From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:44 GMT
Subject: Pacific War
I have Pacific War, and it's an interesting game. It has a lot of
touches that I like...submarine task forces menacing the Japanese
merchant fleets...varying levels of air training...good ship
silhouettes...my old base in Japan included as a target for strategic
bombing. It also had good color with the NZ, Aussie, and French forces.
The production system for air training was a good touch that put
the Japanese in their historic corner of having to yank untrained pilots
and send them out as Kamikazes. The Doolittle Raid was a factor, and
strategic initiative was an important issue and good touch, in which side
could set the agenda for debate.
The Tirpitz could make a guest appearance, which was good for a
laugh.
One problem with Pac War was that the British OB was a mess. HMS
Victorious did not make her historic South Pacific tour of 1943.
Best,
DHL
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GURU:SF: l-o-n-g
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:09:39 PST
Hi everyone.
Some more SF stuff for your enjoyment and
elucidation. Note that for the original poster's, some of
these answers may be different than what you yourself have
received. To you guys, note that this post supercedes any
previous answers you may have seen.
That's what you get for rushing me! 8^) <--- in case
it isn't clear, I wear glasses. :)
Leaving GE mode and entering GURU mode...
>** If a TF is sitting in a coastal hex whilst a landing is
>continuing then how is an anti-naval patrol air unit
>supposed to make contact with it becuase the TF can start
>each naval step as night - when anti naval patrol attacks
>cant be made, and they may only attempt contact when a TF
>enters or starts a step in a hex. Logically, of course,
>they should be able to delay attempting contact until the
>night movement points are used and day arrives, but we cant
>see anything in the rules or erratas or mags about this.
Let's clear up this "claiming night status"
interpretation, before it becomes a problem.
This may have been answered differently in the past, but
the following is how things are.
Rule 34A4 is very specific about "*Movement* at night".
Your NG must be expending MPs to be considered moving at
night, simply sitting in a hex, without moving and/or
expending MPs, is not enough.
So your TF sitting in a coastal hex may not be
considered as "moving at night" at all; not for Danger
zones, not for CD or naval combat, nor for naval patrol
bombing missions.
In cases where the NG is expending MPs without moving,
eg disembarking cargo or preparing to fire NGS, the NG may
not be considered "moving at night" since it is still not
moving, ie leaving the hex it occupies.
Please keep in mind what is being simulated here; the
naval rules and naval MPs are, in effect, tracking *Time*
more than distance. Just because a NG is spending 10 MPs
(or 1/3 X amount of time) in the hex at night, it is still
expending 20 MPs (or 2/3 X amount of time) in the hex in
daylight.
Obviously the planes on naval patrol missions search for
and possibly find the NG during the daylight portion of the
naval movement step, the CD fires at adjacent NGs during the
daylight portion of the naval movement step, the
subs/MTBs/what not that make up a Danger Zone sortie during
the daylight portion of the naval movement step.
As an option, if you wish to bother, you could allow NGs
that will be moving *out* of a danger zone to declare that
their first 10 MPs spent will be at night, therby allowing
them to gain the -1 DRM for danger zone contact during that
naval movement step. Note that they *must* leave the danger
zone to benefit from this.
>** Can the Italian fleet avoid paying the RP cost by paying
>it once to go to sea then staying at sea all the time ?
Sure, but they will be sunk for failing to replenish!
That's if you use Advanced Rule 43G.
Otherwise, using basic game rules, yes they can avoid
paying the one resource point cost. However, in either case,
they will likely be putting themselves at risk as to danger
zones, naval patrol bombing and/or naval "interception".
If using the basic replenishment rule, 34B, then you
could, as an option, assume that the TF in question had to
*get* to a "Friendly owned functioning naval base" and get
out of it again, to remain "on station". Thus, an Axis TF
would have to pay the one resource point each time it
replenishes, even if it doesn't physically enter and leave a
port.
>** The six turns that Allied TF's can provide NGS, is it 6
>player turns or 6 game turns ? ie. if it fires in Allied
>turn to support a landing and then in Axis turn to help
>defense it counts as 1 or 2 ?
Six "player turns", ie each Allied TF can fire NGS a
total of six times a year; regarless of whether those
firings happen in the Allied or Axis player turn.
On a related matter, note that a TF must prepare to fire
NGS again, after it has fired NGS, in addition to the two
conditions listed in Rule 33A, ie having moved or
participated in naval combat.
>** Do all naval units individually keep track of how many
>MP's theyve used, and is it accross Naval phases or player
>turns ? Eg. had 28 left at end of first phase and wanted to
>unload in port, so only costs first 2 from next phase ? If
>so then this makes it a nightmare of keeping track for all
>those NTP's and LC's but if not then theyre losing MP's
>which are vital.
You may expend MPs to perform a task, such as
disembarking ground units, for example, over the course of
multiple naval movement steps (although not movement
phases). Use status markers on each naval unit or naval
group, as appropriate, to keep track of situations, like the
one you describe above, where a naval unit or group may
have spent some of the MPs needed for an action in a
previous naval movement step.
As you point out, this can rapidly become a playability
problem if employed rigorously. As an optional house rule,
you can simply not allow MP carry over between naval
movement steps; while solving the playability problem, it
does penalize the naval units/groups by forcing them to
"lose" MPs if they have any remaining in a naval movement
step.
>** Does a c/m unit which lands on a beach in the
>exploitation phase have any MP's left to move ? how about
>if it lands during normal movement phase ? if using the
>optional rule on MP's being used depending on how many
>steps in transit and only paying to disembark. What about
>disemabarking in a port ?
Whether or not a unit will have any MPS left or not
after naval movement depends on a number of factors.
Perhaps some examples will help:
Using basic game rules, and a C/M unit with 10 printed MPs.
If the unit embarked at a port in the exploitation phase, it
will pay 2 MPs to do so (1 MP to embark, x2 for C/M unit),
will pay 4 MPs to disembark (1 mp to disembark, x2 for C/M
unit, x2 for non-amphibious unit to a beach) and will thus
have 4 MPs remaining to expend during the exploitation
phase.
If embarked at a beach, the unit wil pay 4 MPs to embark (1
MP, x2 for C/M, x2 for non-amphibious unit froma beach) and
the same 4 MPs to disembark, leaving it with 2 MPs to
expend.
If the unit embarked during any previous movement or
exploitation phase, then it would only pay to disembark
during this phase, paying 4 MPs to do so, and would thus
have 6 MPs to expend.
Having moved by naval transport during a movement phase does
not affect movement capabilities during the following
exploitation phase; thus the unit would have 10 MPs to spend
in the exploitation phase following a movement phase in
which it used naval transport.
If using Optional Rule 44G2...
Regardless of when the unit embarked, it will pay 2 MPs
(being C/M) for each naval movement step at sea during the
expoitation phase. Let us suppose that the unit begins the
expoitation phase loaded upon an LC in a friendly beach hex.
It will cost the LC 90 MPs to disembark the unit so our unit
will have been at sea for a minimum of three naval movement
steps; thus it will pay 6 MPs for the time spent on the LC,
and will pay a further 4 MPs to disembark, for a total of 10
MPs. Thus it will have no MPs to expend during this
exploitation phase for ground movement.
Since this example is the most favorable possible situation
for a C/M unit disembarking on a beach during the
expoitation phase, it may be useful to simply understand the
optional rule as requiring a C/M unit to pay ALL of its MPs
to disembark on a beach in an expoitation phase; this is the
effect of the rule in practice.
When using the basic rules, and disembarking at a friendly
owned port with sufficient capacity: the unit, if embarking
at a port during the exploitation phase, will pay 2 MPs to
embark and 2 MPs to disembark (1 mp, x2 for C/M unit) for a
total of 4 MPs, and will thus have 6 MPs to expend during
exploitation ground movement.
If using Optional Rule 44G when embarking at a port: the
unit will pay nothing to embark, 2 MPs per naval movement
step at sea, and 2 MPs (1 mp, x2 for C/M unit) to disembark.
If it began the exploitation phase loaded on a NT in a
friendly port, then the NT would spend a minimum of 30 MPs
to disembark the unit, or one naval movement step. Thus the
ground unit will pay 2 MPs for the one naval movement step
at sea, and 2 MPs to disembark; leaving it with 6 MPs to
expend for ground movement.
>** Does the Sicilian Garrison activate when allied units
>land on Calabria ?
Using the new fix for the Straits of Messina means that
Sicily and Calabria are adjacent, since ground units (albeit
only Axis ones) can move directly from Sicily to Calabria;
therefore Allied units in Calabria would activate the
Sicily Garrison on the Axis player turn following the Allied
player turn in which Allied units first entered Calabria.
Note, however, that Sardinia and Corsica, for example,
are *not* adjacent, for the purposes of garrison activation.
>** All allied units making amphibious landings are isolated
>in their first combat phase so any losses dont receive
>special replacements ? and it counts against Allied
>disastrous Operations for VP's ?
No, to both questions. The units making an amphibious
landing will *normally* be isolated after disembarking in
the enemy owned beach. And if isolated, follow all normal
game rules associated with being isolated. But...
Note that there are cases where a unit could make an
amphibious landing adjacent to friendly units, for example,
and thus be able to trace an LOC *through* those friendly
units to a regular source of supply. The unit checks
isolation at the beginning of the combat phase following the
amphibious landing. The fact that it got to that hex by
naval transport, even amphibious transport, doesn't, in
itself, affect its isolation status. All that is required is
that it be able to trace either an overland supply line, of
unlimited length, to a friendly regular source of supply if
using the basic rules, or an LOC if using optional Rule 44B1
and 44B1a.
On a related topic, units lost while being transported
by NT/LC may or may not be isolated; again it depends upon
their status at the time of the last isolation check, and
not simply that they are aboard an NT/LC. If our invading
units mentioned above were not isolated during the initial
phase, then they will not be isolated during the following
movement phase, and if eliminated by reason of their NT/LC
being sunk/damaged, would generate special replacements.
If they began the initial phase isolated, then they would be
isolated during the movement phase, and if sunk, would not
generate special replacements.
One last note, for general interest; if our invading
units were aboard an NT/LC and isolated in the initial
phase, they would also be unsupplied, U-1'd and have their
attack factor halved, in addition to any other modifiers,
when making their amphibious assault. Note that it is
impossible for a unit aboard an NT/LC to be in supply if
it is isolated; if able to trace to a regular supply line,
it would not be isolated, and there is no way for a unit
aboard an NT/LC to trace to a special source of supply.
Whew, are my fingers tired! Hope this helps. I also
want to thank everyone who has sent in questions or simply
commented on this email Rules Court. Your feedback and kind
words of support have been very encouraging, and are
appreciated. Thanks for the posts! late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:57:17 +0100
From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland)
Subject: Re: Invading Ireland
In response to some comments of mine, Dave Lippman wrote:
>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.
Actually, this idea was floated in Cabinet several times in 1942 and again
in 1943 (I'm doing this from memory, but I'm fairly sure of the date. If I
find out otherwise, I will re-post). Nazi invasion was not really a threat
by then.
>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).
It would not have been an amphib operation. It would have taken the form of two
divisions reserve divisions plus some support units rolling across the
border from
Ulster. Beaufighters etc would have made a German reaction a fairly hair
raising
prospect (for the Germans). Pretty simple op really.
>Third, as mentioned, the move would have resulted in a massive
>Nazi-supplied guerrilla warfare by proven experts on the subject.
I think you rather misunderstand what the British intentions were. The idea was
occupy a couple of ports (I cannot for the life of me remember which two).
They had no intention of occupying the whole country.
The two ports in question had been ports at which the RN had retained
treaty rights
until (I think) 1936, when the damn govt. of the time abandoned the ports
and the RN's rights to use them as part of a defence restructuring
programme.
Secondly, whilst this move would no doubt have provoked an upsurge in the *Irish
Problem*, do not overestimate the likely scale of it or the ability of the
British to deal with in within the context of a wartime situation. A
problem? Yes, but a manageable one, I suspect.
>Fourth, as mentioned, it would have had a serious impact on American
>public opinion, backing Charles Lindbergh and his America-firsters.
In 1940, probably. In 1942/43, I am not so sure. Actually, one of the
things that surprised me about this whole thing was that the American govt.
was well aware of the British discussions (they had been assisting the
Brits in pressuring the Irish govt. to grant a renewal of basing rights for
the ports whose names I cannot for the life of me remember). The American
attitude seems to have been that
provided the British actions were limited in scope, (i.e. long term
occupation was
confined to the historic treaty ports) this was something they could live
with, even if they were not exactly jumping for joy at the prospect. No
doubt a few official grimaces would have statements of regret would have
been required, to which the Brits would have replied with some platitudes.
At least that was the general idea.
If this seems remarkable, one must view it within the context of the times.
The USA was already an active belligerent. What's more, Anglo-American
shipping was starting to take a real hammering from the U-boat efforts. If
it came to a choice between Irish sensibilities and the prospect of Britain
being brought to its knees, I think the lack of outright American
opposition to this idea is easier to understand.
If this thread sparks enough interest, I will spend the time to refresh my
poor brain with the details (I have read a couple books on the subject, one
of which is somewhere in this disaster area of a study of mine (i.e. hard
to find). The other is in the Chelsea library, which is just around the
corner from me. It's already well past midnight here, so I will look it up
tomorrow if I have the time and anyone gives a hoot).
>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.
>
And quite right they were to be nervous. Fortunately for them, it was
the advent of longer range ASW aircraft (operating out of Ulster) that
was probably the clincher in talking Winston out of doing it.
As it was, Coastal Command overflew Donegal as a semi-official
matter of policy (incidentally, the Europa rules should reflect this fact)
Was it a bad idea? Certainly in retrospect, the additional Irish ports/
airfields would have been useful during the Battle of the Atlantic, but
essential? Historically speaking, obviously not, or I'd be sending this
post in German ;-)
Regards,
Perry ...-
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 20:32:41 -36000
From: Jason Long <civguy@dusable.cps.k12.il.us>
Subject: Re: Another monster GE rant
The only problem I have with the many mansions approach is the development
time needed for each of these detailed modules to make sure that they
don't distort the play of the game. This is not necessarily John Astell's
time, but I shudder to think of some of the player created nightmares (4
types of snow!) that I've seen out there and believe that such modules
should be widely disseminated for review.
Jason
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 21:21:53 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Re: GE options
Rich,
While you and I debating which 'flavor' of Europa should become
"Official" is an exercise on the same level as debating whether
smooth or chunky peanut butter is better, or how many
panzergrenadiers can dance on the head of a pin, I would like to ask
you the following:
1) with regard to your concerns, these are valid for how you perceive
the game would be enjoyable for you; this is why I suggested GR/D look
at the option of farming out materials for more 'tangential' [to some
players] aspects of the game to volunteers.
Isn't the purpose of Europa [& GR/D] to make money so that Glory, WW
I, etc. can be produced for those that enjoy playing in these arenas?
And isn't the most likely way for this to occur to make the system
modular enough to appeal to the broadest spectrum of tastes?
In this way, production of the 'streamlined, land-focussed' game is
not held up by items that some people are not interested in, but
those items are still committed to. If I thought that there was no
commitment to the continued evolution [including continued evolution
of complexity] of Europa, as a system, I'd either drop out now, or at
least put most of my effort into personally customizing the system.
I have some concern regarding the Collector's Edition of Narvik in
this respect, as this will now mean that we will be perpetuating
three separate time schemes: 3-day [FtF], 4-day [Narvik], and 2-week
[most].
I don't think that we are really that far apart on this issue, I
think that its mainly a matter of how, when, and in what form
"official" materials are produced.
2) If the outcome of an entire two-year game in progress hangs on a
single die-roll, perhaps the system needs some adjustment to reduce
the impact of the event, not constrain the system so that the event
didn't [or wouldn't] have had ANY impact.
3) Please provide some scholarly back-up for your assertion that a
Nazi-Polish Pact was as likely [or as unlikely] to occur as the
historical Nazi-Soviet Pact.
In addition to a history of secret pacts [as when the Soviets
conspired with the Germans to circumvent the Versailles Treaty in
matters of armor and air], and a mutual admiration of one thuggish
despot for another, the Nazis and Soviets had at least one other
thing in common, an intense dislike for an independent Polish State
that both had avowed designs upon; what sort of commonality did Nazi
Germany and Poland have?
Keep on Truckin'
Ray
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 20:54:12 -36000
From: Jason Long <civguy@dusable.cps.k12.il.us>
Subject: Re: Second Front end game
I left out SE Theater from CoT as it's just too trouble for the effect of
its inclusion what with Tito's partisans, Bulgarians and other missing
counters to include Nazi symps like the Serbian Volunteer Korps.
Frankly I've always viewed the Balkan Axis as a Chimera with little to
recommened it other than the short distances to Austria. But the incredibly
poor transportation network and rugged terrain make it a nightmare to
attack through.
I'd urge that anybody playing CoT take detailed notes and share them with
us as I'd like to see
what conclusions can be drawn from it as it stresses the Europa system as
does little else. Based on a game played by Eric Pierce and Art Goodwin
it seems to be a walkover for the Soviets. One particular complaint was
the air replacements for the VVS seem to be way high. As I swagged them
myself I have no problem with cutting them in half as Soviet air units were
frequently aborted in Europa terms in reality and they shouldn't be able
to be instantly replace every loss every single turn without exhausting
their Air RPs.
Air RPs in general may well be too high in SF as well, but I'm not yet
certian of that as I haven't played it myself. What impressions have those
of you who have played it formed?
Jason
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 22:25:52 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Re: Second Front end game
Jason,
Another reason to include the Balkans in detail is to examine the
Axis options there from 1943-45, at least.
I was recently involved in a game of SF with an Allied Landing in
Brittany in 1943 [they DID manage to secure a Major Port].
One of the home brew rules was related to the SE Front and the
ability of the Germans to extract relatively good, useable units
[including Political Police, wonderful for propping up the morale of
the units holding the line of the Seine] in exchange for a carload of
trash, including most of the Italian reinforcements. How 'realistic'
was this? Who the F--- knows! But a better assessment could have been
made if we had some of that good old Europa research to base decisions
on, rather than our own mad scrambling through our minds and a few
reference works.
Ray
Date: 11 Mar 96 21:39:50 EST
From: Carl Rugenstein <74037.766@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Computers and Europa
Peter,
I was intrigued by your note regarding Europa and Stalingrad. I too had visions
of Europa being done much like Stalingrad. One thing I found when playtesting
Stalingrad that struck me very strange was that many of the other playtesters
knew of Europa, but for numerous reasons had no wish to tackle the Europa
series. It seems to me that most Europa gamers would probably love Stalingrad.
If they gave it a chance I'd think the opposite would also be true. I'm
probably rambling but the point I'm trying to get to is that I think the
computer is perhaps an answer on how to bring new life into the series. Winston
has mentioned several times that the Europa community is not growing. I'm
willing to make a bet that it would grow significantly if it was associated with
computer playability of some sort. Forget the AI. PBEM or modem play would be
the future. During the test I played 11 PBEM games with different folks and all
of us agreed that the play was extremely exciting as well as fun. Most of us
felt it was as good or better than face to face. With the flavor Europa has to
offer there is no doubt in my mind it would be very popular.
A 20+ year Europa Lover
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: Second Front end game
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 21:03:44 -0600 (CST)
Jason Long Said:
>
> I left out SE Theater from CoT as it's just too trouble for the effect of
> its inclusion what with Tito's partisans, Bulgarians and other missing
> counters to include Nazi symps like the Serbian Volunteer Korps.
> Frankly I've always viewed the Balkan Axis as a Chimera with little to
> recommened it other than the short distances to Austria. But the incredibly
> poor transportation network and rugged terrain make it a nightmare to
> attack through.
I'd like to see Slovenia, (original Croatia, minus Bosnia) and Hungary
(I assume it's part of the Eastern front) in play. Greece and the rest
of the SouthEast doesn't do anything for me. Slovenia and Croatia
in play means that the German player has to guard Italy a bit better.
When I was playing (for a while) on the German side, it was widely
felt that Italy can only go so bad, due to the Alps. Getting
Slovenia and Croatia in play means the Germans have to be careful, lest
the Allies link up, or Clark takes the back door through Lubiana, and
around. It also means that they want to hold the Allies out
of the Po, to prevent the lines from getting stretched out.
Perhaps some fractional part of the SouthEast OB could enter play with
some minor rule changes to go along with it. I'm low on knowledge on
the SE theatre, so any of the Europa experts want to take a wack at it?
> I'd urge that anybody playing CoT take detailed notes and share them with
> us as I'd like to see
> what conclusions can be drawn from it as it stresses the Europa system as
> does little else. Based on a game played by Eric Pierce and Art Goodwin
> it seems to be a walkover for the Soviets. One particular complaint was
We've discussed this. We plan on keeping war diaries on each side.
> the air replacements for the VVS seem to be way high. As I swagged them
> myself I have no problem with cutting them in half as Soviet air units were
> frequently aborted in Europa terms in reality and they shouldn't be able
> to be instantly replace every loss every single turn without exhausting
> their Air RPs.
> Air RPs in general may well be too high in SF as well, but I'm not yet
> certian of that as I haven't played it myself. What impressions have those
> of you who have played it formed?
The Western Allied Air RP rate seems about right, maybe +/- 10%, but
why split hairs. I looked at the Soviet ARP numbers and they did seem
big. Did they have that much production of airframes and aircrews?
It was very hard to keep the German Air force down without a concerted
effort to go after them. The couple of times we did go after them, it was
pretty bad on the Luftwaffe. They really got hammered early on with Naval
intercepts. We pretty much counted on the Strat airforce to contain them,
which it did. They also ended up with two choices, fly and die, or
hide and live. I think fly and die is a better option with the ARP system,
as hide and live doesn't help things.
What if the Luftwaffe sort gives up in the West after mid '44 and
gives the Soviets a hard time? They might make more of a difference there.
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
jwhite@ghq.com
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 21:35:14 -36000
From: Jason Long <civguy@dusable.cps.k12.il.us>
Subject: re:GE:Italy
in my experience VPs only matter when they are back by rules that punish
players in ways that effect the game they're playing, like losing all inf
RPs if x action occurs. hard and fast prohibitions will just be broken
outright.
Frankly I look to the rules to keep much of this stuff under control so
the Italians can't put twenty divisons in the desert because they can't
be supplied, etc.
Jason
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 21:56:37 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: SouthEast Front [was:Second Front end game]
On 3/10/96, Jeff White said:
>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?
This is what I'd like to see come up near the top of the list for
Europa, complete with the partisan war 1941-45, and this would go a
far way to showing how elegantly Europa can handle political events.
Ray
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 21:13:19 -36000
From: Jason Long <civguy@dusable.cps.k12.il.us>
Subject: Re: GE:Italy
It seems to me that we need to cater to both multi-player teams and
single individuals playing each side. Don't boggle at me like that I know
a couple of guys who've actually played Campaign for North Africa to
completion so I'm willing to bet that people will try GE in a similar vein.
Players should not be allowed to change occupation policies. The Nazis
and Soviets were thugs and shouldn't be allowed to forget it. Players are
going to fantasize about Barbarossa being mounted by the Liberal
Democratic Germans with not Soviet partisan activity, but I see no reason
to encourage such sick imaginings in any way via the rules.
jason
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Invading Ireland
Dear Perry:
From what you wrote, I thought the plan was broached in 1940 vice
1942/1943.
Naturally, if this was dreamed up in 1942/43, the situation would be
closer to what you describe than I describe. I recall that there was talk
of seizing the treaty ports in 1940.
Of course, if the Allies tried it in the time frame you describe, it
would have been mostly an exercise in logistics.
When Adolf Hitler committed suicide in 1945, Ireland's Eamon de
Valera paid a condolence call on the German Ambassador to Ireland,
commisserating with him on the demise of Germany's leader. More wierdly,
De Valera's ambassador to Germany bore letters patent from the man who
was then King of Ireland, George VI.
Bizarre.
Best,
DHL
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 20:37:47 -0800
From: bstone@sub.sonic.net (Bill Stone)
Subject: Re: Invading Ireland
Background on the Treaty Ports, quoting from
Carroll, Joseph T. IRELAND IN THE WAR YEARS, 1939-1945. Newton Abbot: David
& Charles, 1975:
-------------
The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6 December 1921 laid down in Article Six that
until the Irish Free State undertook her own coastal defense, 'the defense
by sea of Great Britain and Ireland shall be undertaken by His Majesty's
Imperial Forces'. Article Seven stated that the government of the Irish
Free State shall afford to his Majesty's Imperial Forces:
(a) In time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are undertaken in
the Annex hereto, or such facilities as may from time to time be agreed
between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State;
and (b) In time of war or strained relations with a Foreign Power such
harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for
defense of aforesaid.
The facilities referred to were at Cobh (then known as Queenstown) in Cork
Harbor on the south coast, Berehaven in Bantry Bay on the south-west coast
and at Lough Swilly on the extreme north in Co Donegal. These had all been
used by the Royal Navy during World War I, and the anti-submarine war had
been largely conducted from Queenstown, but their main value was as
deep-water anchorages and they were by no means fully equipped naval bases.
By 1939 the shore installations were regarded as primitive and totally
inadequate for a modern fleet. The coastal guns in the defensive batteries
were in reasonable working order but rather old.
Up to 1938 small British military maintenance parties occupied the various
forts, but in that year a new Anglo-Irish Agreement was concluded whereby
the British government unconditionally handed over the forts and harbors to
the Irish government thus abrogating Articles Six and Seven of the 1921
Treaty.
----------------------------
Bill Stone
Santa Rosa, CA
bstone@sonic.net
World War II Web Site:
http://www.sonic.net/~bstone
----------------------------
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GURU
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:04:33 PST
Hi everyone.
For those new to this mailer, who may be wondering about the
stuff listed as GURU in the subject line, here's what gives.
I am the new Europa Rules Court Editor, or jr poohbah, as I like to
think of myself. I have decided to experiment with email responses to rules
questions through the mailer; things have worked out pretty good so far.
For those of you able to read this, email Q&A will get you a much
faster response than sending in questions to GR/D and having them send them to
me. Also, please don't send questions to Rick Gayler at the old Rules Court
Address, he is trying to get some rest and will just forward them to GR/D who
will forward them to me...
All I ask is that you make your questions easy for me to find and play
with; use GURU: <game title/abbreviation> as the subject line so I can grab
the questions out.
What I say as the GURU is as official as it gets, with the caveat that
John Astell can always overrule the Judge; he is after all the Supreme Court
of Europa.So when you see GURU in the subject line, this is the Rules Court
Judge making a ruling.
Now I have some opinions of my own and post them from time to time.
When you *don't* see the GURU, it is just me talking, and you can agree,
disagree or ignore as your fancy strikes you.
So for you new additions, please feel free to send your questions to
me through email. Not that I have not been sending personal answers, I just
strip off any identifying bits and post the questions and answers to Lysator
in general. This was what people preferred; with my bare bones system, one
reply is all I can manage, and for now that reply goes to Lysator for all to
see and (hopefully) enjoy.
Looking forward to more work. late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:04:36 +0100
From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Re: Second Front end game
>Air RPs in general may well be too high in SF as well, but I'm not yet
>certian of that as I haven't played it myself. What impressions have those
>of you who have played it formed?
In my experience, the germans can ALWAYS recover their losses for the
fighter force every turn, though it might be at the price of the bombers.
As long as the germans have fighters, they make attacks more uncertain (as
the expected ground support don't show up) and remove quite a few good
fighter-bombers from the bomber role. When I played the game (solitaire), I
found it quite pointless to try to hurt the luftwaffe, as they could take
anything you could throw at them, and still pop up a new air force the next
turn.
What really bothers me is the fact that the well-documented poor quality of
most of the german fighter pilots is in no way represented in the game,
though.
Mvh Elias Nordling
o-noreli@jmk.su.se
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:08:28 +0100
From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Airdrop rules
I once made some calculations on the Assault on Crete scenario for BF and
found out that the historical landings had a less than 5% cance of
achieving the HISTORICAL results.
What really bothers me with the rules for airdrop is this:
When a transport is hit by FLAK (R or A), it returns to the base with the
cargo. Since most airborne units require two transports to drop, there's a
MAJOR chance this will happen, even with just 1 or 2 points of AA.
My question is: has this ever happened? Is there ANY occasion in the
history of the parachute when the transports return to base without letting
the soldiers jump because of flak? I think not.
I think that, in this particular instance, the load shouldn't be returned,
but rather have additional modifiers for the disruption roll. +1 for any R
and +2 for any A seems about right.
Has anybody else an opinion on this? (as a diversion to the SF pie-throwing:-)
Mvh Elias Nordling
o-noreli@jmk.su.se
From: Stefan Farrelly <Stefan.Farrelly@barclays.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:47:36 +0000
Subject: Re: Second Front end game
My brother and I have played many SF scenarios and weve never had a problem
with not enough Air RP's, despite in one game deliberatly trying to hit the
Axis air to see if we coould impact their RP's long term. No good.
Consequently we think the Air RP's are too generous for all sides.
Stefan Farrelly
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 07:50:10 -0600
From: conrad alan b <abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Sealion possibilities
On Sun, 10 Mar 1996, James B. Byrne wrote:
> John M. Astell wrote:
>
> > This whole scenario, however, depends upon the Royal Navy being able to
> > operate in the Channel without taking devastating losses.
>
> 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?
>
Good questions. However remember that there is a balancing factor
to the rest of the U-Boat war. All of the German light naval production
has to go into landing craft and anything else to try to keep the army
in England alive. Just using all the Rhine river barges for the invasion
has a real negative economic effect on German production too. The German
navy has a limited number of trained seamen to draw for crews also.
So the U-Boast arm will be very limited for some time.
AlanConrad
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 07:57:23 -0600
From: conrad alan b <abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Sealion etc.
On Mon, 11 Mar 1996 j.broshot@genie.com wrote:
> 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;
Opps I answered the last message before I realized it had already
gotten answered. However to rebut Mr. Broshot, in any invasion scenario
the RAF is going to be more greatly damaged than the Lufftwaffe, so there
will be no British air superiority for some time.
Alan Conrad
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:05:10 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: GE:Italy
Players are
>going to fantasize about Barbarossa being mounted by the Liberal
>Democratic Germans with not Soviet partisan activity...
I don't think it would have made much difference as far as partisans go if
the Nazis had been better guests. Postwar history seems to show that
invading someone else's country, for whatever your ostensible reason is
going to stir up patriotic feelings, &c...Also, the Soviets were good at
provoking the Germans into atrocities in those areas where they had behaved
themselves or in which they had some popular support. So, it seems best to
just go along with that, rather than trying to figure out if it would make
any difference if the Nazis are nice guys- there's just no evidence to base
even guesswork on, so it would be difficult to devise any kind of system
worthy of Europa.
Not to flog a dead horse again, but Hitler Germany wouldn't have invaded
the USSR to save the Russian people from Bolshevism- Hitler didn't give a
damn about the Russian people and actually said that Bolshevism was good
for the Russians, as they required exceptionally harsh discipline to get
them to accomplish anything (his opinion)
The only occupational policies I'm interested in playing around with are in
the Balkans, where the two main Axis countries had conflicting interests.
But if even 51% of the players wanted to just leave it as historical, I'd
be more than happy to go along with that.
Christ, I'm starting to sound pretty conservative lately.
SP
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:05:03 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: GE options
>Myself, I am not too interested in having a lot of political
>choice.
I argue for this position: there are a great many players disinterested in
the political aspect and would rather be generals and on the other hand we
have another camp which relishes in production decisions, diplomacy, &c.
Since I'm thinking Grand Europa has to be a team game (I think one guy
could play it solitaire, but I don't think two or even three people could
tackle it and really have any fun) then there's a place for both kinds of
Euro-maniacs at the game table- the politicos can decide when to go to war
and whether to build 2 Panzer divisions or 1 air unit and 1 infantry
division. Some well-crafted and generally agreeable rules can handle these
aspects. The Generals can take the situation as it comes and play the war
out without having to deal with any paperwork or having to worry about
gaming really absurd situations (Britain and Germany fight Russia and Italy
with jet propelled helium zeppelins firing V1 rockets or whatever)
>Really, I don't see a great need for many political rules at
>all.
Neither do I, and I appreciated your suggestions, which run parrallel to my
own thinking (see Mr. Byrne's earlier post)
>The only thing that really needs to be addressed definitively in
>GE is the production sequence. It is fine to say that the role
>of the player doesn't emcompass that area but this simply begs
>the question. How do we handle the need to vary the historical
>production of units to mesh with the different history of each
>game?
I really think production of ground units ought to be on a timetable with
some lag time as appropriate (forming/full). Maybe air units would also
benefit from such a system.
As to aircraft, I'd lobby for allowing some ahistorical but interesting
planes (BV.155 German carrier fighters, the American "Moonbat" and others)
just for spice. Of course you could stick to strictly historical planes
and others could be introduced as variants published in the Europa
Magazine.
Aircraft counters should be provided to allow some flexibility in choosing
between Typhoons and Tornados or whatever, but I'm not sure that anyone has
advocated total freedom by the players in this area. It would require an
almost insane number of counters.
Steve P.
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:05:17 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: Second Front end game
I finally got a chance to peruse at length CoT. I'm comparing the OBs with
Dave Berry's old "Zitadelle" OBs, which formed the basis of our own game
played this past summer and fall. You've done some really great work here.
>I'd urge that anybody playing CoT take detailed notes and share them with
>us as I'd like to see
>what conclusions can be drawn from it as it stresses the Europa system as
>does little else.
Before CoT came out, our group in Oregon put together SE and SF, making
some educated guesses on air replacement points and lashing together the
OBs as best as possible.
I intended to take copious notes, but I was the organization man and ended
up doing more OB work as well as being the German team quartermaster
general, being the only one inclined to track RPs, &c...
Based on a game played by Eric Pierce and Art Goodwin
>it seems to be a walkover for the Soviets.
The Soviets have far too easy a time of it. I would recommend utilizing HQ
rules which require expenditure of RPs to get attack supply. I plan to use
the ones by David Berry, which were published in an old ETO zine (#87 I
think from 1988 or so) with some modifications if we pull off another
hugemungous Grand Europa scenario.
We started in April, 1943- which might have been a big mistake, because as
soon as the mud dried up in May, the Russians launched massive all out
offensives which blew the Axis line completely to pieces, throwing them
back across the Dnepr in a month and a half. The Germans were only able to
keep the Red Army out of Roumania by launching their own offensive on the
joint between two Soviet commands around Poltava- using the cream of the
German armour to annihilate well over 500 points of Russian infantry,
artillery and engineers in the subsequent month and a half.
The Soviets in the north were extremely timid and didn't accomplish
anything except to break the leaguer around Leningrad- the Germans by that
time had built a NODL in forts back in Latvia.
A reason we started in April was that we wanted to see if the Germans could
get anything out of Tunisia- ironically, most of what was successfully
extracted was Italian (!) The Germans got out some valuable infantry units
by airlifting them. If anybody tries a game like this, try using Lampedusa
and Pantelleria as fighter bases.
One particular complaint was
>the air replacements for the VVS seem to be way high. As I swagged them
>myself I have no problem with cutting them in half as Soviet air units were
>frequently aborted in Europa terms in reality and they shouldn't be able
>to be instantly replace every loss every single turn without exhausting
>their Air RPs.
That's about how it worked out for all sides in our game- we simply guessed
and doubled the SF air RPs and gave the Soviets half again as many as that.
As to an air OB, we assumed that the German air force would remain the
same size, but simply change out old planes for new in existing air units,
while the Soviets would grow by a low rate of 5%, allowing them to both
change out old equipment and also add some new units.
>Air RPs in general may well be too high in SF as well, but I'm not yet
>certian of that as I haven't played it myself. What impressions have those
>of you who have played it formed?
Damn- we as the Germans had been hoarding out aircraft and after an air
cycle went by, we realized we had available about four times as many air
RPs as we used. Maybe we just played a good game (the Luftwaffe was
practically non-existant in Italy and France, and consequently enjoyed
tremendous success over Russia) or maybe we just got lucky and should have
statistically had more losses. But we still thought the air RPs are too
generous for everybody (except the Americans, maybe)
Steve P
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:05:30 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: GE options
3) Please provide some scholarly back-up for your assertion that a
Nazi-Polish Pact was as likely [or as unlikely] to occur as the
historical Nazi-Soviet Pact.
The Germans did approach Poland about an alliance against Russia, promising
Poland big swaths of Russian territory. The Poles were more interested in
maintaining freedom of action and demurred.
Goering undertook a special diplomatic mission in 1935 in this regard.
Marshall Pilsudski was interested but insisted on a German guarentee of
non-interference in Danzig.
I believe a relevant source is a memo by Lt. Gen. Schindler, German
military attache in Warsaw, 22 Feb 1935 (BA, Beck Papers, NL.28/1)
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:43:25 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: re:GE:Italy
>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.
What a horror that would be!- Italy allowed to be played intelligently?
Such notions must be suppressed.
I agree with the idea of putting constraints on their actions or use by the
Axis, and certain historical options seem to be their best use (invading
Greece successfully would be good for the Axis- rather than have the Allies
get in their as in WW1)
But do they have to be forced to attack across the Alps?
SP
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:49:38 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: R&D (was Yahtzee and Europa)
>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 that some randomness would also work just fine. My way would
require player interest- again, I'm startng to get the distinct impression
it would be best for GRD to start out with the simplest methods to tackle
each of these problems and then offer additional material and modules later
on. A good springboard would be to simply do as you suggest and add a
little randomness to aircraft appearances. It would add some uncertainty.
>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.
It did fly pretty early on, and the engines were better (Heinkel, however
was out of favor at the time in the RLM- and I'm not sure we want to try to
figure out how to represent *that* in a game!- this point really lends a
lot of weight to your idea of adding some randomness rather than outright
player decisions...)
Steve P.
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
Subject: Airdrop rules (fwd)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:42:03 -0500 (EST)
Hi All,
Elias asks:
>
> What really bothers me with the rules for airdrop is this:
> When a transport is hit by FLAK (R or A), it returns to the base with the
> cargo. Since most airborne units require two transports to drop, there's a
> MAJOR chance this will happen, even with just 1 or 2 points of AA.
>
> My question is: has this ever happened? Is there ANY occasion in the
> history of the parachute when the transports return to base without letting
> the soldiers jump because of flak? I think not.
According to the UK official history, "The Mediterranean and the
Middle East", Volume 5, this happened in Sicily. In fact there were so many
problems with missdrops, flak from both sides, and planes returning with
their cargo that plans were eventually changed to cancel further air drops.
Best Wishes,
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:07:57 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: GE politics
> 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.
I wholly and vigorously disagree. It seems fairly obvious that players
"represent" both and neither-if they can be said to represent some specific
level of command.
If you're going to have GE at all (and some pundits are saying that it
should be forgotten about) then some of the top level decisions are going
to have to be left in the hands of the players.
I see a lot of flat assertions that aren't backed up by any kind of
evidence- one is that "It is the concensus that players represent military
commanders only" - well, it's not a concensus at all. It's probably 60%,
but I've seen just as many messages supporting some player political
decisisions as I see this assertion being bandied that "everyone agrees the
players are Red Army soldiers and not Stalin"
The second is that if any significant political decisions are left up to
the players then the game will become some bizarre representation of a Newt
Gingrich dreamworld. Irish-Hungarian alliances! Soviets invade
Afghanistan holding box!
Come on! Where has any Europa player in any forum at any time ever
suggested doing stuff like that?
Give us all some credit for being knowledgable about the period, the
politics and the situation in general!
Thanks you,
Steve Phillips, the Europa Heretic.
PS: I'm only 29 and I keep hearing about how the wargame hobby is fading
away because "kids these days are a bunch of idiots that don't understand
history"
That's untrue. What's happened is, none of us can find jobs that pay
enough money to be able to justify paying $125 for a board game. I mean
think about it.
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:08:25 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: Another monster GE rant
>The only problem I have with the many mansions approach is the development
>time needed for each of these detailed modules to make sure that they
>don't distort the play of the game. This is not necessarily John Astell's
>time, but I shudder to think of some of the player created nightmares (4
>types of snow!) that I've seen out there and believe that such modules
>should be widely disseminated for review.
Why not take an informal vote? I don't want to see 4 types of schnee
either. It strikes me that a great many of the ideas bandied around (like
4 types of snow) are things that would be better developed by players
themselves and then distributed via fora like this or the magazine.
I cull many ideas from such sources for the various Europa games I've
played -scenarios, rules twists, &c...that are great on their own, but GRD
can't use every single great idea, whatever its merit, in GE.
Should I retrench and suggest that GE perhaps be approached like Advanced
Squad Leader (except without redesigning the entire system!!!) A pretty
binder and basic rules that stitch the maps and counters together with an
elegantly simple production system...then start canvassing all those great
ideas to create modules like "Strategic Air War"?
I know the volume on this topic is massive- I've hardly had time to follow
it, but I'd imagine any lurking GRD people (Mr. Astell) are interested in
distilling these kinds of ideas down to something they can actually use.
Steve P.
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:12:37 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: GE politics
>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....
OK- anyone want to design a flow chart that will handle every possible
permutation of every historical campaign in WW2 and it's influence on every
other Great Power- and minor?
I hate to sound increasingly strident, but I don't understand this constant
attempt to hang onto the notion of Grand Europa being nothing more than a
stringing together of historical battles that might just happen in a
different month.
Do the Germans get to lose the war in 1943? or do the Russians have to sit
around along the Dnepr until April 1945?
Steve P., the Europa heretic... "burn the witch!"
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Subject: Re: Another monster GE rant
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:40:30 -0800
From: Ross Hagglund <ross@informix.com>
> Should I retrench and suggest that GE perhaps be approached like Advanced
> Squad Leader (except without redesigning the entire system!!!) A pretty
> binder and basic rules that stitch the maps and counters together with an
> elegantly simple production system...then start canvassing all those great
> ideas to create modules like "Strategic Air War"?
This sounds very appealing. If a basic set of rules to handle individual
areas of the GE could be designed, each with a "20,000 foot" perspective.
Then players could pick and choose which areas they would like to "zoom in
on" and buy those modules. This would take some playtesting to insure that
the abstracted version played similarly to the detailed version. Would it
make sense to also abstract the current ground/air combat systems to a
less detailed level?
I like the pretty binder too ;)
Ross
(ross@informix.com)