy" one.
So, anonymous questions answered by the GURU; only I will be on the
firing line! But remember, there are no foolish questions, only foolish
answers. So send 'em in and I'll try to avoid any foolish answers. 8-)
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GURU:FWTBT
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 11:27:18 PST
Hi everybody.
OK, here is the first no-name rules post. Hope you find it
helpfull and informative.
>Dear GURU,
He he. :)
I will answer as many of your questions as possible, but
issues that will be addressed in an errata, such as rules
changes or component problems (charts, counters, printing,
etc) will be dealt with by the designer/s. I will pass on
your information to them with all dispatch.
>For Whom the Bell Tolls questions:
>1) Steps of suppy are received according to the OB. Are
these attack supply?
Yes. Only Attack supply is refered to as "steps",
general supply is refered to as "points" of supply. Any
reference in the rules to "steps of supply" can be read as
"steps of *attack* supply". By the same resoning, any
reference to "points of supply" can be read as "points of
*general* supply".
>2) Factories produce supply. Are these attack supply?
Yes, as per above. Also see Rule 37B, second paragraph,
where it says, "Factories in production produce steps of
attack supply, ..."
>3) Can the Loyalist player use RR through a city that has
not yet been purified?
Yes. The only game effect due to failure to Pacify a
city is an inability to trace supply through that city, per
Rule 39A.
A city which has not been Ideologically Purified also
produces no Infantry Replacement points, per 39CB, in
addition to the effects of 39A.
>4) Are Garrisons released according to the rules or OB?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Rule 38D, 3d
para, states, "A Gobernito's garrison may be released when
the conditions specified for its release (per the
conditional reinforcements section of the Loyalist OB) are
met." If these conditions are met for a Gobernito, then its
entire garrison is released. Regardless of any conditions,
if the OB calls for specific units to be released from
garrison, then release, only, those units. (as always,
specific historical designations may be ignored)
Note that garrison reinforcement activities due to the
regular reinforcements section of an OB are distinct from
any garrison reinforcement activities due to the conditional
reinforcement section of an OB.
>5) Movement across a mountain hexside should be +3, not 3,
correct?
No, movement across a mountain hexside is treated as if
the unit entered a mountain hex, ignoring the actual terrain
of the hex entered. For example, a C/M unit entering a
clear terrain hex, in clear weather, by crossing a mountain
hexside would pay 6 MPs to do so. In Winter (Snow) weather
it would not be able to enter a clear terrain hex by
crossing a mountain hexside, since a mountain hex is
prohibited terrain for Mot/Art units under these conditions.
If the effect was an additional modifier, this would be
listed as such, as is done with rivers and wadis.
>6) When do rivers freeze?
Never. The map includes only weather zones D and E, as
per Rule 36A1. As stated in note #5 on the TEC, "Rivers and
lakes freeze in weather zones A, B and C during cold
weather.... Since no portion of the map is affected by the
provisions of the note, no provisions of the note effect the
playing area.
{ often times the rules use something like computerese
"conditional operators". "If x then..., else ...". If I
say you can have desert if you eat supper, this also means,
without it needing to be stated, that if you don't eat
supper, you can't have desert. This rule is an example of
this; since rivers can *only* freeze in zones A, B and C,
which don't appear in the game, we can infer that rivers
never freeze, it being impossible to satisfy the
requirements for their freezing.
But then again, maybe you just didn't see the all important
note on the bottom of the TEC. :) }
>The following relate to OB issues; [...]
All of this will have to be dealt with by the designer.
Except for your final note...
>Note: when naval transport points arrive as reinforcements,
>there are no counters for these. What should we use?
Assuming you are talking about the Civil War Scenarios,
I believe that all NTs which appear through the OB, except
for an Insurgent NT on Feb I, '37, a Loyalist NT on Sep I
'37 and a Catalan NT on Aug I '37, are replacements of
previously sunk NTs. For example, the Loyalist OB entry for
Nov I '37 has a listing for: Replace at any standard or
major port:
1 pt naval transport any (PA or Cat)
There are enough counters in the game to allow the
Insurgents to have 3 NTs, the Loyalists 2 NTs and the
Catalans 1 NT.
Note also that these "free" replacements may be
accumulated, if no NT is in the replacement pool. They are not
lost simply because you have not taken "enough" naval losses! :)
How'm I doing kids? Shades of Letterman. 8-) Actually, with
the cigar I guess it would be 8-p or 8-d, depending on which side of
his mouth he smokes with....
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 15:26:50 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Re: Q & A's
Rich,
As long as you're going to answer the questions anyhow, you may as
well make them public. It takes no additional paper and little effort
;-) I don't think we need to know who asked the questions, but the
questions themselves provide a context for the answer.
Ray
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 08:42 GMT
Subject: Detail and detail
Like some PR guys, I can see both sides to the equation here.
I personally like to see individual counters for ships, replete with
silhouettes, but I know that's a strain on the art department (having had
to do layouts myself).
I also know that a lot of players don't want to move around stacks
of warships, or squadrons of Lancasters on yet another raid on
Dusseldorf.
I also know a lot of players would like to do just that.
Can't we go both ways? Can't we have Naval Task Forces as individual
units (a la Second Front) for those who don't want them, and have
individual ships for those who do...two sets of rules, perhaps.
One point...if we have ship counters, you can have task force
counters and holding boxes ,and limited intelligence in naval operations.
The bottom line, I think, is that we want Europa to be a faithful
simulation of the dynamics of WW2 in Europe...but we also want players to
enjoy it.
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Navl Antarctic Support Unit
CHritchurch, New Zealand
Date: 7 Mar 1996 15:07:00 U
From: "Merrill, Robert C" <merrill@txpcap.hou.xwh.bp.com>
Subject: GE Options
Two things, first the simple: keep the Q&A here.
I'd like to add my vision of Grand Europa. Heck, I've got enough $$ invested!
I) Europa is clearly operational (or grand operational, if you will). In
each
individual game the player is cast in the role of a front commander - an
Eisenhower in SF; OKH or STAVKA in FiTE. In the smaller games/scenarios
the players are cast into even more limited roles. There were many things
beyond the control of these commanders. [If I want to be Roosevelt,
Churchill or Stalin, I'll play 3rd Reich]
II) Europa has difficulty imparting the political animus to the players. I
think that we're way ahead of ourselves discussing the Fall of France. It
is hard to motivate players in the Desert to mount Operation Exporter or
to
send troops to Greece. Victory points lack a certain panache, but they're
what we have. I certainly wouldn't want to be held hostage to a dice
based system.
III) I'd like to see Europa retain its focus. If that means that individual
campaigns have less effect on the overall war (play) than were actually
ascribed to them, then so be it. I actually think that GE is a pipe-dream
in the early war years (prior to January 1942), since it would be next
to impossible to make the minour country reactions any more than a
crap-shoot. One of the "problems" with AWW is the random nature of
how the Norwegians/Swedes react. However, there should be some
flexibility given to the players. For example:
A) It should be OK to change the level of support that Germany sends to
its Italian allies in the Balkans and Africa. But it shouldn't be
OK for Germany to suddenly send 2 SS panzer armies to Africa to finish
the Brits once and for all. (Well OK, if they can attack through
Turkey/the Caucasus maybe, if they're doing well).
B) As German, I should be allowed to strip my beaches and send everyone
East (or vice versa). But I shouldn't be able to remove the
garrisons.
And the garrisons would have a hard time against an large, early
Allied invasion.
C) If Churchill worried about the French Fleet falling into German hands
then your job as front naval commander is to prevent that from
happening. This is trickier than (A) or (B). Perhaps there should be
a dieroll, if the British try with a small fleet the French are more
likely to join (but if they don't the British can't stop them), or if
the British use a big fleet the French won't join, but they could be
stopped.
IV) Mine dogs: isn't that rule 15.1.3.2.1.1 in FiTE, the "0-8" light
anti-tank
battalion that's only 1/2 ATEC?
Bob in Bogota
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:10:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Stephen Balbach <stephen@clark.net>
Subject: Grand Europa, political
It would be interesting to see a pre-war game starting after WWI during
which time new counters arrive giving the Axis an opportunity to
start the war pre or post Sept 39' with variable historical political
factors - this may or may not be appropriate for the scope of the game.
---
Stephen Balbach "Driving the Internet to Work"
VP, ClarkNet due to the high volume of mail I receive please quote
info@clark.net the full original message in your reply.
Date: 07 Mar 96 15:33:00 EST
From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: GE options
Rich,
I have to say it sounds like you're raising strawmen. The issue of where to
"draw the line" applies to the complexity of board game rules no less than the
scope of computer support. I can't imagine why anyone would want to consider
"the effect of having your first JU 88 air unit shot down" or whether " *any* of
the principles die in the pre-game phase", whether it's computer support or odds
tables and diemods.
The issue, it seems to me, is what factors are reasonably considered to be
significant, but are cut from a game simply because it's too much work to do
manually. That's where computer support can provide an _optional_ enhancement.
Regarding politics, if GE is going to give the German player the political
lattitude to decide when and whether to invade the USSR, why would the political
effects of such a decision, like the reaction of Turkey, be considered an
irrelevent nuisance? If someone is going to take three weeks to set up a game, I
would think that one motivation would be for some proportionate measure of
realism.
Balkan Front has a substantial set of political rules that deal with a small
space-time subset of Europa. The same level of detail for GE, in the absense of
computer support, is going to be overwhelming, and if the alternatives are
playing a monstrous game with the political sophistication of Risk, or enlisting
the computer, I vote for the latter.
In response to Bill Stone's contribution, a gamemaster can be helpful in a lot
of ways, especially when something unanticipated comes up, but a gamemaster's
on-the-fly (objective?) intuition is no match for a set of well-researched and
carefully considered rules.
Jim
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 15:35:29 -0500
From: "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca>
Subject: Re: GE options
Rich Velay wrote:
>
> I know I am a voice crying in the wilderness. It seems that the
> open-endeness and breadth that attracts some Europists just scares the pants
> off of me.
> And to those who say, "Don't just complain, offer solutions!", I'll
> say this: Europa should have as little politics, in a military game, as is
> possible. Deal as strictly with the military what-ifs as possible. Give the
> gamer the historical situation in Sep '39 and take it from there. No player
> control over major production questions, no player control over guns vs
> butter, no die rolls for technological breakthroughs, no building all 20-10s
> or jets, no player control over international economies, etc.
The problem with GE Rich is contained in your statement above: "take it from
there..." The issue that many of us are trying to grapple with is that a player
of GE should NOT be have political and production decisions imposed upon him for
events which DID NOT TAKE PLACE in the game that he is playing. That is where
Europa goes off the rails. As a set of separate campaigns where each game stands
on its own your philosophy is quite rational and I would venture to say, widely
accepted amoung Europa players. However, why would Germany produce tonnes of
assault gun units in 1944 if the USSR was beaten in 1943? Why have a Luftwaffe
interceptor force in 1944 if there are no allied heavy bombers because Britan fell
in 1941? Why force Joe to take militia units in 1941 if the Germans wait until
late '42 to strike or until the USSR attacks first?
You see, you cannot escape the illogic of forcing a player to have non-rational
decisions forced upon him by the game system if the world situation as it
developed in his particular game does not support them. What the real political
leadership decided and what the industrial complex actally produced were shaped by
the events that took place in the historical conflict. To take that skeleton and
forcably overlay it upon all possible divergencies from the historical 'norm' will
simply result in a lot of dis-satisfied players.
I for one am not asking that FDR die in 1942, or that the generals shoot Hitler in
1940. But neither do I want to have to receive the SS lederhosen emergency
brigade in 1945 when what I could really use would be a conversion of a full
strength infantry division to a PG division using some of the multitude of
unneeded assault gun units that I also have had to accept.
--
James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 16:21:06 -0500
From: mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark Pitcavage)
Subject: Re: Grand Europa, political
Like the notion of sex with Demi Moore, Grand Europa has a much greater
chance of being talked about than realized.
Dr. Mark Pitcavage
mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
http://www.greyware.com/authors/pitman