From: Rich Velay 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 Subject: GURU:SF Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 06:56:48 PST Hi 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. Subject: Re: GURU:SF Supply Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 11:47:33 -0600 (CST) Rich Velay Said: > > Hi > 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 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" 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 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 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" 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 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 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 Subject: GURU:SF Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 06:58:02 PST Hi 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 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" 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" 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 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 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" 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 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 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" 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" 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 ----------------------------