From: j.broshot@genie.com Date: Sun, 24 Mar 96 09:10:00 UTC 0000 Subject: My $0.02 Worth As one of the old (?) geezers (age 45+, first Europa game purchased in 1975) I am heartened by the fact that Europa is alive and well and living all over the world (despite the doom- sayers on the regular GEnie BBS, The Gamers, and the pronouncements of Quisling Carrillo). I really don't mind the "10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or more" letters awaiting me when I sign on. 1. Crated aircraft: as a do-it-yourself chrome rule I would allow two P-40 counters to appear as naval aircraft in WinD for "Operation Torch:" "The eighth unit from the U.S., the 33rd Fighter Group, would cross the Atlantic with the invasion ships, its 77 P-40F's would fly from the carrier CHENANGO [CVE]". TWELFTH AIR FORCE STORY, by Kenn C. Rust. This practice was used in the Pacific (are you listening, you GLORY boys?). USAAF P-47s were flown off CVEs during the Saipan campaign. Without checking I am not sure of the details on how the British got fighters to Malta 1940-1942. I do know that Spitfires were flown off carriers, both RN and USN. The Hurricanes were delivered, at least in part, during the period in 1941 when the British occupied the "Libyan Bulge," as the airfields around Benghasi were in range of Malta. It should be noted that the tanks shipped by Churchill to Egypt in early 1941 were not adequately protected against the elements and it took time to get them combat ready. 2. Hitler etc. Nazi Germany resembled the Persian Empire during the time of Alexander the Great (areas ruled by satraps with broad authority under an emperor with life and death powers). One of the secrets of Hitler's success was that he played different groups off against each other (the Army against the SA, the Army against the SS, etc.) which was also one of the many reasons for Hitler's demise. Too many cooks spoilt the pot. Name me another country where all FOUR armed services had their own, large ground forces: Army, Air Force (Luftwaffe), Navy (Kriegsmarine coastal defense forces) and Waffen SS. 3. Gas Warfare: the official U. S. Army histories as to the Chemical Corps (two volumes, I think) have a wealth of detail as to the preparations by the U. S. Army for offensive and defensive gas warfare. Both Hitler and Roosevelt were against gas warfare. Two anecdotes: -It was proposed to take out Iwo Jima by bombarding the island with gas from the navy and denied by Roosevelt (I should note that I am the son of a veteran of the Iwo Jima campaign); -Goring, after his capture in 1945, wanted to know why the Allies did not use gas in the Normandy campaign. The German Army was dependent on horse-drawn transport, and no reliable gas masks for horses had been developed. 4. British Army Preparedness: I am somewhat surprised that I didn't get a rise out of anybody when I down-played the state of the British Army at the start of WW2. 5. "Newsletters:" I have no idea what you are talking about. 6. "Over Quoting:" I agree, why. Jim Broshot, St. James MO Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 12:27:30 +0100 From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Surprise!!! Jim wrote: >>I agree with Perry de Havilland that the "surprise turn" is worthwhile, >>all the more so because of the extensive planning and logistical >>preparations it reflects. Actually, I think the surprise turn is more of a measure of *shock* at an operational level on the part of the side taking the hit. Surprise is a force multiplier at both operational and tactical levels and has dramatic implications for combat mobility (itself a force multiplier) for both sides: The surprised side tends to exibit *command paralysis* and therefore a lack of (coherent) orders: i.e. units tend to sit in place. The surprising side tends to already know what it is supposed to do and more importantly, have the *initiative*, meaning it will be in the position to keep making new decisions (i.e. keep moving): hence the *extra* movement phase to show the relative mobility at play here. Planning is a factor but logistics are really another issue again. Then Bobby Bryant wrote: >I agree to the extent that armies sometimes operate more effectively than >others, whether by surprize or by logistics. But for Europa or any >substantial subset of campaigns linked together, we need a mechanism that >lets players generate these circumstances by their play. I have some fairly detailed *generic* surprise rules for a GE type campaign which I will send to anyone interested. They are not play tested, just an idea for a set of non-scenario specific surprise rules: MS Word format for the Mac (but should be PC usable: at least my Mac can read PC MS Word files! I think they are too long to post to this forum so e-mail me if you want them. Regards Perry ...- Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 09:21:24 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen Balbach <stephen@clark.net> Subject: Re: What about a news group? On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Stephen Graham wrote: > At 1:45 PM 3/23/96, epinnel@ibm.net wrote: > > *EARTH CALLING EUROPA MAILING LIST - THERE IS ALREADY A USENET GROUP > >FOR EUROPA CALLED alt.games.europa.* > > It's propagation is horrible. My site, University of Washington, doesn't carry > it, despite a very liberal attitude towards alt groups. > > It doesn't help that someone rmgroup'd it within a few hours of the newgroup. I sent out another control message - hopefully it will make it past the USENET Nazi patrol without discussion on alt.config --- 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. Date: 24 Mar 96 10:55:59 EST From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Stacking Nicholas writes: > It was the idiocy of General Gamelin that allowed the Germans to achieve >[historical results] in the historic case. If a German player can't duplicate it against > a competent French player, it doesn't show that attack in Europa is too weak, but > rather that Gamelin was indeed an idiot. I think my point (and Bobby's) was that the German player can't duplicate it even against an incredibly _in_competent, even idiotic player. (Come to think of it, it's drunks and heavy smokers - not "idiots" - that I've come closest to historical results against!) If you try to simulate historical moves, you simply can't achieve historical results. And (once again) if 4-4-3 stacking is within historical limits (my belief, based on reading situation maps from throughout the war), there's no need for ad hoc rules for its use, and it should improve the simulation. Jim Date: 24 Mar 96 10:55:55 EST From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Surprise!!! Perry writes about the importance of surprise in the "Surprise Turn", and then: > Planning is a factor but logistics are really another issue again. I don't think you can discount the logistical element in the ability to fight two combat phases in one turn. BTW, I added a generic "major offensive" rule to an Alamein scenario I did for TEM awhile back. With army-level supply, much like WD and FWTBT but on a larger scale, using army HQs (a must for GE in any case, IMO), I still think it would work well for GE. Among other things, the rule required the expenditure of twice the combat supply to get the extra move and combat. > I have some fairly detailed *generic* surprise rules for a GE type campaign > which I will send to anyone interested. I am! Jim Date: 24 Mar 96 10:56:00 EST From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: (WWII) no neo-nazis! :) Just a brief interjection of a quote worth quoting for its refreshing wisdom, even though I don't remember the source: "There's no such thing as a _neo_ nazi!" Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 17:15:03 +0100 From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Surprise!!! I wrote: >Planning is a factor but logistics are really another >issue again. To which Jim wrote: >I don't think you can discount the logistical element in the >ability to >fight two combat phases in one turn. I have no problem with the notion of extra supply being required, although I am not overly excited by the notion. I suspect logistic questions are a by-product of the surprise effects being simulated and not directly causal (i.e. surprise turns might use more supply, rather than extra supply is required to enable surprise turns. I am splitting straws here but I think it is important we all agree (ha! fat chance!) on the concept of what a surprise turn is: not just a bout of higher-than-normal intensity combat but a situation that is more of a question of relative states of command and control, both operational effects (i.e. effecting movement) and tactical effects at the sharp end (i.e. effecting strength factors). Regards Perry ...- From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Subject: Master Europa Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 13:05:00 -0500 (EST) Hi, I was just doing some Sunday afternoon web surfing and ran across "Master Europa" on the GR/D web page. This seems to be an alternate set of Europa rules put out by "Task Force Johnson." Has anyone out there tried them? What do you think? (Please indicate in your response whether or not you were involved with writing them!) Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada Date: 24 Mar 96 13:36:24 EST From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: crated aircraft James Broshot asked >Without checking I am not sure of the details on how the British >got fighters to Malta 1940-1942. I do know that Spitfires were >flown off carriers, both RN and USN. The Hurricanes were delivered, >at least in part, during the period in 1941 when the British >occupied the "Libyan Bulge," as the airfields around Benghasi were >in range of Malta. Between August 1940 and Ocober 1942 the Royal Navy mounted 28 delivery ops to Malta, between them they launched 359 Hurricanes of which 19 failed to arrive, and 156 flew on to North Africa, During the period January to March 1941 17 Hurricanes were flown in from North Africa. Begining in February 1942 deliveries were of Spitfires, 384 were launched of which 17 failed to arrive, As far as I know none of these flew on to North Africa. Also delivered to Malta by carrier op were 15 Fulmars,8 Swordfish,17 Albacores. In addition to the above 8 Hurricanes and 12 Swordfish flew in from French North Africa before the surrender and the surviving Fulmars and one Swordfish squadron from the Illustrious airgroup were initially based on Malta after the carrier was damaged. Oh and 12 crated Hurricanes were delivered by ship. Alan Philson Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 15:11:47 -0500 (EST) From: mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark Pitcavage) Subject: Newsgroup Notion Points to consider: 1. Newsgroup could probably only be "alt", meaning it would likely not be picked up by a number of providers. 2. Easier and more convenient to read and respond than via a listserv. 3. Subject to spamming. 4. Don't have to download messages you don't want to read, unlike listserv. 5. Would be more accessible to the public at large and might generate more interest in Europa. I think the newsgroup format is preferable to a listserv format. However, point #1 above would seem to me to be the crucial drawback. Dr. Mark Pitcavage mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu http://www.greyware.com/authors/pitman