Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 18:42:00 -0500
From: Nicholas Forte <nforte@osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Italian troops
On Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:37:17 -0600 abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (conrad alan b)
wrote:
> 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
I would have to agree that Italian surrender is not pre-ordained. A possible
scenario for the Italians staying in the war would be if the Allies decided to
bypass Italy and move directly to a second front against the Germans (this was
General Marshall's desired option).
Nick Forte
Reston, VA
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 23:42:19 +0100
From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland)
Subject: Another monster GE rant
I am about to inflict my view on everyone re. a post by Rich Velay.
Rich Velay wrote:
> Hi everyone.
etc.
>
>* Players represent military commands, not political
>leadership and can not influence political events, except
>through present game mechanics, ie combat, bombing, etc.
Hmm. Not quite sure what you mean. All nations need to have a series of
fixed political 'given' that define the type of regime/society/internal
politics within which they act.
>* Germany and Poland, France and Britain are at war at
>start. Everyone except Germany at Neutrality Watch, Germans
>get free set up.
Quite so.
>* 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.
Seems reasonable. The objective of Fascist Italy was aggrandisement and 'a
place at the negotiating table'. This really must be a fixed political
'given' for Fascist Italy: sitting the war out should not be an option for
a leader like Mussolini. However, within certain set of facts (that Italy
is run by a fascist regime with certain inherently aggressive political
aspirations), there must be flexibility.
>* Italy must invade an adjacent minor power prior to Jan I
>'41 or they lose the war.
I think this particular requirement only makes sense in games with a single
Axis (i.e. German) player. If there is an Italian player, this is an
artificial strategic constraint. I very much doubt the Italian player will
need any encouragement to attack minor powers. A friend of mine who
habitually plays the Italians (Hi Tony!) is always scheming ways to mount
operations in the Balkans (incl. Greece) before the Germans arrive and
'steal the show'.
>* Germany must invade the USSR before Aug I '41, or they
>lose the war.
See above for my 'vibe'. The German player is not going to sit and wait
until the Soviets can choose the best moment to strike first so this is too
intrusive. There is no chance that the Nazi and Soviet regimes are not
going to come to blows sooner or later, so why try and force it into what
might be an unnatural time frame for a given campaign. The decision of
when to go is really more of a military judgement than a political one: I
think we can safely assume the political will is there on all sides to come
to blows when it seems most advantageous.
>* Historical Nazi-Soviet Pact (with possibilities for
>minor border adjustments as was the case)
Absolutely.
>* No Japanese attack on USSR.
Maybe yes, maybe no. I AM one of those loonies who wants to run a GE-Glory
campaign (No, wait=8Awho are these strange men in the white coats and where
are they taking me?).
>* Adolph and Benito declare war on US Dec I '41
Certainly. The actual historical declaration of war completely beggars
belief and defies all logic=8Ai.e. a typical action by a totalitarian regime=
.
This sort of thing falls into the category of a fixed 'defining' political
given. It may upset some to hear me say both Hitler and Stalin had their
heads up their own rear ends, but the logic of totalitarianism inevitably
leads to stupid decisions (leaders of democracies also have a propensity
for stupid decisions, just rather different ones=8Abut I digress: I'll save
this particular rant for my favourite newsgroup: alt.politics.psycopathic)
>* 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.
Yes (grumble grumble), I suppose so.
>* Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria minor Axis-Allies from
>historical date (1 or 2 turns either way could be used)
Argg! No, no, no. This is a very complex (and rather interesting) set of
interrelated political dynamics and it would be TRAGIC to just write it off
as an immutable piece of history. Balkan politics is fascinating and rich
turf for gaming.
>* Historical Yugoslavia, Tripartite pact signed,
>immediately begins rolling for coup, which will happen.
Ak! See above. More on this topic later (he, he) :-p
>* Historical Iraq coup and option to occupy Iran.
Sounds fun (timing should be variable).
>* France must sign armistice when offered (as in FoF)
Only if suitable conditions are met (I assume that is what Rich intended).
>* Vichy sets up as historical as far as territorial
>divisions. Commitment to Axis depends on events, pressure
>and a table.
Sounds good.
>* 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.
Spanish intentions are very clear and well documented: nothing short of an
invasion of Spain or a catastrophic British military situation (like a
successfully established 'Sealion' in 1940 inducing a Spanish attack on
Gibraltar) would have drawn Spain into the war on either side (as fascists
go, Franco was a fairly smart chap)
Turkey is very different. The Britain and (particularly) the French made
considerable efforts to bring Turkey into the war in 1939-40 and it is not
really fair to say that they had no chance of success (accounts of these
diplomatic efforts can be found at the Public Records Office in Kew
(London) and they make fascinating reading. The status of Italy is very
important here. I suspect France surviving into 1941 and a few early
military reversals for Italy at Anglo-French hands would have had an
excellent chance of bringing Turkey into the allied camp (possibly as a
full belligerent: more likely in a more limited role as an ally, but an
ally nevertheless). Similarly, it is by no means clear that later Axis
attempts to woo Turkey were pre-doomed to fail. This subject is a
fascinating one on which informed opinion varied considerably. Sounds
interesting to me!
>* Military technology remains as historical.
Certainly.
>* Economic war, ie Strat air and U-boat campaign as much
>in the background as possible, SF Strat air good example.
Horror of horrors! My friends and I are an aviation/naval oriented group
and we love the idea of expanding the game to more satisfactorily cover
these issues. As I have stated before, modularised rules should let us
have our cake and eat it. For those such as Rich who find such matters
tiresome, there are the rather abstracted rules as written: People such as
myself want more. A recent post described my previous post as suggested a
'Broad Church' approach to Europe. Quite!
>* Task Force Naval system.
Horror (squared). See above.
>* OB based on Replacement points (Inf, Art, Arm) to
>"build" historical units (largely, some variation for
>circumstances permitted)
If done rather indulgently, yes, I agree. Extensive Allied campaigning in
Norway (i.e. more that was historical) or an extended campaign in Turkey
suggests the Brits would probably have raised a mountain corps. Ditto for
other nations. The options do not have to be exhaustive to keep people
like me happy, just a bit of flexibility (SF moved nicely in that direction
with various optional reorganisations).
>* 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)
Absolutely.
> 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.
Sorry Rich, I think you are completely wrong on this one. A game module
(FoF, FTF etc.) is an operational/grand operational level game (I've never
been comfortable with the term Grand Operational). However Grand Europa is
a game in which you make decisions to invade France in 1944 or maybe
instead try a Balkan approach or an invasion via Spain. These are
*strategic* decisions that will colour the entire war in profound ways.
How you execute them may be a series of operational (even tactical) set of
decisions, but do not kid yourself that committing the combined allied
militaries to a major new campaign against (say) Spain in 1944 is anything
less that a strategic decision.
> 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.
I don't think it's quite that clear cut, but modularisation should keep us
both happy (please leave me alone when I'm shunting my towering stacks of
Lancasters towards hapless Hamburg or arranging to beat up on the Italians
in order to impress the Turks).
> All, of course, in my opinion.
And your opinions are well articulated. I tend to disagree but that's what
makes life interesting. That and rich, dark chocolate.
>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.
I agree. You should not have to. Modularisation can be done piecemeal.
There. I feel better now.
Regards to all
Perry ..._
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: my rants
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 17:15:29 PST
Hi Alan.
Re: Defending Sicily.
Let's look at the situation. (*not* using the new
straits rules)
* No Axis sea supply through any Sicilian port, as
they are all in danger zones.
* No overland or road supply lines across the
straits; no causeway, road or rail line.
* Rail supply lines using rail ferries depends on
both ports functioning; if Messina has maximum hits, no rail
ferry, ergo, no rail element supply line.
* The LC is ridiculously easy to sink every second
turn as it tries to get back to Messina after replenishing.
* The LC will not be there, even if it survives,
every second turn as it sails off to replenish and tries to
sail back.
So for all practical purposes we are limited to an
overland supply line traced over the LC to Reggio or
V.s.Giovanni, every *other* turn and a rail element supply
line using the rail ferry.
So the Allies put maximum damage on Messina, using the
pre-game phase to do so. They will also try to sink the LC
if it sets up in the straits. But the rail ferry has
priority.
Now, no matter how many Engs the Axis have, if the
Allies bomb out Messina during an Allied movement phase, the
Axis will be isolated for the following combat phase on
turns when the LC is sunk or in transit; no special repls.
And the LC is easy meat for any Allied TFs. Especially
once the Allies have oodles of air based on Sicily.
So everything hinges on being able to repair the ports
in Messina, Reggio and V.s. Giovanni, each and every turn,
to keep the rail ferry functioning. And even then, rail
movement to Sicily costs double REs, and double again for
C/M. So moving a PzGr to the island costs 12 REs of rail
cap, and you get 10...
And don't forget harassment missions either, which will
reduce the Axis ability to repair the ports.
IMO, it was just too dangerous for the Axis to stick
around. Wasn't something I'd risk my precious German C/M
divs on, anyway. And the 6 VPs for Sicily just don't seem
like a big enough deal to warrant putting my head in a
noose.
But then, other players use other plans.
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: my rants
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 17:13:47 PST
Hi Alan.
Concerning my policy of abandoning Benito to his
fate, or "don't worry about the Italians."
Sure the Italian's provide some Cst Eng's (the best Axis
ones in the game, no less) but a dozen or so Cst Engs is not
enough for me to run the risks one has to to keep the Its in
the game. And considering German, RSI and Axis Foreign Cst
Engs, I think the 20 to 30 Special Replacement that the
surrendering Its provide to the Germans are more important.
As I use the optional rule limiting destruction to units
able to trace an LOC to enemy units, I have never found
myself lacking Cst or Cbt Engs to blow up ports... besides
which, getting the German port destruction ability from It
surrender removes a lot of your "destruction" burden anyway.
The Its have four or five decent planes, so do the RSI
forces, so this doesn't make a big difference, IMO. Besides
which, you can hardly risk the It air force when each
eliminated plane is one RE against the surrender tally.
The Its have a few decent troops, but so do the RSI
forces, so that doesn't make a big difference either. And
you don't have to sweat over each RE of eliminated RSI
forces.
The RSI doesn't surrender; the Its do. That in itself
is a good reason to get rid of the Its and get the RSI, as
soon as possible.
Finally, I simply believe that having the port
destruction ability, those special replacements and
non-surrendering RSI forces is a better deal than trying to
keep the Its alive.
Just one man's opinion.
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: my rants
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 17:16:48 PST
Hi Alan.
RE: new Messina rule.
This is, as stated, a quick fix. There is amore
detailed and more complex option rule for LC as ferries
being worked on.
If you choose to use a house rule that the Axis LC
doesn't have to follow the normal replenishment rules,
that's fine, but I don't see how it helps you that much.
Even just entering Messina to replenish means the LC can't
act as a ferry that turn, since it must have been in the
port to replenish and it can't be in a port and act as a
ferry. The LC can't claim to have replenished in a port and
still comply with the spirit of Rule 34J.
Unless your intent is to allow it to act as a ferry even
in turns in which it replenishes. I don't now about anyone
else, but I wouldn't agree to that were I playing the
Allies.
The new Messina rule helps the Axis get off of Sicily,
IMO, but I don't see it making things all that much easier
for them if they try to mount a lengthy defence. The rail
lines are still iffy, you can't admin move across narrow
straits and supply is limited to an overland line until you
hit either Reggio or V.s. Giovanni. Surely the Alles can
mount a 3:1 against Festung Messina; even with a -1 or -2 in
clear weather, the Allies still have a 50% chance of taking
the hex. And Mud isn't even possible in zone "E" until
November.
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: More monster GE
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 17:26:14 PST
Hi Perry.
Interesting post. I won't deal with the specifics since we
are pretty far apart on the idea of what GE should be. :)
While its fascinating to see everyone's ideas it is all ultimately in
the hands of Winston and John; what GE ends up looking like will be their
decision, not yours, or mine, or anyone elses.
I suspect it will be a synthesis of the two extremes, little enough
"goofy" Europa to keep me happy, and little enough "straightjacket" Europa to
keep you happy! :)
As Dr. Mark intimated, GE will probably be much easier to talk about
than play, based just on who's house gets taken over for four or five years. :)
GE will probably take longer to play than the war took to fight, but things
like that have never influenced "true" Europists.
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 20:30:30 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Replying to Europa-list messages.
Forgive me if I state the obvious, but this may be useful information to
many (since we seem to have a host of new participants).
This list does not work like a number of other Internet mailing lists: if
you simply use a 'reply' command to respond to a Europa-list message, it
goes *only* to the individual who sent the message. You must send your reply
to the mailing list instead, if you want everyone to see it. (I still forget
this sometimes myself, since I use a number of other lists that all behave
differently.)
Also, as the list manager occasionally reminds us, replying to a message
with a 'cc' to the list will cause the person who sent the message to get
*two* copies of the reply, since they are presumably on the list.
- Bobby.
From: j.broshot@genie.com
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 96 03:43:00 UTC 0000
Subject: Grand Europa and Sicily
To the gentlemen that found too much "yakkity-yak,"
"so long, it's been good to know you." I am rather enjoying
this GE discussion.
RE GRAND EUROPA. Rich recently wrote:
>* Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria minor Axis-Allies from
>historical date (1 or 2 turns either way could be used)
to which Perry responded:
>Argg! No, no, no. This is a very complex (and rather
>interesting) set of interrelated political dynamics and it would
>be TRAGIC to just write it off as an immutable piece of history.
>Balkan politics is fascinating and rich turf for gaming.
I will have to agree with Perry on this.
I recommend reading THIRD AXIS, FOURTH ALLY (Mark Axworthy et al)
published by Arms & Armour Press (UK, USA and Australia). Romania,
Hungary and Bulgaria were constantly at each other's throats in
WW2. There's a rule, if I recall correctly, in FiE that forbids
Hungarian units and Romanian units from stacking together. Hitler
(with the help of Mussolini) forced Romania to give up substantial
lands to both Hungary and Bulgaria BEFORE Barbarossa. Lands that
had been in dispute since before the turn of the century and which
Romania got after WW1 because they had been on the Allied side. AND
the USSR got Besserabia back as part of the Russian-German
Non-Aggression Pact. Despite the fact that Antonescu was the most
loyal ally Hitler had, Romania never got these lands back (at least
during WW2, anyway). This whole area cries out for some Yugoslavia
type rules. Romania and Hungary mobilized against each other
several times while ostensibly allies on the Eastern Front.
In fact for the WW1 buffs, I also recommend RUMANIA 1866-1947, by
Keith Hitchins (part of The Oxford History of Modern Europe) which
covers all of the backgrounds of the ethnic problems in this part
of the world (I am only up to 1914).
RE SICILY: Alan Tibbetts (the Allies) and I (the Axis) recently
tried Frank Watson's upcoming Sicily scenario. While I won't reveal
Alan's winning secret strategy, I would point out that the Axis LC
did not survive the first turn due to Allied bombing. This despite
the fact that Frank gave the Axis 17 AA points for 26:3822 (Villa
San Giovanni). The rail ferry starts inoperative due to hit points.
Jim Broshot, St. James MO
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 10:11:17 -0400
From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell)
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.
Yeah. Double or triple the pre-Narvik German surface fleet, and you still
don't have anything that can challenge the RN!
> 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.
This was the conclusion of the British, too (per Defence of the United
Kingdom, the official history). There was no way the RN could guarantee to
halt an invasion fleet, since the barges could just run the Channel in the
dead of night, and the RN would just take losses from air attack trying to
guard the Channel before the invasion. But, once the troops landed, the RN
would know where subsequent shipping would have to go, and could sweep it
from the Channel.
This whole scenario, however, depends upon the Royal Navy being able to
operate in the Channel without taking devastating losses. Had the Germans
gained air supremacy over the waters, they could possible smash the RN like
they did at Crete a year later. Now, if the Germans did gain air supremacy
and invade, the RN would almost certainly have sortied to strangle the
beachheads. The remnants of the RAF would have flown to protect the fleet,
slowing the Luftwaffe's reponse. Also, the Luftwaffe in 1940 had far fewer
units either trained or experienced in attacking ships, so they might not
do as well as they did off Crete. Finally, the size of the RN meant that it
could keep the Channel closed for quite some time, even when constantly
taking Crete-style losses, which might be enough to doom the invasion
before the RN loses control. Maybe it'd work -- and maybe not. I find the
outcome almost unpredictable, and not a sure thing for either side. In the
actual event, of course, the Luftwaffe did not gain air supremacy, which
did render the invasion nearly impossible to pull off.
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 10:36:56 -0800
From: bstone@sub.sonic.net (Bill Stone)
Subject: Cross-channel '43
Does anyone have experience with landing the Allies in France from the UK
in summer 1943 using Second Front? What was the outcome and what lessons
were learned? Is this a viable Allied strategy?
----------------------------
Bill Stone
Santa Rosa, CA
bstone@sonic.net
World War II Web Site:
http://www.sonic.net/~bstone
----------------------------
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Second Front end game
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 13:22:39 -0600 (CST)
Well, the consensus is that our Second Front game has reached the end.
The Germans are about to completely disintegrate, and mopping up is
all that is left. The Feb I 1945 turn did them in pretty severly.
We did a fairly massive paradrop behind the lines, capturing an
undestroyed airfield at Koblenz, zapping a feeble 3-4 Inf X across
the Rhine. The Brits did the initial landing with two divisions
and change, followed up by the Americans to take their position at
Koblenz while the Brits advanced across the Rhine.
The Americans on a single hex attack blew a 22point Panzer stack
out of the way at 6:1 to link up with the paratroopers.
The Brits fried the Achen sector then proceeded to overrun a 4-6-6
Inf XX in a major city hex (figure out that stack....) Then
they overran a 9 point 5-7-6 Inf XX and 1-2-6 Inf X. We nicknamed
the 90 point stack, Devestator.
That coupled with massive German losses again pretty much means
on the next allied turn the German front will collapse and split
North and South.
The Americans ended up with about 300 Inf replacements banked up,
and 200+ Armor replacements. The Brits had a bit over 60 Inf replacements
banked up.
If anyone is interested, I have some Excel spreadsheets for tracking
Allied and Axis replacements. They're pretty nice and do some neat
graphs for Victory and replacement rates. I can spiffy them up and put
them up for FTP if anyone is interested.
Now we take a breather from Europa with a quick game of World in Flames.
Then we're going to move on to the monster, Clash of the Titans.
I noticed that the SouthEast theatre again is not included. This
was a bit depressing in our Second Front game as I couldn't take
the back door around the South into Germany. Any news when an OB
might appear for 43-45 for the Balkans?
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
jwhite@ghq.com
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: Roundup
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 14:04:32 PST
Hi Bill.
re: '43 invasion, eg Roundup
I played this out solitare once, using a "go slow
(very)" in the Med.
The Allies had great difficulty getting a major port,
and with Mulberries, things were pretty dicey.
The CW was decimated; the US wasn't hurting for
replacements but had too few troops, the CW had to provide
the bulk of the muscle and has too few replacements...
The Allies were able to get a lodgement in Brittany, but
were never able to take out Brest (no invasion possible) and
spent most of the war with almost all the Commandos and
airborne troops in the eliminated box.
Actually, it was this playtest that taught me that major
ports are the *primary* concern; if the Axis protect them
well, the Allies will go nowhere. Being limited to a few 3
RE minor ports leaves way too much for the few LCs to do,
getting new troops ashore. Supply is also a real problem.
The extra Repls from declaring an emergency helped the
Axis a lot, too. Bringing up the Axis Strat air forces five
Allied turns in a row also helped.
My conclusions from this limited play experience and
further map study is that the Allies aren't ready for
Overlord in '43 and any such attempt can be defeated by
protecting the major ports and targeting the CW for counter
attacks.
Just one man's opinion. late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 19:23:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Mark H Danley <danley@ksu.ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: Grand Europa, Balkans
On Sun, 10 Mar 1996 j.broshot@genie.com wrote:
> To the gentlemen that found too much "yakkity-yak,"
> "so long, it's been good to know you." I am rather enjoying
> this GE discussion.
> RE GRAND EUROPA. Rich recently wrote:
> >* Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria minor Axis-Allies from
> >historical date (1 or 2 turns either way could be used)
> to which Perry responded:
> >Argg! No, no, no. This is a very complex (and rather
> >interesting) set of interrelated political dynamics and it would
> >be TRAGIC to just write it off as an immutable piece of history.
> >Balkan politics is fascinating and rich turf for gaming.
> I will have to agree with Perry on this.
> I recommend reading THIRD AXIS, FOURTH ALLY (Mark Axworthy et al)
> published by Arms & Armour Press (UK, USA and Australia). Romania,
> Hungary and Bulgaria were constantly at each other's throats in
> WW2. There's a rule, if I recall correctly, in FiE that forbids
> Hungarian units and Romanian units from stacking together. Hitler
> (with the help of Mussolini) forced Romania to give up substantial
> lands to both Hungary and Bulgaria BEFORE Barbarossa. Lands that
> had been in dispute since before the turn of the century and which
> Romania got after WW1 because they had been on the Allied side. AND
> the USSR got Besserabia back as part of the Russian-German
> Non-Aggression Pact. Despite the fact that Antonescu was the most
> loyal ally Hitler had, Romania never got these lands back (at least
> during WW2, anyway). This whole area cries out for some Yugoslavia
> type rules. Romania and Hungary mobilized against each other
> several times while ostensibly allies on the Eastern Front.
> In fact for the WW1 buffs, I also recommend RUMANIA 1866-1947, by
> Keith Hitchins (part of The Oxford History of Modern Europe) which
> covers all of the backgrounds of the ethnic problems in this part
> of the world (I am only up to 1914).
I'll second Jim's support of Perry on this one, because though I
understand Rich's concerns, we may not have much to worry about. Rich's
concern about GE getting too wacky and unlike WWII if we have a myriad of
political possibilities is well taken. But the Balkan politics of
1940-41 were pretty complex and GR/D represented them well in _Balkan
Front_. How do others feel about those rules? Would you like
to see something less complex than that? If you're OK about the
treatment in Balkan Front, then something of that level of complexity and
with that narrow a scope of possibility could be engineered for the
Balkans in GE.
Sure, one might say that Balkan politics over a longer period
than represented in _Balkan Front_, if not kept "fixed" with historical
entry dates, etc., would get too wacky and distract from the operational
activity. I'd argue, though, that the political events that BF
represents in Greece and Yugoslavia in 40-41 are no less "complex" than
in Romania and Hungary in 39 - 41.
When Jim mentions "Yugoslavia type rules" it seems he has in mind
something close to what we saw in BF, where the designer seems to have
filtered through the mess of Balkan politics to identify several
possibilities that would have effect on operational considerations, and
then model them with the game's scale in mind. (Jim?)
Thanks to Jim also for the book recommendations. In my opinion,
one of the best safeguards against GE getting too crazy will all kinds of
political shifts that make it totally unlike WWII is _good research_. If
we don't want have to worry about rolling for Brazilian intervention in
the Irish-Hungarian/Iraqi war of 1944, then the best bet, as I see it, is
to continue what the designers did in Balkan Front and Torch, two games
which handled VERY complex political activity, elegantly, without
disruption of play or straying from the operational focus of the game, but
ACCURATELY. I feel that what we see in both games is a result of the
designer's distilling the factors which most impinged on operational, as
opposed to strategic level activity, and modeling and quantifying them in
game terms. In a good GE, we won't have and Irish Hungarian coalition
against Iraq or any other signs of "creeping 3Rism" because it wasn't even a
possibility historically. Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but I think the
real issue is good design, rather than whether GE is operational or
strategic in scale.
Mark
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 17:44:29 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: GE:Italy
> Hi everyone.
> What say we look at an issue that will no doubt be
>part of GE, Italian participation.
> Now, no doubt we require a mechanism for "encouraging"
>Italy to enter the war. What would such a mechanism look
>like, and how would it operate?
> Should Italy be forced to fight, as distinct from
>"encouraged"?
Maybe both...
I always like playing the Italians, because it's certainly a challenge. If
I ever got to play me dream GE, I would choose to play Italy. (I guess I'm
proceeding from the assumption that teams will be necessary, with at least
one person for each Great Power)
There are a couple things that come to mind on how to get Italy to get into
the game-and as early as possible:
*It could just be baldly stated that Italy loses if it does not gain so
many territorial (objective hexes/cities?) by a date of "x". That way,
they would not necessarily be out by taking some key map points and then
losing them.
*Stating that the Italians have to enter the war when any of a number of
conditions have been met- and on different sides depending on who's
winning- ala their performance in WW1. If Germany was getting stomped,
however unlikely that might have been, Italy would have been really
unlikely to have interceded on her behalf, except diplomatically.
>Would there be a mechanism in place to allow for diplomacy?
By the time war breaks out between Germany on one hand and Britain/France
on the other, then the diplomacy seems to be limited to either side's
dealings with the USSR, dealings with neutrals like Spain, Turkey, Belgium,
&c... and, of course Italy's participation.
How exactly this could be handled (my own suggestion is that an umpire
handle the reaction of minor powers to various events, based on at least a
layman's understanding of the historical attitudes of those countries- I
think it's fair to say that Europa players have such an understanding.) is
another point of debate.
>Would similar variability exist if Italy was not under the
>control of a player?
That becomes more problematical for those who want to 'role play'
Mussolini, but lends itself to ways of simplifying the game- perhaps Italy
would, like Spain or Sweden be under the control of the Umpire until he
decided that an oppurtune and realistic moment had arrived for Italy to
enter the war. He turns to the "Axis" team and says Italy is mobilizing
and has an operational plan to invade 'X', so many RPs, Resource Pts,
&c...knock yourself out." And then the normal conditions on Italy
surrendering from SF would apply without any reason for additional rules on
that subject.
> Would there be mechanisms to allow for different
>occupation policies; could, for example, Italy promote
>Slovene and Croat independence movements without overt
>military action taking place? Montenegro? Kosovo?
>Dalmatia? Bosnia?
This is why, to me, an umpire seems necessary. I run a play-by-mail WW2
game and of course the Nazis always want to liberate everybody from
oppressive British colonial rule or Bolshevik slavery or whatever. It's
nice that even "professional German" players have such humaitarian
instincts. The problem is that while a certain amount of flexibility in
this area might be fun, it's pretty unrealistic to allow too much.
I would suggest attaching benefits to harsh occupation policies. Perhaps
delving into the actual reasons why partisans became so successful in some
of these areas might help also. Again, something to debate on another day.
Be lenient to the population and they won't produce as much for you- be
harsh and you get more production out of them.
I have been compiling a list of the various regions which were in
contention, who owned them, who wanted them, &c. I think it might be best
to assume historical carvings up with a few areas that can be left up to
players to decide for themselves (If no Vichy armistice, then Italy and
Germany and perhaps Spain can agree on how to carve up French North
Africa-providing they can take it.)
> What effect would Italian non-belligerence have upon
>Bulgaria? Hungary? What about Italian participation on the
>Allied side?
> Why would Italy send troops to the USSR to fight, and
>would this be mandated?
> Why would Italy send air units to bomb England and would
>this be mandated?
Perhaps Italian "expeditionary forces" could be mandated, but simply ties
to German expeditionary forces in the Italian run North African theatre-
say 1 RE for 1 RE. If the Germans want to send 20 divisions to Libya to
overrun Egypt, then they'd have to deal with 20 Italian divisions in some
German run theatre- and if the ITalians didn't have the 20 divisions to
spare (which they probably wouldn't) then it would be a moot point. Maybe
not this specifically, but it's an idea. Some of the Italian
participation, like the air units involved in the Battle of Britain, were
just for propaganda and I would think that such things would be left up to
the Italians. Any Italian player would have little enough faith in the
survivability of CR42s over London to make him think twice about sending
any.
Would the Allied players have to all agree before a
particular surrender table event could be implemented? For
example, if the USSR player did not want to accept Italian
co-belligerence, would this influence or negate such a
result?
It might be fun to introduce some element of this wider diplomacy.
Historically, Stalin sold out the Italian left (much like the left in
Spain) but perhaps in the game, it could become a method of the USSR
extorting some more aid out of the west?
>Would there be the possibility for coups occurring in major
>powers? Only un-played Major Powers?
I would argue only for unplayed countries.
>Upon surrender of a played Major Power, would a new
>player take over the country, or would the previous Italian,
>who presumably is privy to secret Axis information, simply
>become an Allied player?
I would argue that any Italian co-belligerant force be run by some existing
Allied player, rather than someone who had played on the Axis side for a
long time.
>Would there be provisions mitigating against early
>surrender? For example, could Italy seize Tunisia, and then
>opt out of the war? Could the French player agree to this?
Rather than an early 'surrender', 'armistice' or 'forced peace' might be
better terms. It might be fair to say that Italy would be allowed to opt
out of the war if they could grab the territory they wanted and then get
the British or whomever to agree to a deal. Ultimate victory should be
tied to Italy getting as much as possible, though and such a peace would
probably prove temporary (Allies decide to attack Italy again later if they
have recovered from initial defeats, or the ITalians seeing that Germany is
obviously far outstripping them in terms of VPs. - some form of
German/Italian competition seems to be necessary for any version of Grand
Europa, with or without an independent Italian player/team...?
I've taken a while to get this together, but I did want to put together
some decent and specific answers, since I helped get this discussion
rolling...
Regards to all,
Steve P.
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 11:49:59 -0500
From: "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca>
Subject: Re: Sealion possibilities
John M. Astell wrote:
> This whole scenario, however, depends upon the Royal Navy being able to
> operate in the Channel without taking devastating losses. Had the Germans
> gained air supremacy over the waters, they could possible smash the RN like
> they did at Crete a year later. Now, if the Germans did gain air supremacy
> and invade, the RN would almost certainly have sortied to strangle the
> beachheads. The remnants of the RAF would have flown to protect the fleet,
> slowing the Luftwaffe's reponse. Also, the Luftwaffe in 1940 had far fewer
> units either trained or experienced in attacking ships, so they might not
> do as well as they did off Crete. Finally, the size of the RN meant that it
> could keep the Channel closed for quite some time, even when constantly
> taking Crete-style losses, which might be enough to doom the invasion
> before the RN loses control. Maybe it'd work -- and maybe not. I find the
> outcome almost unpredictable, and not a sure thing for either side. In the
> actual event, of course, the Luftwaffe did not gain air supremacy, which
> did render the invasion nearly impossible to pull off.
And here is another of the great 'what if's in any European WWII game. If the RN and RAF
successfully defend the UK from invasion and are smashed in the process, what will be the
effect on the strategic war in the Atlantic? Will the RN have the strength or the will to
chase and destroy the Bismark? Will Germany be embodened to sent more frequent sorties of
surface raiders into the Altantic? Will the U-Boot force exceed the historic rate of
sinkings? Will the loss of RN light surface units and their irreplacable crews reduce the
effectiveness of the convoy system? Will this in turn result in a reduction of British
industrial output? The capacity to field and provide for an army in the dessert?
These are all strategic questions hinging on a German strategic decision, whether to
invade the UK or not. Whether we game the actual process at a tactical, operational or
strategic level is moot. It is the decision of the player of whether to invade or not
which is the significant event here. Even if we take the actual decision out of the
player's hands by specifing preconditions in the rules, which if met, mandate an invasion,
or if not met, forbid the operation; the problem of modeling consequential effects on
future operations still remains.
If the RN losses a significant portion of her fleet in 1940 then the war in the Atlantic
can easily turn out to be a German victory. RN intervention and effectiveness in the
Mediterrainian will also be much reduced in consequence. The British presence in the
Pacific up to 1941 will also be impacted negatively. These are all consequences of the
German decision to invade and the resultant damage to the RN even if the invasion fails!
These are not political consequences, but strategic ones which will have a large impact on
the force structures and deployment options of the Allies and Axis well into 1943.
What will be the effect on the German military if they lose a sizable filed army in the
UK? Do you really think that they would turn and attack the USSR on schedule? Even if
they won in the UK wouldn't the mere execution of the invasion and subsequent ground
operations in 1940/41 preclude a 1941 invasion of the USSR? These are issues which are
not simply going to lie down and go away by declaring that the Europa series is
operational in scope and therefor these points do not apply and should not be considered.
--
James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241
From: j.broshot@genie.com
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 08:20:00 UTC 0000
Subject: Sealion etc.
On March 10, 1996, Jim Byrne posted a long rebuttal to John Astell
concerning the after effects of SEALION in which he set out a lengthy
dissertation on the effects on a Great Britain which has successfully
defended its shores from a German invasion.
BUT what about the effects on the Germans?
I regret being redundant BUT in referring again to C. S. Forester's
short story "If Hitler Had Invaded England" we find the following
conclusions concerning Germany after the defeat of SEALION:
1. "enormous losses" to the Luftwaffe; which leads to
2. British air superiority which allows an successful invasion of
Norway in 1941 and the loss of Norwegian and Swedish iron ore to the
German military machine;
3. The virtual elimination of the Kriegsmarine, including the U-Boat
arm which eliminates the threat to the Atlantic convoys in 1941;
4. The destruction of the "85%" of the Germany's inland shipping
capacity [all of those Rhine barges pressed into service as landing
craft] which does serious harm to the German economy; and to
5. "serious disillusionment" of the German people.
Forester's story is in GOLD FROM CRETE, a collection of short stories
published in paperback by Pinnacle Books in 1976. I do not know if this
is still in print in one form or the other.
Two interesting events in Forester's story:
1. For you naval buffs. Once the RAF gains the upper hand over the Luftwaffe
the Royal Navy sorties and the "Battle of the North Foreland" occurs on
July 1, 1940: Schnarhorst, Gneisnau, Lutzow (and supporting light forces
and U-Boats) against Rodney, Hood, Repulse, Nelson, Royal Sovereign and
Ramilles; while British light cruisers and German light cruisers tangle
at the south end of the Channel [Hood blows up either by an 11inch shell
from Scharnhorst or by a mine];
2. For you random event table buffs. A last ditch strike by surviving German
panzer units against London is affected when "the dashing young general
commanding the armor" [ie Rommel?] is plugged by a one-armed Boer War/WW2
veteran with his souvenier Mauser pistol.
Jeff White: I thought that the Second Front OB pretty much covered the
Balkan Front OB/OA for 1943-1945? If not see if you can find a copy of
GERMAN ANTIGUERILLA OPERATIONS IN THE BALKANS (1941-1944) at your local
U. S. Government Printing Office bookstore. This is a Center for Military
History publication reprinted in 1989. Lots of OB info.
Jim Broshot, St. James MO
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 11:11:51 -0800
From: Peter Morris <PMORRIS@CCCIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Computers and Europa
Ray Kanarr wrote:
> Something like play by email might be
> possible as a 2-player option, although that's a pretty big gulp to
> be sending over twisted pair. I don't think that network play is in
> the cards, you'd need to big a memory block to transfer all the data
> each segment of each turn.
>
>
Ray,
I beg to differ. The game Stalingrad by Avalon Hill is what I picture
Computer Europa looking like: Little counter icons pushed around a hex baed
map.
I has simulateaneous movement and PBEM. The turn files are exchanged and
each player watched the execution on their end. Repeat as neeeded.
The point is that the turn file is about 150k in size. If you ZIP it up you
get a 30k file. This takes about 15 seconds to upload or download on my 28.8
modem.
OK, now do the math to make it fit a Europa scenario: The file is 10 times
bigger, and your modem is only 14.4. So it takes 5 minutes to transfer.
Big deal. You started your post by saying not limit your expectations
because you think the technology won't support it. Well, don't discount PBEM
play.
It is quite feasible.
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 11:24:03 -0800
From: Peter Morris <PMORRIS@CCCIS.COM>
Subject: Re: GEnie
>>I was beginning to wonder if the life had goneout of the Europa
community, but clearly it has not!<<
Rather, the life has gone out of GEnie!
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 96 07:42:27 PST
From: "Renaud.Gary" <renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: GE options
Rich:
"Had I known that my expressing an opinion on the matter would lead to
controversy, I would not have expressed my opinion."
Controversy, yes; a (L)usenet-style flamewar, no. Personally, I like to
hear people state their opinions, especially in a case like this where I
have no claim on being an expert.
"...me unable to communicate the difference between 'some' and 'none'..."
Perhaps we were using hyperbole, too. You must similarly grant that those
of who are asking for "more" don't necessarily want "anything goes."
I may END UP wishing for there to be less variability than you, but as to
the METHOD of resolving it, we apparently differ. I favor the approach of
putting things in, then stripping them out as they are found to be useless,
over-complex, or just plain silly.
So, I would create strawman probabilities or whatever for all kinds of
events, then passing them around and getting "Oh, come on. That'll never
happen." Fine, we then throw that section away and check off that as being
looked at and done. If we get "Hmm. Maybe. But what about...?" then more
work is needed.
I think most people here can agree that Europa is basically a ground game,
with air and naval support. I think darn few people would really like a
naval game that rivals the ground action, except in a few cases like
Norway. I think we can agree that a full-blown strategic campaign should
NOT be an integral part of the system, yet there should be SOME way of
adjusting the priority you put into it, at least a little bit.
I think most people would say the system is broken if we are unable to
recreate the historical campaigns or that a roughly historical campaign is
extremely unlikely. But, if the Germans get Leningrad, or if the Brits
clean the Italians out of Africa in early '41, that shouldn't bother
people, even though they may have far-reaching effects.
"My part in this discussion is neither helpful..."
I don't see how you can say that. Even if EVERYONE who posted disagreed
wtih EVERYTHING you said, and that isn't even close to the case, there are
still the lurkers who are (quietly) saying "Yeah."
... nor enjoyable, ..."
Well, that's a different matter. Unless you are being paid to do this,
then if you don't like it, don't do it.
"I apologize for any distress ...my use of hyperbole...."
Sometimes it is very effective to take a hyperbolic statement at face
value. Sometimes, someone will make what he considers an outlandish
proposal, to make a point, but then someone will say: "well, why NOT?" and
some new insight will be revealed.
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 96 10:00:58 PST
From: "Renaud.Gary" <renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil>
Subject: FitE/SE questions (for anyone)
After all the GE postings, and now for something completely different:
FitE:
As the Soviet player, do you keep ANY of the I-15s and I-153s on the map?
I generally stick them in the rear areas, then disband them as needed to
"fill out" the remnants box to hope for a chance of getting something good.
I-153s might have a chance against an unescorted bomber (or the Romanians,
I suppose), but the I-15s are worse than useless, for if they get lost in a
fight, your GA goes down.
What about the Baltic fleet? As a German, I can NEVER seem to take it out;
there always seems to be an adequate number of naval RPs to keep things
going, if not pristine.
Actually, I did it once, but it involved bringing EVERY Ju-87 to the
Leningrad area for a couple months, so AGC got stalled before Tula lacking
GS.
Maybe I'm just a lousy player. Or have the rest of you had similar
difficulties?
SE:
If y'all know about this already, excuse me, but I have never seen this in
print before.
When summer of '43 rolls around, the Germans can start changing their
infantry to the new 5-7-6 standard. There are some aspects of the
conversion process that make some units a better choice than others.
If you have a 3-6 Cadre (from a 7-6), you have a choice:
1. Rebuild to 7-6 (cost = 4), then reorganize to 5-7-6 (cost = -1).
The net cost is 3.
2. Reorganize to 2-3-6 (cost = -1), then rebuild to 5-7-6 (cost = 3).
The net cost is 2.
This also works with 8-6s, 6-6s, and 5-6s. You always a point better off
if you convert cadres rather than full-strength units. Now, the situation
may not permit you the luxury of doing this, because you are OUT of IRPs
and must reorganize full-strength infantry XXs to get a few, but if you
can, this is the way to go.
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: Fri, 08 Mar 96 10:15:06 PST
From: "Renaud.Gary" <renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil>
Subject: R&D (was Yahtzee and Europa)
"I am currently approaching R&D issues in a very simple way- the aircraft
historically produced will be available for production exactly as
historically, but resources can be allocated to attempt to speed up a set
number of 'projects'- "
Hey, neaters! I get to argue for the MORE restrictive position!
I think that R&D issues should be completely out of the hands of the
players. Just add a little bit of randomness and that's it. I can see
your point about assigning priorities (I happen to work in an R&D place and
we take input from the field), but I don't think I want to do it.
I think there is only so much a man can handle at once and by "allocating"
brain power to the R&D effort, that means that something ELSE has to be
(over-)simplified. Having made my disagreement know, I have no problem
with your system and would probably use it (with some modifications; this
IS Europa, after all) if GE came out with it.
I knew about the Me-262's engines, but I really thought the Heinkel jobber
would have been ready MUCH sooner. Oh, well. You learn something new
every day.
"...we might note that the USA didn't come up with a decent heavy tank
until long after Germany and the Soviets had stuff that made the Pershing
seem like a toy)"
Well, that wasn't just a matter of their engineers being smarter than ours.
Our military decided that we didn't NEED a heavy tank. Then, when they
changed their minds, we had to play catch-up. Plus, there was the old (and
sometimes quite valid) argument that we mustn't disturb current production
until we had "enough."
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 96 09:37:55 PST
From: "Renaud.Gary" <renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil>
Subject: GE:Italy
Here are my ideas on Italy. I *expect* y'all to pick them apart, so we can
put together something really good.
For Italian surrender:
"Will a record of RE losses be required throughout the game?"
Eeeew. Well, then again, you generally need to compute special
replacements, so the incremental cost isn't TOO bad. It's a big strong
camel; one more straw can't hurt...
"Will the Italian player be required to accept the dictates of a surrender
die roll, or will players be immune from system generated surrenders?"
They should surrender. If France can fall, then so can Italy. Perhaps the
actual conditions shouldn't be quite as loose as in SF, but we can't allow
people to fight on to the last 0-1-6. Remember that Germany basically
surrendered in WWI with a better territorial situation that Italy faced in
1943.
"Will a quarterly VP tally be maintained, and would this effect surrender
die rolls?"
How about there are certain conditions that MUST occur for surrender and
you only need to check AFTER that event? Say something like:
1. The Axis is booted out of Africa.
2. The UK, US, and USSR are all in the war.
At THAT point, you start counting losses, VPs, etc.
"Will Major power surrender cover such things as collapse, switching sides,
armistice, etc? "
It's possible that we won't have "Major Power" surrender rules, but rules
for France, Italy, UK, USSR, US (gotcha!), and Germany.
"Would the Allied players have to ALL [emph. added] agree before a
particular surrender table event could be implemented?"
I would say that only the countries "that matter" would have a say. We can
then spend 10 pages on deciding whether a country "matters." For France
and the UK, I would say only Germany mattered, unless Italy eliminated ##
REs of French units over ## turns. For Russia, only Germany. For Italy,
only such compbination of major powers as have at least ##% of the units
involved. So, for your hypothetical case, Russia wouldn't vote on Italy
unless they had somehow come steamrollering through the Balkans (with their
15 tank armies, but that's another topic) and invaded Italy.
"Would there be the possibility for coups occurring in major powers? "
I would say no. I don't think that would add anything, would it?
"Upon surrender of a played Major Power, would a new player take over the
country, or would the previous Italian, who presumably is privy to secret
Axis information, simply become an Allied player?"
I think that's up to the players. Personally, I would say you are
committed to a side, so if Italy changes sides, the Italian player becomes
the south-front German player, or something.
Now, no doubt we require a mechanism for "encouraging"
Italy to enter the war. What would such a mechanism look like, and how
would it operate?
"...VP systems are notoriously difficult to play test and de-bug."
OK. I think VP systems are the most elegant solution to a problem WHEN
THEY WORK, but I see your point here.
Here are some UNTESTED and UNRELIABLE ideas for VPs:
* Hold Nice for at least 3 years.
* Hold Corsica for at least 3 years.
* Hold Athens(!) for at least 2 years.
* Take Alexandria for at least 1 year.
These are set for very long times to encourage the Italian player to jump
in in the early part of the war, so he can make his deadline before the US
comes in and stomps him, yet he probably won't do anything while the French
are still alive.
"Is there any other mechanism within GE to 'encourage' Italy to fight that
would not be too difficult to implement? Should Italy be forced to fight,
as distinct from 'encouraged'?"
I think Italy SHOULD join the war sometime before the US. I'm much more
variable on the exact date. While it would be nice to work with
incentives, if the costs of staying neutral are made prohibitive, then
maybe we should admit it and flat-out REQUIRE a DoW.
"Should Italy have to become an Axis if it enters the war? "
I would say yes. While I'm all for variability, I personally think the
situation was that Italy could not have joined with the Allies, though
perhaps they could have exerted pressure to keep them neutral.
"Would initial set up, and/or limitations on pre-belligerence re-deployment
be imposed?"
I don't know diddly about Italy's mobilization plans in WWII (WERE there
any?), but I would impose the following restrictions on ANY country, if
applicable:
1. Full-strength units can go wherever they wish, unless they are
"parade-ground" units that have to stay in the capital or something.
2. Border units often had a lot of emplacements and stuff, so maybe you
can only move 1 of them a turn?
3. Cadres should have to stay in the place where they expect to receive
their reinforcements.
4. "Forming" units can't move, and I would say they can't be "rushed"
until a formal DoW.
5. Maybe the 1939 set-up should be fixed? Maybe there should be a set-up
for AUG II 39 and everyone can follow the above rules for the special
pre-game turn? What to do about Russia...
On Greece and Yugoslavia:
I don't know much, but I think the Germans would have been pissed if Italy
had attacked Yugoslavia, as they nearly got the country to join the Axis.
Probably the Germans get victory points if Yugo is neutral or allied, but
NONE if conquered. Let the Germans and Italians argue it out.
I don't think EITHER Greece or Yugoslavia should be REQUIRED. I think it
would be very plausible for the Italians to concentrate on Egypt.
"What effect would Italian non-belligerence have upon Bulgaria? Hungary? "
I would say that it wouldn't affect Hungary. Basically, Hungary spent most
of its time and energy fighting Russia. I don't think it would matter what
the Italians did.
Bulgaria is another matter. I would say that they would only enter the war
if the Axis (Germany OR Italy) attacked Yugoslavia and/or Greece. Since
they got their land back from Romanis by "peaceful" means, the only reason
to go to war would be to get Thrace and Macedonia. I can't see their
tackling such a project by themselves.
"Why would Italy send troops to the USSR to fight, and would this be
mandated?"
Not mandated. Probably the Germans and Italisns would make a deal: "I'll
send you a Panzer Corps to hold Africa, but a need a lot of mediocre
infantry to hold the line in Russia. Deal?"
"Why would Italy send air units to bomb England and would this be
mandated?"
Every Hurricane tied down in home defense is one fewer available for GS
missions in Africa. It's a questionable strategy, but there is at least
SOME military jusification for it. I would not REQUIRE it.
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 13:27:17 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: re:GE:Italy
I have a little different approach on Italy. I reluctantly think that allowing
an independent Italian player is asking for trouble.
Unless you construct VPs in a way as to make the Italian moves robotic
anyway, ANY Italian player will still behave in a way that is more rational
than his original counterparts. NOBODY will ever invade Greece on Nov
I. As I understand it, the Italians thought that the Greeks wouldn't resist
or would be pushovers. In the game, it only takes one glance at those
orange units to know it ain't so.
No matter how much independence you give the main protagonists
(Germany, Russia, US, UK, France(?)) in GE, we need to make the Italian
actions somewhat random.
Here's another angle. If you're actually PLAYING GE with people
assigned to countries, there will be at least some possibility that your
pool of interest is running out by the time you get around to assigning
the Italians (I realize that some would relish playing the Italians). This
fact, plus length of the "game" of GE, plus the strategic position of the
Italian player will make him a wild card in any game that doesn't
carefully handle his actions. I don't even want to get into the possible
things the Italian player could do to branch into positively BIZARRE
alternate histories. I think this is the only way to avoid a WiF or
Diplomacy type of free-wheeling game, which most of the people posting
seem to find undesirable.
Control the Italian player by VP? What if he doesn't CARE about VPs?
Far better to have a random table establishing Italian events and
constraints. Roll on the table. Possibilities:
a) No event.
b) War with Greece this turn. It's Nov I. Argh. History.
c) A better result - attack Greece in X turns. This allows an Italian buildup.
d) Another result - Italians CAN attack Greece this turn. They decide they
better ask permission from big northern brother first.
e) Another result - The Italians CAN attack Malta from here on out.
f) Another result - The Italians CAN attack Tunisia if not yet Vichy.
g) Another - attack Yugoslavia.
And so on. I guess you could use cards if you wanted to keep some of
the options secret. Given the length of time portrayed, the probability of
any event happening any time can be low - lots of "no event" turns.
Within the context of some very constraining constraints, the Axis player
can then do with the Italians as he pleases.
This puts Italy more into the roll of a minor Axis ally and should solve a
lot of problems, both simulation-wise and in real life. For example, how
do you keep the Italian player's interest through '39 and early '40?
(Granted same could apply to Soviets in 1940-41). If he plays well,
according to a historically concocted VP schedule, he gets bored and
quits. If he's an avid gamer, he's marching into Tunisia in June '40 and
landing on Malta in August '40. Maybe both are rational, but do you want
a really GOOD Italian player munching up the Med in GE? I can already
imagine the TEM submissions showing (validly) how to get the Italians
into Alexandria and Baghdad by the end of 1940 - just read some of
those old 3rd Reich articles in The General.
If you keep the Italian a non-player and their Axis-player-controlled
actions semi-random, you'll 1) have a manageable situation and 2) have
the Italians' actions be a source of frustration to the Germans. Truth in
that, what?
Well, enough, but I say don't even let the Italians play. They might win.
Frank
From: psmith@hpmail2.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Paul Smith)
Subject: Where did everyone come from?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:07:45 -0600 (CST)
>
>>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.
>
>
I imagine most of the new people are like me. I'm not willing to pay for Genie,
but have other access to email. Once the email address was published in TEM, I
went for it.
Your comment above addresses one of my questions. I had over 60 messages
waiting for me this morning. I was afraid this was normal - I don't have time
to read this many messages every 3 days! I'll just wait to see how it settles
to a more normal level.
--
Paul F. Smith
Ft. Worth Research Laboratories | Phone: (817) 245-6097
Motorola | Fax : (817) 245-6148
5555 N. Beach St | email: psmith@ftw.mot.com
Ft. Worth, Tx 76137 | QPS001@email.mot.com
"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement."
--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:28:37 -0400
From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell)
Subject: re:GE:Italy
On MAR II 96, Frank Watson wrote:
>Far better to have a random table establishing Italian events and
>constraints. Roll on the table. Possibilities:
>a) No event.
>b) War with Greece this turn. It's Nov I. Argh. History.
>c) A better result - attack Greece in X turns. This allows an Italian buildup.
>d) Another result - Italians CAN attack Greece this turn. They decide they
>better ask permission from big northern brother first.
>e) Another result - The Italians CAN attack Malta from here on out.
>f) Another result - The Italians CAN attack Tunisia if not yet Vichy.
>g) Another - attack Yugoslavia.
>
>And so on. I guess you could use cards if you wanted to keep some of
>the options secret. Given the length of time portrayed, the probability of
>any event happening any time can be low - lots of "no event" turns.
>
>Within the context of some very constraining constraints, the Axis player
>can then do with the Italians as he pleases.
An interesting approach, but it has to have very strong constraints indeed.
For example, if the Italian player knows there's a possibility of a random
event forcing him to invade Greece, he's going to send tons of troops to
Albania every chance he gets, if allowed. Thus, Italy needs constraints on
how many troops they can deploy outside Italy in advance of military
operations in an area. Could work.
An amusing option is to have two Italian players: a "political" one and a
"military" one. The political player gets VPs for political considerations,
such as enlarging the Italian empire, bashing communism, whatnot. The
military player gets VPs for other things: not going to full mobilization,
keeping as many troops inside Italy as long as possible, not risking the
fleet, etc. Thus, the two players have very different incentives. To make
this all work, the political player gets to tell the military player what
to do (we're invading Greece), but has no authority on how it gets done
(what? you only have five divisions deployed in Albania?). Amusing,
possibly workable, but too perverse for most players.
Actually, there may be a way to work the incentives to get a resemblance of
what went on. Merge the political player's and military's VP goals, and you
might just get an Italy eager for territory but unwilling to deploy many
troops abroad. On top of this, build in some factors, such as sending too
many troops to Albania may trigger the Greeks to mobilize or even to ally
with the Allies before an invasion occurs. (Now, if the Germans have
incentives not to extend the war to the Balkans, you get a fair picture of
German-Italian relations in the second half of 1940.) Finally, build in a
chance, however small, that Italy can get a surprise invasion turn ala
Germany and/or that Greece will decide to not resist an invasion, and it
just might make sense to do invade Greece on a shoe string for the
Italians. As to the Nov I start, how about the Italians get a load of VPs
if they achieve a major objective within 6 months following the fall of
France? First you try the desert, but by Oct I it's clear you're not going
to reach Alexandria anytime soon, so what else can you do? Well, here's
Greece, and you DO have some troops in Albania, so...
As to players simply ignoring VPs and playing as they want, it's sure fun
that way but you do lose vastly important considerations that are almost
impossible to simulate otherwise. Forget about a smart Italian player -- a
smart French player will launch an all-out, take-any-losses assault on the
Westwall starting Sep I 39, as hindsight suggests he'll never have a better
chance of using the massive 1939 French army to good effect. So, what about
players who just ignore the VPs? Well, the worse your VP total, the more
penalties you incur, until you lose the game (e.g., trigger a revolution or
coup in your country that throws out the old order). For the 1939 French,
it could be something like taking losses really loses those French VPs --
hit -50 VPs and your units's morale goes to hell (attack strenght halved,
no advance after combat); hit -100 VPs and you're out, unless you're also
garnering tons of positive VPs by collapsing Germany quickly. Possible the
worse situation you want to be in is to crunch the Westwall in a massive
series of exchanges and be poking across the Main River around Frankfurt on
Oct I 39, as the panzers start showing up, fresh from their victory in
Poland...
Sounds difficult to design, but it could possibly work.
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:28:50 -0400
From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell)
Subject: Re- FITE/SE
>After all the GE postings, and now for something completely different:
>
>FitE:
>As the Soviet player, do you keep ANY of the I-15s and I-153s on the map?
>I generally stick them in the rear areas, then disband them as needed to
>"fill out" the remnants box to hope for a chance of getting something good.
>I-153s might have a chance against an unescorted bomber (or the Romanians,
>I suppose), but the I-15s are worse than useless, for if they get lost in a
>fight, your GA goes down.
Sure you keep them on the map! You need fighter cover everywhere, and you
probably won't have enough good fighters in 1941, so you need the I-15x
crap. The secret of their use is PATROL ATTACKS. Make all the patrol
attacks you can with them; otherwise keep them out of harm's way unless a
target of opportunity appears (intercepting an unescorted bomber, e.g.).
It's sort of the way the average Soviet pilots flew them, to boot!
>What about the Baltic fleet? As a German, I can NEVER seem to take it out;
>there always seems to be an adequate number of naval RPs to keep things
>going, if not pristine.
>Actually, I did it once, but it involved bringing EVERY Ju-87 to the
>Leningrad area for a couple months, so AGC got stalled before Tula lacking
>GS.
>Maybe I'm just a lousy player. Or have the rest of you had similar
>difficulties?
It's almost impossible to take out the Baltic fleet except by taking over
its ports. About the best you can hope for with air power is to bash it up
a bit and scare the Soviet player into keeping it in port under AA cover.
This is about what the Germans did, too -- in September of 1941 they
launched a major air operation against the fleet and did some damage, but
that was about it.
From: psmith@hpmail2.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Paul Smith)
Subject: Issues on VPs
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 14:48:35 -0600 (CST)
>From Renaud.Gary:
>
>"...VP systems are notoriously difficult to play test and de-bug."
>
>OK. I think VP systems are the most elegant solution to a problem WHEN
>THEY WORK, but I see your point here.
>
VPs are not elegant, they are brute-force. I consider an elegant design one in
which the system rewards players for doing things to their advantage. For
instance, in AWW, the Russians get VPs from blocking the RR to Sweden. In my
opinion, a better design would be one in which blocking the RR provided some
advantage to the Russian player (such as putting the Finns out of supply or
affecting their OB). There was a historical reason why the Russians wanted to
do this, not to get a bunch of VPs. VPs used in this way are there to
artificially create motivation to duplicate history when the game system can't
provide the motivation the military leaders had. If playtest reveals that play
doesn't follow along certain lines, it is easier to apply VPs than to adjust the
system so that the desired action is encouraged.
After saying this, I DO agree that VPs may be needed to reflect some
non-military effect such as prestige or national morale. Getting VPs for terror
bombing is such an example (reducing national morale, I presume). Perhaps
blocking the RR in AWW also effected national morale, but I suspect it was only
an added "fix" to give the Russians more reason pursue this. Another example
requiring VPs is when the operational commander must satisfy goals imposed on
him by those higher up in his command. Even though it may not otherwise make
sense to do so, he may be forced to achieve certain objectives.
An example of the difference can be seen by comparing 3rd Reich to WiF. In 3rd
Reich you want to capture red objective cities (why? - because they're red). In
WiF, on the other hand, you capture objectives in order to gain their factories
and resources. The motivation is to increase your strength, not just to get
some arbitrary objective. They both encourage the same action (to capture key
hexes), but WiF is much more satisfying.
Some of what I read here about GE and awarding certain VPs to Italy (or whoever)
for accomplishing certain objectives seem somewhat arbitrary to me. What do
these VPs represent?
--
Paul F. Smith
Ft. Worth Research Laboratories | Phone: (817) 245-6097
Motorola | Fax : (817) 245-6148
5555 N. Beach St | email: psmith@ftw.mot.com
Ft. Worth, Tx 76137 | QPS001@email.mot.com
"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement."
--
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 17:22:50 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Where did everyone come from?
On 3/11/96, Paul Smith wrote:
> I had over 60 messages waiting for me this morning. I
>was afraid this was normal - I don't have time to read this
>many messages every 3 days! I'll just wait to see how it
>settles to a more normal level.
Paul: given the fact that this address has now been, and will
continue to be, published in TEM, and that many of the former GEnie
Europa contributors have shifted over to this List, 20 msgs a day may
well be 'normal', going forward.
Like any other List subscribed to, you will probably have to pick and
choose what's of interest to you, rather than read it all. The WW II
List, for instance, can generate over 100 msgs in a day [of course,
the contributors aren't always up to the quality levels of Europa
contributors, so its a bit easier to weed out the unwanted material].
I think that its really great that so many different voices are now
being heard here. It shows that the Europa community is still vibrant
and alive. Keep those cards and letters coming folks!!
Ray
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:53 GMT
Subject: Invading Ireland
I tend to agree that a British 1940 invasion of Ireland would have
been a pretty counter-productive exercise. Granted the Irish army would
have fallen in fairly swift order, the British were in no position to
invade or occupy Eire in 1940.
First, they needed most of their surviving post-Dunkirk firepower to
stave off Nazi invasion.
Second, there wasn't really enough surviving post-Dunkirk firepower
in the British isles for the kind of concerted assault on Ireland (even
presuming that amphibious assets used on Operation Menace were instead
assigned to Ireland).
Third, as mentioned, the move would have resulted in a massive
Nazi-supplied guerrilla warfare by proven experts on the subject.
Fourth, as mentioned, it would have had a serious impact on American
public opinion, backing Charles Lindbergh and his America-firsters.
Not one of Churchill's better ideas, and it was squelched, but one
of the things you can do with a wargame is find out how it might have
gone, replete with German intervention forces coming by air and sea.
By the way, at the time, the Irish were extremely frightened that
their neutrality would be violated by one side or the other. Friends of
mine who grew up in Ireland at the time vividly recall that Eamon De
Valera called up 16-year-olds into home defence brigades. The country was
also a hotbed of espionage, even though the numbers involved were far
less than the capacity of Candlestick Park, and the only casualty was a
German spy who died of a heart attack while in captivity after the war
was over.
Best,
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
Subject: GE: Italy
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 17:37:17 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id RAA23240 for <europa@lystaor.liu.se>; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 17:41:17 -0500
> Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1)
> id AA04389; Mon, 11 Mar 96 17:34:18 EST
> Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1)
> id AA24360; Mon, 11 Mar 96 17:33:20 EST
> From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
> Message-Id: <9603112233.AA24360@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA>
> Subject: re:GE:Italy (fwd)
> To: europa@lystaor.liu.se
> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 17:33:19 -0500 (EST)
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13]
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 5740
>
> Hi,
>
> John Astell wrote:
>
>
> > An amusing option is to have two Italian players: a "political" one and a
> > "military" one. The political player gets VPs for political considerations,
> > such as enlarging the Italian empire, bashing communism, whatnot. The
> > military player gets VPs for other things: not going to full mobilization,
> > keeping as many troops inside Italy as long as possible, not risking the
> > fleet, etc. Thus, the two players have very different incentives. To make
> > this all work, the political player gets to tell the military player what
> > to do (we're invading Greece), but has no authority on how it gets done
> > (what? you only have five divisions deployed in Albania?). Amusing,
> > possibly workable, but too perverse for most players.
>
> Indeed, I almost got a heart attack until I got to the last line,
> and probably Rich was on the floor before he got there.
> Most of the discussion has assumed that there will be players
> for several different "sides." Shouldn't our basic model be that there
> are two "players" even if they are often run by teams? Then, there can
> be an option for several players. But, I think that we should assume
> that Germany and Italy are run by the same "player" and decide what
> restrictions that player faces.
>
> > Actually, there may be a way to work the incentives to get a resemblance of
> > what went on. Merge the political player's and military's VP goals, and you
> > might just get an Italy eager for territory but unwilling to deploy many
> > troops abroad. On top of this, build in some factors, such as sending too
> > many troops to Albania may trigger the Greeks to mobilize or even to ally
> > with the Allies before an invasion occurs.
>
> Yes, I think that this is the way to dissuade the Italians from sending too
> much to Greece. In general, there should be some possibility that a country
> will partially or fully mobilize when a potential enemy masses on the border.
>
> >(Now, if the Germans have
> > incentives not to extend the war to the Balkans, you get a fair picture of
> > German-Italian relations in the second half of 1940.) Finally, build in a
> > chance, however small, that Italy can get a surprise invasion turn ala
> > Germany and/or that Greece will decide to not resist an invasion, and it
> > just might make sense to do invade Greece on a shoe string for the
> > Italians.
>
> I think that that is the way it should be. You might complain
> that "it's not WWII" if the Italians invade Greece by surprise, but I
> don't think that it's WWII if the Italians know ahead of time that
> Greece will resist in force.
>
>
> >As to the Nov I start, how about the Italians get a load of VPs
> > if they achieve a major objective within 6 months following the fall of
> > France? First you try the desert, but by Oct I it's clear you're not going
> > to reach Alexandria anytime soon, so what else can you do? Well, here's
> > Greece, and you DO have some troops in Albania, so...
> >
> > As to players simply ignoring VPs and playing as they want, it's sure fun
> > that way but you do lose vastly important considerations that are almost
> > impossible to simulate otherwise. Forget about a smart Italian player -- a
> > smart French player will launch an all-out, take-any-losses assault on the
> > Westwall starting Sep I 39, as hindsight suggests he'll never have a better
> > chance of using the massive 1939 French army to good effect. So, what about
> > players who just ignore the VPs? Well, the worse your VP total, the more
> > penalties you incur, until you lose the game (e.g., trigger a revolution or
> > coup in your country that throws out the old order). For the 1939 French,
> > it could be something like taking losses really loses those French VPs --
> > hit -50 VPs and your units's morale goes to hell (attack strenght halved,
> > no advance after combat); hit -100 VPs and you're out, unless you're also
> > garnering tons of positive VPs by collapsing Germany quickly. Possible the
> > worse situation you want to be in is to crunch the Westwall in a massive
> > series of exchanges and be poking across the Main River around Frankfurt on
> > Oct I 39, as the panzers start showing up, fresh from their victory in
> > Poland...
> >
> > Sounds difficult to design, but it could possibly work.
> >
> >
> >
> This is the sort of political rule that intigues me. Military
> events have political consequences (as well as the other way around).
> Since GE would be strategic in scope, even if operational in detail,
> we should pay attention to this sort of thing. It's the only way
> to make a strategic game a good simulation of WWII. It's difficult
> to do right; it's easy to a make a system that will lead to nonsensical
> situations. But, with a lot of research into the politics of the war,
> which has clearly already been done by various members of the Europa
> project, it should be feasible.
>
> Go at it, John!
>
> For anyone who's interested, I reccomend the following two books
> on politics in WWII:
>
> "How War Came" by Douglas Cameron Watt. A diplomatic history of the year
> prior to the outbreak of war, ending with the British and French
> declarations of war. Lots of information about the hopes and aspirations
> of the smaller countries of Europe in 1939.
>
> "A World at Arms" by Gerhard Weinberg. An excellent overview of strategic
> and political considerations of all parties in all theaters. Also a good
> guide to the scholarly literature on WWII.
>
> Incidentally, "How War Came" explains how Yugoslavia ended up with a
> Me109E in its air force. Goering arranged the sale before the war in
> order to sabotage Ribbentrop's pro-Italian policies.
>
> I know! We can have a rule on the Goering-Ribbentrop rivalry! It shouldn't
> take more than seven or eight pages, and, and, and,....Rich? What
> are you doing here? Rich! No! Wait! Arrrrrrghhhhh....
>
>
>
>
> --RAA23242.826584077/post.QueensU.CA--
>
>