Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 21:08:34 -0500
From: Nicholas Forte <nforte@osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: GE:Italy
Perhaps the best solution would be to develop some sort of combined VP/political
point schedule for Italy and allow the Italian player to make the decision of
when, if, and under what conditions it is best for him to surrender. It could
work something like this. The Italian player must try to optimize the amount of
VPs it has at the _end_ of the game. These VPs would primarily be geared toward
territory controlled (this was Mussolini's primary focus) and influence/prestige
at the end of the game. Negative factors would include whether Italian cities
were bombed out or the loss of the Italian Navy (a major prestige factor).
Surrendering and/or switching sides would be a major loss of influence/prestige
points. Also, since Italy starts the game allied to Germany, breaking this
alliance should also cause a major loss of prestige. Perhaps the number of
years fighting on the winning side would cause positive prestige points and the
number of years of neutrality being negative (abdication of great power
responsibility). This should then give the Italian player the same motivation
as the Italian government. Some questions that the Italian player would have to
ask himself are:
1) Does Italy stay neutral throughout the entire war? (consider this a loss of
prestige since Italy would be seen as abdicating it's great power ambitions).
2) Does Italy decide to enter the war early, hoping that he has picked the
winning side correctly?
3) Does Italy take a wait and see position until it is clearer which side will
win? If he waits he may watch potential territorial gains being gobbled up by
his eventual ally.
4) If he comes to the conclusion that he picked the wrong side, can he separate
himself militarily from his erstwhile ally and hold on to his conquests
independently?
5) Does there become a point where it is the Italian player's interest to
surrender and/or switch sides?
The final decision of how to act would be up to the Italian player. Also, any
terms for its entry would be freely negotiable between Italy and its potential
allies, but consessions to Italy should be treated as lost VPs to the allies.
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 21:19:46 -0500
From: Nicholas Forte <nforte@osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: GE Options - Reprise
On 8 Mar 1996 07:09:43 U merrill@txpcap.hou.xwh.bp.com (Merrill, Robert C)
wrote:
>In response to Mark Danley who wrote:
>
>>Robert,
>> I'm not sure I understand where quite where you are coming from.
>>Will you and others who have comments elaborate?
>
>and in response to
>
>>> II) Europa has difficulty imparting the political animus to the players.
>
>wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>We aren't simulating war, we're playing toy soldiers. And the quote is, if I
>recall correctly since it's been over 20 years since I've read Clausewitz, that
>war is the continuation of politics BY OTHER MEANS.
>
>However, I may not have been clear enough in my previous posting, so I'll
>re-state it thusly:
>
>Europa excels in the painstaking detail of its maps, and more importantly, its
>OOB research. If we let the game stray too far from WWII as it happened we
>throw away the most important (to me!!) part. Indeed, and I'm probably in the
>minority, when I play Europa I don't play particularly competitively. Instead
>I try to repeat the historical flow of action with minour changes. Different
>strokes for different folks...
>
>In a real sense, despite external forces, political occurrences are random.
>Sure, there may be factors which make it more probable that one thing or
>another might happen, and the current, very limited, political rules account
>for this. But I bet the Germans were surprised when the coup occurred
>against King Michael, or when Iraq's uprising started.
>
>Bob
Staying with historical flow may work when playing one of the operational level
games, it won't work when playing Grand Europa. Once all of the games are
linked, changed military outcomes in one theater could have dramatic effects in
other theaters. For example, what if France doesn't fall? Do you force it to
fall because it did historically even though the German player may have played a
dismal game and fail to defeat the French Army? What if Rommel breaks through
to Alexandria and capture Egypt? Should the German player be forced to give it
back? Should the German player be forced to go into Stalingrad instead of
buypassing the city or using the troops to push more forcefully toward the
Caucusas? Let's face it, once you start GE, you are no longer playing an
operational game.
Nick Forte
Reston, VA
From: j.broshot@genie.com
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 96 03:00:00 UTC 0000
Subject: Grand Europa
Wow! I finally put my name on this list on Tuesday (3/5) and logged on
on Thursday (3/8). I am glad to see that Europa buffs can exist outside
of Genie.
Here's my $0.02 on Grand Europa.
1. Don't make it too much like Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. When
I played 3R pbm in the seventies, it tended to be like Risk or Diplomacy
on grand scale. I am not in favor of fantasy ww2 like Harry Turtledove
has in his sci-fi series (aliens invade the earth during the war) or
James Hogan's PROTEUS OPERATION.
2. I am inclined to agree with Rich, the political options of the players
should be limited. Germany will always invade Russia (the Germans were
after lebensraum even before Hitler), etc.
3. Clash of the Titans would be a good place to start a GE scenario, as
would Dr. (congratualtions!?) Pitcavage's Great Western War scenario that
appeared in TEM. Some other interesting options would include Hitler calling
off or prematurely terminating his Norwegian adventure to save the navy for
an invasion of England (C. S. Forester wrote a what-if story about this in
"If Hitler Had Invaded England," or a German victory at Normandy, DISASTER
4. Don't forget two of the major powers in this pot are headed by "madmen"
(to quote from a recent A&E promo): Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. There is
a reason that all of those "polizei" counters are included for the Germans
(as well as the garrison requirments) and the fact that the Soviets have
NKVD troops and combat restrictions in the first turns of FiE. Can we allow
that Hitler will allow a benign occupation of the Ukraine instead of pursuing
his Final Solution? Can we give the Soviets the option of no purges of the
Red Army to alllow for a more effective defense in 1941 or perhaps a Soviet
"Barbarossa?"
5. I am not a slave to history, can the following be assumed for purposes
Hitler will invade Poland ONLY if a Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact is in
Will France always fall in 1940?
Will Churchill be picked to head the British government (at the very least
the "no Churchill" option would affect the British land OB: no commadoes and
no large scale expansion of the Royal Armored Corps).
Will Hitler declare war on the United States, after the Japanese attack?
Will Churchill's idea of nibbling at the edges of Europe prevail allowing
Allied attacks on Norway and Greece instead of saving all for Overlord?
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 22:16:32 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: Grand Europa
>Wow! I finally put my name on this list on Tuesday (3/5) and logged on
>on Thursday (3/8). I am glad to see that Europa buffs can exist outside
>of Genie.
The traffic is not normally this heavy; in fact this week's volume can only
be described as extraordinary. And I see a lot of names that haven't posted
before. Did the Genie crowd move over en masse?
- Bobby.
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GE
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 21:29:30 PST
Hi everyone.
The maillist really seems to be taking off! Great
stuff. "Lysator-the ETO of the Nineties"
GE:
In the clear and present knowledge that I am simply
proving, a: that I am a glutton for punishment, b: too
foolish for my own good, and c: don't even listen to myself,
I present the following personal wish list for GE. Note that
this is for the Basic game version of GE (now *there's* an
oxymoron... <grin>); advanced rules may or may not be
different.
* Players represent military commands, not political
leadership and can not influence political events, except
through present game mechanics, ie combat, bombing, etc
* Germany and Poland, France and Britain are at war at
start. Everyone except Germany at Neutrality Watch, Germans
get free set up.
* Italy must enter war, by conducting ground operations
against Fr or GB, before the surrender/collapse/armistice of
a major power or they lose the game.
* Italy must invade an adjacent minor power prior to Jan I
'41 or they lose the war.
* Germany must invade the USSR before Aug I '41, or they
lose the war.
* Historical Nazi-Soviet Pact (with possibilities for
minor border adjustments as was the case)
* No Japanese attack on USSR.
* Adolph and Benito declare war on US Dec I '41
* Historical Air and Naval production, modified by ability
to retain more of unspent ARPs and NRPs, but these can not
be converted into new or different units.
* Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria minor Axis-Allies from
historical date (1 or 2 turns either way could be used)
* Historical Yugoslavia, Tripartite pact signed,
immediately begins rolling for coup, which will happen.
* Historical Iraq coup and option to occupy Iran.
* France must sign armistice when offered (as in FoF)
* Vichy sets up as historical as far as territorial
divisions. Commitment to Axis depends on events, pressure
and a table.
* Spain and Turkey as historical. Attitude based on
changed circumstances to be developed, but no Turkey joins
Axis/Allies based on one die roll or chit pick.
* Military technology remains as historical.
* Economic war, ie Strat air and U-boat campaign as much
in the background as possible, SF Strat air good example.
* Task Force Naval system.
* OB based on Replacement points (Inf, Art, Arm) to
"build" historical units (largely, some variation for
circumstances permitted)
* No random events, no Political Instability Table, no
player control of the "Home Front", no players for minor
powers. (Random Events: that are game breakers or
significantly distort history)
To which some will reply, "But you are just refighting
WW II!" Exactly. Completely right. Bravo! Hit the nail
on the head.
Europa, IMO, is an operational level game depicting WW
II at the divisional level, with those air and naval aspects
which had a significant impact upon the ground war.
It is not a series of maps and OB provided to gamers to
play "The war of 1939-194? as it might have been if x,y and
z did or didn't happen." It is not a blown-up version of
3dR, nor WIF, nor WW II or any other Strategic-politico game
on the time period between 1939 and whenever. It is not a
early 1940s version of Empires in Arms, Diplomacy, Risk or
Badminton.
Europa games are 70% ground combat, 20% tactical air
force, 5% naval; leaving 5% for politics, production, coup
die rolls, etc and 0% for alternative political history.
Europa is about Hoth and Rommel and Gamelin and
Montgomery and Eisenhower, it is not about Stalin, Hitler,
Mussolini, Horthy, Roosevelt or King Zog.
All, of course, in my opinion. If people want to use
the materials provided to play out Bulgaria, USSR and Sweden
versus Hungary, Germany and Portugal; by all means do so. I
just don't want to have to wait until that version has been
adequately playtested before I get a system where I can
re-fight WW II.
Thanks. late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GURU:SF
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 23:02:18 PST
>>When there are too many units in an area to take advantage
>>of a limited supply source (rule 12.C.2), are the excess
>>units isolated, or merely out of supply?
Certainly out of supply, but may or may not be isolated.
Isolation. Per Rule 3G, is a distinct concept from that of
supply, per Rule 12. For example, units can be in supply,
while isolated, or not be in supply while unisolated.
>>If, for example, you have 30 REs of units that can only be
>>supplied through a minor port, may they use the port in
>>groups of 15 REs on alternate turns (so that none are ever
>>worse than in the first turn out of supply)? >
Yes. There is no provision in the rules which
restricts a player from choosing which units, of any
allowable, will make use of a particular supply source. The
inference I think you are drawing is also correct; none of
these 30 REs of units will ever be affected by their "lack"
of supply, if none are isolated and none will be required
to suffer a worse supply condition than U-1.
>>The first paragraph of rule 12.D gives an example that
>>seems to be incorrect. If the unit is "first judged to be
>>out of supply in the Axis initial phase of the Dec I 44
>>game turn", shouldn't its "first turn out of supply"
>>consist of the Dec I 44 Axis game turn and the Dec I 44
>>Allied game turn?
The example is in error; replace the word "Axis" in the
first sentence of the example with "Allied".
>>Shouldn't the supported breakdown components of the Allied
>>airborne divisions have the full movement rating of the
>>parent unit? >
No. By having these units have their best mobility as
divisions, this tends to "encourage" players to use these
units in a ground role as they did historically, as
divisions.
>>According to rule 20.G.2.h, air units on the naval patrol
>>mission roll to make contact during the mission movement
>>step. Should this not be done after interceptor movement?
>>(As written, the interceptor pilots have an unusual degree
>>of prescience about which enemy missions they can safely
>>ignore.)
JMA: No. Please remember, an Europa air mission/operation
represents several sorties, and not just once-out-and-back.
Thus, you can send your interceptors to cover the ships
being hit by sorties.
>>If the Axis player has insufficient ARPs to replace losses
>>when withdrawing strategic air assets (per rule 26.B), and
>>has not been able to pay off the resulting deficit, is the
>>full strategic air OB deemed to be available when next
>>called up for a special effort, or is the deficit deducted
>>from the available pool?
The ARP deficit is applied against the player's in play
forces, not the Strategic Air Force units. All of the
normally availabe Strategic air units would be available.
(Replacement activities concerning the Strategic Air Forces
are assumed to be taking place; they are not depicted in
the game since the Axis player has only limited control
over these units.)
The Axis player would have to use the ARPs received due to
calling up the Strategic air assets to reduce his ARP
deficit before thay could be used for other purposes.
>>Rule 33.A specifies that a task force "must fire all its
>>NGS in the same combat phase". This does not make a lot of
>>sense, since it "remains prepared as long as it remains in
>>the same hex and does not fire during any naal combat".
>>Does this mean that NGS is considered to be a form of
>>"naval combat", so that the unit may not fire again until
>>it has gone through the preparation process? Does it mean
>>that a task force firing NGS may only fire in one combat
>>phase of a turn? Does it have some other implication that
>>escapes me?
JMA: 1) It seems obvious to me that, per Rule 33A, once a TF
fire NGS it has to prepare again before it can fire again.
We can issue an clarification here: Please note that once a
TF provides NGS, it must prepare for NGS again before it may
provide NGS again, even if it remains in the same hex and
does not fire during any naval combat.
>>In rule 10.A.2., "attacking unit" should be "defending
>>unit" (for AECD), or so I believe.
JMA: "defending" is correct. RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: m.royer3@genie.com
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 96 13:41:00 UTC 0000
Subject: GEnie
>>Wow! I finally put my name on this list on Tuesday (3/5) and logged on
>>on Thursday (3/8). I am glad to see that Europa buffs can exist outside
>>of Genie.
> The traffic is not normally this heavy; in fact this week's volume can only
> be described as extraordinary. And I see a lot of names that haven't posted
> before. Did the Genie crowd move over en masse?
> - Bobby.
Bobby,
I do see alot of my old GEnie friends popping up here on the list. I don't
know whether they have "moved over" or just joined the list as an alternative.
I for one, still monitor GEnie (although, with their price increases, I can't
say for how long). I can say that since I've joined the list I've received a
daily average of over 20 messages (with peaks in the 40 neighborhood!). During
the same time the daily average on GEnie has been about 1 message (with peaks
around 2 or 3).
Quite frankly, I can't keep up with the reading here, so I haven't been able
to post responses. Hopefully, I'll get into the swing of things. I need a
better mail handling software package. I'm spending too much time just
juggling things around.
I'm thrilled to see so many different names active here. Things on GEnie
were becoming more and more depressing as the conversation dwindled over the
last year. I was beginning to wonder if the life had goneout of the Europa
community, but clearly it has not!
Keep up the excellent, interesting posts,
-Mark R.
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:10:26 -0600
From: conrad alan b <abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Sealion possibilities
One point that has come up in a couple of notes that I would like to
refute. Whether the German navy is saved in the Norway campaign is of no
real impact on Sealion. A couple of heavy cruisers and a handful of
destroyers will not make an impact on the Royal Navy.
I studied Sealion in great detail several years back. There is a
question of whether the British could stop the barges coming across the
channel. And what the air battle ends up as.
In my opinion the invasion has little chance of success since even
if the troops get ashore, they will never be able to supply them or get
further waves across the channel.
But this begs another point. Rich Valey recently stated a GE point
that Germany should be required to attack Russian by August '41. A
possible scenario that in my opinion makes that a poor requirement is this.
German tries a Sealion invasion of Britain. They get ashore and are
able to hang on because they are the best troops in the world and the
British can't throw them out. But the German are few with little supply
so they can not take Britain by storm either. So the campaign lasts
into 1941. And the Luftwaffe is really crewed up in trying to supply
and support the army.
So German can not attack the Russians in '41. Win or lose the
battle in England and in '42 they will get around to it. It still must
be mandated, but not if they are involved in something else.
Alan Conrad
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:23:33 -0600
From: conrad alan b <abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: GEnie
On Sat, 9 Mar 1996 m.royer3@genie.com wrote:
>
> > The traffic is not normally this heavy; in fact this week's volume can only
> > be described as extraordinary. And I see a lot of names that haven't posted
> > before. Did the Genie crowd move over en masse?
>
> > - Bobby> I do see alot of my old GEnie friends popping up here on the list. I don't
> know whether they have "moved over" or just joined the list as an alternative.
> I for one, still monitor GEnie (although, with their price increases, I can't
> say for how long). I can say that since I've joined the list I've received a
> daily average of over 20 messages (with peaks in the 40 neighborhood!).
> Quite frankly, I can't keep up with the reading here, so I haven't been able
> to post responses. Hopefully, I'll get into the swing of things. I need a
> better mail handling software package. I'm spending too much time just
> juggling things around.
> I'm thrilled to see so many different names active here. Things on GEnie
> were becoming more and more depressing as the conversation dwindled over the
> last year. I was beginning to wonder if the life had goneout of the Europa
> community, but clearly it has not!
>
> Keep up the excellent, interesting posts,
> -Mark R.
>
Gentleman,
I don't know about the GEnie people coming over but everyone should
note that this service was announced in the last Europa Magazine. That's
where I logged on from. So there could be a lot of new folks here.
I wanted to comment about the volume also. It took me an hour the
other night just to read through the traffic. I did not even have the
time to replay to anything. A large percentage of the volume however,
was just four or five guys repeating the save views about GE over and
over. I hope people can refrain from this so we all have a chance to
keep up with things and then are able to add our two cents also.
Alan Conrad
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:37:17 -0600
From: conrad alan b <abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Italian troops
A reply to Rich Velay on a comment he made in a note from Feb 29th:
"don't worry about the Italians. They're going to surrender eventually
anyway, the sooner the better."
I disagree. True they don't fight well. And you have to keep them
from getting killed or they will go away. But . . . they have a lot of
troops that make good beach defenders so the German units can be in the
line. The air force is good for staying in the backround and keeping
Allied bombers from tearing up the rails, even in France. And most of
all they have a lot of engineers.
The Axis has a multitude of things
that have to get built. After you have played the game as the Germans
once you know you have plenty of Resouce Points, build at will without
worrying about them. And you have a lot of things you want to destroy
(i.e.ports) so you need all the engineers you can get
Alan Conrad
Date: 09 Mar 96 12:57:13 EST
From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: GE Options
Rich,
Thanks for making your idea of GE clear and simple. I'd like to try to express
as clearly and simply the problems that I think it entails.
First, it looks to me like there are 3 general approaches possible:
1) Minimal strategic concerns with mandates to shape GE to maintain a
resemblence with WWII (your approach),
2) Minimal strategic concerns with minimal restrictions (probably few would want
the wild and crazy game this would produce - except maybe some real-life career
officers),
3) Strategic concerns similar to BF but on a large scale, and production that
allows for flexibility while trying not to benefit hindsight.
I think we can ignore (2) because we all (?) would like some degree of
strategic similarity between the war and GE. But even more important, I think
everyone would agree, is a high level of operational similarity. My point here
is that the latter is defeated by (1). An example: Let's say Germany is mandated
to invade France. Is Britain mandated to send a minimum number of REs to France?
If not, FOF is neither strategically nor operationally close to WWII. If so,
with hindsight and without any concern for political repercussions, the Brit
player stacks his units in a channel port and waits for the invasion to release
him from his formal obligation; as soon as Germany invades, or as soon as the
trigger occurs (fall of Paris?), he's gone. The more the mandate is specified
(e.g., minimum 12 REs 3 hexes from the coast), the more (1) looks like (3), but
without intrinsic meaning, and so inevitably with one more loophole to exploit.
There are probably better examples, but I think it's clear that to the extent
that actual strategic benefits and penalties are not factored in, GE will look
_operationally_ gamey, contrived, and unlike the war itself.
That's why I think (3) is the best option, and with all the interconnecting
issues needed just to link BF with GE, that's why I said (seems like weeks ago)
that computer support is practically indispensable. But that's really not so
painful. I've been a little surprised by how the most (probably)
computer-literate members of the Europa community seem so computer-phobic. Take
the invasion of France: There's an option on the screen that says "Germany
Invades France"; a single keystroke and the computer knows it's occurred, and it
activates all the relevent factors; now for example there appears an item that
says "British REs to France", and another that says "German REs destroyed by
Brits in France"; the Brit player is encouraged to behave in the national
interest (strategically _and_ operationally similar to historical Britain),
because with a few keystrokes per turn (easier than finding a unit in a counter
tray) he can inform the computer of events that increase the Brit Reliability
Index (tracked internally by the computer), and thereby reduces the likelihood
that Turkey (for example) doesn't join the Axis. At the cost of a few
keystrokes, GE looks and feels much like WWII; Turkey doesn't enter the war
because the Brit player acts intelligently (you pick your players carefully in
GE), because there's a _reason_ to act (generally) along historical lines.
On a related issue, I'm not sure I understand your concern about "a two year
game of Europa hanging on...a die roll". Even if it's a really important event
like, say, the entry of the U.S. into the war on a particular turn, the
probabilities would presumably be highly determined by the play of the game up
to that point (have the Germans opted for maximum submarine warfare, have they
invaded Switzerland, have the Brits put up an impressive defense, etc.). It may
be only a single die-roll, but if the range of possibilities and modifiers are
set up with as least as much care as the political rolls we see in BF and FWTBT,
the randomness of the die is just the final parameter, and a good simulation of
the extent to which events are beyond the players' (and historical actors')
control.
The alternative to a die-roll would seem to be far more demoralizing to someone
with a 2-year investment in a game: The Germans invade Switzerland
opportunistically simply because they don't have to worry about a lot of the
factors that historically kept them at bay, like the reaction of the US; or the
Germans are prohibited by a rule from invading even though the situation in the
game lacks the inhibitors that might reasonably keep them from doing so.
It may be unpleasant, but the more you include strategy, the more likely GE will
resemble WWII; the more you exclude strategy, either a) without mandates, the
more it just looks like a general's (wacky) wet dream, or b) with pre-determined
mandates, the more players are forced into increasingly irrelevent restrictions,
and the more they use operational tricks to satisfy the formalities.
Apologies for the length of this.
Jim
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 12:04:50 -0600
From: conrad alan b <abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: defending Sicily
Gents,
In my note of March 4th I told how my SF game had Messina hold into
'44. And there were questions of how. The `new' straits rule might make
this moot, but here's my reply.
Mainly I don't think my opponent considered bombing ports to cut the
supply. His thoughts were
knock out those airfields so the Luftwaffe could not get to his troops or
his navy. So he bombed out my airfields and I kept rebuilding them. So
Messina did get bombed a lot since I had a big base there.
In retrospect he might have erred. B-25s would get a +1 bonus for
the flak, and using strat bombing factors would have a 50% better chance
of getting hits. And port hits are twice as hard to fix. However it is
still not going to be easy. 17 flak still stops a lot of planes. And
the German engineers are still fixing.
In fact can the Allies cut off the supply? For ports you can inflict
two more damage than their capacity. But as long as those two plus one
hits are fixed during the German turn, won't the Germans be back in
supply before the Allies can attack them during their next turn?
Back to Sicily - those last two hexes are hard to crack. You can
only get one & one half hexes (mountain hexside) on Messina, and only one
hex on 3724. Both are rough, and will have a fort, so -2 to the die.
That makes a 3-1 chancy. Once the mud hits its -4 and you have to have
a 6-1 to succeed.
Now of course what the German is fearing is an invasion in
Calabria. So that is what I was defending. My mistake was that the
Allied player was able to end run me and grab Taranto that I had lightly
defended.
I didn't realize then, I KNOW NOW!, that a major port in Italy is
everything, so losing it really hurt. But I was able to bottle him up
because by the time he had enought troops ashore the mud had hit and he
was unwilling to take chancy attacks at -2, -3, or -4 depending on the
point in the line.
With his troops and his air and the navy making the push at Taranto
the Allied player also did not have them to push at Messina also. So
that added to my ability to survive.
Alan Conrad
From: m.royer3@genie.com
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 96 18:22:00 UTC 0000
Subject: GE politics
Alot of discussion in recent postings has revolved around the topic of what
roll politics, diplomacy, economics, and socialogy should play in Grand Europa.
For my part, I agree with what I percieve as the general consensus, that these
factors should be beyond the control of the players. The player's in GE should
represent the top levels of military establishment in their respective nations,
not the national leaders and governments of those nations.
However, as has been noted, the political, economic, and social fabric of a
nation is directly influenced by the actions, successes, and failures of their
military establishment and cannot be ignored in GE.I imagine a GE where the
political, economic, and social fabric of a nation are factored into a separate
rules system beyond the control of, but influenced by, players actions.
Military events on the map would be inputs to the system and national
directives, mandates, and orders would be its output. For example, during the
winter of 1940-41, the Italians are much more successful in Greece than their
historical counterparts. This is an input to the system. A resultant output
might be a directive to the Wehrmacht to attack the Soviet Union in early May
41, rather than late June. Thus, while the German player is mandated to attack
(and has no choice in this regard), previous military events factored in to
influence the exact nature of the mandate. On the otherhand, as Alan Conrad
has pointed out, if the Germans are embroiled in England, in 1941 this would be
a dominant input to the system and probably delay significantly (or even
cancel?) the order to invade the USSR.
This idea is still embrionic, but it may be the best way to model the
national fabric which molds a nations military effort and allow for a
reasonable interaction between that which is part of the game and that which is
beyond the scope of the game.
Moreover, since the system would be an adjunct to the game and not integrally
part of the game mechanics, the algorithms used to implement the system could
be developed over time. Simple algorithms could be used to get GE off the
ground, while more complex ones (even ones implemented on a computer) could
follow.
-Mark R.
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 12:34:41 -0600
From: conrad alan b <abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: new Messina rule
Gents,
We had trouble when thinking the straits and the landing craft
rules through when we played SF. But I believe we played the rules
correctly.
But in looking at the problem historically and realistically we had
second thoughts. And the new Messina = narrow straits ruling may not be the
best one.
First of all the rail ferry. The whole Allied fleet can sit on it
and can not stop it (it must be underground). Now the Allies did not try
to force the straits historically. But were they too timid as the Europa
rules would prove, or would the losses have been to great, (system
error). One problem is that fleets can not bombard ports in SF.
Probably something we should let them do.
The Allies called off air attacks because the losses were too great,
some reports said the worst flak in Europe. But the SF air system fails
in this regard because up to a point, who cares about air losses since
the units all come back whether you lose them or not. Up until that
point both sides regularly send their air forces into suicide missions.
Heck I sent most of the Luftwaffe into certain death (or abort or return)
one time, since, A - the units were all going to return next turn anyway,
and B - maybe I might get one bomber through to help fend off an Allied
ground attack; so it was worth it.
As an aside this shows that the air system still needs some looks.
In my mind there should be some way of cutting off Sicily, it just
depends on making the cost to a realistic point so the Allied player has
to make a judgement call on whether he thinks it is worth it or not.
Now the landing craft. Now maybe an LC has to run the gauntlet of
the danger zone to get to the straits. But once there it is obvious (to
me at least) that they should be able to refuel from the ports there.
Forcing them to run back to a Major Port is silly. So long as the Allies
have a reasonable chance to attack the LC while it is sitting there I
feel it should not be forced to move.
If the Germans recognize that they can use the LC option it
really helps hold Sicily. They now have the chance to actually get the
troops there they need. And the chance to get them out when the time
comes. Realistic or not, the Germans don't care about the LC getting
sunk, they have plenty of naval points to rebuild it.
Lastly I'm not sure the new ruling is a good one. A narrow strait
might be too easy for the Germans and it gives the Allies no chance to
interdict. And in my mind if the Germans can walk across this narrow
strait, the Allies should also be allowed to walk it. Although they
don't care as much since they can spare the LCs to make it an easy crossing.
Alan Conrad
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 12:47:53 -0600
From: conrad alan b <abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Italian options
Gents,
I like most of what you all have said about how GE might handle what
Italy must and may do. The idea of forcing or VPs for attacking a minor
country is worthwhile.
However we should all realize that even if we force Italy to attack,
it is going to be difficult for us to force Italy to be stupid about it.
Yes I might attack Greece. But I'm not going to do it with poor troops
in the winter. I'm going to take lots of good troops in good weather.
Now this idea of players not making stupid decisions that were made
historically is going to come up time and time again as we look at GE.
How are we going to force France to deploy their army when they have Sept
'39 thru April '40 to do it? What restraints are going to be put on
Russia when he has two years to set up his forces and this game's
Russian (Stalin or Zhukov is yet to be determined) knows he's going to
get stomped them the German comes his way?
It is possible that since both sides have a chance to play the war
correctly, that these things will even out. But it is at least going to
take a lot of playtesting to figure that out.
Alan Conrad
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 12:43:02 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: Sealion possibilities
> One point that has come up in a couple of notes that I would like to
>refute. Whether the German navy is saved in the Norway campaign is of no
>real impact on Sealion. A couple of heavy cruisers and a handful of
>destroyers will not make an impact on the Royal Navy.
> I studied Sealion in great detail several years back. There is a
>question of whether the British could stop the barges coming across the
>channel. And what the air battle ends up as.
> In my opinion the invasion has little chance of success since even
>if the troops get ashore, they will never be able to supply them or get
>further waves across the channel.
I have toyed with the idea of a Sealion that is not *meant* to succeed as an
invasion, but rather as a ploy to lure the Royal Navy into the maw of the
Luftwaffe. Rather than trying to bomb England flat before launching the
boats, launch them as soon as possible: then the British bombers will be
flying into *your* hordes of interceptors (against your boats), there will
be less imbalance over who's EFT and EET, and the RN will virtually have to
put in an appearence.
It would take a cold-blooded general to throw out a handful of divisions as
bait in a rowboat, but for our purposes "it's only cardboard".
- Bobby.
From: "David H. Thornley" <thornley@cs.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Italian options
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 14:19:09 -0600 (CST)
> Now this idea of players not making stupid decisions that were made
> historically is going to come up time and time again as we look at GE.
> How are we going to force France to deploy their army when they have Sept
> '39 thru April '40 to do it? What restraints are going to be put on
> Russia when he has two years to set up his forces and this game's
> Russian (Stalin or Zhukov is yet to be determined) knows he's going to
> get stomped them the German comes his way?
One problem in simulating the early war is that, very simply, many of the
real "players" did not know the rules very well. The French setup in
1940 is an example; they did not examine the TEC and notice that the
Ardennes was not the obstacle they had believed. The Germans came
through, having a better idea of the rules, and the campaign was
effectively over. The Italian "player" apparently never looked at the
Greek "counters" and "special rules". The Soviet player missed quite
a few things leading up to the Jun II 41 turn. If we want to step
back a bit, we notice that many players simply didn't know how to make
aircraft with large numbers in the upper two positions, and that many
didn't realize how to make armored units. The Soviet player, in
particular, didn't realize the special rules and AEC/ATEC pertaining to
the initial Soviet mech divisions.
I see only three choices. First, make a batch of different rules systems,
TECs, CRTs, etc., and pick them at random when they become important.
This throws away the main advantage of Europa, and we may as well play
World in Flames, which is faster and (with this assumption) at least as
realistic. Second, make a bunch of idiot rules to force the players to
do idiotic things. Some can be permissive; i.e., give the Italian player
a lot of points to attack Greece under ridiculous conditions. Some can't;
how many VP would it take you to set up France to guarantee its fall,
provided you were playing France. This is extremely annoying (the standard
Europa approach is to set up the game so the idiocy has occurred, which
simply isn't going to work in GE), and if the game deviates from the
course of the war in some manner (if it can't, why play?) risks forcing
players to go ahead with idiocy that isn't even historically realistic.
Third, we can try to live with it.
> It is possible that since both sides have a chance to play the war
> correctly, that these things will even out. But it is at least going to
> take a lot of playtesting to figure that out.
>
Yup. Notice that thorough Grand Europa playtesting is impossible, as has
been pointed out earlier. I see problems, but no solutions.
David H. Thornley, known to the Wise as thornley@cs.umn.edu O-
Disclaimer: These are not the opinions of the University of Minnesota,
its Regents, faculty, staff, students, or squirrels.
Datclaimer: Well, maybe the squirrels. They're pretty smart.