Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 02:08:26 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: SouthEast Front and Political Police [was Re: Second Front
end game]
Hi Jason!
>the SE theater OB needs to be finished completely up to
>Europa standards, but I think that we don't necessarily
>need to allow people to loot the place of all the good stuff.
Well, that's one of the issues currently under discussion on the
list, how much leeway the players are going to have to move units
from place to place.
>The Germans did keep 1st panzer there for around a year
>until the Kiev offensive.A really strict garrison rule would
>do alot to keep things within the realsm of probable
>conduct given some of the wierdness that player will
>commit.
A garrison rule doesn't do anything to explain WHY 1st Pz was kept
for a year in some of the crappiest tank country in Europe. And if
the Axis is doing better/worse than historically, or decides to
allocate military operational spheres of influence different from the
historical ones [it seems to me that this is perfectly in the purview
of Europa, Grand or Petit], why should certain units be locked in a
particular place?
It seems to me that a more reasonable 'garrison rule' would state
that "x number of AXIS attack factors need to be kept in a certain
geographical area to oppress the local populace and prevent
spontaneous uprising"
>As an aside, I refuse to use that Axis political police rule,
>as I think it exaggerates the units' real effects.
While I agree in principle, until something better comes along they
do take the place of the many minor units/replacements that don't
show up on the Europa scale, but would bulk up the defense somewhat
over the long haul; and most certainly represent the forced
belligerence of many units, regular and cobbled together, like the KM
'infantry' or Volkssturm, in the last months of the war.
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:09:18 +0100
From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Re: Not Gen X
>P.S. Question to Elias: What is the level of interest in history among the
>under 30 set in Sweden?
I would say it's quite high. History courses are among the most popular at
the universities. There's also a growing general interest in Swedish
history. Museums around the country engaged in a nationwide exhibition on
Swedish history, there's a lot of new books on Swedish history that sells
well, etc.
On the other hand, showing an interest in military matters is considered
highly suspicious in Sweden. The nation haven't experienced war since 1815
(a luxury few countries can boast with). This has lead to a very pacifistic
society. I can't remember all the times I had to explain that just because
I play out past wars in my livingroom, it doesn't mean that I "like war".
Mvh Elias Nordling
o-noreli@jmk.su.se
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:22:40 +0100
From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling)
Subject: Re: Second Front end game
>The poor quality of the German pilots is addressed in one sense in that
>the Germans no longer get one counter per 40 aircraft, but one per 50
>from early '44 on. also the late period withdrawls were increased beyond
>the norm to account for the declining quality of the pilots. I thought
>about a DRM a la SE, but decided it was rather redudant given the Allied
>margin of numbers over the Nazis.
I didn't know that. Maybe it's because the long promised
"Designers/developers notes" for Second Front still havent shown up in TEM
;-)
However, I don't agree with your line of reasoning that "the allies have
superior numbers anyway". Since the Germans are on the defense, they can
choose to concentrate all of their fighter power on one interception, while
the allies have to escort each mission equally. That's how I did it when I
played, anyway. The Germans suffered great losses that were entirely
recoverable, and frequently stung the allies in a way I don't think they
were capable of at this stage of the war.
Also, a 20% reduction of effectiveness doesn't seem to be enough to account
for the sometimes abysmally poor quality of german pilots at the end of the
war. They must have been at least as bad as the russians in 41.
Mvh Elias Nordling
o-noreli@jmk.su.se
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GURU:SF / SE
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 03:35:03 PST
Hi <ALL>.
Some general type questions for your edification.
>>Thanks Rich for taking the time to answer questions.
Thank YOU for sending them my way. I wouldn't be much
of a GURU if I didn't answer questions.
(Be quiet there, Elias! <grin>)
>>I have two questions for you today.
>>Q: When a Brandenburger unit captures a bridge, does it
>>remain captured in future turns as long as they can hold
>>onto the hexside? Can a further attempt be made to attack
>>with one unit unhampered across the bridge, or is the
>>first turn of capture the only time this can be done?
OK. The special ability of Commandos (inc
Brandenburgers) to capture a bridge is covered in SF Rule
44A1 and in SE Rule 39A. When a Cmdo captures a bridge, it
becomes friendly owned from the phase following the phase it
was captured. Any one unit can attack across the river
without cbt modifications, due to the river hexside, in THAT
combat phase following capture, only. The special combat
ability only applies to the combat phase immediately
following the movement phase in which the bridge was
captured.
The bridge remains captured, which affects demolition
and repair, as long as the enemy player does not regain
ownership of the two hexes that the bridge hexside is
adjacent to. And of course, one can not attempt to capture
a friendly owned bridge, in order to get the one unaffected
unit combat effect again.
>>Q: It says in the rules that engineering costs are doubled
>>in poor weather. If an engineer only has 5 or 6 movement
>>points and they are trying to do something requiring 8
>>movement points, is that essentially 1 turn? Or does the
>>engineer use all its movement points one turn, using the
>>remainder in the next?
A unit or units must spend the required number of MPs,
even if that entails spending MPs over more than one turn.
For example, in SE it costs 16 MPs to repair a bridge over a
major river hexside (if using optional rule 39A). If a
German 0-1-5 Cnst Eng III was performing the repair, it
would take a minimum of four player turns; the unit would
spend 5 MPs in each of three turns, and the final 1 MP in
the fourth turn. The bridge would be repaired at that point
and the unit would have 4 MPs left for other movement.
Note also that the resource point required in this example
is spent when the unit begins repair; if the repair is
interupted for any reason, the resource point is not
recovered.
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GURU:SF
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 04:01:44 PST
Hi All.
Looks like some more SF is coming your
way...
>Yeah, I have another one about the naval rules (they really
>ARE messy!) If units start a turn loaded on transports in
>port at the start of a turn, are they in supply? This is
>significant, because if the answer is yes, then allied
>troops can start the game loaded in transports (allowed
>per TEM#??) for a turn 1 invasion of southern France (the
>extra 30 NMPs are needed.)
Units embarked upon ships trace supply as per normal
rules, so if they are in a port hex and the NT/LC is *in*
port (NOT at sea in the hex) then yes they are in supply.
Note also that for your first turn invasion, the
units and NT/LCs they are embarked upon could be set up in
the N.Afr. Holding box at start, they needn't be deployed at
separate ports on the map.
Also note that since they are already embarked, port
capacity is not an issue; ALL of your NT/LCs, along with
anyone they are transporting, could be placed, for example,
at Bougie during the initial phase and carry out their
invasion from there. The fact that Bougie is only a minor
port is immaterial.
Note also that any units embarked upon NT/LC could
remain in the N.Afr. Holding Box, or any on map port, and
remain in supply from turn to turn, indefinitely.
<< note that this might be a dupe. If so, send someone around to thrash me
proper! :) >>
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GURU:SF
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 06:08:57 PST
Hi <ALL>.
The GURU never sleeps! More SF Q&A swing your way.
>>1. What is the RE equivalent for transport purposes (both
>>naval and air) of a unit transporting one resource point?
>>Is it the RE size of the unit plus one or only the RE size
>>of the unit if it is a division (so the resource point is
>>less than half of the RE size of the unit) or what?
**[Ground units may not carry resource points while being
**transported by naval or air transport, they may only carry
**resource points overland. Resource Points and units are
**counted separately when shipped as naval or air cargo.
**RMG]
>>2. For purposes of support (Rule 11) can a player consider
>>NGS to units being overrun, without taking into account
>>the NGS points?
**[Per Rule 33A, TFs may only provide NGS during a combat
**phase. Therefore, NGS does not affect overruns, since they
**occur in the movement and exploitation phases. RMG]
>>3. Can NT's land resource points and supplies directly to
>>a friendly owned beach ?
**[Yes. RMG]
>>4. Is the RE size of a c/m or cavarly unit doubled for
>>port capacities purposes or not? For example, can a c/m
>>division disembark in a minor port? [
No, RE size is not doubled for port capacity, it is only
doubled for transport, ie Naval transport or Rail
movement.
So, Yes, a C/M Div can disembark at a minor port.
>>5. Can a port, repaired by a port construction unit after
>>German demolition and with a number of hits equal to its
>>maximum minus one, be used for supply purposes ?
>>If yes, are there any penalizations ?
Yes. No.
>>6. When a transport counter (3 REs capacity) is carrying
>>an infantry division, is it treated as 5 RE size for naval
>>transport purposes or as 2 RE size (thinking the assets
>>and men of the division aboard of the truck and so not
>>occupying space on the ship or LVT) ?
A Transport counter is a separate unit and must be
transported as a separate cargo load. So, using your
example, the Inf XX would count for 3 REs and the
Transport counter would count for 2 REs (1 RE, x2 for
being C/M). But they are not considered a single unit.
>>8. When playing the ETO 44 scenario can the allied player
>>use the MTO naval transports (NTs and LCs) and air units
>>to make the amphibious landing in southern France or must
>>he transfer the necessary assets from the ETO via
>>Gibraltar Box (really unrealistic hypothesis) ?
This is currently being worked on by John Astell.
>>9. Rule 26C1 states that the allies may call up Strategic
>>Air Force (SAF) during the allied initial phase and that a
>>special effort turn lasts for the allied player turn; is
>>it right to say that the SAF cannot be used for Harassment
>>and DAS missions as they occur during the german player
>>turn ?
>>If yes, why there is a reference to DAS missions in the
>>10th line of Rule 26C2c ?
Correct, Allied Strat Air assets may *not* be used in
the Axis player turn, thus they may not fly Harassment,
nor DAS, missions.
The reference you speak of is in error, delete all
mention of Allied Strat Air Forces flying DAS.
>>10. When flying GS missions (only allowed for US A/FB,
>>right?) is there any restriction on the points os support
>>permitted on the hex related to the number of attacking
>>ground units ? It seems strange that a P-51 or P-47
>>counter need one RE of attacking units to make a GS
>>mission while the same P-51 or P-47, only because detached
>>from a strategic air wing, can make any GS
>>mission without regard to the number of attacking RE of
>>ground units.
For purposes of GS, each 3 TBFs delivered by a Strat Air
wing counts as one air unit. For example, a hex
attacked by two Allied divisions could only have six
air units supporting it for GS. Six REs times 3 TBFs
would be 18 TBFs for GS.
>>11. Are the SAF strengths halved due to terrain and
>>weather effects ?
Stat Air Forces and Wings are treated as any other air
unit with regards to terrain and weather, so yes, they
would be affected by terrain and/or weather
considerations.
>>12. When firing AA against air units flying GS or DAS
>>missions, does the AA unit fire only against those air
>>units effectively supporting the attack, or against all
>>air units in the hex making GS or DAS mission (even those
>>not considered for combat ratio calculations) ?
AA fire is resolved against ALL enemy air units flying
GS/DAS missions in the hex; after AA fire is resolved,
the owning player may decide which air units will
participate in the combat resolution, up to the limits
imposed by RE considerations.
>>13. A TF spends 90 MPs to prepare for NGS; during the
>>combat phase the TF fires NGS and is marked as beeing ammo
>>depleted. In the ensuing first naval step the TF spends 30
>>MPs to replenish; must the TF spend another 90 MPs in
>>order to fire NGS again ?
Yes. A TF must always prepare to fire NGS after it has
fired NGS, even for the immediately following combat
phase. In essence, firing NGS is another condition that
forces the TF to prepare again to fire NGS, in addition
to those liste in Rule 33A, namely not moving or
engaging in naval combat.
>>14. Must a player decide either to roll the dice or to use
>>NRPs to repair damaged LCs or can he first roll the dice
>>and then spend NRP for remaining damaged LCs ?
This is an "either or" situation; if you choose to roll
for the LC, you give up the opportunity to repair it
using NRPs. You decide whether or not to roll for any
LCs before you may expend any NRPs to repair any other
LCs. So, if you roll to repair an LC and fail, you may
*not* reapir it in the same initial phase through the
expenditure of NRPs.
>>15. The garrisoning player may activate up to half
>>(rounded down) RE of his garrison immediately whenever any
>>enemy unit enters the district; Is this valid only for
>>the FIRST unit that enters the district or for ANY unit ?
>>You see, it is possible for the german player to activate
>>half of the current RE of garrison for the first allied
>>landing unit, another half of the remaining RE for the
>>second one, and so on and so forth until only one RE of
>>garrison remains.
To clarify, you activate the region upon arrival of the
first enemy unit and deploy up to half the garrison's
REs at that point only. A garrison can not be activated
more than once in a playr turn. Note the last sentence
of the first bullet of Rule 37E, "He may receive the
remaining REs and any replacement points in the
garrrison in his next initial phase."
>>16. Rule 40A2 states, at the word NOTE, that the German
>>player can always take any of his reinforcments as a
>>Greater Germany one; when playing a single theater
>>scenario it seems to be possible for the German player to
>>take quite all the reinforcements in the order of battle,
>>place them in Greater Germany and use them as he wish; is
>>it right ?
No. You only receive units which are under your
control, when playing a single front scenario. For
example, reinforcements for the SE theatre are never
under the control of the Axis player, so he may not
change their arrival location, since he doesn't control
them. In a similar manner, if playing The ETO scenario,
the Axis player does not control forces in the South
theatre, nor reinforcements for the South theatre.
It is assumed, for purposes of the Note, that players
will understand that reinforcement activities may only
be under a player's control if the units involved are
under the player's control. See the explanation of what
regions/theatres a player controls, under the particular
scenario rules, listed in Rule 41B1 through 4.
>>17. Is there any standard rule for firing AA against air
>>units making an Harassment mission ?
Per Rule 20G2d, Harassment is a bombing mission. Per
Rule 22B1, the enemy player may fire AA against air
units flying bombing missions. Harassment is not listed
in Rule 22B1 as being one of the exceptions to the
general rule on firing AA. Therefore, the standard
rules apply, and any friendly units, except for naval
units, may fire at any enemy air units flying a
harassment mission in the hex the friendly units occupy.
The Advanced rules, Rule 43B1 and 43B2, simply modify
the standard rules concerning AA fire vs this particular
mission.
>>18. Optional AA Table: it seems that no kill result is
>>possible using this table even if the AA strengh is 10 or
>>more, while the kill result is possible in the standard AA
>>fire table; right?
Correct; there is no "K" result on the optional AA Fire
Table, regardless of the AA strength being fired.
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 08:49:58 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: GE - Production, Politics and Problems
James Byrne wrote:
If every country is given
>the capacity to produce resource, personell and equipment points
>at some general rate which can be added to by conquest or
>decreased by strategic warfare, and a time table is provided
>detailing when certain types of units are available to be built /
>upgraded then the player will have all of the control that I feel
>is necessary....
Sublime! Let the naysaters weep- Really what needs to be done is to figure
out what format the economic data will be in- will it be some kind of tally
sheet the player keeps track of everything on or a track like the Group
Allowances or what?
I have been devising a computer based system, but not everybody could use a
computer system or course, so its not an optimal solution from GRD's point.
The inexhaustible Steve P.
PS: I have compiled over 80 pages of Grand Europa rules- if you want, I
can forward them for comment.
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 08:50:35 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: GE debate rages on!
Like Yul Brynner in *Westworld*, the GE debate just won't be stopped!
I have an opinion on everything. This is my topic of topics, so please
allow me to opine on your vision of Grand Europa...
Rich has some great ideas for a basic GE-
>* Germany and Poland, France and Britain are at war at
>start. Everyone except Germany at Neutrality Watch, Germans
>get free set up.
>* Italy must enter war, by conducting ground operations
>against Fr or GB, before the surrender/collapse/armistice of
>a major power or they lose the game.
>* Historical Nazi-Soviet Pact (with possibilities for
>minor border adjustments as was the case)
>* No Japanese attack on USSR.
>* Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria minor Axis-Allies from
>historical date (1 or 2 turns either way could be used)
>* Historical Yugoslavia, Tripartite pact signed,
>immediately begins rolling for coup, which will happen.
I like all of the above.
>* Italy must invade an adjacent minor power prior to Jan I
>'41 or they lose the war.
I would argue for more leeway on the time scale or else different criteria
than time- say within so many months of Germany conquering so many
countries, Italy must enter the war, either by attacking a minor neighbour
or by being at war with a Great Power (France or Britain or the USSR if
Germany was already at war with Russia. Being at war with a Great Power-
especially UK or France certainly puts Italy in the game and pretty much
for keeps. After all, Italy invaded Greece for prestige. They certainly
didn't have any really compelling reason to do so other than they thought
they could impress the Germans with their martial prowess.
>* Germany must invade the USSR before Aug I '41, or they
>lose the war.
This could really screw the Germans. Why not say before August 1943? Make
the Allies guess.
>* Adolph and Benito declare war on US Dec I '41
Again, this could really force the German to shoot themselves. What if
Russia is doing better than in real life? Hitler declared war on the USA
when the German fortunes in Russia were not so high, but if a total
disaster had occured, then maybe he wouldn't have. Are we to assume that
total disasters won't occur in the game?
>* 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.
I would argue for a slightly more liberal approach- adding a few more
counters of various types to let people play around with alternate air
reinforcements.
>* Historical Iraq coup and option to occupy Iran.
I would suggest that the Iraq coup certainly happen. The timing should be
variable as in the Near East- to keep everyone guessing.
>* France must sign armistice when offered (as in FoF)
>* Vichy sets up as historical as far as territorial
>divisions. Commitment to Axis depends on events, pressure
>and a table.
I would tentatively agree to rules like this, if only to get the design
process underway. If the French have basically been forced to sue for
peace, then they shouldn't have many other options. It would be useful to
have an alternative scenario in which France either fights on, or the Axis
decide to just occupy them in toto and seize as much of North Africa as
they can get.
>* 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.
Yeah- I'm against random die rolling for random allies, but something like
the Finnish War Effort Rules might be workable here if the circumstances
bring them into the war.
>* Military technology remains as historical.
>* Economic war, ie Strat air and U-boat campaign as much
>in the background as possible, SF Strat air good example.
>* Task Force Naval system.
>* OB based on Replacement points (Inf, Art, Arm) to
>"build" historical units (largely, some variation for
>circumstances permitted)
I would agree that these might be useful concepts for a basic Grand Europa,
but I would certainly want to see more flexibility in all those areas-the
sooner the better.
>* 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)
In the case of minor countries, once they get into the war, most of them
become too intermingled with allied forces to differentiate a player for,
say Roumania.
I haven't seen anyone advocating Ronald Reagan movie rules, House
Unamerican Activity Rules, War Bond or Scrap Metal Drive rules, ((unless
you mean economics)) then I'm with you on leaving out the home front.
> To which some will reply, "But you are just refighting
>WW II!" Exactly. Completely right. Bravo! Hit the nail
>on the head.
> Europa, IMO, is an operational level game depicting WW
>II at the divisional level, with those air and naval aspects
>which had a significant impact upon the ground war.
> It is not a series of maps and OB provided to gamers to
>play "The war of 1939-194? as it might have been if x,y and
>z did or didn't happen." It is not a blown-up version of
>3dR, nor WIF, nor WW II or any other Strategic-politico game
>on the time period between 1939 and whenever. It is not a
>early 1940s version of Empires in Arms, Diplomacy, Risk or
>Badminton.
Where do those comparisons come from. I find it somewhat mean spirited of
someone to refer to ideas I happen to like as "Stratego". Gimme a break- I
give you credit for intelligence, you give me credit for intelligence- It
strikes me as disappointing how little respect there is for ideas contrary
to those of the lock-step refight the same campaigns campaign. I get the
impression that everyone on GeNie had essentially agreed to this notion and
are now confronted by unexpected opposition now that the forum has opened
to include many more serious Europa gamers.
> 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.
If you mean alternative history to include things like a Communist Germany
allying with Russia against whatever... then I'm with you. (although I
guess I'd be happy to game *that* too if somebody with the basement and the
time wanted to do it)
> Europa is about Hoth and Rommel and Gamelin and
>Montgomery and Eisenhower, it is not about Stalin, Hitler,
>Mussolini, Horthy, Roosevelt or King Zog.
More or less that's right, but it's more about Eisenhower, Gamelin,
Timoshenko, Hitler, Alexander and Kesselring than Hoth or Rommel. (IMO of
course- opinions are flying)...King Zog?- come on.
> All, of course, in my opinion. If people want to use
>the materials provided to play out Bulgaria, USSR and Sweden
>versus Hungary, Germany and Portugal; by all means do so. I
>just don't want to have to wait until that version has been
>adequately playtested before I get a system where I can
>re-fight WW II.
Again, I found that kind of statement to be a groundless insult. Where has
anyone in the "Grand Strategy" camp advocated bizarre alliances? I see a
lot of knee-jerk reaction against a problem which simply doesn't exist.
Unless it is being raised to discredit those of us who are lobbying for
more player control of pivotal events- or even control over economies and
diplomacy. Hell, I'm not sure economics can be done in too much detail,
but I know for a fact I can make an intelligent *and informed* decision
about whether to liberate France in 1943 or 1944 or send the Germans into
Spain or whatever.
As far as playtesting goes, a lot of these ideas are grounded in the
current Europa rules as written- in Second Front we have a "forming/full"
system for bringing ground units into play. Certainly this could be the
germ of a production system?
So again, I think you have great ideas and I would be happy to see you get
your way on any number of points -you probably find me annoying, but at
least I know I'm not the only one who feels the way I do.
Steve P.
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 08:51:43 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: Grand Europa
I belong to the "National Leader" faction as opposed to the "General Staff"
faction, but I agree with the need to make the basic GE historical enough
to make it something you can call WW2. I did have some comment on some of
the questions you make. I can't pretend to speak for any of the others who
also want more player input into pivotal political decisions.
>5. I am not a slave to history, can the following be assumed for purposes
> Hitler will invade Poland ONLY if a Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact is in
I would rather assume at the start of the game that there is a Nazi Soviet
Pact. That way you get the war started without having the USSR immediately
involved (although some alternatives around this might be fun to game also)
> Will France always fall in 1940?
Why bother setting them up if they can't survive? Just set aside the
German units involved, put a certain number of losses in the dead pool and
move on to the battle of Britain, which since we know how that came out can
be similarly handled...you see where I'm headed with this.
> Will Churchill be picked to head the British government (at the very least
> the "no Churchill" option would affect the British land OB: no commadoes and
> no large scale expansion of the Royal Armored Corps).
I'd be for assuming that Churchill becomes PM and letting the Brits decide
if they want to spent money (or shekels or whatever you come up with) on
commandos.
> Will Hitler declare war on the United States, after the Japanese attack?
I'd say that the Germans should make that decision, but the USA should be
allowed to come into the war anyway within a variable time- the American
press had orchestrated a massive anti-German propaganda campaign by late
1941. US ships were already attacking German ships at sea. Perhaps an
automatic but variable level of escalation, like the Malta roll.
Eventually the US will get in, but the Germans might buy themselves the
time they need. If the players want to be historically minded and say that
Hitler would have declared war on the US no matter what (and I'm inclined
to this view, given the rationale he offered when he did so) then they can
just say that as of Jan I 1942, the US and Germany/Italy are at war.
What I'm suggesting is that the players are intelligent enought that they
can decide what to do on their own.
> Will Churchill's idea of nibbling at the edges of Europe prevail allowing
> Allied attacks on Norway and Greece instead of saving all for Overlord?
I think the Americans were right- it was a stupid idea and given
Churchill's record (Gallipoli onward) it's probable that these excursions
would have done nothing but waste resources.
Steve P.
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:04:33 -0500
From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell)
Subject: Re: Grand Europa
>>5. I am not a slave to history, can the following be assumed for purposes
>> Hitler will invade Poland ONLY if a Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact is in
>
>I would rather assume at the start of the game that there is a Nazi Soviet
>Pact. That way you get the war started without having the USSR immediately
>involved (although some alternatives around this might be fun to game also)
Standard Europa will start on Sep I 39, with Germany at war with Poland,
France, and Britain, with the Nazi-Soviet Pact in place, and with the
German armies poised along the Polish border. This is the historical start
to WW2 and the logical starting point. Nonstandard E with a different
starting point or different starting conditions sounds like something best
done after we get the standard E up and running!
>> Will Hitler declare war on the United States, after the Japanese attack?
>
>I'd say that the Germans should make that decision, but the USA should be
>allowed to come into the war anyway within a variable time- the American
>press had orchestrated a massive anti-German propaganda campaign by late
>1941. US ships were already attacking German ships at sea. Perhaps an
>automatic but variable level of escalation, like the Malta roll.
>Eventually the US will get in, but the Germans might buy themselves the
>time they need. If the players want to be historically minded and say that
>Hitler would have declared war on the US no matter what (and I'm inclined
>to this view, given the rationale he offered when he did so) then they can
>just say that as of Jan I 1942, the US and Germany/Italy are at war.
>What I'm suggesting is that the players are intelligent enought that they
>can decide what to do on their own.
Note that if there is some mechanism to delay US entry, then it should work
the other way, too -- there's a chance the US gets in earlier.
Hitler's declaration of war on America is ludicrous on the face of it.
Hitler's Germany never bothered to declare war on any country it invaded --
so they declare war on the one country that's out of their reach? The
declaration of war only makes sense in context of what else is going on.
The German armies in the USSR are being clobbered by General Winter and the
Soviet counterattack by mid Dec. 1941. Wouldn't it be nice if the Japanese
declared war on the USSR, which maybe would take some of the pressure off
the Germans? The only way to gain the Japan's trust here is to declare war
on their big enemy. Of course it doesn't work, but Hitler and company had
already departed from reality some time ago.
In game terms, if we make the declaration of war against the US something
the German player can decide on, then there should be some sort of carrot
and stick approach -- a small chance that a German DoW will get Japan to
attack the USSR and divert a few Soviet troops and supplies. Now, if the US
is almost certain to enter the war sometime, then voluntarily declaring war
on the US to try for the Japan card may make sense.
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:11:19 +0100
From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland)
Subject: Re: SF end game/Rivers
Jason wrote:
etc.
>Not that much from Greece and Yugoslavia really reaches areas north of
>the Sava(?, the one bordering yugoslavia and Hungary) River and they
>could be released based on a timetable after defection/conquest of
>Romania and Bulgaria. Everything else should remain in Yugoslavia
>fighting off Tito's partisans and the Bulgars and the odd soviet units.
>
Not quite, Jason. The river bordering Yugoslavia and Hungary is the Druna.
The Sava is the river that runs through the middle of Zagreb (the Croatian
capital) and then defines the northern border between Croatia and Bosnia,
terminating in Belgrade (Serbia).
Regards
Perry ...-
From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue)
Subject: Re: occupation policies (fwd)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:08:51 -0500 (EST)
Jason,
You wrote that
>From some of the stuff I've read it seems that some areas in Russia where
> the residents were well treated by the Germans that little partisan activity
> occured. This doesn't appear to be the case in Yugoslavia.
> The difference seems to be that the ethnic groups in Russia were
> resentful of the Soviets while the Serbs were resentful of the invaders.
> I'm not greatly worried about the SE theater as it required far less of a
> garrison than did russia.
>
> Jason
>
I assume that you are using the phrase "well treated by the Germans"
in a relative sense. E.g. no systematic large scale massacres occured in
these areas. Which areas are you refering too?
Best Wishes,
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:25:43 +0100
From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland)
Subject: Re: occupation policies
Jason wrote:
>Steve,
>From some of the stuff I've read it seems that some areas in Russia where
>the residents were well treated by the Germans that little partisan activity
>occured. This doesn't appear to be the case in Yugoslavia.
>The difference seems to be that the ethnic groups in Russia were
>resentful of the Soviets while the Serbs were resentful of the invaders.
>I'm not greatly worried about the SE theater as it required far less of a
>garrison than did russia.
>
I think you will find a large proportion of partizans were in fact ethic
Croats. Certainly, there were a great many Serbian partizans, but it would
be very wrong to think of Tito's partizans as being essentially Serbian in
nature.
On the other hand, Mikhaelovic's Chetniks were very much a Serbian
movement. These delightful chaps were pro-Axis (this bit of history is
fascinating but also very complex).
As for the reason the Germans had such a hellish time in Yuogoslavia, the
short answer is that the German's were in the midst of a multi-sided
conflict, the last act of which thawed out in 1991, and it was these
internal political tensions that made the region so nightmarish. Add to
this the brutal and ham-fisted Nazi strategy in the region (which made
neither political nor military sence) and you had all the ingredients for
one of the nastiest corners of an already nasty world war.
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:33:18 +0100
From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland)
Subject: Re: Italy
Dave Lippman wrote at some length about that might war leader, Il Duce.
Gosh,but what about making the trains run on time? ;)
From: Jay Steiger/Forte <Jay_Steiger/Forte.FORTE@notes.san.fhi.com>
Date: 14 Mar 96 10:26:45 PS
Subject: Italy etal
Greetings all,
Regarding Dave's commentary about the redoubtable Duce, I have a bit of trivia
to add. Mussolini made the so called "March on Rome" of 1921 (22?) into a
major part of fasicst folklore. Supposedly Mussolini and his boys marched into
Rome and saved it from the anarchy of the socialists and communists. Yeah,
right. At the time the march was being undertaken, Mussolini was off in Milan
with suitcase packed, ready to split for Switzerland if the government reacted
against the fascists. He had no intention of sticking around to become a
martyr for the cause. The march, incidentally, got stuck in the mud south of
Rome and consisted of a few thousand poorly organized and armed blackshirt
bullys. If the King had called out the army, they would have obeyed, and
crushed the blackshirts. Mussolini only came to Rome to meet with the King
after recieving royal guarantees of his safe passage. As a contrast to
Mussolini's actions: During the Beer Hall Putch of 1923, Hitler stood front
rank with his brownshirt buddies when the police opened fire in Munich. The
men to his immediate left and right were shot, but Hitler was unharmed (darn!).
It's information like this, that makes history come alive. Dave's other
commentary about public disinterest and disdain for history is very
appropriate. I remember the Nerds movie and it was true that all the problems
were solved by clever technological thinking. This is a common theme in the
media (movies, tv, and print). History is old and science will solve our
problems. I don't knock science, it is critical, but history is very important
as well. By the way, gamewise, the "nerds" I have run into, generally play
role playing games, not history. I suppose the idea of becoming a 6'4"
musclebound warrior with a giant broadsword has a certain appeal so some who
have been the object of scorn and harassment in the past. Whatever...(my BA is
in psychology, so I can't resist a little analysis now and then). Thanks to
Ray and Jim for backpats for we younger historians (in training).
P.S. to Elias, feelings that wargamers must therefore be warmongers is not
restricted to Sweden. In my undergraduate days, I was very careful about
discussing my hobby in public because of there seemed to be only two camps of
students. One was extremely anti-war and anti-military and the other was right
wing of the soldier of fortune variety. That is an exaggeration, but jeez,
it's too much of a headache for me. I don't want to be viewed as a fascist,
nor do I want to hang out with the fascists.
Again, whatever...
Jay Steiger
San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:41:22 -0800
From: Peter Morris <PMORRIS@CCCIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Computers and Europa
Jason Long wrote:
>
> I've played Stalingrad as well and it offers some tastes of what Computer
> Europa could be like. However the game is badly researched and I have
> serious qualms about the system as the offense seems too powerful in all
> the scenarios I've played.
>
> Jason
Badly researched? In what way? I compared the German OB and intitial
placement to the data in V.E. Tarrant's book "Stalingrad" and things looked
pretty good. Is the Soviet OB in error? Or is the German OB wrong, too?
The offense is too powerful? Are you playing against humans or the computer
AI?
My experience is that the AI can be beaten both on offense and defence.
Humans are a different story. I have played the Germans in the campaign game
and won and lost. The difference is primarily the player. Against better
players I lose, and against poor players I win.
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 11:03:21 -0800
From: Peter Morris <PMORRIS@CCCIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Italy
Dave wrote, in part:
>So whatever shape Italy takes in Europa (I find it hard to see as an
>independent player, but it could be done), it will have to reflect on the
>personality of this sawdust Caesar, this strutting pretender, whose image
>remains that of Mussolini's shaven skull, head flung back, jaw pointed up,
>as he delivers yet another bellicose and bombastic speech to his army of
>claques, forever thrusting out a flabby, insubstantial aggression towards
>the world.
Wow! Great post. Dave, you are a walking history book.
I must compliment you on your writing ability as well.
Do you see a GE Variant as the ability for Italy to remedy some of these
mistakes. That is, can Italy *not* sell the best arms, or *not* send troops
to freeze to death on the endless steppe?
And how did your sailor make out?
From: psmith@hpmail2.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Paul Smith)
Subject: Germany declaring war on the US
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:16:30 -0600 (CST)
John Astell wrote:
>
>In game terms, if we make the declaration of war against the US something
>the German player can decide on, then there should be some sort of carrot
>and stick approach -- a small chance that a German DoW will get Japan to
>attack the USSR and divert a few Soviet troops and supplies. Now, if the US
>is almost certain to enter the war sometime, then voluntarily declaring war
>on the US to try for the Japan card may make sense.
>
Sure, if Germany does NOT declare war, then perhaps the USSR doesn't need to
send as many troops to the Far East (they show up against Germany instead).
On the other hand, if they Do declare war, then it may indeed help the situation
in the USSR as you suggested (at least for the short term).
However, I agree that war between the US and Germany is ultimately inevitable.
Even if Germany decides to NOT declare war, it will only (perhaps) delay entry
of the US.
--
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."
--
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 08:23 GMT
Subject: Italian Rail
About Benito making the trains run on time:
"To quote Bergen Evans, 'The trains did not run on time! I was
employed as a courier by the Franco-Belgique Tours Company in the summer
of 1930, Mussolini's heyday, when a fascist guard rode on every train and
I am willing to make an affidavit to the effect that most Italian trains
on which I traveled were not on schedule -- or near it. There must be
thousands who can support this attestation. It's a trifle, but it's worth
nailing down."
This from Lies, Legends, and Cherished Myths of American History, by
Richard Shenkman, Harper and Row, New York, 1988.
The story of making the trains run on time is from an incident when
the Fascist Minister of Transport needed to take a train from Florence to
Rome, but no engineer could be found. The Minister, a former railroader,
simply hopped on the footplate, and brought the train in on time.
Best,
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:49:15 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Re: Italy etal [Warning, somewhat off-topic post]
On 3/14/96, Jay Steiger/Forte sent greetings and:
>"March on Rome" of 1921 (22?)
1922.
>I remember the Nerds movie and it was true that all the
>problems were solved by clever technological thinking.
>This is a common theme in the media (movies, tv, and
>print). History is old and science will solve our problems.
Interesting the way things happen. In a psychology course I'm
currently taking, I made comparisons between the rise of the
Psychoanalytic movement, and the rise of Fascism. This led to a
discussion of science vs. humanities and the drastic overall change
in focus of university education from a humanities concentration to a
science one just in this century. Be happy to discuss more off-line.
Regarding Italy itself, when you look at the Italy of 1922, and the
Italy of Mussolini 20 years later [in 1942], I don't know that it can
be said that Musso created a 'revolution' in Italy. Sure, the trains
ran on time [sometimes], and the Pontine marshes were filled in to
create a jello-like basis for flimsy housing, but the corruption,
industrial chaos, and ineffectualities that existed in 1922 were just
as prevalent in 1942, they'd just trickled up to the top of the
decision-
making structure. If ever a country cried out for Europa idiot rules,
Italy's the one.
Ray
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 09:05 GMT
Subject: Sea Lion and fiction
The subject of the Nazi invasion of Britain, one of history's
leading what-ifs, has been a considerable subject of fiction, not only by
C.S. Forester. He wrote his story in late 1941, after the sinking of the
Bismarck (which is why Admiral Lutjens figures in the story and HMS Hood
is quickly sunk).
Major Kenneth Mackesy, a British historian and military writer,
offered his view of Sea Lion in a book called Invasion 1940. His thesis
saw Hitler pay attention to Adm. Raeder's suggestion of a quick July
invasion, and the Germans conquered Britain.
I saw a novel on the same subject in the NYU library in 1982, with
the same results. I can't recall the name (I was an alcoholic at the
time), but its features included a "death ride" of the Royal Air Force,
and King George VI and the Royal Family escaping to Canada on board HMS
Rodney, while England collapsed.
I saw another novel on the subject here in New Zealand, written
after a wargame involving a number of officers who had been in the Battle
of Britain on both sides. In this book, the British cut off the German
supply chain across the Channel and ultimately defeated the Germans.
A recent BBC TV series showed Britain under Nazi occupation in 1964,
20 years after the end of WW2.
The most familiar image of the Nazi conquest of Britain is Len
Deighton's horrific novel, SS-GB, which gives us Britain under the
occupation in 1941. A puppet government occupies Westminster, Buckingham
Palace is a crumbling ruin, St. George's Hospital at Hyde Park Corner is
the SS Hospital, and SS and Wehrmacht checkpoints dot London.
Most of the book concerned the murder of a British atomic scientist.
The investigator, a noted British Scotland Yard detective, "Archer of the
Yard," is also involved with internal politicking with his SS and
Wehrmacht police masters. As Archer pursues the case, it leads him both
to the British resistance and German atomic bomb developments in thriller
fashion, and to the gravely wounded King George VI, who is an infirm
prisoner in the Twoer of London.
The book had a great deal of color of British life under the Nazis,
which I found terrifying, because my mother and her whole family are
British Jews, who have provided the Crown with soldiers and sailors since
1660. It was frightening spectacle....SS men rounding up all the children
and teachers at a school and hauling them off to certain
extermination...concentration camps in Wandsworth...a corner of London
that had been turned into a warehouse of child prostitution by starving
people...PoW camps where senior British officers were, in defiance of
Geneva Conventions, were put to work creating artificial limbs for the
hordes of defeated British soldiers who'd lost their arms and legs in the
final battles for Tunbridge Wells and Reading.
Probably the most heartbreaking image was of an underground British
club, where, in secret, Britons heard Vera Lynn sing "We'll Meet Again"
and "White Cliffs of Dover," and think of their husbands, brothers, and
sons, who were all in PoW camps in Germany, working as forced labor. I
knew damn well that the two songs really were about soldiers, sailors and
airmen who were busy defeating Hitler, and most of them DID come back,
having won freedom. But in this world, they weren't.
When we had the V-J Day Remembrance Concert in Christchurch last
year, a packed Town Hall audience leaped to its feet to wrap up the
concert with that song, and I still cry a little when I sing "We'll Meet
Again."
The force of the difference between victory and defeat in WW2 is
well shown in novels like these. They go to considerable lengths now.
"Clash of Eagles" followed up beyond Sea Lion and sent Hitler's tanks
across Greenland, into North America, and Canada. The book opened with
them goose-stepping down New York's Fifth Avenue and establishing an
occupation that proceeded to loot the city's wealth (most notably the
Jews) via the Mafia, and imposing food rationing such that black
marketeers were selling $4 hotdogs of fried rat (a singularly unpalatable
spectacle). The good guys, led by a former Irish Republican Army bigwig,
led the counteroffensive by snarling the New York subway, which would
doubtless wreck the city in any decade.
The book had its bizarre touches (cover art of Me 109s dogfighting
near the Empire State Building, Rommel and Guderian discussing the drive
on Pittsburgh, Phil Rizzuto on the run from the Nazis) but certainly gave
one an idea of New York under Hitler. Somehow it didn't terrify me as
much as the fictional Sea Lions, as the chances of a Nazi invasion of New
York seemed far less likely.
A few years ago, British newsman Robert Harris, who had authored the
history of the Hitler Diary hoax, turned his abilities to a first novel,
"Fatherland," which gave the picture of Berlin under Hitler on April 20,
1964. The Nazis reigned supreme in Europe, but a weakening economy and an
endless war in Russia was the breaking the underpinnings of the Nazi
culture of endless recordings of The Merry Widow, Hitler's favorite
opera. Indeed, in the book, the "pernicious Negroid wailings" of a
quartet of floppy-haired English rock musicians in Hamburg nightclubs is
attracting student attention and irritating the Gestapo.
The plot of this book is a murder investigation by a disillusioned
detective, Xavier March, who stumbles onto the secret of the century, the
Nazi extermination of Europe's Jews, which has been a thundering success
and is quite complete. Now this grand assassination is being wrapped up
as the top Nazis, Hitler and Heydrich, remove the members of the 1942
Wannsee Conference that set the Final Solution officially into motion. In
solving one crime, March discovers the greatest crime in history.
Backgrounding this trail (which Harris borrowed from good research
and actual documents) is an investigation on March and an approaching
summit between Hitler and U.S. President Joseph Kennedy (the father) to
reconcile Germany and the United States. The extermination documents,
once revealed, will rip the lid of secrecy off the Holocaust and bring
down Hitler...maybe.
The book had a great deal of color of the New Order in 1964...the
Hermann Goering Airport, with a statue of Hanna Reitsch, made from
melted-down Spitfires and Lancasters...the Crimea turned into Germany's
Riviera...Germans being encouraged to settle empty swatches of Russia as
colonists...Josef Goebbels still cheating on his wife at age 75...Nazi
nuclear-powered submarines based at Trondheim and aircraft carriers,
named after Donitz and Raeder...the Tokyo Olympics being the first since
1936, boycotted by the U.S....Churchill about to die in Canadian exile,
where Elizabeth II claims the throne, which in London is occupied by King
Edward VII and Queen Wallis...Germany having corralled Europe in to an
inefficient 13-nation trading block...down to a listing of Nazi holidays
in 1964.
Fatherland was made an HBO movie with Rutger Hauer and Miranda
Richardson, and gained a more upbeat ending.
Books like these entertain, and they also hold our feet to the fire.
We realize just what the world might have been like had Hitler won the
war.
Best,
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:34:14 -0500
From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell)
Subject: Re: Italy (Mussolini)
Dave had an excellent post about Mussolini. Does power go to the head, or
what. Yes, little different in principle to Kim Il Sung of recent times, or
even Ramses II of ancient times.
I have a quibble and a (somewhat unrelated) question:
Quibble: Graziani wasn't as bad as many people make out. While he did
poorly in Egypt (a campaign he opposed), he allegedly did quite well in
Ethiopia -- his handling of light armor columns was supposed to be quite
skillful and a taste of what the Germans developed as the blitzkrieg.
Question: I've never bothered to track down what signficance those dates
mean on those CCNN units that bear them as their IDs. I'm sure it has
something to do with Fascist history. Anyone know what?
Date: 14 Mar 96 16:00:13 EST
From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com>
Subject: The Battle for Rome and 3-3-2
I've recently had the pleasure of setting up and tinkering with Frank Watson's
latest scenario, and I'd like to comment on an issue that it highlights very
clearly: The 3-3-2 stacking limit is overly restrictive, and probably
disfunctional in Europa.
I've always been perplexed by stacking limits in war games, especially when they
lead to the mass extermination of the offenders. More often than not, they
actually prevent historical concentrations of units. When the limits aren't just
a means of keeping stacks of cardboard manageable (we have corps counters now),
they seem to be an ad hoc way of compensating for more fundamental imbalances
in the system. (If the Soviets as rated, and given the CRT, seem to be too
effective in the attack, just cut their stacking limit - that'll fix 'em.)
I'm a little sceptical about how much thought or testing has been given to the
premise that a 4-4-3 stacking limit (my recommendation) would cause (or rather,
uncover) imbalances in Europa, and if so, whether addressing the real root of
the problem wouldn't be a better solution.
Admittedly, I'm out of the mainstream on a lot of Europa issues, but wouldn't
the sort of player who is drawn the formal precision of Europa, like carefully
researched unit id's, rather see an adjustment in the CRT or a conditional
die-mod than have to place a bunch of units behind a line when they should be
able to fit in? Doesn't operational precision, or even rough similiarity, count
for anything?
Look at the setup for Diadem in Frank's scenario. Historically, the Allies had
the 2 US divs, 3 (maybe 4) French divs at any one time, 3 CW divs, and lots of
non-div units, all attacking from 2 hexes - and into mountains, no less. This is
no isolated problem, and increased stacking would actually improve the
historical accuracy of this scenario.
Regarding overstacking, it's interesting that the employment of the Canadian
Corps in Diadem provides a casebook example of the actual effects of
"overstacking" (they far exceeded 4-4-3 at this point). The 8th Army got itself
in a traffic jam, and the efficiency of the attack was greatly reduced. I'm sure
that most players wouldn't want to bother with additional rules for
overstacking, but a good representation of what it means in fact would be a
movement penalty for moving out of an overstacked hex, maybe a restriction on
advancing after combat, and some kind of die-roll to see if an excessive stack
results in a die-mod penalty on the CRT.
Jim
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:48:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Mark H Danley <danley@ksu.ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: Grand Europa
On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Steve wrote:
> > Will France always fall in 1940?
>
> Why bother setting them up if they can't survive? Just set aside the
> German units involved, put a certain number of losses in the dead pool and
> move on to the battle of Britain, which since we know how that came out can
> be similarly handled...you see where I'm headed with this.
Needless to say, I agree wholeheartedly, - though those of you who
survived my Fall of France rantings a few weeks ago know what I for one
tend to think.
Besides, suppose we did simply accept the proposition that
"France did fall, therefore France MUST fall in Europa - otherwise it
won't be WWII?" That's about as unreasonable as me answering the SE-is-
designed-so-the-Germans-can-never-win faction with a response that
"Germany did lose, therefore they MUST lose, or the game won't be WWII!"
Still, if you want to assume that France falls, just do what
Steve suggests (put a number of losses in the dead pool, etc.) and start
the game in 1941! It WOULD be a fun game, but - even if you left grand
strategic decisions out of players' hands - it wouldn't be a game about
WWII - it'd be a game about the second half of WWII.
Will Hitler declare war on the United States, after the Japanese attack?
>
> I'd say that the Germans should make that decision, but the USA should be
> allowed to come into the war anyway within a variable time- the American
> press had orchestrated a massive anti-German propaganda campaign by late
> 1941. US ships were already attacking German ships at sea. Perhaps an
> automatic but variable level of escalation, like the Malta roll.
> Eventually the US will get in, but the Germans might buy themselves the
> time they need. If the players want to be historically minded and say that
> Hitler would have declared war on the US no matter what (and I'm inclined
> to this view, given the rationale he offered when he did so) then they can
> just say that as of Jan I 1942, the US and Germany/Italy are at war.
> What I'm suggesting is that the players are intelligent enought that they
> can decide what to do on their own.
>
ABSOLUTELY - you're points about public opinion are well taken. I worked
on a project for a graduate seminar in the History of the American West
about public opinion and the war in 1940 in Kansas. Even in a staunchly
Republican and isolationist state, people began to change their story
after the fall of France. Newspapers, local Republican politicians and
individuals who had previously had isolationist leanings began to get
more anti-German.
At least one historian has argued that Roosevelt and Harry
Hopkins planned to have the US in the war by the end of 1941 one way or
the other. Waldo Heinrichs in _Threshold of War_ argued that the
Roosevelt adminstration tried to ease the US into war throughout the
year, by gradually acting less and less like a neutral (selling weapons,
escorting merchant shipping, gradually tightening the oil embargo against
Japan, etc.). Further, Heinrichs argues that Roosevelt never separated
the idea of going to war with Germany and Japan - he knew that the
American people would buy a war against Japan even more easily than a war
against Germany, but that he could ease the country into war against
Germany. The idea was to push the United States so close to defacto
belligerence that by time _Japan_ attacked, everyone would say "well, we
may as well fight those damn Nazis too"
Please, before anyone scolds me with a message that "In GE
players will not be national leaders like Roosevelt so this doesn't
matter" understand that all I'm trying to do here is show that there is
some scholarly evidence for what Steve is saying. Besides, if I
understand Steve correctly, the last thing he's advocating is giving the
decision for US entry to players - rather it seems like to me he has
offered here a historically plausible model to handle the situation
outside realm of player-level decisions.
Mark
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:46 GMT
Subject: Fascism and technocracy
The 20th century is indeed the rise of 'isms,' when wars stopped
being fought for control of land and instead for control of minds and
ideologies.
British writer Roger Manvell pointed out in his book on the SS and
the Gestapo that the Nazi creed held an attractiveness for many
intellectuals, whom Manvell described as having "sterile minds." These
folks, usually permanent denizens of universities, had all kinds of
theories on why the world was in its present post WW1-mess.
Indeed, there is a pseudo-intellectualism to Fascism and Nazism in
its turgid philosophical literature. Oswald Mosley's contribution to this
mucky soup was "The Greater Britain," which urged that Britain be run as
a corporate state.
Alfred Rosenberg, who went on to become the savage butcher of the
Ostland, wrote "The Myth of the 20th Century," that contained much of the
basis of Nazi theory. Rosenberg's prose was worse than Hitler's. At the
time, Goebbels dismissed the work as "an ideological belch." Nonetheless,
Goebbels' propaganda ministry claimed that as soon as a U-Boat returned
to base, its grease-stained crewmen first reached for a copy of
Rosenberg's book. History has forgotten both the work and the author, who
was hanged at Nuremberg for his hypocritical villainies (butchering Jews
while squiring a Jewish mistress) in Russia.
Muddled thinking, of course, is as old as mankind, and has outlasted
World War II. A prominent re-surfacing of it came in the late 1960s, as
anti-war activists crowded American colleges and universities, seeking an
end to the Vietnam War and other social ills.
While their aims may have been laudable, their methods were
questionable, and their vocabulary was almost incomprehensible.
The New Left viewed the world in conspirational terms. Outsiders
viewed the New Left as Communistic. It wasn't. It disdained the Communist
Party of the United States, mostly for the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression
Pact. The New Left had its own vocabulary, using phrases like "creative
tension," and "non-negotiable demands."
But "non-negotiable demands" could be negotiated, and "nonviolent"
demonstrations included throwing rocks. Their behavior was designed to
irritate their parents, who often were liberals who supported the same
causes as the violent children. It was an adult version of a child
running into a family dinner to spout forth a dirty word, thus shocking
the elders and gaining attention.
The New Left succeeded in alienating a great portion of the American
people, and its leaders, as they gained age and wisdom, began to realize
they had misbehaved and admit their mistakes. Jerry Rubin became a
stockbroker, Tom Haydon a politician, Bobby Seale a shill for videotapes
on barbecuing, Eldridge Cleaver a conservative Republican, Jane Fonda a
housewife. All admitted that their deeds and rhetoric had been immature,
divisive, and wrong.
Unfortunately for the world, the Nazis showed far less candor, and
caused more bloodshed.
Best,
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:13 GMT
Subject: Mussolini and Graziani
Dear John:
As far as Rodolfo Graziani goes, he was extremely brave in fighting
badly-armed Libyan and Ethiopian tribesmen. He also was quite right, the
Italian 6th and 10th Armies were in no shape for offensive warfare.
However, once they reached Sidi Barrani, Graziani's hand on the
campaign was non-existent. (I just wrote an article on this campaign for
Military History magazine) His troops dug in to non-supporting entrenched
camps, where they could be destroyed in detail.
When the British crashed through his lines, Graziani gave out few
orders from his Cyrene bunker. Instead he intrigued against his chief of
staff, Badoglio, and sent whining telegrams to Mussolini decrying his
fate. Il Duce showed remarkable cool under the circumstances, taking the
chain of bad news with calm, commenting only that defeats and hard knocks
were to be expected in war.
But while the Italian armies disintegrated at Bardia and Benghazi,
Graziani huddled in his bunker, whining. At one point, he telegraphed
Mussolini, threatening suicide. His opponents, most notably Sir Richard
O'Connor, were by comparison leading from the field. These blunderings
(which presage Lloyd Fredendall at Kasserine) only worsened the Italian
army's flabby leadership situation.
Graziani received the sack after Beda Fomm, for obvious reasons. He
spent the next three years in obscurity.
After the Salo Republic came into existence, Graziani signed on with
this ruined band, seeking revenge against the British and Badoglio. He
gained neither, but instead a reputation as a brutal partisan-hunter,
hurling outfits like the Decima Mas under Prince Valerio Borghese into
the hills of Tuscany and Appennines against the pro-Communist Garibaldi
brigades. Graziani's men turned the poverty-stricken mountains into
wastelands in this bloody civil war. He willingly accepted German
decorations, and was even present at the mad tea party in Rastenberg that
followed the 20 July 1944 attempt on Hitler's life.
As far ast the dates on the CCNN units: send them down to me in an
E-mail and I'll take a look in my various biographies of Mussolini. I'm
pretty sure they're important dates in the 1922 seizure of power.
Best,
Dave Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
From: grd1@genie.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 00:54:00 UTC 0000
Subject: Re: Grand Europa
RE: German Declaration of War on US
If Germany did not DW on US then the allies wouldn't have taken some of the
heavier naval losses sufered in late-41/early-42.
US lend lease shipments to Britain in 1942 would have increase.
Allied shipyards could have been building more LC.
US "volunteers" would probably have joined the RAF in large numbers.
Hitler couldn't ignore these actions, and would have been baited into
declaring war sooner or later. US troop movements to Europe didn't amount
to much before mid-42 anyway.
If Japan did declare war on the USSR would they have done so in winter? If
they did DW USSR in spring/summer of '42 how would that affect their war on
China and in the Pacific? Japan's hands were full, adding Stalin to their
list of enemies wouldn't have been a very smart idea.
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 19:25:02 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: The Battle for Rome and 3-3-2
>I've recently had the pleasure of setting up and tinkering with Frank Watson's
>latest scenario, and I'd like to comment on an issue that it highlights very
>clearly: The 3-3-2 stacking limit is overly restrictive, and probably
>disfunctional in Europa.
Hurray! Tell 'em, Jim. (Except I'd vote for 5-5-3 instead of your 4-4-3.)
- Bobby.
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 19:30:42 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: Fascism and technocracy
> The 20th century is indeed the rise of 'isms,' when wars stopped
>being fought for control of land and instead for control of minds and
>ideologies.
I would have thought that WWII was very much "fought for control of land".
> Muddled thinking, of course, is as old as mankind, and has outlasted
>World War II. A prominent re-surfacing of it came in the late 1960s, as
>anti-war activists crowded American colleges and universities, seeking an
>end to the Vietnam War and other social ills.
> While their aims may have been laudable, their methods were
>questionable, and their vocabulary was almost incomprehensible.
> The New Left viewed the world in conspirational terms. Outsiders
>viewed the New Left as Communistic. It wasn't. It disdained the Communist
>Party of the United States, mostly for the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression
>Pact. The New Left had its own vocabulary, using phrases like "creative
>tension," and "non-negotiable demands."
> But "non-negotiable demands" could be negotiated, and "nonviolent"
>demonstrations included throwing rocks. Their behavior was designed to
>irritate their parents, who often were liberals who supported the same
>causes as the violent children. It was an adult version of a child
>running into a family dinner to spout forth a dirty word, thus shocking
>the elders and gaining attention.
> The New Left succeeded in alienating a great portion of the American
>people, and its leaders, as they gained age and wisdom, began to realize
>they had misbehaved and admit their mistakes. Jerry Rubin became a
>stockbroker, Tom Haydon a politician, Bobby Seale a shill for videotapes
>on barbecuing, Eldridge Cleaver a conservative Republican, Jane Fonda a
>housewife. All admitted that their deeds and rhetoric had been immature,
>divisive, and wrong.
I guess I missed the Europa connection in these last few paragraphs...
- Bobby.
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 21:49:22 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Re: 1st Pz XX [longish]
On 3/14/96, Rich Velay [speaking AS Rich Velay] stated:
>The main reason 1st Panzer was sent to Greece was to
>guard against an anticipated Allied landing, after Africa
>was lost. They weren't there as part of the Anti-Partisan
>garrison so much as a mobile reserve to protect Hitler's
>southern flank.
That's exactly the point: If Africa is not lost on the historic
timetable; if the Axis is doing much better [or worse] in the USSR
than historically; if the Allies decide on and execute a
cross-Channel attack in 1943; etc., etc., what rationale is there for
any particular unit to be forcibly sent to, or forced to remain in, a
particular geographic location?
>A number of the units in the SE holding box are fulfilling
>similar functions, like the 22 Luftland on Crete and Rhodes
>(either place, at various times) and the Lehr and 21st
>Panzer Divs that so inconveniantly go there over
>winter/spring '44.
As I stated in another context, it makes much more sense to generally
state that: upon fulfillment of condition "a" [in the case that you
cite, the fall of Africa], "x" number of REs [or AFs or DFs] need
to garrison geographic region "512" [in this case, the Balkan
states].
As for mathematical blind doo dah hocus pocus about near-
infinite permutations, that's a lot of eyewash [as my granddad would
say. Dear Lord, I'm not turning into my father, I'm turning into my
grandfather!]. To paraphrase the paraphrase of the Luftwaffe Fat Man,
"when I hear the word factorial, I reach for my gun.'
The following is entirely on the fly:
If we break it down relatively minutely [for the sake of argument,
this would not necessarily be my recommendation], and allow each
state, SIGNIFICANT [politically or due to size] part of a state, or
group of states [in outlying areas] to be a region:
Europe:
Albania; Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Czecho/slovakia (2); Denmark;
Estonia; Finland; France/Vichy (2); Germany [Western/Eastern] (2);
Greece [Communist/Anticommunist] (2); Hungary; Iceland; Ireland;
Italy [North/South, RSI/
Cobelligerant, whatever] (2); Latvia; Lithuania; Netherlands; Norway;
Poland [Western/Eastern due to partition] (2); Portugal; Romania;
Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; USSR [Ukraine; Byeloruss; Russia;
Caucasus/Georgia; Far East] (5); Yugoslavia [just to represent all the
madness] (3)
Total: 40
Plus the N.African/Middle Eastern regions:
Algeria/Morocco/Tunisia; Cyprus/Jordan/Palestine; East African
States; Egypt; Iraq; Iran; Levant ; Saudi Arabian peninsula; West
African States; South African States
Total: 10
That's 50 total [yes, I know, not including the U.S. or Canada. Well,
if they start having garrison, internal turmoil, or invasion problems,
then its pretty much 'game over, man' for the Allies anyhow.]
Then if we say: alright, for each region, for both sides, there are
these possible conditions [historic examples in parens]:
1) Neutral [Switzerland; Sweden]
2) Client/Annexed/Occupied [Slovakia/Luxembourg/France for Axis;
France: 6/40 to raising of sufficient French Combat
REs/Commonwealth?/Iceland? for the Allies]
3) Allied [Italy for Axis; France to 6/40 for Allies]
4) Enemy [U.K. for Axis; Germany for Allies]
5) Civil War [Yugoslavia; Greece]
Each of which has a garrison requirement attached to it
[in REs or AFs or DFs, NOT in specific units (if a coastal region,
perhaps some additional percentage of the requirement can be met, if
Armor or Air units are used to meet the requirement, say: each RE of
Armor = 2 REs, or each Armor AF = 2 other AF), and the reverse for a
region with 50% or more mountain hexes],
depending upon the condition of all adjacent regions, with the most
stringent requirement defining the required garrison. So if the
requirement if all adjacent regions are neutral or allied is 30 REs,
and one of those adjacent regions becomes enemy, which requires that
there be a garrison of 90 REs, then the garrison must go up in the
next friendly player turn.
This would be, in this instance, 30 infantry division-
equivalents. However, if 1 Armor RE equalled 3 Inf REs, and each Air
unit equalled 2 REs, then the requirements could be fulfilled by 10
Infantry divisions, 5 Armor divisions, and 8 Air units [1 RE
equivalent over].
So this means that there are 50 [regions] x 10 [conditions, 5 for
each side] x 5 [garrison levels], which looks like 2500 discrete
results to me, and I've done historical set-ups of more damn counters
than that by myself in a day, which is at least as onorous a task.
Given that I have simplified this somewhat [but ONLY somewhat], and
that it is only for one aspect of the overall job, it certainly isn't
a task where the constellations will have shifted unrecognizably
before its done!
>The hand of Dolph is never far away when looking at any
>German move....
While that's an accurate strategic assessment in its historical
context, to say that the hand of Uncle Adolf is inflexible under any
conditions buys more into the German General Staff apologists than it
does help create a simulation.
There are indeed certain activities that can be proscribed as being
out of touch with the historical realities of who Hitler was [the
German armed forces will NOT engage in a runaway defense!], but to
state that he would have dictated the exact same activities by the
same units [or types of units] under varying conditions ignores his
actual, historical responses to situations that DID exist.
Sorry to blather on, but the insistance that historical units/
unit types go to [or stay in] in historical regions under
quasi-historical [at best] Europa circumstances takes Europa out of
the realm of historical simulation, and squarely into the realm of
historical game, and eliminates the option of a Grand Europa.
The mandates from above the level of player decision-
making should be: DIRECTIVE [you must do this if this], GENERAL [x
number of REs (not 169th Inf Div., 1st Pz Div., and 369th Emergency
Lederhosen Bde) go here], CONSTRAINED BY EVENTS, NOT TIME [until
either the Allies are no longer adjacent, or an anti-Axis revolt
occurs, x REs must remain in region 512], and ACTUALLY STRATEGIC, AND
NOT OPERATIONAL IN NATURE.
Otherwise, we might as well play 3R.
This is not rocket science, you know. Historical research is
time-consuming and generally thankless, as John Astell could probably
tell you, but its not like building a V-2. You're supposed to get some
enjoyment out of it.
Ray
From: grd1@genie.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 96 01:27:00 UTC 0000
Subject: Re: Grand Europa
RE: Will France fall?
YES, given anything but totally incompetent German play, France will fall.
However, there remains much to be decided. How quickly? How much of the BEF
got away? How many Germans died to gain the victory (how dearly did the
French sell themselves)? Did Germany also invade the low countries? Or
Switzerland?
To find the answers the campaign does need to be fought.
Alan Tibbetts