From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 10:15 GMT
Subject: Computers and volunteers
Well, I feel like an owl that wandered into a video arcade with all
these debates over computer Europa, but I think this is beginning to
descend into trivia.
What if the loss of a parachute battalion affects all future German
airborne operations? Or what if Horthy gets shot? It begins to sound like
an ancient "Saturday Night Live" gag, "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could
fly?"
Seriously, if we abandon control of the game to dice-rolling, it
doesn't become much fun.
I remember an old story about one of SPI's games, "CA," which
simulated tactical naval battles between the US and Japanese in the
Solomons in 1942. It came in an S&T, number 38, I believe. The joke was
that anyone could play the game without counters or a mapsheet, all you
had to do was roll dice. Whoever got four sixes first, won. This joke was
based on the combat resolution system.
Another SPI game, Atlantic Wall, had the same problem. This
battalion/company level simulation of the Normandy campaign featured a
long and drawn-out invasion segment, which in turn featured endless die
rolls. The designer's notes admitted that the invasion segment was a
die-rolling exercise. While it was colorful (1982 graphics vice 1977,
detailed counters for naval and air units), it was slightly tedious, and
there didn't seem much call for strategy or tactics. You simply shovelled
your US or British assault companies against German strongpoints, and
blazed away until the German defenses fell or the demolition engineers
blew enough gaps in the beach to make the invasion stage self-destruct.
Meanwhile, airborne troops could drop anywhere, using more counters
for Drop Zones and transport squadrons that in turn were only used on the
first turn.
The weakness in the whole thing was that the Germans could shell the
demolition engineers at will, so that the switch out of the invasion
stage wouldn't take place for days, if at all. The Allies drew no more
Demolition engineers than they got at H-Hour.
On the whole, it seemed like an awful lot of hiding for nothing. I
think plays should have more control over a situation, based on their
relative theories and abilities, but with ample room for the "iron dice
of war."
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:53:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Mark H Danley <danley@ksu.ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: GE options
On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, Keith Pardue wrote:
> 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.
Hear Hear! I'm not sure I understand _where_ in any of the discussion
about France anyone was arguing to give grand-strategic decisions to the
hands of the players! Gary hit on something when he mentioned that we
have rules for how Finland behaves when pounded too hard, what it takes
to make Romania defect.
If SE includes rules about what it takes to kick Romania out of
the war, and there is some variant regarding when, how, and if Romania
changes sides, how is anything we were talking about regarding France and
the French Empire different? Did anyone ever speak of letting the PLAYER
"decide" whether or not to continue the war for North Africa? If I did,
boy, I really mispoke! Just because one indentifies different strategic
possibilities which form the context for operational activity, that
doesn't mean one is suggesting that the players are in the shoes of
national leaders!
If France falls and I roll to see whether or not North
Africa rallies, how am I representing anyone above an operational
commander? I'M ROLLING ON A TABLE! - to see what I have to do
and get to do operationally! I'm not representing Reynaud browbeating
the conservatives! I'm only the British Chief of the Imperial General
Staff seeing whether or not Nogues will still fight with me.
Rich mentioned he thought it not a good idea to "roll to
see if x an y politicians make it to North Africa" Who suggested that?
John outlined four possibilities - and I cited the Massilia incident as
evidence backing up one of his possibilities! How does that translate
into suddenly advocating that Europa become Third Reich or World in
Flames? Suppose we got into a fiery debate on how many of a certain type
of tank it took to make some 2-1-10 Arm II a 3-2-10 instead? Would that
warrant an accusation that we were trying to make Europa into a tactical
game rather than an operational simulation? NO! We would only be
considering what the tactical context for our operational simulation is!
Hey, I agree that the game is operational, but like Gary Renaud, I
maintain that if you want ALL the political and strategic possibilities carved in
stone, then you can never put all the games together.
The fact is, if we subscribe to the point of view of those who
maintain that NO political possibilities are permissible, we have GE
right now. It's called Clash of Titans, the 1943 scenario linking SF and
FITE/SE. Because 1943 is the earliest you can definitely say that the
basic grand strategic and political blueprint for the rest of the war was
worked out. There are some who even suggested some time ago that the
earliest you could begin GE was 1943 anyway, because otherwise you'd have
something that supposedly didn't look like World War Two.
I strongly disagree. What they seem to mean is that you'd have
something that didn't look close to what WWII TURNED OUT TO BE.
If you want to straitjacket all the possibilities of the early
war period, fine! It'd be a neat game and I'd have fun playing it - but I
argue that you're changing what Europa is. We won't have series of games simulating of World War Two in Europe in the
Med at an operational level. We'll have a series of games simulating
the something that is guaranteed to turn into the second half of WWII at an
operational level.
Responses?
Mark
Date: 7 Mar 1996 17:32:44 U
From: "Merrill, Robert C" <merrill@txpcap.hou.xwh.bp.com>
Subject: Computers and Europa
In a note to me (the list? it's hard to tell with my email system) Eric Pinnel
suggested that Computer Europa would need decent AI, play be email etc., and
that the interface was, in comparison, trivial.
Eric:
I agree that decent AI would be all important (and difficult to code) if C.E.
were to be a mass-market product. I have a feeling, though, that the market
would be restricted to the likes of us denizens of this mailing group.
I'd really more envision a playing aide that could not be used without
player/player or solitaire interaction. Something along the lines of ADC, but
with Europa specific subroutines.
Bob in Bogota
From: Jay Steiger/Forte <Jay_Steiger/Forte.FORTE@notes.san.fhi.com>
Date: 7 Mar 96 14:08:14 PS
Subject: Re: Detail and detail
Regarding suggestions by Dave Lippman:
Amen and hallelujah to idea of individual ships and TF holding boxes (analagous
to Corps holding boxes). Realistically, how often will you be sending the King
George V out to do battle with the Tirpitz...alone. Yeah right, like you
wouldn't stack it with loads of CA, CLA, DD, and DDE (plus the odd CV or CVL).
This system would allow for individual ships without making that option
unmanageable. Also, remeber that most of the naval action will take place in
the Med, North Sea, and off of Norway. Convoy/U-Boats should be outside of
this scale. I do think that the current Task Force system is great for now.
It allows for a naval option beyond a die roll on an option chart, and it will
serve the system well until a final decsion is made regarding Naval Europa.
Incidentally, speaking of things naval and the straits of Messina, commentary
on the Dardanelles may be very appropriate. Using the new Great War system
(courtesy of Eric Pierce and Arthur Goodwin) I played the Entente Commander
against Eric's CP commander. My fleet actually managed to make it all the way
to Constantinople (without forcing a Turkish surrender), but when I managed to
get what was left back out into the Agean...my ships were in reeeeallly bad
shape. Yes, I blew away a lot of Turkish batteries along the way, but it just
wasn't worth the cost in capital ships. I agree with whoever said that
Cunningham was right to stay the hell out of the Messina straits.
Soldiers law #24
Incoming fire always has the right of way...
Jay Steiger
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GE or cloud cookoo land?
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:08:30 PST
Hi Bill.
Good to see you floating around!
>Rich, I personally prefer to leave the mutts at the kennel
>when given a choice between geo-political/grand strategic
>considerations and mine dogs. [...]
Well, maybe I'm just a dog lover. :)
>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).
Couldn't agree more. Don't think it will be *this* jr.
poohbah, but we can get someone to do it... :)
Having a gamemaster, answer man, pizza box disposer
would be almost de rigeur. One would also allow relatively
easy use of intelligence rules, hidden movement, surprise
attacks and a myriad other things so difficult to employ in
a two team FTF game.
My concern would be that as the amount of "random
events/political table fluctuations" grew exponentially to
include everyone's pet theory, the gamemaster would need a
staff to keep everything straight! :)
Can you imagine just having to handle Balkan politics
from turn to turn? But regardless of the problems, the
gamemaster, IMO, is the way to go. And I would prefer
another beer-swilling "professional kibitzer" at the table
(auditorium?) to a computer program...
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GE or cloud cookoo land?
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:11:18 PST
Hi Kieth.
>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.
No, I'm employing some hyperbole (some, hah!) :)
It is simply a question of inclusion vs exclusion; what do
we give up to get something else? There are always trade
offs and I was simply expressing my prefence as to what we
dispense with and what we focus on.
>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.
While possibly offering strategic decisions, GE will
still just be an operational level wargame. Just a huge
one. Playing ASL with 50 boards doesn't make it an
operational level game, just a huge tactical level game.
And it is my opinion that some things that Strategic
level games can represent, simply can not be represented in
an Operational level game within any reasonable boundries.
No matter how big the playing surface is.
>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, [...]
But it would be do-able. And much easier to do than
most of the alternatives. It also wouldn't require a
computer program to play...
>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.
And you are no more simulating WW II than Chess does.
Just having a grand old time pushing non-historical counters
around on a map of Europe. Might be fun, but it isn't WW II
and it doesn't sound like *my* idea of Europa. Maybe
someone else's, but not mine.
>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.
And what if the German player doesn't *want* to invade
the USSR within three months, as mandated by the die roll?
Some people here seem to be resistant to the idea of being
forced to take some actions by the "political instability
table". I don't know what other people are or are not
willing to accept; I know what I think, and have said it.
>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.
I didn't mean to sound like I was complaining, rather
that I was voicing some cautionary rejoinders to some of the
ideas I have seen here and other places, in the past.
I also want to see a linking scenario from WW I:The
Great War to Grand Europa and Glory; the fact that I want it
won't make it so. :) And the fact that I don't want to
bother with a group level representation of the Strategic
Air War in WW II doesn't mean it won't be there, in all its
3000 counter, 112 page, glory, in Grand Europa. But I can
hope.
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
Subject: computers vs. paper
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:59:52 -0500 (EST)
Hi,
I'm with Rich on the computer issue. Although computers
might make fine play aids, Europa is a paper wargame and
should fundamentally remain a paper wargame. My computer is
much too heavy to move next to the game, and my wife uses it
to work in any case. Also, the computer only knows what you tell
it. Telling it what it needs to know would probably be much more
tedious then looking in some big fat rule book and rolling a
die to see how Lichtenstein responds to a German invasion of
Cyprus.
Good political rules for Europa, which would ask us
to keep track of the reactions of countries to important events
in the game, might be a little lengthy but would probably not
be difficult. (Difficult to write, but not to use.) The discussion
about French collapse is a case in point. Nobody's talking about
rules that are hard to implement, or slow down play. It seems like
were talking about how to simulate a complex historical event
in a simple way. I don't see why the same can't be done for
other countries' reactions to major events. This would be a burden
on the designer, but not on the player. In fact, it should make
play much more interesting.
Putting the supply system on the computer seems to me
to be far too much bother unless the entire game is on the computer.
I really don't want to keep the computer informed of game events so
that it knows how to handle the supply situation. I'd much rather
do that with displays. Likewise for the naval system.
If someone wants to put Europa on a computer in its entierty,
then that's a different story. But, then why keep the Europa system.
It's not designed for computers, but for tabletops. There are many
things that a computer can do, such as handle limited intelligence,
that it's hard to do with a tabletop game and thus are not
treated in Europa. Of course, one can use all of the information
in Europa, but one would want a different game.
Best Wishes,
Keith
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GE or cloud cookoo land?
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:14:33 PST
Hi Steven.
>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 disagree. The subject matter of a 3dR or WIF is
Strategic level representation of WW II; Europa is "a series
of comprehensive divion-level games of World War II in
Europe and North Africa." While all are about WW II, so is
ASL and War at Sea, surely no one would confuse those games
with Europa. The fact that WIF covers all of WW II in
Europe and N.Afr. doesn't mean it has anything more than
*that*, in common with Europa. IMO, to look to a Strategic
level game to provide insight into what should go into an
Operational level game is just apples and oranges; it is the
scale that is important. Again in my opinion, and perhaps
*only* IMO, using political rules appropriate to WIF in
Europa is as unworkable as using the combat system from ASL
in Europa. The fact that they're "all" WW II doen't mean a
thing.
>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.
Thats fine; all I have said is that I hope that wargame
is not GE. I don't want to play that role in Europa, I
believe it is more appropriate for a Strategic level game.
You appear to disagree with me on that. Problem solved.
>General Staffs did not run WW2- particularly in the
>dictatorships of Germany and the USSR.
This is debatable. While the leaders of these two
nations may have been more involved with low level planning
and operations than some other leaders, it was still the
Military leadership that ran the fighting, if not the "war".
One of the reasons the Germans lost was the manner in which
Hitler involved himself too often in minor "counter
pushing", one of the reasons the USSR won is that Stalin
stopped doing that very thing.
But we disagree on the fundamental thing; you see
yourself as a national leader in the game, I see myself as
the Chief of General Staff, or a theatre commander. We are
unlikely to agree on much else from that starting point...
>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.
Again our difference is a fundamental one; you want to,
as much as possible, play your WW II, I want to play my WW
II. They seem to be different.
With perfect hindsight and no strategic limitations,
there is no game. Were I Germany, under those conditions,
I'd just sue for peace and get Coca-Cola and General Motors
set up in the Rhur as quickly as possible. Shouldn't no war
losses, no war damage and no war crimes be enough for a
decisive victory?
>I respect the views of those who want to leave politics out
>of the game,
Leave politics *largely* out of the game, as little
politics as needed was what I said, I think. There is a
difference...
>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.
Of course you don't have to adhere to that view, no more
than I have to adhere to yours. My opinion is just that, my
opinion. If someone agrees with it, great. If someone
else doesn't, well that's great too! I'm sure I'm no more
of an expert than most, and less of an expert than many.
And I will continue to hope that we can dispense with
most of the political and economic detail and get on with
the combat phase! :)
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GE or cloud cookoo land?
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:19:45 PST
Hi Gary.
Rich, please. My Dad, bless his soul, is Mr.
Velay. :)
>[...] 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.
The question of what should be mandated and what should
be player decision is the heart of the matter; these were
simply examples. Putting *any* limitations on the players
is to step onto the slippery slope; what is justifiable and
needed to one Europophile may be odious "Idiot Rules" to
another. I won't be making those decisions for others, but
I can certainly state my case...
>"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?
Finnish surrender needs work, IMO. Balkans, a
notoriously difficult region, works right now adequately for
BF. Italy so far is just surrender, and that serves the
needs of SF.
Yep, I'm willing to go a little further. Nope, I'm not
willing to go a lot further. (Good thing I'm not trying to
sell *my* 32 map version of WW II here, eh? <grin>)
>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?
And what's the point of investing two or three years of
real time to "discover" that Italy would have been better
off staying neutral? Or to "discover" that Germany can't
beat GB, the USSR and the USA?
I'm not adverse to having options in the game, nor am I
suggesting that we have to follow history slavishly. I am
just worried that the more distance there is between Europa
and WW II, the less value Europa has as any kind of a
simulation. If the only historicall accuracy in the game is
the starting forces and the map, what are we playing? WIF
with a glandular condition, which as I've stated, I hope not
to play. Or even give up a doube issue of the magazine to
read about. But luckily for all concerned, I don't make
editorial decisions either.... :)
>"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.
Eliminates the need for "Blummenkreig" and "Peace in our
Time", anyway. :)
>2. All countries have their historical 1939-40 armies,
>though they can make greater and greater changes for the
>outlying years.
Getting any two Europists to agree on what, for example,
a no-war 1943 Italian Armored XX will look like, may be a
bit of a trick. :)
>3. Germany attacks Poland. Britain and France declare
>war.
I see the need for this, but others seem not to. Why
not a Germany allied with the Poland of Pilduski, of the
"Colonels", attacking the USSR in a crusade against
Bolshevism? That was certainly just as likely (or unlikely,
depending upon one's pre-existing biasis) as Germany
allying with Communist Russia to crush Neo-Fascist,
dictatorial Poland.
>4. No peace after Poland Falls.
This is gamey; if we are the Fuhrer, but not
by necessity Hitler, why couldn't solving the "Polish
Question" and enlisting the "rest" of the "free world" in
destroying Godless communism be an option?
Because with it, the game won't work. So we start
imposing politico-military straightjackets on the players
to ensure they play and enjoy the game? What kind of a
historical framework is that?
>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.
Ending the game in an Allied decisive victory, for all
intents and purposes. And just how do we get these paper
Fuhrers to agree to make this most meglomaniacle of
mistakes? And why do we force them to?
Because without it there is no game. Without Germany
declaring war on the US, Britain can't survive and once they
fall, the USSR follows. And the Axis can't survive American
belligerancy by any stretch of the imagination (without
nuclear tipped V-4s, anyway.) So, we go down that slippery
slope again and force the players to make decisions, for
their "own good", while professing our comittment to
allowing the players freedom of action.
What difference does it make whether or not Yugoslavia
signs the Tripartite Pact, if General Marshall and the
doughboys are coming in on a 6 in 6 chance?
>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?).
As I've indicated, IMO, if Britain, France, Poland and
the US are all mandated enemies of Germany, the rest is just
so much eye wash. The US could not have lost the war.
Whomever they ally with, wins. It's that simple.
I can hardly even imagine the Victory conditions that
would be required to make us sane men attack with Germany,
or Italy, or the USSR. What for instance, would contitute
victory for Italy, if not simply surviving the war? I know
that when playing competetive 3dR, I always just stay
neutral as the Italians, and win a decisve victory. So we
have to "encourage" Italy to get into the war, etc.....
>"No player control over major production questions, " What
>do you define as major?
>1. Organization of the economy major
>2. % assigned to military major
>3. % to each service major
>4. which factories will produce what major
>5. When to changeover to new model aircraft major
>6. What type of ground units to build major
>7. Which units to refit and upgrade. iffy
>8. Where to spend RPs. minor
>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.
Well, I'm in the 8 range, myself. :) I'm all for
allowing the Germans to switch to 2 battalion regiments any
time they feel like it. Heck, let the French scrap their
Series B Reserve divisons too. But what about something as
simple as assuming that the French can put together a more
effective armored XX, in '41, than the Soviets could in
'42? All alterations assume facts in evidence, while we
discount other facts in evidence, as it suits our needs.
Who's to say that the French model of armored support in
1940, which the whole world employs now, would have been
scrapped just because they lasted x turns longer?
>"...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. [...]
Sure. Remember, one man's history is as good as any
others. The only "truth" about WW II I am willing to accept
is that the US won. Anything else is open to interpretation
and "rival proofs".
>"...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.
I assume that the new FitE/SE will follow the
historical time frame for upgrades and conversions pretty
much. Oh sure, you won't be tied to specific individual
units, but then you never have been in Europa, not as far as
unit designations go. OB says upgrade the 234 Aslt Gun II
to a brigade? Here, do the 190, its in a city....
Besides, can you imagine the noodle controversy on GEnie
if the Germans had 15 or 16 20-10s in '41!? :)
>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.
Not sure how you reconcile "overarching" with "ALLOW but
not force", but I digress. :)
What you talk about is most probably what will appear.
The fact that I may not be as happy with it as I might have
been with another presentation will probably not interfere
with anyone's digestion, but mine. I didn't like the change
from SL to ASL, either, but I don't recal Don Greenwood
calling me up about it. 8-0
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 15:18:14 PST
From: "Renaud.Gary" <renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil>
Subject: Yahtzee and Europa
"...if we abandon control of the game to dice-rolling, ..."
Like the pre-SF AA system, or SF's CD-vs-ship system?
If we limit ourselves to six-sided dice, then we only need to be concerned
with events that have a >16% chance of happening.
I agree that we don't need die rolls for a bunch of long-shot events that
should all work out in the wash:
* The Luftwaffe agrees to the earlier jet engine designs
* The USAAF realizes the need for high-altitude combat, giving
the P-39 and P-40 turbos.
* One more accident scuttles the B-17 program.
and on and on.
OTOP, there are some events that I think you should NOT take for granted as
(not) happening at a certain date.
Oh, heck, *I* don't know.
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.
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 23:35:39 +0100
From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland)
Subject: Politics & other such criminal activities
Steven Phillips (Dr. Zaius) wrote:
>I am writing regarding the notion that Grand Europa will not involve the
>>players in grand strategic decisions
etc.
> 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).
etc.
>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.
Yes, indeed. However, although I am very much in favour of players have
broad strategic control over their actions, this makes sense only if there
is a substantial body of political constraints within which decisions must
be made. It is only the political context that gives meaning to ANY war
(hence, any wargame).
=46or example, the British and French governments clearly had no qualms abou=
t
moving into Norway to pre-empt any German moves and to cut off Swedish iron
ore (the fact the Germans moved first is beside the point: Anglo-French
intentions were quite clear. Likewise, it was principally practical rather
than political considerations that lead to a decision to occupy areas of
northern Sweden in support of an armed intervention in support of Finland.
This suggests the Western Allies were quite capable of violating the
neutrality of certain nations if it seemed expedient.
That said, it would be fair to say that an uninvited pre-German invasion
move into Belgium to occupy forward positions would have been politically
unacceptable to both British and French public opinion, even if it makes a
certain amount of military sense.
Another example of how political restraints inhibited the Allies was
Churchill's oft stated desire to reassert recently abandoned British treaty
rights to operated from ports on the Irish Atlantic coast. Once it became
clear that the Irish Republic was not going to accede to British requests
for naval and airbase rights, the Prime Minister was inclined to use force.
It was only after several very stormy Cabinet meetings was Winston was
talked out sending the Army in to the Republic, a move that would have made
eminent military sense, given the parlous state of the Battle of the
Atlantic. This sort of thing should be allowed, but should carry some
political cost (VP penalty?).
And what about the various slightly-loony plans Anglo-French plans to
attack the Soviets (bombing Baku etc.)? As for the political
ramifications=8Ayikes! It makes spin.
My point is that broad strategic choice makes eminent sense, but only
within a realistic political framework. I don't see that as a problem, I
see it as half the fun! I share Steve's desire for strategic command,
provided the political ground-work is in place.
Regards
Perry
..._
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 23:38:31 +0100
From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland)
Subject: Re: Detail and detail
Dave Lippman wrote:
> 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.
>
To which I say 'amen'!
Modularising the rules is the way to go. 'Roll your own' game in order to
appeal to the interests of the players. This means a naval/aviation
oriented crowd such the people play 'Europa' with can indeed have
individual ships and more detailed simulations of the strategic air war.
If that does not appeal to you, fine, stick to TFs and an abstracted Strat
Air: there is nothing wrong with that either.
Regards
Perry
..._
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: Post WW I
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:16:01 PST
>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
Hi Stephen.
Like, Dec 1918, perhaps? :) And people wonder what
I'm worried about! :)
But seriously, a 38 invasion game vs the Czechs has much
to recommend it, small armies on both sides, those great
0 A 1 1 / 6 "bomber fleets", Czech "Mech" divisions. Great
colour, great atmosphere. I would expect a Czech invasion
game to be pretty "sexy", if you know what I mean?
"Peace in our Time", one of the great "lost" Europa
titles. AOI got done, so why not this one too, eh?
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: Mine dogs
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:18:03 PST
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?
Ahh, proof that the GURU is needed. :)
No, you are in error, sir. That was the PLATYTEST rule.
Extensive post-production experience with the game has shown
that there were problems with the FitE treatment of these
units. Therefore the following should be used: (Replace all
reference to Rule 15.1.3.2.1.1 with:
SE Rule 14Z.a4.a.6 Soviet Mine Dog Units.
During any combat phase, a prepared MDU (see Rule 37Q6b
for an explanation of the difference between a "prepared"
and an "unprepared" MDU) stacked with a Soviet Tank X may
attempt an under-Panzer Molotov detonation attempt if
adjacent to a non-Rumanian Axis Pz/Armored/Tank unit. (note:
mice already got the Rumanians.) Roll one die on the Mine
Dog Unit Success Table, applying all applicable modifiers.
A result of "S" indicates that the Axis unit designated as
the target of the MDUuPMd attempt is eliminated, or reduced
to cadre, if it has a cadre. Any other result on the MDUST
results in the Soviet Tank X being eliminated. Regardless of
the MDUST result, the MDU is considered eliminated and
removed from play. MDU may not be replaced.
Jun 23, 1996 Errata
It has been noted that the current MDU rules do not
adequately cover all possible situations. Therefore, append
the following to Rule 14Za4a6: When a prepared MDU is
adjacent to a Goliath unit, no die roll on the MDUST is
required, simply remove both the MDU *and* the Goliath unit
from play; neither may be replaced.
Counter Errata.
Please note that the 6389 Militia MDU was
inadvertantly printed in Winter-capable colours. This is an
error. The unit should be printed in Naval Militia colours.
Chart Errata
Please note that one line of type is missing from
the list of modifiers on the MDUST. There should be a 17th
modifier immediately following the current final modifier.
Please add the following to the MDUST:
-1 if any MDU will roll an "F*" on the MDUST during
the following player turn.
Also, please delete the modifier refering to "Months
with the letter "Q" in them". This modifier was was found
to have an adverse effect upon play balance, and should not
be used.
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:12:51 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: Q & A's
> 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?
For substantive questions, by all means send to all.
- Bobby.
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:40:15 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: GE options
> 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 of my longstanding concerns is that every game that comes out has only
the minimal political (and naval) rules needed to make that particular game
work. But there has been a universal promise-or-assumption that these will
be fully implemented for Europa -- later. Unfortunately, the ground/air
rules will have a quarter of a century's worth of playtesting, but the fully
developed political (naval) rules will be released at the last minute. Why
not publish these systems now in big linkup modules (The Blitz, The Med,
etc.) and let us get a few years of debugging in on them while we're waiting
for the Real Thing?
BTW, if someone replies that SF did indeed publish the fully developed naval
rules, I vote that we send them back to the factory for a retread. I can't
imagine playing a Med scenario and having to do ten naval movement steps for
each time I move-fight-exploit that handful of ground units actually active
during the earlier parts of the campaign. Keep it simple!
- Bobby.
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 14:50 GMT
Subject: Options aweigh!
I think we're forgetting a point here in this debate over how GE
should look...the way the GE game goes, when consumers start playing it
sometime in 2006, will vary from the historical WW2 one way or another.
This will happen as soon as players start moving counters and rolling
dice.
The war will start going off in directions based on the various
levels of expertise of the players. If we have a highly competent German
player facing a mediocre British player (like me), Seelowe could be a
successful operation, and we might see Wehrmacht troops controlling
Britain (which to me is a personal nightmare, being half-British. My
mother grew up in the Blitz and Nazi invasion was not an abstraction, it
was a terror that kept her up at nights and reduced her to weeping).
In a situation like that, what happens to the strategic direction of
the war? Does the US bother to intervene? Does the Commonwealth fight on?
How does Hitler re-rack his economy for Barbarossa? What benefits to the
Germans gain from raiding British aircraft industry and scientific
development (for proximity fuses, atomic research, radar, H2S, and Gee).
The whole issue is extremely complicated...but that's precisely what
happens when a project like GE is created. Si monumentem requiris,
circumspice. This game is going to expand like a metastasizing cancer,
and probably start getting out of control.
Of course, this is part of the whole issue of gaming. Some gamers
play to recreate or replay history, for education. (like me) Others play
it to see how they could match their wiles against Rommel and Patton, and
see if they can do better. I think this battle has been going on since
Tactics II came out in 1958, and has yet to be resolved.
My personal opinion, and I've said it again and again, is that there
has to be room for all in the house. FWTBT gives us an option of invading
Spain, for example. So a German player can go for it. Or he can decide
that a battle in the Ukraine is easier to run than a climb over the
Andalusian mountains.
The real question may be...what are we trying to do with Europa? I
think it can be both a realistic simulation of WW2 in Europe (replete
with all the dynamics involved) and still be a competitive game for
entertainment and an opportunity for games to explore the endless
dream..."what if..."
Not a great solution, I admit, not a definite answer, but a way to
make people think. Above all, let's not get acrimonious here, and turn
this into a slanging match, with people hurling brickbats. This is a
game, remember? Cardboard counters?
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
P.S. Seeing the German minor ally units for Spain and Portugal in FWTBT
gave me the chilling awareness that John Astell, or one of his guys, has
to sit down and figure out strength units for German minor ally units for
Britain, the labor brigades that would have been drawn under Dr. Franz
Six's plan (all men aged 16 to 45) and the SS brigades that would have
been drawn from Sir Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts. They would have existed,
but I just wrote an article on Lord Haw-Haw and the Blackshirts, and I
never really found them amusing.
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GE options
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 18:00:59 PST
Hi everyone.
Hmmm, seems I have let my Europa hyperbole get the best of me
again. Mea culpa. When you are not understood, it is because you have not
been understandable...
Jim.
Raising strawmen? I never raised anything in my life! :)
Perhaps I was. As far as GE goes, I guess I am just selfish and impatient.
I would be willing to put up with years of political rules design, as long as
the hardware is in my hands as soon as possible. I need a few more games to
be complete, and heck, I'll make up the political rules myself, if I have to,
as long as the maps and counters are present. The remaining components can be
provided with little reference to economic, strategic or political rules; they
can come later. LIke the Strat Air presentation in SF. I like it. I would
not have wanted to wait another year for the game, just so there was four or
five hundred extra air counters and an optional rule for their use, which I
wouldn't.
Is that unfair to people who want Strat Air. Maybe, but I am not
losing sleep over it; if they had their way, I'd have to pay for those extra
counters, design time and rules, whether I wanted them or not.
And the naval system. That will no doubt be presented in at least two
versions; TF and individual ships. Same thing as above. I would not have
been happy to wait an extra year for SF just to get a couple of hundred naval
counters, another new naval system and the option to use what I am using now.
Again, perhaps that's unfair to the Naval fans out there. If so,
thenI'm just being selfish again.
And besides, the games will come out the way John designs them,
without any regard for my personal preferences.
As for the computer discussion, I may have left the wrong impression.
I don't like computer wargames; that doesn't mean I think Europa shouldn't be
done as a computer wargame. I just wouldn't buy it. I doubt if that will
influence the manufacturer.
I think computer support is a great idea, only wish I could afford
Aide de Camp. The more of the political, economic and strategic stuff that
can be computerized, the better. As long as its an option, and not a must
have to play GE. I would not be happy with that. Doubt that wil come to pass
so, no worries. Perhaps if I could get a three line batch file to run
properly, I would be more enthused about computer Europa.
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 22:00:27 -0500
From: "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca>
Subject: Re: Politics & other such criminal activities
Perry de Havilland wrote:
>
> Another example of how political restraints inhibited the Allies was
> Churchill's oft stated desire to reassert recently abandoned British treaty
> rights to operated from ports on the Irish Atlantic coast. Once it became
> clear that the Irish Republic was not going to accede to British requests
> for naval and airbase rights, the Prime Minister was inclined to use force.
> It was only after several very stormy Cabinet meetings was Winston was
> talked out sending the Army in to the Republic, a move that would have made
> eminent military sense, given the parlous state of the Battle of the
> Atlantic. This sort of thing should be allowed, but should carry some
> political cost (VP penalty?).
>
I would suspect that the creation of a large, restive, and probably actively rebellious
English speaking population within the home islands would probably had a serious effect
on British warmaking capacity. Not to mention the effect on diplomatic relations with
the USA that the outrage and revulsion from the large Irish ethnic population of the
USofA would have caused.
Methinks there was more of military sense in avoiding the whole issue.
--
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 23:24:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Mark H Danley <danley@ksu.ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: GE Options
Robert,
I'm not sure I understand where quite where you are coming from.
Will you and others who have comments elaborate?
You say
> 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.
In the most basic sense, it already does impart the political
animus to us. We're simulating war, which old Clausewitz said so
famously is a continuation of politics.
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.
Well if we RETAIN our operational focus - as many seem to agree we
should - what choice do we have for the larger realm of possibility? If we're
operational commanders, then we have to be hostage to SOMETHING regarding
the action at levels above and below operational. If we're playing an
operational level game, then both strategic decisions and tactical
decisions are out of our hands! So there I am, General Papagos playing
Balkan Front, watching the Panzers overrun my ants in Thessaly. When
and whether or not King George decide to skeddadle and the
prime minister shoots himself is out of my control. Sure.
I don't know what will happen. Well, whether or not the commander of
the 3rd Army Corps in northern Epirus actually makes the right
tactical decisions in a battle from one particular hex to another is
beyond my control. I'm an _operational_, not tactical, commander - that's
why we have a CRT! SOME things are random, deciding
what is and what isn't random is what defines the scale of the game! The
point is to detemine the realm of possibility, given certain
circumstances. AT 3:1 odds unmodified, you
have a one-in-six change of a EX. We all accept the premise of making
such a statement because this is an operational, not tactical game. How
is that not analagous to saying when such-and-such happens, France has a
1 in 6 change of doing "this"? It's a strategic activity out of our
hands - the designer's job is to identify POSSIBILITY and quantify
PROBABILITY, like he does with the tactical activity out of our hands, as represented
through terrain effects and CRT.
>
> 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.
Yes I agree with you that we should have flexibility. But if the
reactiond of minor countries in 1939 - 42 are "crapshoots" then the
problem is an inaccurate simulation. Because historically the reactions
were't crap shoots. Look at the actions and smaller powers' military and
political leaders. (Some of those guys left memoirs - C.J. Hambro, the
speaker of the Norwegian _Storting_ (parliament) in a book _I Saw it
Happen in Norway_ really captures how these guys agonized about what
they did. They agonized how to achieve their nation's objective,
which in many cases was simply to maintain some semblence of the most
basic attribute of nationhood, sovereignty.
But, you could say, it seems like a crap shoot to me the
operational commander, because it isn't up to _me_ a small power does in
regards to entering the war or not. Well, why then is the randomness of
Norwegian/Swede reaction a problem from the operational point of view
then? What that randomness REPRESENTS is a quantification of a range of
possible grand-strategic political actions under given circumstances, not a
free for all. Just like a CRT is a quantification of a range of tactical
actions under given circumstances >
Guys?
Mark
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 00:29:04 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Political options.
Mark said:
> Yes I agree with you that we should have flexibility. But if the
>reactiond of minor countries in 1939 - 42 are "crapshoots" then the
>problem is an inaccurate simulation.
This is another reason I'm skeptical about even the *possibility* of
offering fully developed political rules, regardless of what we as
individuals *want* to see included. The work involved in playtesting a
system thoroughly probably increases exponentially with increasing
complexity of the problem to be covered.
When testing the CRT, you roll a few attacks and say "Hmmm, the Italians
shouldn't be kicking the Greeks around like that. I wonder if it's the CRT,
the terrain effects, or the unit strengths?" But when testing SF you have to
try many, many things, individually and in combination. Balance of air
power. Coastal defenses vs. landing craft. Danger zones vs. task forces.
Strategic bombing effects on Axis supply. Replacement rates. Etc., etc., etc.
The political rules will increment the testing requirement by a similar
scaling factor -- or worse. A chart consulted in '43 may be modified by
who's in the war and how the neutrals are leaning. But this is not simply
the result of the last chart you consulted: it will depend on what the
players did with the result. For example, say Turkey joins the Axis in '42.
Will the 'Turkey Axis' modifier automatically influence the next political
roll? No, because the Russians may have destroyed them by then. And whether
Russia did that may depend on the balance of power created by earlier
political decisions and *their* military outcomes. So you can't playtest the
political rules just by playing the war without the fighting. And that means
testing the political system will require you to *actually*play* a grand
campaign all the way through. One play-through = one test of the political
system.
Suppose the political rules are simple enough that there are only ten points
in the game at which one of six possible outcomes occurs, and, since
modifiers depend on what's going on in the war, earlier outcomes influence
later outcomes. Then your tree of possibilities has six to the tenth power
possible outcomes. (Granted, the *final* decision still only has six, but
the effects of the others may endure regardless, e.g. France may still be
Vichyfied, whether the Levant allows Axis passage or not.) Six to the tenth
is over 60 million possible political outcomes. Say we only want to playtest
until we've exercised 1% of them: that's "only" 600,000 playthroughs of Europa.
But ten occasions with six possible outcomes each is hardly what I would
call a full-blown political system. Shucks, guys, that doesn't even allow
each nation something to roll about.
Granted, a campaign might involve hundreds of die rolls for tactical
resolution, and each in some sense effects those of the next turn (since
they determine who has what hex and how much strength is left on the map).
But here the details don't usually matter, so long as the CRT and such
systems provide a result that is "about right" on average (though we quail
at the thought of a 1/6 DR on an amphibious invasion). But whether or not
country X joins the war or allows passage to the Axis is not just another
division in the dead pile, and players won't be amused to be playing through
96 turns of Europa only to have something really dorky come up because there
was a flaw in the political system that made it through playtest.
- Bobby.
From: stefan <Stefan.Farrelly@barclays.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:08:51 +0000
Subject: Re: GE options
Everyone,
Youre all nuts about having masses of options under Grand Europa. Impossible.
As the general thread of the discussion has gone there are too many
complexities
involved to incorporate all these possibilities and I concur wholehartedly.
However, there is a simple solution;
Has anyone played Third Reich/Advanced Third Reich ??
This has a beautifully simple solution.
There are several/many VARIANTS. You can only pick one for each side during
a game (at random). eg.
1. Luftwaffe expands, bring forward arrival of FW190's, slightly more GA etc.
2. British more prepared for Armoured warfare - Arm XX's arrive much earlier
3. Luftwaffe Jets completed much earlier and mass produced - qute a few Me262's
months before historical.
4. Spain is secretly more pro Allied, with little pressure she will allow US
and Allied uints to enter to protect her from the Axis.
5. No pro Allied coup in Yugoslavia, she joins Axis as per Hungary/Rum etc.
6. Luftwaffe expands Airborne Corps, more Airborne divs available in 41/42.
7. Axis planned ahead for winters in Russia, all units winterized.
8. Japanese do woefully in Pacific, increased support from Commonwealth and US
units in 42 on. (extra divs, air, naval etc.)
9. Any one Vichy colony in Africa becomes very pro Axis or Allied, will join
with them on request.
10. Spain is more pro Axis, will alow Axis units to transit her territory to
attack Gibraltar.
11. Russia better prepared, bring forward conversion to Arm Divs. (this was a
particularly influential one)
12. Sweeden joins Axis. Swedish units available for campain in Russia only.
13. Turkey very pro Axis or Allied. As long as an Army is sent to her for
protection from the other she will Ally and join them. (influential)
14. Italy better prepared. Bring forward her expansion of Armoured forces and
development of new aircraft. (and give her some landing craft!)
15. Increased commitment from Axis allies - garrison forces for Rum/Hung etc.
are released immediately.
There were more but cant remember them. You get the general idea.
If you picked any more than one variant the game would turn into a walkover
for someone. Best just to pick one and see how WWII could have developed with
these subtle changes. From masses of experience playing this before Europa I
have to say it made the games very very interesting without being a walkover.
Stefan Farrelly
From: Anders Vastberg <av@irfu.se>
Subject: GE options
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 10:51:44 MET
Have anyone played Pacific War by VG ?
It is very fun operational game which do not use
political rules and production rules (almost).
Instead of a production system it uses a
reinforcement table much like FIE, SE or any other Europa game.
The only production system left is how long aircraft crews will remain on
training. (The longer aircraft crews stay on training, the better
aircraft units).
I think this is the only way GE can work given the detail of
the operational part of the game.
/Anders
--
|| ~~~~ Anders Vastberg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|| ~~~~ Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
|| ~~~~ INTERNET: av@irfu.se, Phone: (+46) 18-303673, Fax: (+46) 18-403100
|| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
|| ~~~~ Anders Vastberg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|| ~~~~ Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
|| ~~~~ INTERNET: av@irfu.se, Phone: (+46) 18-303673, Fax: (+46) 18-403100
|| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GURU:SF
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 01:59:27 PST
Hi everyone.
More SF stuff rolls in...
>I am confused about the status of the Messina Straits.
>Is the LC in the Straits acting as a ferry considered
>to be at sea, in a port, or treated like a river
>flotilla in a "Major River Hexside"?
Lot's of people have been confused.
An LC acting as a ferry (LCAF) must remain at sea
throughout any player turn in which it acts as a ferry.
Friendly player if to be used, for example, to allow
attacks across a full sea hexside, or, to allow movement
across same.
Enemy player turn if it is used to, for example, allow
units to trace supply across a major sea hexside.
>If at sea, then can it only be attacked thru Naval
>Patrol Bombing and only use its own AA strength? Is it
>in a Danger Zone?
Yes it may only be bombed through Naval Patrol Bombing;
yes it may only use its own AA strength, *IF* it is the
only friendly naval unit in the hex in question.
Yes it is in a Axis danger zone. The LC would be
checked for danger zone contact once per friendly naval
movement step, since "it starts a friendly naval
movement step at sea in a danger zone." (Rule 34F.)
Therefore, any Axis LC set up in any hex of the Straits
of Messina would have to roll 10 times each player turn
for danger zone contact; once per friendly NMS.
>If in port, then I presume that position AA in Messina
>or Reggio can come into play.
As above, it may not be in port and act as a LCAF, so
land AA strength may not fire.
BUT... per the supplemental errata posted here earlier,
there is a quick fix for this situation which should be
used:
The Axis player (only) may treat either, or both,
of the hexsides between Messina, and Reggio di Calabria
and/or Villa san Giovanni, as narrow straits hexsides,
provided he owns both hexes bordering such a hexside.
For example, if the Axis player owns both Messina and
Reggio di Calabria, he may treat the 26:3923/3823
hexside as a narrow straits.
Please note that there is a more detailed, albeit more
complex, LCAF system currently under investigation; more
information will be presented when available.
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GE options
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 03:19:00 PST
Hi everyone.
Re: Strat air and Naval stuff.
The fact that I like simple, less
detailed systems for these things is as important as the
fact that I like Kirk better than Picard; it is of no
importance to anyone save myself. Had I known that my
expressing an opinion on the matter would lead to
controversy, I would not have expressed my opinion.
Re. GE options.
I have tried to make clear that I am
worried about too much pointless detail creeping in, my
posts have been about keeping politics simple in Europa. But
I keep getting posts claiming that I am asking for *no*
politics. sigh.
I have tried to make clear that I am worried about a 3dR
or WIF style series of random events or political
instability or economic production system that *could* creep
in, my posts have been about keeping this kind of thing to a
minimum in Europa. But I keep getting posts claiming that I
am asking for *no* variability in the game. sigh
Since it appears that I am not able to communicate the
difference between a rule for Rumanian surrender and a rule
for Rumanian (to say nothing of American) belligerence, I
give up.
I get one post lambasting me for attacking things that
aren't there, followed by a post listing 20 variations to
economic, political and strategic events that can be tied
into the game.
I don't know how to handle post-civil war Spain but I am
repelled by the idea of a two year game of Europa hanging on
whether or not a die roll deciding the Loyalists won or
not.
I don't know how to handle minor country activation, but
I know that a Polish-Nazi pact was at least as likely as a
Nazi-Soviet one.
I don't know how to handle the incredibly Byzantine and
inefficient Nazi economy, but I know I don't want the
opportunity of Speer arriving in 1938. Nor do I want to
decide what Dusseldorf will produce this Economic Quarterly
Interphase sub-impulse.
I don't know how to handle the naval economic war, but I
know that the Norwegian shipping delivered to GB after
Narvik was *the* difference between survival and starvation
for GB. Do we make *that* a die roll?
But enough. There is some problem with my brain that
leaves me unable to communicate the difference between
"some" and "none"; so be it. My part in this discussion is
neither helpful nor enjoyable, so I will leave it to others
to discuss. My inability to communicate simple concepts
adequately makes my participation unwise. I apologize for
any distress that the expression of my opinions, or my use
of hyperbole to make a point, may have caused.
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY