From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: non GURU :)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 07:00:12 PST
Hi everybody.
Nope, no GURU magic hat on for this one... :)
>.. But mostly the problem is that there is not provision
>in the game for getting air units from theater to theater.
>[I.e., before the Allies take Corsica. -BB] ...
>Since all those air units got to the Med somehow, there has
>to be a way to ship them in the game, so one makes up a
>rule for that. ...
>> Do you think you could get away with making a
>>provisional ruling on transporting aircraft? (Whether by
>>sea, or by flying across Africa, as someone mentioned in
>>an earler post.)
Well, back in my non-GURU days, I asked this question a
couple of times that I recall, and the answer was "No". So
I have to go with what is RAW as the answer man unless the
game and/or rule is demonstrably broken, which it isn't,
IMO.
First of all, you can always repair/replace your Air
units in any theatre you control, so they can shuttle
between fronts this way.
Secondly, as a slick trick, remember that an extended
range mission is at double range, and you get to return at
double range too. So just fly a rail bombing mission from
Alger to France, and return to England. This is effectively
a quadruple range transfer mission.... And since Fighters no
longer have to accompany the mission force to the mission
hex, extended range escort also works out to be a quadruple
range transfer mission.
(Now just why an air unit can fly further when on a
bombing mission than it can when transferring, don't ask
me!) This trick works for anyone with an 18 or better
range, all the way from Alger to England. 15 hex range air
units can manage it from N. Sardinia. For the 14 and under
crowd, you will just have to get 'em aborted and repaired in
the theatre of choice... :(
Now as an optional, totally unofficial House Rule, you
could allow shipping of air units, if you really wanted to.
How about 1 RE for Fighters and 2 REs for anyone else? I
don't know, I'm just making this up as I go along. Oh, and
they have to disembark in a port with an airbase capacity of
at least one and may not fly any mission in a player turn in
which they are transported by sea & they can't use LCs...
Now as a much easier option, why not let the Allies
transfer intact, functioning air units the same way they can
destroyed and damaged ones? Any air unit may "transfer"
from one holding box to another during any friendly initial
phase, they become inoperative following the transfer, which
takes place *after* air units are made operative for that
player turn.
I like *that* one a lot better :)
late/R
>>p.s. -- Did one of the older games have a rule for
>>transporting aircraft to Malta or something? It's been a
>>long time, and I may be remembering a rule proposed in a
>>fanzine.
Think you are remembering an experimental rule from JMA
about getting single engined fighters to Malta in WitD.
We'll have to await the desert revision to see what's up
with that....
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 08:57:06 -0800
From: graham@ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Stacking
At 1:41 AM 22/3/96, Jim Arnold wrote:
>I don't know of a reference where the real-life analog of 3-3-2 stacking
>(3 divs
>with typical support in clear) was described as maximal, or where 4-4-3 (4 divs
>with typical support) showed signs of being crowded. If East Front densities
>were generally less than 4-4-3, it was evidently because of the vast frontages
>to be covered. The same factor would tend to keep Europa stacking in the
>East at
>lower levels.
While higher stacking might be more historical, how would that affect play
balance? Europa as a system favors the offense; increased stacking simply
adds to its abilities.
Consider that non-overrunnable hexes would have to be two or three points
stronger. Attacks would occur at higher odds, further reducing attacker
casualties. Invasions become easier.
Unless you improve the defense significantly, increased stacking limits would
unbalance the game.
---
Stephen Graham
graham@ee.washington.edu
graham@cs.washington.edu
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GURU:SF
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 06:56:48 PST
Hi <ALL>
More SF Garrison stuff...
<>Which brings to mind an old lingering rules question:
<>(thus the GURU header:-) The rules about overruns (or was
<>it the rules about roads?) say something about overruning
<>on a road, that the road effects are used for this. I've
<>always wondered about this. Does it mean that you pay 1 mp
<>to enter the overrun hex? Does this apply even if you're
<>overrunning across a river? Or does it mean that the
<>terrain is considered clear for overrun combat calculation
<>purposes (no halving in mts etc.)? My guess is yes, yes
<>and no, though I'm not sure. Isn't this rule a bit silly,
<>by the way? I can't imagine that several divisions
<>attacking a battallion in the mountains would have an
<>easier time if they drove in column up the road! >
RCV: GURU mode entered... Please refer to note 9 on the
TEC, "Roads, Rairoads and Rail ferries do not negate the
combat effects of hexes or hexsides." Roads affect
movement, not combat. So you can use the road movement
terrain costs for the overrun, but are still affected by the
terrain as far as combat effects go. The cost would, as
usual, depend upon the unit type and the weather. In SF
(but not FitE/SE) during any weather, in any hex except
Mountain and crossing a mountain hexside, the cost to
overrun a hex on a road would be one MP for terrain, plus
the normal overrun and zoc costs, as applicable.
Across a river, the road still doesn't negate combat
effects, but does appear to negate the movement costs
associated with river crossings. When using Optional Rule
44A1., (which I recommend) I suggest an optional optional
treatment; a house rule.
Overruns which cross enemy owned bridges are affected by
normal terrain MP cost; overruns across friendly owned
bridges, captured in that phase by a commando operation, may
use the road movement rate while overruning, and as per
normal for a captured bridge, one friendly unit of any size
ignores the river for combat, and in this case, overrun
purposes.
As for the case of overruns in mountains, I dunno, it
seems to me that it would be easier to do it along a road
than otherwise; the game reflects this, as far as MP costs
go.
<*>Did my explanation of my explanation of my rules court
<*>decision make more sense than my original answer? I hope
<*>so. Thanks for the post.
<>Yes, it did. Though I hardly expected to get a
<>long-winding answer to yes/no questions ;-)
Well, I am pretty long winded! I am also trying to
explain any of these things in as much detail as possible,
not so much for you, specifically, but for other less
experienced players reading the GURU stuff. I figure if I
get one question on a subject, then there probaly others out
there who understand the concept even less.
<>I still think the rules for defenseless garrisons are
<>stupid, though.
Perhaps if you think of them less as "Garrisons" and
more as a bunch of overage security types and impressed
local policemen, that will help. :) Remember, these are
*not* military, defensive garrisons; those are represented
by the units you control. If you leave a city empty, don't
expect the local security detachment to forgo burning the
local crops to fight it out with "real" soldiers...
<>Another thought about the Malta garrison struck me: The
<>Allies have no ground units there except the garrison at
<>the start of the game, right? So the Germans can airdrop
<>on turn 1, wipe out the garrison and capture Malta with a
<>mere parachute battallion (if they have one) without the
<>Allies being able to do anything about it! And even if the
<>Allies are allowed to place units on Malta, I suspect that
<>most people aren't aware of this weird twist of the rules,
<>and thus wouldn't place that extra 0-1-5 construction unit
<>needed to defend Malta.
Per optional Rule 44G3, Valetta as a major port will
have one art def str pt due to its CD level. This is enough
to defeat any airborne overrun, allowing the garrison to
activate.
If this really bothers you, just allow the Allies to set
up any garrison forces they want to, on map, at the start of
the game. These are, for the most part, much more military
in nature than most of the Axis garrisons, and will only
really affect Gibraltar and Malta, so as an option, feel
free.
<>Hey, this is Great! Perhaps Gibraltar can be captured the
<>same way! One could argue the value of Malta to the
<>Germans at this stage, but that's beside the point. The
<>point is that if I was playing SF face to face with
<>someone and did this operation, my adversary would most
<>likely hit me and quit playing. Oh, I'm so annoyed at that
<>magic construction unit...
Again, the rules and garrisons are not there to bail out
people from poor play. Leaving Malta empty of troops and
with no air cover to shoot down the Ju 52's is bad play,
pure and simple. If anyone did this while I was the Axis,
they can be sure that I would land there. Actually, that
is, in fact, one airborne mission I plan every game as the
Axis, just in case.
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:46:33 -0800
From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve)
Subject: Re: Wasserfall
thanks for the wasserfall info. Perry DeHavilland beleives its use would
have been intermittently successful as the Germans and Allies battled back
and forth in the EW/ECM/ECCM battle. Perry feels that the Allies would
have been able to jam the radar systems used to guide the rocket, rendering
it useless- I am not sure that it would be useless any longer than it would
have taken the Germans to devise some new radar to counter the latest
jamming equipment- and on and on.
For Europa, maybe some sort of "EW" index could track who's ahead at the
moment. A lot of people hate the idea of even getting into it, but I enjoy
the air war part of the game and -sin of sins- I like the air system from
SF and would be prefectly content if they never changed it again.
<The Germans came up with a lot of interesting secret and special
<weapons,
Yes- my own favourite is the Gotha 229 'stealth' fighter. After WW2, the
Americans for some reason seem to have become obsessed with turning the
flying wing idea into a strategic bomber. The 2 sources I've seen on it
said that it had outstanding handling characteristics, incredible speed and
a heavy armament. Unfortunately all the Germans had was some gliders, a
prototype and a hangar full of spare parts. Apparantly, the working
prototype still exists somewhere in a museum warehouse (Wright-Patt?)
Steve P.
"Freedom is always against the law."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: GURU:SF Supply
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 11:47:33 -0600 (CST)
Rich Velay Said:
>
> Hi <ALL>
> Regarding the recent question about whether or not reducing a
> force's rail cap on a particular net will effect supply, the answer is NO.
> Much like rail hits don't affect supply, temporary rail capacity reductions
> don't change the fact that the player has X capacity on a net, they just
> change his available capacity.
> So no putting people out of supply with rail marshalling yard attacks
> or Strat air war effects...
> late/R
This is slightly inconsistant. Since you have to build up to 10 to
run supply across it, it makes sense you have to keep it above 10.
Here's a contrived example. Say I have 9 capacity on a rail net.
I temporarily increase it to 10 by spending an extra RP. Can I run
supply across it?
I think it would be "realistic" to allow strat bombing to affect
supply transit. It forces the German to consider the real possible
effects of calling up the strat air force. It also makes them more
apt to defend rail yards from bombing. It also gives the Germans
the ability maybe to slow down the Allied side by affecting a low
rail cap.
Also, the strat war effects, like 10% of capacity are not temporary.
It also would help to simulate the real problems the Germans had
in moving anything during the day later in the war.
This also brings up another sore bone. Harrasement. It is too hard
to be really useful. It takes too many planes, and they get sucked up
on harrasement the whole game turn. We made several attempts to
stop the Germans from moving, flying very large numbers of planes,
over 40 at one point, to little effect, with a few local exceptions.
It would be very hard to replicate the Normandy harassement.
Just my $.02. :)
>
> RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
>
> Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
>
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
jwhite@ghq.com
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:22:42 -0600 (CST)
From: David Holmes <David.Holmes@dlep1.itg.ti.com>
Subject: What about a news group?
Has this list now become so active that we need a news group
(rec.games.board.europa or something) on the Usenet News?
David
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 15:17:36 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: News from Peter Rogers
Here's a forwarded message from Peter Rogers. For those of you who
don't know, Peter was quite active on this list until he left for Tanzania
just before the list usage exploded.
********************************
By: Driessen@Marie.GN.APC.ORG
On: Thursday March 21 1996 at 11:19
Frank:
I'm here on e-mail in Arusha, Tanzania. I don't have my own
account, so it's necessary to send mail to me to
driessen@marie.sasa.unep.no and to include my name in the
subject header so I get a hard copy.
I just wanted to see how life in the Europa world was going.
Did you get my AWW article, and, if you did, what did you
think of it? Has War in the Desert finally made it out?
Life here is pretty good. I've got a permanent place to live
and am wrestling a 1975 Toyota Land Cruiser back into shape so
I can do research in the countryside. There is a potential
scandal brewing at one of my research sites where the anti-
poaching staff may have been involved in rhino poaching, so I
have lots of exciting stuff to keep me busy.
Give my regards to everyone on the Europa mailing list.
Peter Rogers
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: Stacking
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 14:28:24 -0600 (CST)
Stephen Graham Said:
>
> At 1:41 AM 22/3/96, Jim Arnold wrote:
> >I don't know of a reference where the real-life analog of 3-3-2 stacking
> >(3 divs
> >with typical support in clear) was described as maximal, or where 4-4-3 (4 divs
> >with typical support) showed signs of being crowded. If East Front densities
> >were generally less than 4-4-3, it was evidently because of the vast frontages
> >to be covered. The same factor would tend to keep Europa stacking in the
> >East at
> >lower levels.
>
> While higher stacking might be more historical, how would that affect play
> balance? Europa as a system favors the offense; increased stacking simply
> adds to its abilities.
>
I would like to see more causualities on the chop chart. Both on the
attacker and defender, with the attacker taking more losses on the
lower odds attack, and less or none on the high odds attack.
> Consider that non-overrunnable hexes would have to be two or three points
> stronger. Attacks would occur at higher odds, further reducing attacker
> casualties. Invasions become easier.
Keep the current stacking for overruns, since they are not set-piece
attacks, rather fluid moving attacks. Stacking might even be higher for
invasions, look at home many units were crammed in at Normandy in a
week or so. I thought that was the reasoning behind an overstack.
I'm not so sure about this favoring the attacker. I suppose it
depends on the skill levels of the players. We had a bugger of a
time getting good attacks (I don't make attacks where I can get an AH,
as that would be foolish) in Italy and Western Germany.
Invasions are never easy. The best invasion is an unopposed invasion.
>
> Unless you improve the defense significantly, increased stacking limits would
> unbalance the game.
I saw a good example about defense doing ahistorically good. Take Fall of
France. It's almost impossible for the Germans to move as fast as they
did in history.
>
> ---
> Stephen Graham
> graham@ee.washington.edu
> graham@cs.washington.edu
>
>
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
jwhite@ghq.com
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 15:34:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Stephen Balbach <stephen@clark.net>
Subject: Re: What about a news group?
> Has this list now become so active that we need a news group
> (rec.games.board.europa or something) on the Usenet News?
Good idea. rec groups are harder to create since you need a vote and a
minimum number of replies. The best method is to start with an alt group,
establish presidence and then vote on a rec heirarchy group with an
established reader base. There are a number of FAQ's on procedures for
starting a Big Seven soc,comp,misc,etc.. group
(ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.answers)
The FAQ on creating an alt group can be found
http://www.math.psu.edu/barr/alt-creation-guide.html
Probably the next step is read alt.config and post a RFD, wait a week or
so for any discussion.
I help maintain a very well propegated news server and would be happy to
send the controll message when/if it reaches that point :)
/stb
---
Stephen Balbach "Driving the Internet to Work"
VP, ClarkNet due to the high volume of mail I receive please quote
info@clark.net the full original message in your reply.
Subject: Stacking
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 15:46:42 -0500 (EST)
From: "Arius V Kaufmann" <akaufma2@osf1.gmu.edu>
I've always had problems with stacking rules in general. I've always
envisioned some poor MP sentry yelling, "NO! Don't bring that tank in here!
AAAAAAAAH!" As an entire division dies mysteriously. I think that not limiting
stacking is the way to go, with only the first X units' defense factors being
used, all the rest of the units defending at 0, but taking any result.
A 4-4-3 stacking almost seems reasonable, but lemme say the first turn
of Barbarosa would be VERY different. I'm not sure it'd be possible for the
Russkies to make a NOODLE for an additional month or two. Plus, the German
penetration would be much further. If I'm not mistaken, the Germans could be
overrunning 8-point stacks the first turn, and 12-point stacks by the end of the
war. That's a difference from 6-pointers at first and 9-pointers(or is it 10)
at the end of the war. This would GREATLY change Soviet capabilities. Now,
I've heard that, all things being equal, the Germans don't do as well as the
real war, and the Soviets do better. This may fix the problem.
Arius Kaufmann
akaufma2@osf1.gmu.edu
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 15:06:51 -0600 (CST)
From: David Holmes <David.Holmes@dlep1.itg.ti.com>
Subject: Re: What about a news group?
At 03:34 PM 3/22/96 -0500, Stephen Balbach wrote:
>
>> Has this list now become so active that we need a news group
>> (rec.games.board.europa or something) on the Usenet News?
>
>Good idea. rec groups are harder to create since you need a vote and a
>minimum number of replies. The best method is to start with an alt group,
>establish presidence and then vote on a rec heirarchy group with an
>established reader base. There are a number of FAQ's on procedures for
>starting a Big Seven soc,comp,misc,etc.. group
>(ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.answers)
>
>---
>Stephen Balbach "Driving the Internet to Work"
>VP, ClarkNet due to the high volume of mail I receive please quote
>info@clark.net the full original message in your reply.
>
Even though it's harder, I still think a group in the rec heirarchy would be
better, just so it would be easy to find for those Europa fiends perusing
rec.games.board.
David
From: Stuart Dobson <sdobson@sniffle.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 10:14:14 +0000
Subject: help
help
**********************************************************
Stuart Dobson "WHY do you keep touching ME??!!"
Preston - Fourth time of clicking on a man in
Lancashire Warcraft I
UK
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: GURU:SF
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 06:58:02 PST
Hi <ALL>
Victory points make an appearance...
>>Hi Rich! Your post about SF (see below) prompts me for a
>>question regarding how VP:s are counted in SF
>>>But enough of the anti-shipping boys snuck through at
>>>each place to get me 23 hits. That's 92 fat negative VPs
>>>for me to add to my current total of 92, giving me -184
>>>Vps. A nice little cushion when Normandy time comes
>>>around....
>>According to my interpretation of the SF rules, net losses
>>*accumulated* counts for VPs, i.e for naval units you
>>count the number of hits on your units and subtract your
>>accumulated RPs and any hits y Am I right? Or do you start
>>anew after you have calculated VPs and only count net
>>losses incurred since VPs were last counted ? Cheers!
RCV: Your first answer is right. Every VP check,
you simply count up the total of hits taken and naval
units in the replacement pool, at that time, subtract
any saved NRPs from this total, and that gives you the
net losses. If a positive number, ie more losses than
saved NRPs, then multiply by four to get the total VPs
lost for excessive losses. This works the same way for
air and ground units as well, though with different
multiplyers, of course.
For example, in my game above. Let's say that I am able
to inflict 3 Naval hits every month from now until the
next VP check, on Jun II'44. That will mean that the
Allies will still have 23 hits/sunk naval units for that
VP check, and I will get another -92 VPs at that point.
Excessive losses are calculated based on what is
dead/damaged when the VP check is made; when the losses
occured is immaterial.
late/R
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
From: Rich Velay <richv@icebox.iceonline.com>
Subject: non GURU :)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 07:00:12 PST
Hi everybody.
Nope, no GURU magic hat on for this one... :)
>.. But mostly the problem is that there is not provision
>in the game for getting air units from theater to theater.
>[I.e., before the Allies take Corsica. -BB] ...
>Since all those air units got to the Med somehow, there has
>to be a way to ship them in the game, so one makes up a
>rule for that. ...
>> Do you think you could get away with making a
>>provisional ruling on transporting aircraft? (Whether by
>>sea, or by flying across Africa, as someone mentioned in
>>an earler post.)
Well, back in my non-GURU days, I asked this question a
couple of times that I recall, and the answer was "No". So
I have to go with what is RAW as the answer man unless the
game and/or rule is demonstrably broken, which it isn't,
IMO.
First of all, you can always repair/replace your Air
units in any theatre you control, so they can shuttle
between fronts this way.
Secondly, as a slick trick, remember that an extended
range mission is at double range, and you get to return at
double range too. So just fly a rail bombing mission from
Alger to France, and return to England. This is effectively
a quadruple range transfer mission.... And since Fighters no
longer have to accompany the mission force to the mission
hex, extended range escort also works out to be a quadruple
range transfer mission.
(Now just why an air unit can fly further when on a
bombing mission than it can when transferring, don't ask
me!) This trick works for anyone with an 18 or better
range, all the way from Alger to England. 15 hex range air
units can manage it from N. Sardinia. For the 14 and under
crowd, you will just have to get 'em aborted and repaired in
the theatre of choice... :(
Now as an optional, totally unofficial House Rule, you
could allow shipping of air units, if you really wanted to.
How about 1 RE for Fighters and 2 REs for anyone else? I
don't know, I'm just making this up as I go along. Oh, and
they have to disembark in a port with an airbase capacity of
at least one and may not fly any mission in a player turn in
which they are transported by sea & they can't use LCs...
Now as a much easier option, why not let the Allies
transfer intact, functioning air units the same way they can
destroyed and damaged ones? Any air unit may "transfer"
from one holding box to another during any friendly initial
phase, they become inoperative following the transfer, which
takes place *after* air units are made operative for that
player turn.
I like *that* one a lot better :)
late/R
>>p.s. -- Did one of the older games have a rule for
>>transporting aircraft to Malta or something? It's been a
>>long time, and I may be remembering a rule proposed in a
>>fanzine.
Think you are remembering an experimental rule from JMA
about getting single engined fighters to Malta in WitD.
We'll have to await the desert revision to see what's up
with that....
RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com
Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 16:31:25 -0500
From: "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca>
Subject: Re: Stacking
Presumably, the defence would benefit from the increased
stacking limits more than the attacker. In cases where the
attacker could not simultaneously assault a hex from at least
three locations the defender should definitely come out ahead
with this change.
--
James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 16:33:01 -0500
From: "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca>
Subject: Re: What about a news group?
If this list gets accessable from the usenet I'm gone.
--
James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241
From: epinnel@ibm.net
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 16:57:34 +0000
Subject: Re: What about a news group?
FWIW, there already *IS* a group dedicated to Europa. It's called alt.games.europa and we could
start using it immediately. It certainly beats having 30+ emails a day.
Eric Pinnell
(President, CyberSim Inc.)
From: Stuart Dobson <sdobson@sniffle.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 10:14:00 +0000
Subject: Unsubscribe
unsubscribe
**********************************************************
Stuart Dobson "WHY do you keep touching ME??!!"
Preston - Fourth time of clicking on a man in
Lancashire Warcraft I
UK
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 14:01:27 -0800
From: Renaud.Gary@corona.navy.mil (Renaud.Gary)
Subject: ADMIN: What about a news group?
Not for me.
I can do Email basically for free. I have to pay to access to [L]usenet;
it's not worth it.
A mailing list has an owner, who can nuke people who misuse it. That's
much harder (impossible in some cases) on a newsgroup. That's one reason
why I continue to pay for Genie and Compuserve; it's a kinder, gentler,
forum.
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 16:09:39 -0600 (CST)
From: David Holmes <David.Holmes@dlep1.itg.ti.com>
Subject: Re: What about a news group?
Care to elaborate? Some folks have to pay for email by the message. A
newsgroup might save them some money.
David Holmes
At 04:33 PM 3/22/96 -0500, James B. Byrne wrote:
>If this list gets accessable from the usenet I'm gone.
>--
>James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca
Date: 22 Mar 1996 17:21:37 U
From: "Merrill, Robert C" <merrill@txpcap.hou.xwh.bp.com>
Subject: RE: What about a news group?
Steve Balbach has suggested that the Lysator mailing list move to an "alt"
newsgroup, because they are easier to create than the "rec" newgroup
suggested by David Holmes.
Please DON'T do this!! Some of us only have internet access through our
firms. As a consequence, we only have access to those newsgroups which the
company feels "comfortable" with; in our case, that means no "alt" groups.
A private internet account isn't a feasible option for those of us in less
developed parts of the world. I had one in London, but here, my home
phone line can barely sustain a voice link, much less a 14.4 modem rate.
Bob in Bogota
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 15:25:14 -0800
From: graham@ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Stacking
At 2:28 PM 22/3/96, Jeff White wrote:
>Stephen Graham Said:
>I'm not so sure about this favoring the attacker. I suppose it
>depends on the skill levels of the players. We had a bugger of a
>time getting good attacks (I don't make attacks where I can get an AH,
>as that would be foolish) in Italy and Western Germany.
In Second Front, any attack that gives you a 50-50 chance to take the hex
is a good attack for the Allies. As people have pointed out, replacement
points are not generally a problem for the Americans. Particularly in
Italy, fight an attritional battle. The Allies can take more casualties
than the Germans. The American armor brigades are wonderful suicide units.
They generate enough special replacements to pay for the infantry cost and
there are always more armor points. So risk those AHs for some hexes.
>> Unless you improve the defense significantly, increased stacking limits would
>> unbalance the game.
>
>I saw a good example about defense doing ahistorically good. Take Fall of
>France. It's almost impossible for the Germans to move as fast as they
>did in history.
The problem really crops up in 1943 and after. In France, it's more a
matter of players not making the historical mistakes. In Russia in 1943,
the Germans just aren't strong enough on the ground to stop the Russians.
---
Stephen Graham
graham@ee.washington.edu
graham@cs.washington.edu
From: Jay Steiger/Forte <Jay_Steiger/Forte.FORTE@notes.san.fhi.com>
Date: 22 Mar 96 15:24:10 PS
Subject: RE: What about a news group?
Bob said:
>Some of us only have internet access through our firms.<
I have to agree here. I simply cannot afford at this time to fork over the
bucks necessary to upgrade my dinosaur home PC to get on to the net. I can
only access Europa via my work system. (Even then, I can't get into aol or
GENIE or the Website.) I think that ideas about restricting quoting and also
those regarding subject labling to allow for interest sorting, are very good
and might help to decrease the mailsqueeze problem.
Jay Steiger
steigerj@notes.san.fhi.com
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 15:46:19 -0800
From: graham@ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Stacking
At 4:31 PM 22/3/96, James B. Byrne wrote:
>Presumably, the defence would benefit from the increased
>stacking limits more than the attacker. In cases where the
>attacker could not simultaneously assault a hex from at least
>three locations the defender should definitely come out ahead
>with this change.
Normally the defence has fewer units than the attacker. Therefore,
they can't take advantage of the stacking. This is certainly the
case for the Russians in 1941 and 1942 and the Germans in late 1943
and after in both theatres.
In particular, the defender has to present a fairly uniform front. Most
hexes would need the 4-4-3 combination. Otherwise the attacker simply hits
the hexes that are weaker. Do the Russians have the resources for that
stacking in the summer of 1942? No, of course they don't. They shouldn't
have enough resources to build a NODL from north to south. Normally they
have to compromise by forming a refused flank somplace around Tula. The
Russian wet dream would be to have enough resources to meet current stacking
limits along the defense line.
---
Stephen Graham
graham@ee.washington.edu
graham@cs.washington.edu
From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer)
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 12:17 GMT
Subject: Crated air units
There should be some provision for shipping air units as sea cargo
from theater to theater, as that's how a great deal of replacement and
reinforcement aircraft reached many operating areas, especially aircraft
upgrades.
The most noted air transfer route of the war was the USA-Brazil-East
Africa-Takoradi route, which ended up both in Burma and North Africa. One
of the features of that route was the massive airstrip US Army engineers
hacked out of volcanic Ascension Island, a British dependency. That
airstrip remained a US Air Force facility into the 1980s, as it supported
a NASA ground station that helped monitor orbiting manned spacecraft. It
was used by the British military during the Falkland Islands War to stage
forces heading south.
War in the Pacific, SPI's mammoth game on WW2 in the Pacific,
enabled one to crate air unit for shipment as well as fly them from point
A to point B. That game didn't do too well because it was mostly
"logistics in the Pacific" and it bogged down in managing the movement of
vast sums of supply points to obscure atolls. That and some hideously
ugly counters that graced an eye-killing map. The best-looking counters
were on off-map tracks.
Anyway, there should be provision for crating and moving air units
via transport, with size of aircraft determining cargo value as
regimental equivalents. It takes more cargo space to ship a broken-down
Lancaster than a broken-down Spitfire.
David H. Lippman
Public Affairs Officer
US Naval Antarctic Support Unit
Christchurch, New Zealand
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: Stacking
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 18:24:23 -0600 (CST)
Stephen Graham Said:
>
> At 2:28 PM 22/3/96, Jeff White wrote:
> >Stephen Graham Said:
> >I'm not so sure about this favoring the attacker. I suppose it
> >depends on the skill levels of the players. We had a bugger of a
> >time getting good attacks (I don't make attacks where I can get an AH,
> >as that would be foolish) in Italy and Western Germany.
>
> In Second Front, any attack that gives you a 50-50 chance to take the hex
> is a good attack for the Allies. As people have pointed out, replacement
> points are not generally a problem for the Americans. Particularly in
> Italy, fight an attritional battle. The Allies can take more casualties
> than the Germans. The American armor brigades are wonderful suicide units.
> They generate enough special replacements to pay for the infantry cost and
> there are always more armor points. So risk those AHs for some hexes.
One thing I've noticed people miss is that AH is attacker halved. Some
people got to thinking that it's like an HX. Say I attack a German
stack from three stacks, with like 60, 54, and 66 points in each
stack. I get an AH. I have to take 90 points of losses. That's a LOT
of losses for one attack. Plus retreat. Couple of those babies
and you'll be in trouble quickly. Plus it opens you up, with
the retreats, and cadres, etc to a counter attack or at least
a spoiling attack.
Bill Stromberg had an interesting idea of the attack loosing a couple
of RP's (to keep divisons from flipping or silly losses), per
attack you make. This could simulate attacker attrition.
>
> >> Unless you improve the defense significantly, increased stacking limits would
> >> unbalance the game.
> >
> >I saw a good example about defense doing ahistorically good. Take Fall of
> >France. It's almost impossible for the Germans to move as fast as they
> >did in history.
>
> The problem really crops up in 1943 and after. In France, it's more a
> matter of players not making the historical mistakes. In Russia in 1943,
> the Germans just aren't strong enough on the ground to stop the Russians.
>
Okay, here's my slant:
1) The 4-4-3 stack is a super stack.
2) Super stacks can only be made during combat, ie you can't overrun
with a super stack.
3) It takes a corp marker. One corp marker per super stack. You could
then have an OB (isn't there one already?) for the corps.
4) Only a maxi stack (3-3-2) may advance after combat.
5) It costs a resource point per super stack attacking, to simulate
the logisitcal problems.
6) Units must spend two MP's to enter a super stack.
How's that?
There are already ways to circumvent stacking. Take Panther and MkIV
battalions stacking for free with a Pz Div. Plus wasn't there a rule that
allowed fortress divisions stack one extra for free on the Maginot line?
You might also want to limit super stacking to time and nationality.
I was going to say the Russians can't, but then I suspect most of their
attacks were super stacked later in the war.
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
jwhite@ghq.com
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 16:53:35 -0800
From: graham@ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Stacking
At 6:24 PM 22/3/96, Jeff White wrote:
>Stephen Graham Said:
>> At 2:28 PM 22/3/96, Jeff White wrote:
>One thing I've noticed people miss is that AH is attacker halved.
Believe me, I understand what an AH is. I don't advocate seeking that
table out on a routine basis. But it is a valid option for the Allies
at key moments in the Italian campaign. For once in Europa, the strategic
offensive has plentiful replacements. If you end the game with 200+ infantry
replacements, you're not using your forces well.
>Plus it opens you up, with
>the retreats, and cadres, etc to a counter attack or at least
>a spoiling attack.
Not a significant problem. You may have to plug a hole with armor for a turn,
but between that and air power, it's not a big problem for the Allies.
>> The problem really crops up in 1943 and after. In France, it's more a
>> matter of players not making the historical mistakes. In Russia in 1943,
>> the Germans just aren't strong enough on the ground to stop the Russians.
>
>Okay, here's my slant:
[idea deleted]
>How's that?
This doesn't address my fundamental objection. The attack is already
strong in Europa. Why do we need to make it stronger?
---
Stephen Graham
graham@ee.washington.edu
graham@cs.washington.edu
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 21:23:06 -0500
From: "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca>
Subject: Re: What about a news group?
My limited experience with usenet has not been a good one, and I
don't care to find out if it is any better now. If the number
of messages to this list is a concern, and I admit that it is
very high compared to some lists that I belong to, I would
prefer that we petition the list owner to establish a digest
version.
The advantages of a mail list forum vis a vis a usenet feed are
great, not the least of which is controlled access. I perfer
the current arrangement and would be most unwilling to change.
I may have expressed myself a little forcefully, but on
reflection, if these discussions moved to the usenet, I probably
would not participate any further.
--
James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241
From: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 22:01:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Europa unit ratings
John Astell wrote:
>Many US divisions went through the same process -- especially in Normandy.
>Actually, the US upper brass in Europe was way too prone to remove
>divisional commanders for new outfits undergoing their first combat. (I
>guess it was on the theory that it was easier to fire the divisional
>commander than the division -- a philosophy that still applies to many
>sports teams vis-a-vis their coaches!)
James Gavin's comments (as quoted by Russell Weigley) are interesting:
"In the situation at Arnhem, in our earlier battle in Holland, the British
general lost three-quarters of his command and a battle. He returned home a
hero and was personally decorated by the King. There is no doubt in our
system he would have been summarily relieved and sent home in disgrace. ...
Summarily relieving senior officers, it seems to me, makes others
pusillanimous and indeed discourages other potential combat leaders from
seeking high command ... Summarily relieving those who do not appear to
measure up in the first shock of battle is a luxury that we can not afford -
it is very damaging to the Army as a whole. We have much to learn from the
British about senior command relationships."
Arguably, Gavin was being generous to the British, who after all, replaced
several senior commanders in the Normandy period (30th Corps, 51 Highland
Div, 7th Armoured Div, 3rd and 4th Canadian Divs).
Nigel Bradbury
Ottawa, Ont.
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 21:36:59 -0500
From: "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca>
Subject: Re: Crated air units
The only aircraft that were crated were those that didn't have
the legs to make air transfers. Even Mitchells and Lightnings
were generally flown in theater rather than shipped. I doubt
that a Lancaster or any other 4 engine a/c was ever crated
during WWII. Of course, this is the place to find out. If it
ever happened I'm sure that I will hear about it right here.
--
James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 19:42:31 -0800
From: bstone@sub.sonic.net (Bill Stone)
Subject: Re: What about a news group?
>Newsgroup?
"Nuts."
----------------------------
Bill Stone
Santa Rosa, CA
bstone@sonic.net
World War II Web Site:
http://www.sonic.net/~bstone
----------------------------