From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Mar 25 00:37:48 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20397; Mon, 25 Mar 96 00:37:46 +0100 Received: from mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (grunt.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA20406 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:36:00 +0100 (MET) Received: from abc.ksu.ksu.edu (danley@abc.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.3]) by mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA00735 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 1996 17:35:56 -0600 Received: by abc.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12/1.34) id RAA29364; Sun, 24 Mar 1996 17:35:53 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 17:35:52 -0600 (CST) From: Mark H Danley To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: citations In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 278 On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Bill Stone wrote: > > Would also like to see more bibliographic references for some of the > assertions that get thrown out around here. > HEAR HEAR!! You said it, Bill. After all, though the list is about Europa, _Europa_ is about HISTORY... Mark From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Mar 25 04:41:08 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA21571; Mon, 25 Mar 96 04:41:07 +0100 Received: from icebox.iceonline.com (richv@icebox.iceonline.com [204.191.208.20]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA04449 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 04:39:07 +0100 (MET) Received: (from richv@localhost) by icebox.iceonline.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA05497 for EUROPA@LYSATOR.LIU.SE; Sun, 24 Mar 1996 19:53:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199603250353.TAA05497@icebox.iceonline.com> Sender: richv@icebox.iceonline.com From: Rich Velay To: EUROPA@lysator.liu.se Subject: Garrisons Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 19:53:39 PST Content-Length: 3688 Hi Bobby: You said... <>I confess I'm surprized at this ruling. Look at the <>handful of units -- some of which are withdrawn almost <>immediately -- available to the Germans in the '44 SF <>setup to garrison the coast of Germany, which includes six <> [...] Did the Germans trust their navy, airforce, mines, <>and coastal defenses so much? Sure, the rules will let you <>pull divisions from France to garrison Germany. But if the <>historical OB shows them in France, who was garrisoning <>the German coast, historically? Now I am not too sure just what you are surprised by; the ruling simply restated RAW. If you have nothing in a city, and the Allies occupy that city *before* the garrison is activated, then you can't place garrison forces in what is now an Allied owned city. Seems pretty straight forward to me. The original question concerned the unusual situation of being able to cross through one complete region to get to another region, and enter a city therein which was on the regional boundary. Now, I can't find such a situation on the SF maps, but I haven't "microscoped" it so there may be such a configuration... As to your concerns re WK X, this is different than the situation I was originally responding to. This WK includes a large garrison, with some "real" military muscle, as opposed to the security trash in France and RSI Italy that I was referring to earlier. Each of the ports in WK X has a defense strength of 1 factor, per Optional Rule 44G3, which is sufficient to defeat any airborne/amphibious overrun. This allows garrison placement in Helgoland, Westerland, Brunsbuttel, Wesermunde, Hamburg and Wilhelmshaven. [ I believe that Rule 44G3 should also apply to Improved Fortresses in coastal hexes, this would allow garrison placement in Wangerooge and Borkum, if they had CD generated defense strength. ] This leaves Cuxhaven and Emden as the only coastal ports where no garrison forces can be activated, since they are both only point cities. These two hexes certainly require some on map defense. But lets look at the real situation. Imagine an invasion against Emden. No invasion can come through the mine field; each and every naval unit in the mine belt hex is going to get attacked three times on the one naval gunnery table, a 50% chance for a loss. Next the naval units have to get by Borkum's four levels of CD (three times, as they move adjacent, into the hex or adjacent and adjacent, and Emden's four levels of CD twice (we place a fort there at start), adjacent and in the hex. Then we spend three naval movement steps unloading, being fired upon by Borkum and Emden each step, for six more CD shots. What is left in the fourth naval movement step gets into Emden. And Emden is the best of the lot, since any landing against Cuxhaven has to pass by two Coastal Fortresses. Even if you move at night to avoid the adjacent CD, you still face all the shots while landing. Supressing the CD will be no easy task, requiring that 16 naval or air hits be placed, since each hit against a CD is counted as "half" a hit (you need two hits to reduce the CD by one level). And let's not forget that the whole operation takes place in an Allied Danger Zone, giving the Axis a minimum of four and probably five attempts to deal with the NG that way. And considering that half the fleet will have been sunk by the mines before you get to the CD; well, let's just say I wouldn't worry too much about an invasion of the Bight. late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Mar 25 06:03:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA21884; Mon, 25 Mar 96 06:03:49 +0100 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA15163 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 06:02:47 +0100 (MET) Received: from osf1.gmu.edu by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA03240; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:02:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:10:35 -0500 From: Nicholas Forte Reply-To: nforte@gmu.edu Subject: Re: Stacking To: Europa LIst In-Reply-To: <960324155558_74133.1765_BHR60-3@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1117 I will concede that it is impossible to reach Abbeville on schedule in Europa. This is due to movement limitations, however, NOT stacking. That being said, the 1940 campaign will play out more or less historically if the historical deployment is used along with an attempt to simulate the actual moves of both sides. The timetable may slip a turn here or there, but the general flow of the campaign is correct. In regards the attack on the Meuse, the current stacking limits allows for all of the German units that participated in the attack to be placed in the front line stacks. Any increased stacking would be ahistorical when simulating the 1940 campaign by allowing a higher density of troops than the Germans actually used. The key to the German breakthrough was the knowledge of were best to use the armored divisions not in an abnormally high density of attackers. If super-stacking is adopted by Europa, I would have to second the views of Perry that call for increased casualties for the attacker due to the higher density--and thus the increased vulnerabilty--of the attacking troops. Nick Forte From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Mar 25 10:30:53 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA24929; Mon, 25 Mar 96 10:30:52 +0100 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA18566 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 10:28:51 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.237.155.11] (Stora_Red_01 [130.237.155.11]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA26570 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 10:28:49 +0100 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 10:28:50 +0100 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: FWTBT: Re: Spanish Civil War Content-Length: 3203 > I want to ask some advice from those of you who have >played this game. > >(1) Which advanced/optional rules do you think are good? I tend >to go for all "historical" advanced and optional rules. But, >I get the impression that the effect of coastal defense batteries >on ground combat is already taken care of by the various artillery >units in the same hexes as coastal defense with a movement rating >of zero. No, that's different things. I'd use all of the historical rules, including random rebellion (though this has a LARGE effect on the game). >(3) Any advice on strategy for either side? I will share all of this >with my opponent. After setting it up once, the strategic options >weren't clear to me, as they are in most Europa games. The first few turns are critical. For the republicans, major efforts should go to link up with the n-coast gobernitos and reinforce Madrid. Consequently, the Nationalists should try to counteract this. For the Republicans: The first turns the Cataluna gobernito gets lots of troops that can get all the way to Eukazdi. Do the pacification thing in Cataluna as fast as possible, then use these forces agressively. Also, use the Basque gobernito forces to clean out Eukazdi before the Nationalists can consolidate. And try to take Oviedo while you can with the Asturias forces. Use the air force in GS spread out in as many attacks as possible to boost the morale of the unreliable troops. For the Nationalists, cleaning out Andalucia is easiest if you do it early, and it will deprive the Republicans of quite a few units and RPs, but it could hamper your efforts elsewhere. If you play by VPs, note that you get nothing for pursuing the historical strategy of trying to capture Madrid early. If it's not too hard-held, go for it, since the move of the capital causes disruption and the Madrid factory is a great prize. But don't bother with the historical siege. Go for the gobernitos instead. The first few turns will more or less decide who is going to be on the offense and who is defending for the rest of the game. With a lot of luck (it happened to me), the Republicans can gain the upper hand. More likely, the Nationalists will be the ones who attack. Infantry losses are never an issue. You will get lots of Inf RP that will soon start to pile. Otherwise, the Republicans are seriously short on attack supply, while the Nationalists lack artillery and resource points, especially so if they have failed to get a hold of more than one factory. The Nationalists will also be low on rail-cap, which leads to trouble getting attack supply to the front. >(4) Any advice on the logistics of playing the game? There is alot >to keep track of! Always read the reinforcement chart at least one turn ahead! Otherwise, you don't know when to withdraw units for conversions (there's a lot of these going on in this game). Keeping track of the different types of RPs can be messy. Keep a good, clean record. Finally, I'd like to note that all of these suggestions are based on a single, solitaire, playing. I might be entirely off target. But you'd better listen to my advice about the Gobernitos! ;-) Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Mar 25 16:14:43 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00740; Mon, 25 Mar 96 16:14:42 +0100 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA16550 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:12:01 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.237.155.11] (Stora_Red_01 [130.237.155.11]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA00812 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:11:57 +0100 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:11:58 +0100 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: WWII: Narvik & Iron Ore Content-Length: 1020 Some additional info on Narvik and the Swedish ore that I've found out during the weekend: The Bergslagen ore was shipped through Oxelosund and Gothenburg. Oxelosund is ice-free. Lulea is frozen five months of the year. The railway from Stockholm to Lulea wasn't completely electrified until 1943. The ore-trains from Kiruna couldn't have gone south. The Kiruna-Narvik line was a special high-capacity (measured in pressure per wheel axle) railroad, and the wagons were designed especially for them. Not even the Kiruna-Lulea railway had the same capacity, so the wagons had to be loaded lighter when travelling that way. The other railways couldn't have carried these trains. The effect of this is that the occupation of Narvik WOULD have made the Kiruna-ore more expensive. New wagons would have to be purchased. In Europa-terms, the germans would probably have to pay an amount of resource points to Sweden for this. It would hardly lead to any shortage of iron, though. Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Mar 25 16:50:34 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01293; Mon, 25 Mar 96 16:50:32 +0100 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA25124 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:49:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.237.155.11] (Stora_Red_01 [130.237.155.11]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA01305 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:49:16 +0100 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:49:17 +0100 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Narvik: Please read! Content-Length: 2574 In the last issue of TEM there was a set of draft rules for the Collectors edition of Narvik for playtest. The rules were very much the same as the original Narvik rules with the errata incorporated. I wrote this letter to Europaboss@aol.com >And I thought I'd start with playtesting the draft Narvik rules. > >I've only read them halfway through, yet, but I already have some opinions: >You state that changes to the original rules are going to be kept to an >>absolute minimum (perhaps I'm misinterpreting this). I'm really concerned >about >this. In many areas, the Narvik rules are modeled after the Europa >rules as >they were at the time of the original Narvik game. These rules >have since long >been changed and improved. I would really hate to see the >old wave-style air >rules pop up for the first time since Marita-Merkur! >But, as I say, perhaps I'm >misinterpreting your intents: Then I listed some specific areas that should be updated. I got the following reply: >The Narvik rules represent a very tight system. Change a little, change it >all. Not going to change even a little, sorry. There will be the Europa level >game, and it will be as Europa as the current rules. > >wjh I must say that I'm repulsed by this decision! Not only does it seem to be some inaccuracies towards the actual campaign, but we would have to live with a terribly outdated air system. Imagine four squadrons of He111s ganging up on a Hurricane squadron and blast it out of the sky. This is what happens in the Narvik rules, absolutely no need for escort. Safety through numbers. And the AA uses the regular air table, which leads to massacres. I'm not even sure they're going to change the values of the air counters. Anyone who has old games like Marita-Merkur and Narvik knows how much better the rules are nowadays. Not only a better simulation, but better written. The Narvik rules will appear as they were then. This also seems to be contrary to GRD policy so far. When there was a lot of fuss about people having to buy the games all over again with the Collectors edition, they said that since they had to do the game over again anyway, they wouldn't want to do anything that they knew was wrong. This is exactly what they are about to do now! I'm very upset as a customer, and I suspect that a lot of other Europa players will be too. So, if you want to protest against this decision, the time to do it is NOW. Before it's too late! Raise your voices in this list, and send your protest to: Europaboss@aol.com Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Mar 25 18:00:09 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02230; Mon, 25 Mar 96 18:00:07 +0100 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA00940 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:57:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA06241 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 10:48:36 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 11:55:56 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Stacking Content-Length: 808 On 25 March 96, Nick Forte wrote: >I will concede that it is impossible to reach Abbeville on schedule in Europa. >This is due to movement limitations, however, NOT stacking. That being said, >the 1940 campaign will play out more or less historically if the historical >deployment is used along with an attempt to simulate the actual moves of both >sides. The timetable may slip a turn here or there, but the general flow >of the >campaign is correct. Nick is right. When FoF was developed, we "re-created" the historical campaign, moving units and fighting per their historical moves, up to the limits the rules permitted. As I remember, you can even capture Abbeville on schedule -- you don't occupy it with a unit but you can get an uncontested German ZOC there by the end of exploitation movement. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Mar 25 18:56:34 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02967; Mon, 25 Mar 96 18:56:33 +0100 Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA17245 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 18:53:54 +0100 (MET) From: Europaboss@aol.com Received: by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29265 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:53:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:53:37 -0500 Message-Id: <960325125336_255442084@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Fwd: Narvik: Please read! Content-Length: 3048 --------------------- Forwarded message: From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) To: europaboss@aol.com Date: 96-03-25 12:31:25 EST FYI - this just hit the Europa e-mail list server: >X-POP3-Rcpt: jastell@prague >X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:49:17 +0100 >To: europa@lysator.liu.se >From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) >Subject: Narvik: Please read! > >In the last issue of TEM there was a set of draft rules for the Collectors >edition of Narvik for playtest. The rules were very much the same as the >original Narvik rules with the errata incorporated. I wrote this letter to >Europaboss@aol.com > > >>And I thought I'd start with playtesting the draft Narvik rules. >> >>I've only read them halfway through, yet, but I already have some opinions: >>You state that changes to the original rules are going to be kept to an >>>absolute minimum (perhaps I'm misinterpreting this). I'm really concerned >>about >this. In many areas, the Narvik rules are modeled after the Europa >>rules as >they were at the time of the original Narvik game. These rules >>have since long >been changed and improved. I would really hate to see the >>old wave-style air >rules pop up for the first time since Marita-Merkur! >>But, as I say, perhaps I'm >misinterpreting your intents: > >Then I listed some specific areas that should be updated. I got the >following reply: > >>The Narvik rules represent a very tight system. Change a little, change it >>all. Not going to change even a little, sorry. There will be the Europa level >>game, and it will be as Europa as the current rules. >> >>wjh > >I must say that I'm repulsed by this decision! Not only does it seem to be >some inaccuracies towards the actual campaign, but we would have to live >with a terribly outdated air system. Imagine four squadrons of He111s >ganging up on a Hurricane squadron and blast it out of the sky. This is >what happens in the Narvik rules, absolutely no need for escort. Safety >through numbers. And the AA uses the regular air table, which leads to >massacres. I'm not even sure they're going to change the values of the air >counters. > >Anyone who has old games like Marita-Merkur and Narvik knows how much >better the rules are nowadays. Not only a better simulation, but better >written. The Narvik rules will appear as they were then. > >This also seems to be contrary to GRD policy so far. When there was a lot >of fuss about people having to buy the games all over again with the >Collectors edition, they said that since they had to do the game over again >anyway, they wouldn't want to do anything that they knew was wrong. This is >exactly what they are about to do now! > >I'm very upset as a customer, and I suspect that a lot of other Europa >players will be too. So, if you want to protest against this decision, the >time to do it is NOW. Before it's too late! > >Raise your voices in this list, and send your protest to: >Europaboss@aol.com > >Mvh Elias Nordling >o-noreli@jmk.su.se > From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Mar 25 19:44:14 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03410; Mon, 25 Mar 96 19:44:13 +0100 Received: from research.inland.com (research.inland.com [156.144.4.7]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA00561 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:42:51 +0100 (MET) Received: from msmail.inland.com by research.INLAND.COM (PMDF V5.0-5 #7865) id <01I2R8780X4G8X359D@research.INLAND.COM> for europa@lysator.liu.se; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:41:12 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:27 -0500 (CDT) From: "Witham, Tom G." Subject: Europa in NW Indiana To: "Europa Email Group" Message-Id: <01I2R87829CI8X359D@research.INLAND.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:27 -0500 (CDT) Content-Length: 408 Hi Everyone, My gaming club and I are interested in contacting anyone and everyone in Northwest Indiana and the Chicagoland area who wants to meet other players for FTF Europa play. If you know of anyone in NW Indiana or the South suburbs of Chicago who would be interested please have them contact me at: Tom Witham 5334 Maplewood Ave Portage, IN 46368 (219) 763-2708 tgwith@inland.com Thanks From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 00:34:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05897; Tue, 26 Mar 96 00:34:48 +0100 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA00685 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 00:33:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26320; Tue, 26 Mar 96 11:29:20 NZS Message-Id: <9603252329.AA26320@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 11:31 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Sacked officers Content-Length: 3892 Some of the officers that Nigel Bradbury mentions as getting the axe during the 1944 invasion of Europe were victims of Field Marshal Montgomery's swift and certain axe. I can't recall the boss of 51st Highland Division, but that outfit (like 50th Northumbrian and 7th Armoured) had seen a lot of fighting in the war, and morale was low. 7th Armoured had a similar problem of fatigue in its officers and men. Bobby Erskine led the division into Normandy, and he took the heat for the failure at Villers-Bocage, where a single Tiger tank held up the whole 22nd Armoured Brigade. The Desert Rats were a great outfit, but the bocage was very different from the Western Desert, and the Rats couldn't adjust. Erskine's replacement (who also escapes my mind, I must be going senile) didn't do much better. 30 Corps was led into Normandy by Lt. General Bucknall, a tank officer whose photograph with his boss, Sir Miles Dempsey, and 1 Corps' John Crocker shows a bereted general giving the camera an insincere and slightly ignorant smile while Dempsey appears bland and Crocker pugnacious. Bucknall was not Monty's first choice to lead 30 Corps at D-Day, and historian agree he lacked a grip on the battle from the start. I expect that Monty wanted the man who inherited 30 Corps, Sir Brian Horrocks, who was disabled at the time by a shrapnel wound in his lung from Tunisia. He was literally hauled out of his sickbed to take over 30 Corps, and did well with it, despite being racked by pain from the wound, which gave him severe problems (104 temperature) at the Reichswald. 3rd and 4th Canadian Divisions both had leadership problems. 3rd Canadian was led by Keller, and I think Vokes had 4th. From what I've read, neither seem to have been particularly inspirational, but I think that may have reflected the head of 1st Canadian Army, Lt. Gen. Crerar, who did not earn high marks from historians. Crerar's subordinate, Sir Guy Simonds, did far better. However, problems in the British officer corps were a continuous issue, and Montgomery was quite ruthless, from the start in his command in Southeast England. One brigadier in 7th Armoured put a light on over his office when he did not wish to be disturbed. Monty got rid of him. In Italy, Monty's chief engineer ran into trouble when all the bridges over the Sangro were flooded when the river rose 12 inches. Monty called the offender into his trailer, and began by politely inquiring why the bridges were all out. The engineer made excuses, and Monty brutally switched from his politeness to icy fury. "You are useless...quite useless..." he said, "Four days and not a bridge going. I have here a little geography book about Italy. It says it is not unusual for the Sangro to rise 15 inches at this time of year. You are relieved." And with that, the engineer was dismissed. Even such a low military man as comedian Spike Milligan felt the teeth of Monty, in 1941. In his memoir, "Hitler -- My Part In His Downfall," Milligan describes the CO of his artillery outfit as "Leather Suitcase." According to Milligan, Monty ordered all the British units in South England to intensify P.T. "Leather Suitcase" had to run with his men on a three-mile jog. After five minutes, "Leather Suitcase" was ready to collapse, and gasped for his men to take a break. The gunners happily did so. After "Leather Suitcase" regained his breath, he wobbled to his feet to lead the men again. A minute later, "Leather Suitcase" was down on the deck. He was taken away by ambulance, end of run. "Leather Suitcase" was replaced by Maj. Chater Jack, who ran the battery over hills, through swamps, and into Tunisia, Sicily, and Italy. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 00:40:31 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05938; Tue, 26 Mar 96 00:40:31 +0100 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA02802 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 00:39:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA07501 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:31:20 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 18:38:40 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Crated air units Content-Length: 972 >...There should be some provision for shipping air units as sea cargo >from theater to theater.... >...Historically, how long does it take to crate and uncrate aircraft? Maybe a >simple game mechanic requiring the air unit to be inop. for some period before >and/or after the transport could work... I simply ran out of time to nail this down in SF. If anyone wants to research this, the two major considerations to look for is how much shipping space a crated air unit would take (in comparison to, say, a US tank battalion), and how long it takes to assembly a unit after being shipped. Given this, I can hash out a workable shipping rule. If you want a bulls**t (one made up with little backing it), here's a try: a fighter is 2 REs in size in for shipping and takes 1 game turn to crate/uncrate. A bomber or transport is 4 REs in size and takes 2 game turns to crate/uncrate. Double the above sizes (but not crating/uncrating times) for all prefix-H air units. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 00:40:49 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05943; Tue, 26 Mar 96 00:40:48 +0100 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA02840 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 00:40:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA07503 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:31:25 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 18:38:45 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: My $0.02 Worth Content-Length: 8571 >... 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.... Actually, it was even worse than that: 1. German national forces: 1.1 Army (OKH) raised the bulk of the ground forces: hundreds of divisions and other units. The Army's showcase unit was Grossdeutschland, which grew from a regiment into an elite panzer division (and also a GD corps HQ). 1.2 Luftwaffe (OKL) raised ground forces due to 1) Goering's insistance that OKL control everything related to aircraft, including AA defense, and 2) Goering's own empire building. The LW field divisions came about when the Germans shook out excess personnel from the LW to turn into grunts. Goering got to keep the LW personnel in LW divisions, based on the argument that the LW was more Nazi than the Army, so turning over LW personnel to the Army meant their ideological purity would be polluted. Of course, since the LW had little idea on how to train infantry divisions, the resulting units were terrible. They were so bad that they were finally turned over to the Army -- those that managed to survive (mostly by being in theaters out of reach of the Red Army). This debacle didn't keep Goering out of the army business -- the "General Goering" AA unit slowly grew into a massive panzer division (and later 2-div corps), as the LW's showcase unit incompetition with the Army's GD and SS's LSSAH units. Also, the parachute units slowly built up an elite infantry force. (The LW parachute schools did know their stuff, and got to pick the best manpower ahead of the Army.) By the end of the war, the LW had HG div, about a dozen or so para divs, supporting troops, and hundreds of AA units. 1.3 Navy (OKM) really didn't have that many troops. Since they were not a Nazi-heavy branch like the LW, they didn't carry much clout and aside from various coast defense and security troops, they entered the build-your-own-army derby quite late. As Germany crashed to pieces in 1945, non-essential OKM personnel were formed into infantry divisions -- about three or so were formed by the end of the war. Arguably, the men should have gone to the Army, but the Army training establishment is collapsing anyway (the SS took it over in late 1944). No doubt had the war lasted another a year or so, there'd be an OKM "Marine Panzer" division in competition with the showcase units of the other services! 1.4 The Wehrmacht High Command (OKW) was ostensibly over the three services (OKH, OKL, OKM). In actuality, it typically got incomplete and hostile cooperation from its nominal underlings, and it ended up often in competition with OKH. OKW had numerous branches reporting to it directly (and not to the three services), and some of these built up their own ground forces. The most famous of these were the Brandenburgers, controlled by the Abwehr (which reported to OKW, not OKH). Until late 1944, the Brandenburgers were used for special operations and anti-partisan duties, when they were then turned over to the Army and formed into a regular combat division (panzergrenadier only -- no doubt if the Brandenburgers remained in the OKW directly they too would have become a showcase panzer division!). (The SS mostly took over special operations in late 1944 -- Himmler grabbed as much as he could in the wake of the assassination attempt on Hitler.) Various other OKW rear area formations could and occasionally did take the field as low-grade infantry, usually during emergencies. 1.5 The RAD (Reich Labor Service) was temporarily a separate, semi-military service, where young German men served 6-months labor service before being drafted into the Army. In late 1939, the Army gained control of the RAD -- in one of the few organizational moves that made sense, and probably why a RAD panzer division was never formed. 2. Nazi forces: Note: The SS and other Nazi military and paramilitary forces were NEVER under control of the OKW, although troops in the field were placed on OKW/OKH operational command. All those non-Europa games that use "Wehrmacht" to include the SS with the German national forces are in error. (As are those games that use "Wehrmacht" to mean the German Army exclusive of the LW and Navy!) 2.1 The SS: There were several branches of the SS: 2.1.1 The General SS (Algemein (sp?) SS) was the organization "good" Nazi party members could join and thereby increase their political and social importance. It had a paramilitary structure, but had no real field presence. 2.1.2 The Totenkopf SS ("Death's Head" SS) ran the concentration camps, and its military presence consisted of the infamous camp guards, whose sadism and brutality almost surpassed imagination. The TK division was formed in 1939 from TK SS personnel, but the division thereafter was part of the Waffen SS, not TK SS. In Europa, there's is one TK SS cavalry regiment (in FTF), which is part of the TK SS until it too transferred to the Waffen SS (and became the Fegelein cavalry brigade in FITE). 2.1.3 The Waffen SS ("Armed" SS) was the field army of the SS. Originally formed as political troops (Hitler's special bodyguard), Himmler constantly found ways to increase their size and scope. By 1939, there were several field regiments (with the LSSAH the showcase unit), and by 1945 there were nominally three dozen divisions or so, with the LSSAH panzer division remaining the elite. The Waffen SS started off with political fervor but questionable military capability (since the SS disdained the Army and suspected it as being anti-Nazi, Waffen SS recruits did not use the Army training establishment). In place of military proficiency, they substituted men and material -- SS units tended to be large and well equipped, and took heavy casualties in "reckless" (Army assessment) pursuit of objectives. In 1941, the severity of combat on the eastern front forced the Waffen SS to become militarily proficient, and the SS improved its training establishment for its elite units. By no means was every W-SS unit elite: as the war progressed and the need for manpower became acute, the SS raised scores of units filled with foreigners -- Ukrainians, Estonians, Latvians, Scandinavians, Frenchment, etc. -- of widely varying capability. It is ironic that the SS, the organization most dedicated to Nazi ideology and racial purity, became in part Germany's "foreign legion." 2.1.4 The "SS-Police" in Europa represent the German national police forces, national security forces, and SS security forces. Due to the intense interest the Nazis had in domestic security (in order to stay in power), the national police/security forces and the political SS security forces were intertwined, with the SS in control. By mid war, the SS took outright and official control of all these forces. Germany's SS-Pol police regiments were special militarized police regiments used in conquered territories. The Polizei Division was a regular infantry (later panzergrenadier) div recruited from policemen -- it technically was not part of the SS (although intimately connected with it) until the police came under the SS, at which time it became part of the Waffen SS (not SS-Police). The SS-Police organized a motley and horrifying collection of scum SS-Police anti-partisan units (mainly in the USSR) -- some of which were so inhuman that the Germans themselves disbanded them, appalled by their brutality and crimes. 2.2 The Hitler Youth: This was a paramilitary organization that gave preliminary military training (and lots of ideological indoctrination) to German boys. Closely connected to the SS, the cream of the Hitler Youth went into the Waffen SS. By the end of the war, plans were apparently afoot to raise a Hitler Youth military service in parallel to the Waffen SS. 2.3 The SA: The SA was the Nazi party's original storm troopers, until Hitler allowed the SS to suppress them (the Night of the Long Knives). The SA still remained in existence, but it lost almost all of its paramilitary functions. One SA special unit, the Feldherrnhalle, remained in existence until 1939, when it was incorporated into the Army after Poland. Although in the Army, the former FH kept a semblance of connect to the SA, and eventually resurfaced as the Army's two FH divisions. The SA itself remained in the background, and as things collapsed in 1945, Hitler supposedly blamed the SS for "failing" him and was in the process of restoring powers and military function to the SA. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 01:08:12 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06138; Tue, 26 Mar 96 01:08:11 +0100 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA09133 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:07:16 +0100 (MET) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA245698070; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 23:54:30 GMT Message-Id: <199603252354.AA245698070@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Mon, 25 Mar 96 23:54:29 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Mon, 25 Mar 96 23:51:30 UTC 0000) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 96 23:42:00 UTC 0000 To: o-noreli@jmk.su.se Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 8648900 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 195894 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Narvik: Please read! Content-Length: 786 Reply: Item #4175646 from O-NORELI@JMK.SU.SE@INET#on 96/03/25 at 10:49 Mvh Elias Nordling, Unfortunately, you've chosen a tough battle regardingWinston and Narvik. I don't have any interest in the non-standard scale Europa games so I don't have a personal opinion on this, but Winston has said to me personally on several occasions that Narvik is the "best wargame ever produced. When you have something that works, you don't mess with it." So I suspect that you're dealing with the personal convictions of one man here, rather than company policy or direction. If Narvik is simply a reprint of the old game with the old rules, then we need to view this as an aberration of the collector's series and not the norm for the future. Good luck in your solicitation. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 01:18:38 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06216; Tue, 26 Mar 96 01:18:37 +0100 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA10532 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:17:00 +0100 (MET) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id TAA09146; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:47:36 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:47:36 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: GE and Russia Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199603200633.AAA19146@smtp.utexas.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 440 I tend to believe that the Russo-German pact was strictly a device to buy time until either side believed it could defeat the other. IMO 1942 would have been Stalin's year of decision even in the event of a cold war with the West. Actually the a prolonged phony war probably would have prompted Stalin to attack earlier as the German forces facing Russia probably would have been much smaller than any attacking Soviet forces. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 01:25:05 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06247; Tue, 26 Mar 96 01:25:04 +0100 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA10646 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:24:48 +0100 (MET) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id TAA09177; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:55:25 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:55:24 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Narvik (Was: Re: The Fall of France (to be or not to be)) Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 657 Actually, I feel that the Swedes would have preferred not to have any conflict anywhere near them, like any sensible people, but that they were prepared to sup with the devil himself if it would keep Sweden out of the war. They also weren't prepared to risk much for either side. Sweden was indeed cut-off from most all foreign trade except for a limited number of ships importing essential goods that need the permission of both the Allies and Germany to reach Swedish ports. Petsamo was indeed the route used by the Swedes for their imported P-35 fighters, but that was not a cost-effective route as no rail line linked Petsamo to anything. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 01:45:31 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06398; Tue, 26 Mar 96 01:45:30 +0100 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA14149 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:44:44 +0100 (MET) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id UAA09234; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:15:21 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:15:21 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Peaceful Russia Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <1501f600@corona.navy.mil> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1344 The Soviet production numbers in 1941 before Barbarossa tell their own story that Russia was already on a war footing. Peaceful Soviet Russia under Stalin in an oxymoron during the late '30s and early '40s. Based on my discussions with Charles Sharp, simply flipping over the cadres wouldn't even come close to reproducing the extra year's production of tanks, aircraft and equipment. The Mechanized Corps would ave been fully fleshed out with virtually all T-34/KV-1/2 tanks, averaging about a 12-8, with possibly a lower defense factor if the Soviets failed to realize the necessity for more infantry by analyzing the experiences of the Germans; the motorized divisions would have become mechanized. The frontier rifle divisions would have been given older tanks from the tank divisions to raise their strength to around 6, etc. Plus the Soviets had plans to form more mechanized corps and probably would have enough tanks to at least begin forming them. Plus many more artillery units to include anti-tank brigades armed with 107mm guns! Also the KV-1 would have been superceded by the KV-3 also armed with the 107. The older aircraft would have been almost completely phased out and the LaGG-3 probably would have been superceded by the La-5. I think that this justifies a couple of extra countersheets, at a minimum. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 01:46:58 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06413; Tue, 26 Mar 96 01:46:57 +0100 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA14709 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:46:23 +0100 (MET) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id UAA09263; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:16:59 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:16:59 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Europa unit ratings Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <15020d40@corona.navy.mil> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 135 Renaud, That's exactly what I said though I didn't specify that the Americans recieved that bonus, though that's what I meant. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 02:05:01 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06516; Tue, 26 Mar 96 02:04:59 +0100 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA16914 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 02:04:34 +0100 (MET) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:25:42 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 21:10:31 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr To: jastell@crossover.com, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: My $0.02 Worth Content-Length: 102 John, Another excellent, informative post on the multiplicity of German armed forces. Thanks! Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 02:28:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06631; Tue, 26 Mar 96 02:28:40 +0100 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA22703 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 02:27:57 +0100 (MET) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id UAA09395; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:58:33 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:58:33 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Peaceful USSR & Tank XX Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199603211714.JAA03315@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 155 Apparently the access gained by Charles to the Soviet archival material recently has changed his mind about the future of an undisturbed Red Army Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 03:01:33 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00274; Tue, 26 Mar 96 03:01:31 +0100 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA28532 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 03:00:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from slip-22-15.ots.utexas.edu (slip-22-15.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.128.175]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA26662 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:54:28 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:54:28 -0600 Message-Id: <199603260154.TAA26662@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Stacking Content-Length: 4061 Nick wrote: >This is due to movement limitations, however, NOT stacking. ... You're right: I've scattered from "stacking" to "attacker-not-too-strong" to "attacker-can't-move-fast-enough", and I might well have been invoking "Mussolini's-trains-don't-run-on-time" on my next post, if you hadn't blown the whistle on me! I'll cede you VPs for my last post as a disastrous operation. On the other hand, I'm not ready to cede any VPs for the arguments advanced on your side of the debate. When you say: >In regards the attack on the Meuse, the current stacking limits allows for all >of the German units that participated in the attack to be placed in the front >line stacks. ... I respond that this carries no weight *unless* you demonstrate that the historical "stacking" was dictated by "the rules", rather than (e.g.) lack of additional units on hand to throw in, or a commander's assessment that any additional units to hand were not necessary, and therefore best assigned to other tasks. Thus the following makes no sense to me: > ... Any increased stacking would be ahistorical when simulating the >1940 campaign by allowing a higher density of troops than the Germans actually >used. ... You could as well find an attack historically made by a single division and conclude from it that stacking should be limited to one division. As to the notion that the attack is already too strong: I can only react to Stephen's observations about German successes in Barbarossa with drop-jawed dismay: clearly not everyone gets the same results when they play! My only regret is that we don't all live in the same town, so that we could settle the matter on the map. (I say this not with an arrogant confidence in winning -- I realize that I might take a notable thrashing on the map and then have to eat my words to boot -- but because I'm curious about what's going on, and if some of you guys can kick my Soviets around as advertised, I'd sure like to see how it is done.) Furthermore, regardless of whether the attack is already too strong, higher stacking won't *exclusively* aid the attacker. I suspect it will *primarily* aid the attacker by making the game more fluid (in particular, harder to make those double overrun-proof defensive lines). But it will also make those hero cities all the more heroic: adding another five defense factors will require the attacker to add another *twenty* five attack factors to maintain that classic 5:1@-2 (all else, such as terrain and supply being ignored), and rolling an EX against them certainly won't smart any less. Likewise, the players will get no additional units to go along with the proposed rule, so dense stacking in one area could only be done at the expense of a thinner spread in others. This might allow a side on the strategic defensive to wage a war of nerves by attacking in peripheral areas, where the attacker has spread himself thin, forcing the attacker to make some very human decisions -- perhaps mistakes -- rather than simply conducting a number-crunching grind all along the front. As to the following (back to quoting Nick's same post): >If super-stacking is adopted by Europa, I would have to second the views of >Perry that call for increased casualties for the attacker due to the higher >density--and thus the increased vulnerabilty--of the attacking troops. I have no complaint against this in general, but would point out that stacking already allows a variation in density from 1/2 to 15 REs, without any effect on casualty rates. It is not immediately clear that expanding this range by c. 30% demands that such a rule be added, if not needed before. Also, should density have an effect on the defender's casualty rate? (Newcomers note: we had an extended discussion about the non-representation of attackers' casualties back during the holidays, but I don't think we reached a consensus. We may not all be operating under the same assumptions about how much needs to be explicitly represented in the game.) - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 03:19:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00443; Tue, 26 Mar 96 03:19:58 +0100 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA28754 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 03:19:33 +0100 (MET) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id VAA09563; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 21:50:12 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 21:50:11 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: WWII: Narvik & Iron Ore Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 263 Excellent info on the special railroad between Kiruna and narvik. I'd always wondered about why they didn't ship it through the southern ports and had concluded that they couldn't afford to tie up the railcars for that extra time. Glad to be corrected. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 03:22:28 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00461; Tue, 26 Mar 96 03:22:27 +0100 Received: from icebox.iceonline.com (richv@icebox.iceonline.com [204.191.208.20]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA27437 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 02:43:14 +0100 (MET) Received: (from richv@localhost) by icebox.iceonline.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA20207 for EUROPA@LYSATOR.LIU.SE; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:58:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199603260158.RAA20207@icebox.iceonline.com> Sender: richv@icebox.iceonline.com From: Rich Velay To: EUROPA@lysator.liu.se Subject: GURU:Supply Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:58:22 PST Content-Length: 1350 > 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... <> 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? RCV: No, this is a temporary increase, and you need 10 capacity on the rail net to trace supply. The only way you can can affect the 10 REs needed to trace a rail element supply line is to permanently reduce the capacity, not simply reduce it temporarily. Rail Marshalling yard hits and Strat Air War effects are temporary, in that they do not affect the actual Rail capacity present, but simply reduce the amount usable by the owning player. RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 03:25:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00509; Tue, 26 Mar 96 03:25:49 +0100 Received: from icebox.iceonline.com (richv@icebox.iceonline.com [204.191.208.20]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA27115 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 02:42:09 +0100 (MET) Received: (from richv@localhost) by icebox.iceonline.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA20154 for EUROPA@LYSATOR.LIU.SE; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:57:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199603260157.RAA20154@icebox.iceonline.com> Sender: richv@icebox.iceonline.com From: Rich Velay To: EUROPA@lysator.liu.se Subject: GURU:FWTBT Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:57:15 PST Content-Length: 12827 Hi . Some FWTBT Q&A for you all. All questions are from Europa X, "For Whom the Bell Tolls," and not from the rules for World War II scenarios. 7.A.4.a,c, 40.A.2 and 43.C.2 For the following two questions, assume that rule 43.C.2 is in use. * When the Insurgent player receives increased rail capacity from Portugal, must he assign this capacity to a particular section of the rail net, or to a particular rail depot, or is this capacity available everywhere? RCV: It is available anywhere that could trace a rail element supply line to Portugal (to receive the Rail cap increase), if it sent to a rail net otherwise cut off from another Spanish rail net, then it could only be used on that seperate rail net. * Say that the Insurgent player captures a Rail Depot with a capacity of 2, so that its capacity is reduced to 1. Then, he increases the capacity to 3. If the Loyalist player recaptures this depot, then it seems to me that the capacity is now 1. (The Loyalist player cannot recapture the 1 which he owned originally, but captures half of the remaining 2.) Is this correct? RCV: No. Rail capacity increases are not tied to any particular rail depots. The capacity of a depot can not be increased from what it was worth at start of play. 9.G, 10, 14.A.2, 14.B, 14.F.2 and 22.A.2 * I assume that transport counters and position AA are ignored for AEC/ATEC computations (this is explicitly stated for position AA), for determining combat engineer proportions and for purposes of Rule 14.B. If this is not correct, then how are these units treated in these computations? RCV: Correct, neither of these counters are considered units for the purposes you list. 12.C.3 and 44.D.1 * A sentence in the second paragraph of the first rule reads "using general supply points does not negate or defer the number of turns a unit has been out of general supply." Does "does not defer" mean that if a unit is in general supply, and then uses general supply points for three turns and then is out of supply, that it is considered to be in its fourth turn out of supply? Does this rule apply to airbases if you are using 44.D.1? RCV: No. It means that if the unit was *out* of supply for three turns, but drew supply from general supply points for those three turns, then it would begin its fourth turn marked as U-4 and if unable to draw supply in some manner, would be considered as being in its fourth turn out of supply. "[D]oes not defer" means that the length of time out of supply is not affected by the drawing of special supply; the unit would operate as if in supply while drawing special supply, but this special supply doesn't affect the number of turns the unit is considered to have been out of supply. re Airbases, Yes. 14.A.1 * If a temporary airfield is removed from the map because there is no longer a construction engineer in its hex, then what happens to aircraft at that airfield? RCV: They are eliminated and placed in the eliminated box of the air chart. * The Coast Defence Summary on Game Play Chart (3) suggests that several forts may be built in a hex, which contradicts this rule. Which is correct? RCV: The rules, no more than one fort may be placed/built in a hex. Perhaps "A" would have been better than "Each" or "Every"... 20.F.2 and 24 * These rules appear to contradict each other. Can supplies be airdropped in this game? If so, should I use the rule in the WWII rules booklet, or are supplies automatically dropped successfully? RCV: Supply may be airdropped, per 20F2, use the Airdrop Table from Game Play Chart [1]. 20.G.2.a and 39.C * If I understand these rules correctly, then a Guerilla attack on an airbase can damage the airbase, but does not affect aircraft. Is this correct? RCV: No, 39C specifically says that the effects of this hit on an airbase is the same as those in 20G2, wherein a hit also aborts one air unit. So a Partisan attack, if successful, is handled just like a bombing mission as to results; ie on e hit and one air unit aborted. 20.G.2.h and 28 * If a naval unit is on a river hexside, then can it be attacked from the air in either adjacent hex? RCV: Yes. 21.B.1.a * Say there are more escorts than interceptors. May the escort player allocate some of the excess escorts against the engaging group and some against the bypassing group, or must all of the excess escorts engage one group or the other? RCV: How excess air units are apportioned is up to the owning player. eg if there were two air units engaging the screen and two bypassing, versus six air units escorting. Once the two fighters engaging the screen are accounted for, the owning player may divide up his remaining four air units anyway he wants; all screen, all bypassing or any combination... * If the escort player may allocate some each way, then which of the following procedures is correct? A) He divides the excess escorts as he sees fit and then then allocates those attacking the engaging group as described in the second paragraph of this rule. B) He allocates excess escorts according to the second paragraph of this rule until he no longer wishes to; the remaining unallocated escorts attack the bypass group. RCV: "A" is correct, you choose which are units will engage which group, and *then* random allocation ensues. 29.B.2.a * If one player has more gunnery strength allocated against the enemy TF body, then can he allocate just some of the excess against the bypassing group, keeping some for the engaging group? RCV: Yes. 29.B.2.b,c * In the Engaging Group/Bypass Firing Step, can a TF take more hits than it has allocated to the engaging/bypassing group? RCV: No, for example, if 2 gunnery strength points were engaging and two GSP were bypassing, then neither group can take more than two hits. (Engaging group fire can not affect GSP which are bypassing.) 32 * Most beach hexes are not owned by either player at the beginning of the game. To land at a beach hex which is not owned by either player, must a unit conduct an amphibious landing? RCV: Yes. 34.G * My understanding is that a repair die roll is made for each damaged LC, even if it is at sea or low on fuel. Is this correct? RCV: Yes. 34.I.1, 35.B * If a TF provides NGS, is sunk and then repaired in the same year, then may it provide NGS 6 more times in the year, or only 5? RCV: Only five times, the limitation is upon the naval unit, not the strength points, so the naval unit identity is used to track usage. 37.A.2 * Does an improved fort have a coast defense strength of 1, like an ordinary fort? RCV: Yes. 37.D * The modifiers to the Militia Reliability Table on Game Play Chart (2) list the following two modifiers: +1 To Defender's die roll if he has air support (DAS or GS) -1 To Attacker's die roll if he has air support (DAS or GS). These modifiers don't make any sense to me. Should they read: +1 To die roll if the units have air support (DAS or GS) -1 To die roll if the enemy units have air support (DAS or GS)? RCV: Yes. 38C * The second paragraph begins "Unless otherwise stated, neither side's *forces* may enter or pass through any *hex* of a neutral" while 3A says that "forces refers to ground, naval, and air units collectively." This rule has drastic consequences as Portugal extends all the way to the board edge, preventing naval units from moving between the north and south of Spain! Which is the correct fix? A) Naval and air units may move along the coastlines of neutral countries. B) A special exception is made for hex 2533 on map 23A. C) The map should be extended to include hex 2534 so that naval and air units can move around Portugal. D) The rule is right. Tough luck. RCV: Extend the map westwards to include an unlimited number of all sea hexes which naval units may traverse (but not end a phase in). 38D and 40C * When a Gobernito collapses, then any of its units which remain on the map become "fragile for replacement purposes (per Rule 40C)." (The reference to 40N was corrected to 40C in the errata of 14 May, 1995.) But 40C refers to substitutions for fragile divisions and doesn't say what to do with these Gobernito units. What goes? RCV: Fragile units may not be replaced. You can add this clarification at the end of 40C. 44.B.1 * If a hex which is owned by neither player cannot trace a LOC to a friendly unit, but can trace one to an enemy unit, then does that hex become enemy owned? RCV: Yes. 44.D.1 * Can an airbase be considered out of supply if it has no air units? RCV: Yes. * How many points of general supply are required to supply such an airbase? RCV: It can't be supplied unless air units wish to operate from it. Since lack of supply only affects air units, there will be no game affect from an unsupplied aibase which has no air units based there. You could expend supply there in anticipation of air units landing there this turn, costs as per the normal rules. Insurgent and Loyalist Orders of Battle, Page 1 in each. * Each order of battle has the following entry: INITIAL FORCES Initial Conditions Miscellaneous Amphibious Repair: 1 I cannot find any reference to "Amphibious Repair" in the rules. Does this mean that each side may only attempt to repair one LC each turn? RCV: Rule 34G discusses LC repair, but is in error as far as the die roll needed to repair LCs goes. Use the die roll of 1 only, as listed in the OBs. Game Charts * There is no rule on off-map boxes! Is the following (approximate) rule correct? The Insurgent player may move naval and air units and their cargos to either the Italian Off-Map Ports holding box or to the Canary Islands holding box by moving off the board through the hexes listed in the Off-Map Port Summary on Game Play Chart (3). The distance which they must then move to the off-map box is shown on the same chart. A unit in an off-map box follows the reverse procedure to move to the map. Units in the Italian Off-Map Ports box may start from any of the three locations shown in the Off-Map Port Summary, but if units must be loaded onto naval transports or landing craft at a port. The Loyalist player may never move units off of the map. A naval supply line to Cagliari must be traced through either hex 33:4519 or 33:5125 as shown on the Off-Map Port Summary. RCV: This is fine. Counters Several counters seem to be misprinted, either being printed in the wrong colors or having values which differ from what is written in the OBs. In general, is the OB or the counter considered to be correct when values differ. (I assume that the OB is correct when it comes to the affiliation of the unit.) Is there a list of known counter errors? RCV: An errata is under preperation. The values of the counters are correct, although some colours are wrong. Here are a few final remarks for future errata: (1) Last rule in the first column of page 8. "3. Railbreaks" should be "5. Railbreaks". (2) The last phrase in 44A1, "except that a resource point is never required," may be confusing to the uninitiated. There is no reference to resource point expenditure before that phrase in the rule, since there are no major rivers on the map. (3) The unsupported side of the POUM 29 Lenin division is printed as a cadre rather than as a division. (4) Rule 43C2. The example at the end of the first paragraph is not correct. Although the Loyalist rail net of 2 REs in the north exists, the southern section is broken up into several small pieces by territory controlled by neither player at the beginning of the game. A final "design question": 44F3: This rule was taken from Second Front. But aren't the ground combat effects of coastal artillery already taken into account through artillery units with movement allowences of 0 in the Spanish Civil War? This is what is implied by the Insurgent Jan II 37 reinforcement entry. RCV: 44F3 should not be used with the Spanish Civil war Scenarios. RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 03:26:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00519; Tue, 26 Mar 96 03:26:02 +0100 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA28810 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 03:25:48 +0100 (MET) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 21:47:19 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 22:31:58 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu Subject: Europa of the Future [was: Re: Stacking] Content-Length: 723 On 3/25/96, Bobby Bryant said: >My only regret is that we don't all live in the same town, so >that we could settle the matter on the map. Perhaps Winston's next project should be setting up a Europa retirement village out here in sunny CA, with a big community center where we could set up all the maps, with walker access; and all of our significant others will finally have those of like mind to commiserate with; and the young'uns could come out periodically and try to whip our butts and show us how its done. Just a little Europa fantasy humor [or maybe an aging and misfiring synapse]. Seriously, though, I believe that the future of Europa is in a community, and probably the on-line community at that. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 03:33:51 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00556; Tue, 26 Mar 96 03:33:50 +0100 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA28861 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 03:31:15 +0100 (MET) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id WAA09596; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 22:01:54 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 22:01:53 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Crated air units Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1354 On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, John M. Astell wrote: > >...There should be some provision for shipping air units as sea cargo > >from theater to theater.... > > >...Historically, how long does it take to crate and uncrate aircraft? Maybe a > >simple game mechanic requiring the air unit to be inop. for some period before > >and/or after the transport could work... > > I simply ran out of time to nail this down in SF. If anyone wants to > research this, the two major considerations to look for is how much > shipping space a crated air unit would take (in comparison to, say, a US > tank battalion), and how long it takes to assembly a unit after being > shipped. Given this, I can hash out a workable shipping rule. > > If you want a bulls**t (one made up with little backing it), here's a try: > a fighter is 2 REs in size in for shipping and takes 1 game turn to > crate/uncrate. A bomber or transport is 4 REs in size and takes 2 game > turns to crate/uncrate. Double the above sizes (but not crating/uncrating > times) for all prefix-H air units. > I was groping towards something like this in Arctic Thunderbolt though I feel that fighters should take up 1 RE of shipping space, except for the HFs, of course. Type A/B should take up 2 REs while HBs should take 4. All assembly times should be 1 turn except for HB/HT which are doubled. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 03:42:32 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00618; Tue, 26 Mar 96 03:42:31 +0100 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA28979 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 03:42:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from slip-22-15.ots.utexas.edu (slip-22-15.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.128.175]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA27175 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:31:13 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:31:13 -0600 Message-Id: <199603260231.UAA27175@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Peaceful Russia Content-Length: 1485 Jason said: >The Soviet production numbers in 1941 before Barbarossa tell their own >story that Russia was already on a war footing. Peaceful Soviet Russia >under Stalin in an oxymoron during the late '30s and early '40s. ... If you refer to my proposal that the phoney war might have degenerated into a cold war, I'm not sure "peaceful" is how I would describe Soviet Russia's role. I suspect Stalin was smart enough to realize that diplomacy is merely the continuation of warfare by other means (to coin a phrase). Also, after the shock of seeing what Germany did to Poland and France in a world expecting a rematch of WWI, I would be on a war footing too, whether I intended to attack anyone or not. (Especially, for the Soviets, after the anti-Communist crusade of c. 20 years before.) >Based on my discussions with Charles Sharp, simply flipping over the >cadres wouldn't even come close to reproducing the extra year's >production of tanks, aircraft and equipment. The Mechanized Corps would >ave been fully fleshed out with virtually all T-34/KV-1/2 tanks, >averaging about a 12-8 ...; the motorized divisions would have become >mechanized. The frontier rifle divisions would have been given older tanks >from the tank divisions to raise their strength to around 6 [etc. ad horrorem] When you say "extra year's", are we to take it literally, i.e. this would be the Soviet army by summer of '42? Great post! - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 04:19:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00820; Tue, 26 Mar 96 04:19:58 +0100 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA29401 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 04:19:08 +0100 (MET) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA200079583; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 03:06:23 GMT Message-Id: <199603260306.AA200079583@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Tue, 26 Mar 96 03:06:23 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Tue, 26 Mar 96 03:05:59 UTC 0000) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 03:03:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 8439996 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 4793 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: My $0.02 Worth (continued) Content-Length: 2053 Gas Warfare: as to my previous "anecdotes" about gas warfare in WW2. I have not yet run down the source of Goring's query as to why the Allies did not use gas at Normandy; but as to Roosevelt's veto of the use of gas at Iwo Jima, see IWO JIMA, by Richard F. Newcomb; Garden City NY: Nelson Doubleday, Inc., 1983 (originally published 1965). In my copy it is at the end of Chapter III of Part Four, "...the plan had been approved at all levels except the White House. It had come back marked: 'All prior endorsements denied-Franklin D. Roosevelt, Commander-in-Chief.'" The Royal Air Force Regiment: in the past I may have unfairly slandered [?] Hermann Goring for creating his own army as part of the Luftwaffe. It should be noted that the Royal Air Force, early in the war, created the Royal Air Force Regiment, ostensibly for airfield defense. It appears to have grown to a considerable size for Winston Churchill was thereafter on the RAF to reduce the size of the Regiment and turn the excess personnel over to the army. THE SECOND WORLD WAR: VOLUME FIVE: CLOSING THE RING, by Winston S. Churchill, "You have been asked to supply twenty-five thousand from the R.A.F. Regiment, which has been built up in quite different circumstances from those which now exist. These men are vitally needed for the support of the Army in the forthcoming battle." [minute of 20 May 1944 to the Secretary of State for Air]. Winston Churchill: whatever you may say or think of him as a leader, he was one heck of an author. I have tried acquired his accounts of both WW1 and WW2. They are a gold mine of trivia about the wars and a source of "what-ifs." What if the Allies had tried, as Churchill proposed, Operation "Caliph?" On D+1 of Overlord, 5,000 British commandos seize Bordeaux by coup de main. After the docks are seized, 1st British, 6th British and 6th South African Armored Divisions land (after being staged through Morocco) followed up by three French divisions and/or U. S. infantry divisions. See pp.692-694, CLOSING THE RING. Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 04:58:40 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01113; Tue, 26 Mar 96 04:58:39 +0100 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA05264 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 04:57:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from [194.112.35.6] (gw1-006.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA17916 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 26 Mar 1996 03:57:21 GMT X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 03:59:52 +0100 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Stacking Content-Length: 2656 Bob Bryant wrote: [mia culpa snipped] >You could as well find an attack historically made by a single >division >and conclude from it that stacking should be limited to >one division. Not a good example of reductio ad absurdum. I think it is fairly clear that is not what Nick suggested. For why, see later in this post. >As to the following (back to quoting Nick's same post): > >>If super-stacking is adopted by Europa, I would have to second >>the >>views of Perry that call for increased casualties for the >>attacker due >>to the higher density--and thus the increased >>vulnerabilty--of the >>attacking troops. > >I have no complaint against this in general, but would point out >that >stacking already allows a variation in density from 1/2 to >15 REs, >without any effect on casualty rates. It is not >immediately clear that >expanding this range by c. 30% demands >that such a rule be added, if not >needed before. Also, should >density have an effect on the defender's >casualty rate? A good question as this cuts to the core issue of this matter. Sorry to keep making refs to Dupuy in so many posts (I DO read other books...Gary Larson, mostly), but I think he (Dupuy, not Gary Larson) has made one of the better studies of the effects on dispersal on casualty rates. What we need to do to resolve is the point at which Dupuy's *typical* dispersal factors are exceeded: it is *that* point at which additional vulnerability is incured. And what stacking level is that? Dunno. I guess we are just going to have to figure it out. We're a bunch of smart, opinionated guys...we can do it (cue Nick Forte, stage left...get them spreadsheets rollin'!). The advantage of this approach is it gives us an objective measure to use as a yard-stick Another important point in this debate is not to confuse dispersal with frontage: the two are (obviously) related but they are *not* the same thing. A single brigade in a clear hex or two division in the same hex probably have essentially identical dispersal factors but clearly not the same frontage. That is why I said your reduction was naff. As for *super* stacks also effecting the defender being attacked by such a stack: yeah...more factors attcking usually has more effect on the defender ;-) But seriously, the defender does not have his dispersal values changed just because the attacker does. Of course, a *defending* superstack has the same problem. More factors = harder nut to crack BUT less dispersal = more casualties at any given level of intensity of combat. It is an interesting subject. More later, it is 4;00 in the morning & I have to water my Hippopotamus From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 05:21:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01227; Tue, 26 Mar 96 05:21:17 +0100 Received: from sub.Sonic.NET (root@sub.sonic.net [199.4.118.8]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA05566 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 05:20:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from [199.4.118.161] (pm161 [199.4.118.161]) by sub.Sonic.NET (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA31833 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:24:39 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:19:13 -0800 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bstone@sub.sonic.net (Bill Stone) Subject: Re: Sacked officers Content-Length: 3204 Clarifying and expanding what Public Affairs Officer wrote: > > I can't recall the boss of 51st Highland Division, but that outfit...had > seen a lot of fighting in the war, and morale was low. 51st (formerly 9th) Division spent second half of 1940 and all of 1941 in the UK, arrived in Egypt in August 1942 and fought from Alamein to Tunisia, then fought for a month on Sicily. The div did not move to Italy. In August 43 D. N. Wimberley was succeeded by D. C. Bullen-Smith and in November the div sailed back to the UK. Bullen-Smith was replaced by T. G. Rennie in Normandy on 26 July 1944 after the "difficulties" around Caen. ---Joslen, H. F. ORDERS OF BATTLE. London: HMSO, 1960. ---Salmond, J. B. THE HISTORY OF THE 51st HIGHLAND DIVISION. Edinburgh: Pentland, 1953. > 7th Armoured had a similar problem of fatigue in its officers and > men. Bobby Erskine led the division into Normandy, and he took the heat > for the failure at Villers-Bocage.... Erskine's replacement (who also > escapes my mind, I must be going senile) didn't do much better. G. W. E. J. Erskine was replaced in Normandy on 4 August 1944 by G. L. Verney who was himself replaced on 22 November 1944 by L. O. Lyne. ---Joslen, H. F. ORDERS OF BATTLE. London: HMSO, 1960. ---Verney, G. L. THE DESERT RATS: THE 7th ARMOURED DIVISION IN WORLD WAR II. London: Greenhill, 1990. > Bucknall was not Monty's first choice to lead 30 Corps at > D-Day, and historian agree he lacked a grip on the battle from the start. > I expect that Monty wanted the man who inherited 30 Corps, Sir Brian > Horrocks, who was disabled at the time by a shrapnel wound in his lung > from Tunisia. He was literally hauled out of his sickbed to take over 30 > Corps.... Bucknall was appointed by Montgomery despite the misgivings of Alan Brooke. In August he was sacked by the army commander, Dempsey. ---D'Este, Carlo. DECISION IN NORMANDY. New York: Dutton, 1983. "[While Horrocks was in Bizerte watching 46th Division rehearsing their assault]...a German fighter broke through the smoke with its guns blazing. Horrocks was hit in the chest, and the bullet passed through his lungs and intestines and came out by his spine, while another hit his leg. No one else was touched. "Fourteen months later Horrocks was pronounced fit -- or at least he was sufficiently fit to persuade the doctors to mark him fit!" ---Keegan, John (ed). CHURCHILL'S GENERALS. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991. > 3rd and 4th Canadian Divisions both had leadership problems. 3rd > Canadian was led by Keller, and I think Vokes had 4th. 3rd Canadian Infantry Division: R. F. L. Keller-- 8 Sept 42 - 8 Aug 44 D. C. Spry-- 18 Aug 44 - 22 Mar 45 R. H. Keefler-- 23 Mar 45 - 19 Nov 45 4th Canadian Armored Division: G. Kitching-- 1 Mar 44 - 21 Aug 44 H. W. Foster-- 22 Aug 44 - 30 Nov 44 C. Vokes-- 1 Dec 44 - 5 Jun 45 ---Stacey, C. P. THE VICTORY CAMPAIGN. Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, 1960. > ...Spike Milligan... Sorry, no information available on Spike Milligan. ---------------------------- Bill Stone Santa Rosa, CA bstone@sonic.net World War II Web Site: http://www.sonic.net/~bstone ---------------------------- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 05:40:37 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01306; Tue, 26 Mar 96 05:40:36 +0100 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA05763 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 05:40:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA27135; Tue, 26 Mar 96 16:36:17 NZS Message-Id: <9603260436.AA27135@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:37 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Astell explains it all Content-Length: 7062 Wow! What a post! It certainly describes the entire cornucopia of the German war machine and why the Nazi forces come in so many different colors. Allgemeine is the spelling for the Allgemeine. A lot of important Germans (the "bonze") held ranks in the Allgemeine SS The German Navy built up ground units pretty much like other navies did, to guard ports and naval bases. Some of these forces saw combat in events like the Raid on St. Nazaire. Late in the war, when the Nazis ran short of manpower and their warships had nowhere to operate, Admiral Karl Doenitz released about 25,000 sailors from his ships to be turned into infantry on the Oder front, joining another division of bluejackets and Marines. Most of these Sailors saw little action, but Doenitz flew an officer's training outfit to Berlin to defend the Fuhrerbunker and the rest of the Zitadelle area, a collection of gaudily-dressed but poorly trained midshipmen and radar technicians, a 1945 birthday gift to the Fuhrer. Journalist Joseph O'Donnell, while researching his book The Bunker, on Hitler's last days, found that most of these alleged infantrymen wound up on the operating table of the Army hospital in the Reichschancellery...but none of them survived the war. The Fegelein Cavalry Brigade is commanded by the former jockey Otto Fegelein, who married Eva Braun's sister (Gretl, I think) and became an intimate of the Fuhrer circle. However, when the roof fell in on Berlin in 1945, Fegelein disappeared. With Nazism in a state of collapse, Hitler became greatly concerned with the fate of Fegelein, despatching the Gestapo to bring in the missing general for court-martial. Hitler's concern over Fegelein was over his obsession that someone in his personal entourage was leaking information to the Allies. The key event was the Allied radio announcing Heinrich Himmler's peace overtures to the West. To Hitler, someone had betrayed the Reich besides Himmler, and Fegelein seemed the likely suspect. Fegelein was found in a Berlin apartment with a mysterious woman, believed to be Fegelein's Irish paramour, and the Gestapo men (they had gone without sleep for two days and were exhausted) let her slip away. When Fegelein was brought back to the Fuhrerbunker, Martin Bormann was furious that the lady was not in handcuffs, as well. The weary Gestapo detectives went back to the apartment, but the lady had vanished from history. The Gestapo did find that Fegelein had amassed a pile of Reichmarks, jewelry, and Swiss francs, all useful tools for staging the great escape in the hegira of 1945, so Fegelein stood trial before SS General Wilhelm Mohnke in the bunker for high treason around midnight on April 29th. Fegelein was in no shape to defend himself, as he was completely drunk, but that was hardly the issue in this judicial travesty. The court found Fegelein guilty and sentenced him to death. The former jockey was shot shortly after. Half an hour later, Eva Braun revealed the banality of her evil and her hero-worship of Hitler by marrying Der Fuhrer. A day later, both were dead. The extent to which the Waffen SS reached out for foreign volunteers peaked with the invention of the "British Freikorps," also known as the "Legion of St. George." This ragtag band of British fascists numbered about 50 at most, and was drawn from PoWs. The SS tried hard to enlist British PoWs, sending Lord Haw-Haw (William Joyce) himself to various PoW camps with posters and fliers, to lecture to captured Tommies. The PoWs used the fliers as toilet paper. But here and there, Haw-haw picked up recruits. One of them was Walter Purdy, a Royal Navy engineer captured in Norway. The Germans used Purdy first as a broadcaster behind Joyce. Then, disguised as a British Army officer, Purdy was slipped into PoW camps to spy on the British PoWs. He was found out at various camps, but the Germans kept trying, even sending him to Oflag XXIB, better known to PoW buffs as Colditz Strafelager. There the British Senior Officer, Col. Guy German, put it to the Germans simply, either remove Purdy or we will kill him. Purdy was removed. Captured by the British after the war, Purdy drew a life term in Wandsworth Gaol. The British Free Corps wore SS uniforms with Union Jack badges, but never amounted to much due to small numbers. Its members were visible in the salons and nightclubs of Berlin, for propaganda value, but saw no action as a cohesive unit. One member, defending Berlin in the last days of the war, received the Iron Cross for knocking out some Josef Stalin tanks, then himself was killed. Interestingly enough, a good chunk of the SS units defending the rubble of Berlin in April 1945 were French, Norwegian, and Belgian units, whose members fought with the determination of the damned, knowing their fate was a choice between death in battle or the traitor's rope. The SS Police anti-partisan units WERE a terrifying bunch. The SS Penal Brigade under Oskar Dirlewanger was sent to destroy the Warsaw Rising of 1944. In this outfit's officer's mess, if one officer even remotely challenged Hitler or the Nazi machine ("Since the war started, the butter in the officer's mess has been lousy"), one of the officer's buddies would pull out his pistol and shoot the offender on the spot. After the war, Dirlewanger fled Allied war-crimes retribution and went to Egypt, where he advised Egyptian leaders on how to deal with Israel. The girls' version of the Hitler Youth was the Bund Deutscher Madchen. Various stories have existed about this outfit, including that it encouraged German girls to deliberately get themselves pregnant to increase the Reich's supply of manpower, racial stock, and cannon fodder, but these stories seem to say more about the authors' own sexual interests than about history. However, German girls who wished to marry SS men were required to earn the Reich Sport Medal to show their ability to bear healthy children for the Reich. The SA was originally uniformed in leftover clothing to be sent to the German WW1 army in East Africa, the Schutztruppe, under Col. Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck. However, there was never a way to ship the clothing, so the SA got them. They lost their importance after the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, when their leader, Ernst Rohm, (who described himself as wicked and immature), a flagrant pederast, was shot, along with a horde of other top SA men and a former German chancellor. However, they hung round to provide color at Nazi rallies (carrying those immense banners that resemble Roman ones) and in 1938, were used to carry out most of the depredations of the Night of Broken Glass. Not a likable bunch. Just thought I'd add a few notes to an excellent and informative post. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 06:57:46 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01906; Tue, 26 Mar 96 06:57:45 +0100 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA06459 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 06:54:36 +0100 (MET) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA12167 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Mon, 25 Mar 1996 23:54:32 -0600 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 23:54:31 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Stacking Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 5739 I would like to take the stacking issue one step beyond the 3-3-2 vs 4-4-3 or whatever point. There can be considered two mostly separate issues here as some have pointed out. Unit frontages (including overall hex density); and command and control of the units in the hex. For unit frontages I side with the higher stacking crowd. Doctrine for all powers by '43 had division attack frontage of as little as one kilometer. So frontage wise one can fit at least 60 REs in a hex. That the defense never had frontage that dense is something we can try to investigate. Now it is true most attacks were not 20 divisions strong in one hex point, but there were some that were not that far off. All of the divisions and the support units, (eng, AT, etc) could be considered in the line. For the full size of the hex one can place more units. That after all is the justification of the extra artillery units, they are behind the line. One could carry that line of reasoning further. Should not construction units building an airfield behind the line be above stacking limits? How about police units and AA units that may not be part of the line forces although their combat strengths might very well contribute during two weeks of fighting, particularly on defense? What about Command & Control. Any HQ can only keep track of and use a certain number of units. One thing to keep in mind that the Corps markers are just that, markers for ease of play, and have nothing to do with actual corps HQs. Secondly when we look at history it is hard to get a good handle on this since most books (and games too) do not include sub division units so it is hard to know how many of them, were doing what, where, at any time. But certainly in the western armies a corps only contained two to four divisions at any time. And most of the time they were spread over more than one hex, in game terms. But one can guess that mostly this was because there were not enought units in most armies to `stack' to the density that was physically possible. One had to cover the front with something. So we could certainly keep total stackage down from the what it is physically possible to fit in a hex issue to just what was doctrine. But the C&C issue brings up a question to me. What is the logic behind the 3-3-2 stacking rule. It is an elegant rule that is easy to use but is there any justification? Certainly we can see why the three divisions in the line was used, and as explained the artillery behind the line works well. But why the three support REs. Why can one put 3 REs as regiments in the line but not as divisions? I can not see any logical reason with respect to unit frontage. What about C&C? Think of the Russian Army commander ( no real corps structure there) Ask him if it is easier to control one 4-6 division or two 2-6 brigades. I'll bet on the one division. Beyond the total amount of stacking issue, the 3 non-division RE rule has IMO really screwed up the Europa game. What do players do? In Russia, the Germans break up Panzer divisions to get the big regiments to make killer wads. The fighting in France had shown the Germans that the best way to use tanks was not to put all of them in one hex. But then we now know that the Germans were not bright enough to come up with a proper solution to NODLs like we can. And when Stavka tells the Russian field command that it can now convert live 2-6 brigades into rebuilt 4-6 divisions what does he say? No way, I can stack the 2-6s. My line is already full of 4-6 divisions, more are useless. And what about attack tactics. Standard Russian doctrine '43 on, was to have infantry divisions open the attack and have the armor right behind to go through the holes. Now any Europa Russian knows that this doctrine is wrong. With infantry divisions in the line they can not get enough attack factors in a hex to make any kind of attack. The new SF overstack helps some, but only in limited areas. In Clear terrain, a full stack can march through a full stack for the one movement point. But if the second stack is in overstack it cost 2 MPs. Certainly if I can move through a stack it's not going to cost me more if I start ou in the stack. And if the original stack moves, even six months later I have to spend those 2 MPs to get out of overstack. If we keep overstack in GE, IMO it needs tinkering So all of the above, to me, spells - change the stacking rules. The Old DNO, memory tells me, just used a number for REs to a hex. I believe that can be a good starting basis. That also allows different armies at different times to have stacking based on C&C limitations; e.g. in '41 the Germans can stack 15 REs to a hex, the Russians only 10 REs. If we let divisions be more efficient (that's why they used them) we can get out of those breaking up, or keeping small units around just to help stacking. Example: Divisions = 2 stacking points Regiments = 1 " " Artillery and other units `behind the line' can stack for half cost. Other points of stacking `logic' can be thought up and used. One could have special unusual stacking points for big divisions, little divisions, artillery corps etc. Although his is more difficult without being able to put stacking point numbers on the units and GE is beyond that now. Although the old 3-3-2 was elegant and easy to use, it is wrong, IMO, and this proposed fix is not overly difficult for the benefits it brings. That's what I think, What do all you think? Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 16:19:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10128; Tue, 26 Mar 96 16:19:02 +0100 Received: from motgate2.mot.com ([129.188.136.20]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA18816 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:16:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.7.3/8.6.10/MOT-3.8) with ESMTP id PAA29497 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 15:15:32 GMT Received: from fwans12 (fwans12.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com [160.2.12.7]) by mothost.mot.com (8.7.3/8.6.10/MOT-3.8) with SMTP id JAA20758 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 09:15:52 -0600 (CST) Received: from fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (fwhre14) by fwans12 (5.67b/FTW-1.62) id AA06868; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 09:12:52 -0600 Received: by fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (8.6.12/FTW-1.62) id JAA18993; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 09:15:50 -0600 From: psmith@hpmail2.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Paul Smith) Message-Id: <199603261515.JAA18993@fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com> Subject: You people use big words ..... To: europa@lysator.liu.se (Europa maillist) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 09:15:50 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: psmith@ftw.mot.com *Return-Receipt-To: psmith@ftw.mot.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 443 I have to keep a dictionary nearby whenever I read your posts. -- 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 europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 16:55:58 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10683; Tue, 26 Mar 96 16:55:56 +0100 Received: from tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu (tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.63.93]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA25835 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:55:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu by tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.1/2.2) id KAA28007; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 10:54:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 10:54:55 -0500 (EST) From: Edward K Nam X-Sender: ednam@tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Master Europa In-Reply-To: <9603241805.AA19220@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 4265 On Sun, 24 Mar 1996, Keith Pardue wrote: > 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!) > For those of you who don't know, Master Europa is a GRD approved set of alternative rules for the Europa system designed by Tom Johnson. I have never used Tom Johnson's Master Europa, but I have read and studied the rules planning to use them in our current game. But we voted to play RAW before trying any variants in our FitE/SE game. I have made up a list of diffrerences between Master Europa and the Rules as Written. It's interesting that Master addresses some of the stacking and operational air discussions that have been going on recently. Maybe there's someone else out there that has more to say about how these rules affect balance etc. since I haven't playtested them yet. Nevertheless here are some of the general major differences. Reaction movement After the combat phase, the defender is allowed a reaction movement phase if it is within some distance away (3-7 hexes) from a successfully attacked hex. The Russians can only do this after Oct II '42. Exploitation Movement Cavalry and c/m units can move their full movement in this phase, all other units can move half their movement allowance! Operational movement In addition to tactical and admin movement, operation movement is added. Using this, units can move at 1.5X their movement raiting and can walk adjacent to enemy as long as there is a friendly unit in that hex. Units can use this movement rate in enemy territory. Captured rail networks. It is possible to increase your rail cap by capturing various cities. Stacking. The stacking limit is 12 RE (no more than half being non-division) plus 8RE of artillery. Combat Fog of war: After the combat ratio is computed, fractions are retained and 2D10 are rolled to resolve which column is used for the attack. Mixing nationalities in an attack halves firepower of minorities. Super attacks: attacks > 9:1 add modifiers to die roll. AQ/DQ is added to the CRT. (attacker quartered.) QX and QR is added to the CRT (quarter exchange and retreat) OTherwise, the only other comment I can make about the CRT (without reproducing it here) is that the DE line is about 1 point lower on the chart than on the SE CRT. Support. Cadres provide support for units stacked with them. Artillery can only provide support to a limited number of units. Supply No Trucks! Supply lengths: No Road element! The overland element depends on nationality and date but ranges from 4 to 8 hexes. Supply effect: There are seperate effects for isolated and non- isolated units. U-1 has no effect on units. U-2 attack and movement halved. U-3 reduced ZOC, AEC, and no reaction or exploitation movement. For isolated units the results are harsher than RAW. Airbases are also effected. Special Units Resource points are NOT used in this game. engineers can build airfields and forts without them. Airfields disappear after a while if not in use. There are various levels of fortifications that can be constructed. Air combat: Air combat is done similarly to ground combat. Total attack strengths are ratioed against total defense strengths and rolled on a CRT. losses are taken according to these factors, the rest get through. No patrol rules. German first turn Surprise The Germans get a +3 to their combat dice roles in the first surprise turn. Special Rules Hitler's obsession: All divisions must be built up to cadre strength before any cadres can be built up to full strength. Soviet special replacements: For every 3 non-isolated strength points lost 1 comes back as special replacement! Soviet surrender The government has a chance of collapsing when certain conditions are met (with modifiers). Tom has been helpful to me before in answering email questions. If you have questions for him, perhaps he will do the same (swcectj@rvlink.com) -Ed Nam From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 17:49:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11616; Tue, 26 Mar 96 17:49:17 +0100 Received: from hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca (hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca [205.206.207.101]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA08017 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 17:48:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from hal-ham-g01-u01 (i486nt01.harte-lyne.ca) by hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA179548985; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 11:49:45 -0500 Message-Id: <31582113.3DB9@harte-lyne.ca> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 11:53:39 -0500 From: "James B. Byrne" Organization: Harte & Lyne Limited X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (WinNT; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: psmith@ftw.mot.com Cc: Europa maillist Subject: Re: You people use big words ..... References: <199603261515.JAA18993@fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 298 Paul Smith wrote: > > I have to keep a dictionary nearby whenever I read your posts. > My spelling is so bad I have to keep a dictionary nearby when I'm writing. -- James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241 From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Mar 26 22:29:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14768; Tue, 26 Mar 96 22:29:41 +0100 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA13264 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 22:28:20 +0100 (MET) From: Italorican@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24243; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:27:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:27:48 -0500 Message-Id: <960326162747_455434474@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: bstone@sub.sonic.net, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Sacked officers Content-Length: 376 Does anyone have any information on the sacking of Brig. E. Dorman-Smith in Italy? Corelli Barnett made a big deal of it in an epilogue or footnote in his Desert Generals, but does not name names and other particulars. I have a vague sense that I may have run across the incident in some history on the British campaign in Italy, but cannot place it. Thanks Antonio Lauria From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 01:42:37 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16270; Wed, 27 Mar 96 01:42:36 +0100 Received: from travel1.travel-net.com (root@travel1.travel-net.com [204.92.71.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA23888 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 01:41:23 +0100 (MET) From: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Received: from 204.92.71.2.travel-net.com (tv135.travel-net.com [205.150.57.135]) by travel1.travel-net.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA17965 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:46:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:46:43 -0500 Message-Id: <199603270046.TAA17965@travel1.travel-net.com> X-Sender: bradbury@mail.travel-net.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: More on Sacked Officers Content-Length: 1295 More on sacked British officers. I believe Chink Dorman-Smith was sacked shortly after Monty arrived in the desert in Aug '42 - there are many unflattering comments regarding Dorman-Smith in Monty' official biography - one staff officer described him as "He really was as near being a lunatic as you can get". This was particularly in reference to the use of brigade groups in the post Gazala period. The trigger to the sacking of both Bucknall and Erskine was the failure of 7th Armoured to advance as quickly as Dempsey wanted in Operation Bluecoat. The failures of the Canadian senior officers are well documented (there is a quote, whose attribution escapes me, but may have come from as far back as WW1, that went along the lines that the Canadians were grand troops and would be excellent once all the officers had been shot). Many of these problems are rooted in the militia, which, among its virtues, did not do a very good job in preparing battalion officers and higher for the art of war. The militia problems actually go back as far as WW1 and the "legendary" Colonel Sam Hughes, who is worth several paragraphs and perhaps a special rule in the Glory series (e.g, Sam Hughes dies unexpectedly, Canadian division strengths increased by one), but I'll save that for another day. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 02:54:04 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16687; Wed, 27 Mar 96 02:54:03 +0100 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz ([192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA25358 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 02:53:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29811; Wed, 27 Mar 96 13:49:26 NZS Message-Id: <9603270149.AA29811@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 13:48 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Sam Hughes and others Content-Length: 2237 The problem with the eminent Sam Hughes (which will effect Glory, I guess) was that he was a big fan of the Ross rifle, and equipped Canadian troops with this weapon. However, Canadian troops found it too heavy, impossible to open to eject cartridges, and used it only as a club. At early battles, Canadian troops exchanged Ross rifles with Lee-Enfields from dead English soldiers (of which there were plenty), to get some firepower. Despite frantic telegrams from the front, Hughes stuck by his rifle, until he was finally fired...and then the Canadian army started to use the reliable .303 Lee-Enfield. It's hard to keep up with some of this Europa scholarship from down here, mostly because my e-mails land at work (to avoid cluttering up my wife's Internet line at home), and my books are either at home in New Zealand or at home in New Jersey, so I have to struggle to remember guys like Chink Dorman-Smith and Douglas Wimberley. Monty DID appoint Bucknall (as mentioned earlier and ecchier) over Alanbrooke's objections, and while he got 30 Corps up on Gold Beach and over on D-Day, he did badly after that. However, the cutting edge of 30 Corps on D-Day was 50th Northumbrian Division, which had already compiled a long record of successful battles. It was the division that wrapped up the race to Messina back in Sicily in 1943, as a matter of fact. The rest of te 8th Army had been pulled out as the campaign's land space narrowed, to prepare for Operation Baytown, the crossing of the Messina Strait. Brian Horrocks' medical condition was very serious, yet he lived on until 1984 or 1985, serving as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (director of operations for the Houses of Parliament) and TV presenter on a BBC series on famous battles. He is best remembered as the gung-ho corps commander played by Edward Fox in A Bridge Too Far. The General Rennie who ultimately took over 51st Highland Division led 3rd British Division ashore at Sword Beach. He was wounded in the enusing campaign, sent home, and then returned to take over 51st Highland. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 03:13:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16980; Wed, 27 Mar 96 03:13:58 +0100 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA00180 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 03:13:21 +0100 (MET) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA01807 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Tue, 26 Mar 1996 21:13:17 -0500 Message-Id: <199603270213.AA01807@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Tue, 26 Mar 1996 21:13:17 -0500 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa Subject: Yes to AO, How about DOA? Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 18:06:00 EST Encoding: 20 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Content-Length: 1071 Let me add my vote for a revision of "Africa Orientale" as a GRD project. I would push the start date back to 1936 and include the invasion of Abyssinia as part of the game, with a link-up to the WitD maps for GE. The number of maps might be a problem at 16 miles/hex, although a linear arrangement following the track of the Nile from Cairo to Khartoum should only require four "linking" quarter maps. It is only when you look at it you realize how big a continent Africa is. On a related note, is there any interest in GRD doing the ultimate sideshow, the 1914-1918 war in East Africa, which has all the chrome that a wargamer could want: killer bees turning back amphibious assaults, cruisers playing hide-and seek in a mangrove swamp, (unsuccessful) aerial resupply by long range zeppelin and a German army so isolated from the rest of the world that they were marching on Northern Rhodesia (as it was then) after Imperial Germany had surrendered. Vote for Deutsch Ost Afrika as the most mobile of all WWI campaigns. Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 03:46:48 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17198; Wed, 27 Mar 96 03:46:47 +0100 Received: from travel1.travel-net.com (root@travel1.travel-net.com [204.92.71.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA07053 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 03:46:02 +0100 (MET) From: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Received: from 204.92.71.2.travel-net.com (tv135.travel-net.com [205.150.57.135]) by travel1.travel-net.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA28753; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 21:51:47 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 21:51:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199603270251.VAA28753@travel1.travel-net.com> X-Sender: bradbury@mail.travel-net.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Subject: Re: Sam Hughes and others Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Content-Length: 604 Not to clutter up the list with too much Sam Hughes material, but Sam had several other failing including nepotism (his son Garnet was the subject of much intriguing but eventually was not given command one of the Canadian divisions in France) and a seeming incapacity to understand details such wastage and thus the need for replacements to keep divisions up to strength (as late as 1916 he was promising a Canadian contingent of 21 divisions - only 4 ever fought in France). Rennie was later killed in 1945 during Operation Plunder, the 21st Army Group's Rhine crossing. Nigel Bradbury Ottawa, Ont. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 04:19:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17399; Wed, 27 Mar 96 04:19:58 +0100 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA12894 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 04:18:00 +0100 (MET) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA193405910; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 03:05:10 GMT Message-Id: <199603270305.AA193405910@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Wed, 27 Mar 96 03:05:10 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Wed, 27 Mar 96 03:04:51 UTC 0000) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 02:45:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 8486011 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 13657 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mscontent-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Subject: Totenkopf units etc. Content-Length: 4118 I have the temerity to expand a bit on John Astell's comprehensive summary of the military forces of Nazi Germany. -The SS. Actually at the start of WW2 there were three separate armed forces of Himmler's SS: 1. Sepp Dietrich's "Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler," Hitler's bodyguard unit, organized as a motorized infantry regiment. 2. Paul Hausser's "Verf=81gungstruppe," composed of three standarten organized as motorized infantry regiments: SS Standarte Deutschland, SS Standarte Germania, and SS Standarte Der F=81hrer; along with an SS Artillery Regiment, reconaissance battalion, anti-tank battalion, light flak battalion and engineer battalion. The Verf=81gungstruppe was the forerunner of the Das Reich division. 3. Theodor Eicke's Totenkopfverb=84nde (death's head units) were concentration camp guards. Eicke, being an empire builder like most of Hitler's minions, had formed four Totenkopf "standarten" or regiments (one for each of the concentration camps): SS Totenkopf Standarte I Oberbayern for Dachau; SS Totenkopf Standarte II Brandenburg for Oranienburg; SS Totenkopf Standarte III Thuringen for Buchenwald; SS Totenkopf Standarte IV Ostmark (in Austria) for Mauthausen. Eicke had also managed to build up a sizeable reserve force and acquire his own depots and factories for supplies and arms (using concentration camp labor). With the outbreak of war, the Totenkopf forces expanded with the calling up of 40,000 SS reservists and the enrolling of new recruits. Eicke soon had under his control no less than fifteen standarten of Totenkopf troops plus, as John mentioned, one "SS- Totenkopf-Reiterstandarte" (cavalry regiment). The first three of the new standarten, built from the best personnel from the four original units and others, formed SS-Totenkopf-Standarten 1, 2, 3 which were the nucleus of Eicke's new Totenkopf-Division. The rest of the units were used as garrison units in occupied Poland and elsewhere. When Himmler managed to get control of his unruly subordinates and combine the three separate forces (plus the SS-Polizei Division) into the "Waffen SS," Eicke's extra units were used as follows: Standarten 8 and 10 went to form SS-Brigade 1; Standarten 4, 5 and 14 to form SS-Brigade 2; Standarten 6 and 7 ended up in Finland and were used to expand SS-Kampfgruppe Nord into a mountain division; Standarte 9 was used to garrison Kirkenes and became the basis for SS-Kampfgruppe Nord (but later was sent to Russia and was ultimately absorbed by the Totenkopf Division); Standart 11 became part of Felix Steiner's Wiking Division; the cavalry regiment was expanded into two regiments and, as John also noted, became SS Cavalry Brigade Fegelein (commanded by Eva Braun's brother-in-law); and Standarten 12, 13, and 15 were disbanded. SE: Jun II 41: 1 x 3-10 Mot XX Nord (SS) Jul I 41, 1 x 3-8* Cav X Fgln (SS), 1 x 3-10 Mot X 1 (SS); Sep I 41, 1 x 3-10 Mot X 2 (SS). [This is mainly based upon information in volumes 2, 3, and 4 of Tessin; and SOLDIERS OF DESTRUCTION THE SS DEATH'S HEAD DIVISION 1933-1945, by Charles W. Sydnor, Jr.] THE WAFFEN SS HITLER'S ELITE GUARD AT WAR 1939-1945, by George H. Stein is good general source covering the Waffen SS in all of its multifarious [?] activities. -For an overview of some of the other assorted para-military units of Nazi Germany, Osprey's Men At Arms Series No. 254, WEHRMACHT AUXILIARY FORCES is very useful. It covers the following: NSKK (the National Socialist Motor Transport Corps) Transport-Korps Speer RAD (Reichsarbeits-Dienst) (as noted by John partially absorbed by the Army in 1939 to form all of those 0-2-5 Cons X and 0-1-5 Cons III) but remained separate throughout the war and was used in 1945 to form some of the alarm divisions for the last ditch. SF, Apr I 45: 3 x 4-6-6 Inf XX Schlg (1. "Schlageter"), FLJahn (2. "Friedrich Ludwig Jahn"), Thkor (3. "Theodor Korner"). Membership in RAD was mandatory and was the immediate step before entry into the Army. Organization Todt Deutscher Volkssturm (the "people's militia" called out late in 1944). Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 04:57:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17635; Wed, 27 Mar 96 04:57:40 +0100 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA13248 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 04:57:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00237; Wed, 27 Mar 96 15:53:00 NZS Message-Id: <9603270353.AA00237@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:53 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: With Lettow-Vorbeck... Content-Length: 877 The East African sideshow was a pretty fascinating portion of WW1. There are two good books on it, one is The Great War in Africa, which covers all the fighting in that continent, the other being Battle for the Bundu, which is just about the East African campaign. It was indeed a classic of guerilla warfare and it amazes me that Lettow-Vorbeck kept his army in being through four years of war, despite being out of touch with his homeland all that time. He was ultimately brought down not by British advances, but by the 1918 West Front armistice. The game should definitely include Die Wacht Am Rufiji with the cruiser Konigsberg, and the real African Queens, the British torpedo boats on the Lake, which inspired C.S. Forester. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 05:00:01 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17648; Wed, 27 Mar 96 05:00:01 +0100 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA13272 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 04:59:41 +0100 (MET) From: WANDREW@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12208 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 22:59:09 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 22:59:09 -0500 Message-Id: <960326225907_178922047@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Submarine Question Content-Length: 653 I was talking to some folks today and mention was made by one of them that the Germans built/transported a submarine to Lake Titicaca (in S America) during WWII. Does anyone have any information or reference to this event? Which brings up something for Grand Europa...will there be any provision for diplomatic or economic influence to influence countries in Central/South America to support the Reich? Thoughts of the Graf Spee dropping anchor in a friendly Montevedia; merchant raiders docking in Buenos Aires, U-boats refueling in Caracas or the Brazilians keeping their troops at home due to threats from Bolivia come to mind. Comments? --Andy From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 05:00:22 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17668; Wed, 27 Mar 96 05:00:21 +0100 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA13281 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 05:00:09 +0100 (MET) Received: from osf1.gmu.edu by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA09694; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 23:00:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 23:08:06 -0500 From: Nicholas Forte Reply-To: nforte@gmu.edu Subject: Re: Stacking To: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199603260154.TAA26662@smtp.utexas.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1521 Bobby D. Bryant wrote: >>In regards the attack on the Meuse, the current stacking limits allows for all >>of the German units that participated in the attack to be placed in the front >>line stacks. ... > >I respond that this carries no weight *unless* you demonstrate that the >historical "stacking" was dictated by "the rules", rather than (e.g.) lack >of additional units on hand to throw in, or a commander's assessment that >any additional units to hand were not necessary, and therefore best assigned >to other tasks. Thus the following makes no sense to me: My example of the German attack on the Meuse was to show that the ability of a German player to mass the forces needed to replicate the historical attack is not constrained by the stacking limit. I got the impression from your earlier posts that you felt that an inadequate stacking limit prevented you from recreating the German stomp through France. Furthermore, I would argue that may arguement should hold *unless* you can demonstrate that the current stacking limit prevents a player from recreating historical attacks. If you can, then we can have a discussion of how many such examples would be necessary to show the current stacking level in insufficient. An argument that calls for increased stacking because it was technically possible even if it never occured carries little weight since it would be *technically* possible to line up your troops in Napoleonic fashion to achieve a stacking of 10 divisions (or more) per hex. Nick Forte From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 07:02:28 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18481; Wed, 27 Mar 96 07:02:26 +0100 Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA14909 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 07:01:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from van0321.tvs.net ([204.191.197.91]) by haven.uniserve.com with SMTP id <34855-6654>; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 22:04:41 -0800 X-Sender: davehum@popserver.uniserve.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Dave Humphreys Subject: Re: With Lettow-Vorbeck... Message-Id: <96Mar26.220441pst.34855-6654+873@haven.uniserve.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 22:04:31 -0800 Content-Length: 1177 At 15:53 03/27/96 GMT, you wrote: > The East African sideshow was a pretty fascinating portion of WW1. >There are two good books on it, one is The Great War in Africa, which >covers all the fighting in that continent, the other being Battle for the >Bundu, which is just about the East African campaign. > It was indeed a classic of guerilla warfare and it amazes me that >Lettow-Vorbeck kept his army in being through four years of war, despite >being out of touch with his homeland all that time. He was ultimately >brought down not by British advances, but by the 1918 West Front >armistice. > The game should definitely include Die Wacht Am Rufiji with the >cruiser Konigsberg, and the real African Queens, the British torpedo >boats on the Lake, which inspired C.S. Forester. > > David H. Lippman > Public Affairs Officer > US Naval Antarctic Support Unit > Christchurch, New Zealand > This talk of WWI in East Africa is diverging a bit from the list's topic. Anyone who is interested in this campaign should obtain S&T #135 which contains the game "Sideshow". I've never played it, but it does have tons of optional "chrome" rules. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 08:21:11 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA19107; Wed, 27 Mar 96 08:21:10 +0100 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA15651 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 08:20:21 +0100 (MET) Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id CAA07799; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 02:19:47 -0500 Date: 27 Mar 96 02:19:00 EST From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com> To: Europa LIst Subject: Re: Stacking Message-Id: <960327071859_74133.1765_BHR41-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Length: 1594 Nicholas Forte wrote, > I would argue that may arguement should hold *unless* you can demonstrate > that the current stacking limit prevents a player from recreating historical attacks. > If you can, then we can have a discussion of how many such examples would be > necessary to show the current stacking level in insufficient. An argument that > calls for increased stacking because it was technically possible even if it never > occured carries little weight since it would be *technically* possible to line up your > troops in Napoleonic fashion to achieve a stacking of 10 divisions (or more) per > hex. I'm having a difficult time comprehending the persistence of this debate. Sorry to say, I started it with specific examples of the Allies in Diadem. It's not complex, it's not subjective. Just try setting up the Allied (and German) lines in Normandy, the Bulge, Kursk, or Stalingrad. If you're really interested, see for yourself - there are examples aplenty. The seemingly simple points which Bobby and I have tried to make on several occasions are that 1) 3-3-2 stacking is an ahistorical restriction, and 2) in response to objections that increased stacking would favor the attacker, that the Germans can use lots of help in FOF (and elsewhere). Compare your best German results in FOF with a map of the campaign. Just look at it. Sometimes it seems that the real issue is whether The Laws of Europa have some sort of religious significance, or whether as rules for war games they are subject to improvement. To me at least, that's not an interesting question either. Jim From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 17:21:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27009; Wed, 27 Mar 96 17:21:57 +0100 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA12005 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:19:55 +0100 (MET) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA10375 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 10:11:19 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:18:42 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: With Lettow-Vorbeck... Status: O Content-Length: 1128 > The East African sideshow was a pretty fascinating portion of WW1. >There are two good books on it, one is The Great War in Africa, which >covers all the fighting in that continent, the other being Battle for the >Bundu, which is just about the East African campaign. > It was indeed a classic of guerilla warfare.... L-V wrote his own account of the Ger. E. Africa campaign: a 64-page pamphlet in German entitled "Was mir die Englaender ueber Ostafrika erzaehlten" (General v. Lettow-Vorbec; K.F. Koehler-Leipzig, 1932). It covers the campaign and includes several maps of his battles. I came across it in the microfilm section of the NY Public Library when I was helping out for the WW1 game. I think reprinting it, translated in English, may have some historical interest, and I plan to look into this sometime. There was at least one game on the Ger. E. Africa campaign, Schutztruppen (or Schutztruppe or something like that -- German for "Rifle Troops"), which appeared in the late 60s or early 70s. It was an OK game -- it had some flavor but was hampered by the clunky game mechanics typical of that time. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 17:21:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27008; Wed, 27 Mar 96 17:21:57 +0100 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA12035 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:20:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA10385 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 10:11:28 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:18:52 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Stacking Status: O Content-Length: 2002 Nick Forte wrote: >> I would argue that may arguement should hold *unless* you can demonstrate >> that the current stacking limit prevents a player from recreating historical >> attacks. If you can, then we can have a discussion of how many such examples >> would be necessary to show the current stacking level in insufficient.... Jim Arnold wrote: >I'm having a difficult time comprehending the persistence of this debate. Sorry >to say, I started it with specific examples of the Allies in Diadem. It's not >complex, it's not subjective. Just try setting up the Allied (and German) lines >in Normandy, the Bulge, Kursk, or Stalingrad. If you're really interested, see >for yourself - there are examples aplenty.... Nick has a valid point -- if somneone claims something doesn't work, it's up to that person (or like minded individuals) to thoroughly document it. It seems unfair to tell people who may not agree with you to do the checking for you. The current stacking rules cover most stacking/attacking situations. If you want to show the rule is broken, you got to: 1) Show that there are numerous cases when the rule doesn't work. If there's just a handful of exceptional cases, then that's what they are: exceptional cases. 2) Show that the current rules don't accommodate the situation in a slightly different way. I suspect the majority of superstacked cases (e.g., 4 divisions making an attack) will turn out that all attacking units could be legally stacked in adjacent hexes (e.g., 3 in one hex and one in an adjacent hex). 3) Show that super-stacked units are all indeed stacking. Again, I suspect you'll find that some units in super-stacked attacks are just holding the flanks for the attack and not actually attacking. 4) Show that super-stacked attacks are significant over the time frame of an Europa turn. How significant is a 4-div super-stacked attack where one div only participates in the opening hours or day of the attack? Is it significant, or is it ignorable? From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 17:22:00 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27017; Wed, 27 Mar 96 17:21:59 +0100 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA12020 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:20:00 +0100 (MET) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA10382 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 10:11:24 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:18:46 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Submarine Question Status: O Content-Length: 663 >Which brings up something for Grand Europa...will there be any provision for >diplomatic or economic influence to influence countries in Central/South >America to support the Reich? Thoughts of the Graf Spee dropping anchor in a >friendly Montevedia; merchant raiders docking in Buenos Aires, U-boats >refueling in Caracas or the Brazilians keeping their troops at home due to >threats from Bolivia come to mind. Yes. I envisage eventually having holding boxes and a diplomatic system for most off-map areas. That said, however, it is hard to see how the Axis would make much diplomatic headway in South America unless they outright won the war in Europe.... From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 17:58:07 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27564; Wed, 27 Mar 96 17:58:06 +0100 Received: from maxwell.ee.washington.edu (daemon@maxwell.ee.washington.edu [128.95.42.3]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA00638 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:53:05 +0100 (MET) Received: from [128.95.42.157] (graham-mac.ee.washington.edu) by maxwell.ee.washington.edu (1.37.109.16/UW-NDC Revision: 2.26 ) id AA212125613; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 08:53:33 -0800 X-Sender: graham@128.95.42.3 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 08:53:39 -0800 To: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com> From: graham@ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) Subject: Re: Stacking Cc: Europa LIst Status: O Content-Length: 1287 At 2:19 AM 27/3/96, Jim Arnold wrote: > 1) 3-3-2 stacking >is an ahistorical restriction, and 2) in response to objections that increased >stacking would favor the attacker, that the Germans can use lots of help in FOF >(and elsewhere). Compare your best German results in FOF with a map of the >campaign. Just look at it. Is changing a system mechanic the best way to solve the problem in FoF? Or would it create problems in other games? It would unbalance Fire in the East in favor of the Germans, simply because more Soviet stacks could be overrun. If the Soviet attrition rate goes up, they bleed out before reinforcements let them build a new and stable defense line. Similarly, the German task in Second Front gets much harder. The problem with FoF is that very few French players will react as badly as the French did historically. The French player knows where all the Germans are, knows what tactics will work to stop a panzer attack, and has complete knowledge of how good his own troops are. Of course, we could fix this by: 1. The French player gets 45 minutes to move all forces. 2. At the start of the French turn, the German player will hit the French player on the head with a baseball bat. --- Stephen Graham graham@ee.washington.edu graham@cs.washington.edu From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 18:18:02 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27902; Wed, 27 Mar 96 18:18:01 +0100 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA01562 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 18:16:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id MAA18799 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 12:16:30 -0500 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02461; Wed, 27 Mar 96 12:09:18 EST Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00790; Wed, 27 Mar 96 12:08:21 EST From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9603271708.AA00790@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: Order Police To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 12:08:20 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 4976 Hi All, This note is a follow-up to John Astell's lengthy and interesting post on the various German military and paramilitary units during WWII. The main Europa content of what follows has to do with what colour various German units should be printed in. > 2.1.4 The "SS-Police" in Europa represent the German national police > forces, national security forces, and SS security forces. Actually, the German national police forces were not part of the SS. Himmler was chief of German police after 1936, but in a strictly speaking separate capacity from his role as Reichsfuhrer SS. The men in the German police units were not selected for ideological reasons. Many were, well, policemen. Many had been socialists. Many were hoping to avoid military service and stay near their homes; joining the police exempted them from the draft early in the war. (My source for the above and everything else that is not purely opinion on my part is Christoper Browning's excellent monograph "Ordinary Men." This book is probably the best piece of academic writing that I've run across. I highly reccomend it not only to those interested in the moral ramifications of the Second World War, but to those who do any sort of academic writing. The writing is careful, clear, concise, intelligent, and devastating. Chapter 2 is most relevant to this post, with chapters 3,4 and 5 also being slightly relevant. He gives references which seem to have more detailed OB information in the footnotes. All of these sources are in German.) The Order Police numbered 131,000 in September 1939. There was some attempt to absorb them into the Army. The compromise was that the army was allowed to from a division, the Polizei division, out of the best Order Police units. This division was an army division and not with the SS until 1942, when it became the 4th SS-Polizei Grenadier Division. In return for giving up these 16,000 men to the army, the Order Police were allowed to recruit heavily, mostly from those who were not of draft age, and reached a size of 244,500 by mid 1940. The main duties of the Order police were garrison and deportation. When the Holocaust began, their duties included transportation of various victims, mostly Jews, to the death camps and also on-site massacres, mostly in Poland. But, they were also attached to Einsatzgruppen and assisted massacres in the Soviet Union. During military crises, such as during the winter of 1941, Order Police units also fought at the front. I presume that they are represented (slightly inaccurately) as SS police units in Europa. (They are definitely not security units.) >Due to the > intense interest the Nazis had in domestic security (in order to stay in > power), the national police/security forces and the political SS security > forces were intertwined, with the SS in control. By mid war, the SS took > outright and official control of all these forces. Germany's SS-Pol police > regiments were special militarized police regiments used in conquered > territories. The Polizei Division was a regular infantry (later > panzergrenadier) div recruited from policemen -- it technically was not > part of the SS (although intimately connected with it) until the police > came under the SS, at which time it became part of the Waffen SS (not > SS-Police). The SS-Police organized a motley and horrifying collection of > scum SS-Police anti-partisan units (mainly in the USSR) -- some of which > were so inhuman that the Germans themselves disbanded them, appalled by > their brutality and crimes. To the best of my knowledge, the Germans were never appalled by the brutality and crimes of German units, as Germany had a historic mission to carry out these brutal crimes. So, are the units that you are refering to, John, non-German units? There are many references to Germans, including those in involved with mass murder, being appalled by those non-Germans whom they recruited to carry out their dirty deeds. It seems to me that there are two reasons for this. The first is transference of guilt; whereas Germans are carrying out a historic mission, they are not guilty of murder while others murder only for the lowest of reasons. The second is that the Germans felt that those whom they had recruited came from barabaric races, such as Russians, Ukranians and their allies, the Romanians. Thus, these people murder for fun and in a highly non-Germanic fashion, reinforcing their basic barbarism. I reccomend either "Ordinary Men" or Bartov's "Hitler's Army" as an antedote to these Germans noble self-image. In closing, my information is midwar. I don't know what happened to the Order Police administratively after that. John suggests that they came under direct SS control, which is reasonable. But, I'd like to look in Hilberg's "The Destruction of the European Jews," which is the big book on the administrative apparatus of the Holocaust. Do you have any references, John? Best Wishes, Keith Pardue From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 18:27:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28046; Wed, 27 Mar 96 18:27:43 +0100 Received: from crash.cts.com (root@crash.cts.com [192.188.72.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA01829 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 18:26:57 +0100 (MET) Received: from fhi by crash.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0u1yzk-0000bvC; Wed, 27 Mar 96 09:26 PST Received: from notes.san.fhi.com by fhboot1.san.fhi.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0u1yfc-0000q6C; Wed, 27 Mar 96 09:06 PST Received: by notes.san.fhi.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA3691; Wed, 27 Mar 96 09:05:49 -0800 Message-Id: <9603271705.AA3691@notes.san.fhi.com> Received: from Forte with "Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP" id 949B12324461A51E882562FA00578FF7; Wed, 27 Mar 96 09:05:48 To: europa From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 27 Mar 96 9:01:43 PS Subject: WWI: The First Afrika Corps Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Status: O Content-Length: 1912 Patrick Haugh said... >Let me add my vote for a revision of "Africa Orientale" as a GRD >project. I would push the start date back to 1936 and include the invasion of >Abyssinia as part of the game, with a link-up to the WitD maps for GE. Right On!!! Excactly what I have been wanting to hear! Please send endorsments to Winston Hamilton so he knows I am not the only one who wants the 1940-41 campaign and the 1935-36 Ethiopian campaign as one game. also said... >...is there any interest in GRD doing...the 1914-1918 war in East Africa? I have spoken to Eric Pierce who is running the show in the Great War Project along with Arthur Goodwin. Regarding this campaign he said that it is a fascinating one, and he and Arthur have done the ob and map research, however it won't really work as a game. The reason for this is that at Europa scale, you start with a German colonial brigade - unsupported, and by the end of the game you have a commando battalion being chased by several South African and Indian divisions. The amazing ability of von Lettow to slap the British and then dissapear into the jungle would be very hard to simulate through Europa. Even if the game was converted to a Narvik style company/battalion level fight, it is still largely a guerrilla conflict, not one of major set piece battles (Tanga excepted). I can give you a rundown on where the Great War series stands as of now. 1) March to Victory: France and N. Italy Aug 1914 to Oct 1916 2) Over There: France and N. Italy Nov 1916 to ??? (Fuller's plan 1919 will be an option) 3) Bloody Eagles: E. Prussia and Russia from Aug 1914 to the end. 4) Balkan Web: Serbia, Greece, Gallipoli, and Palestine Aug 1914 to the end. 5) River of Death: Mesopotamia, Caucus, and Persia Aug (Nov?)1914 to the end. It will be an excellent series and a great addition to GR/D and Europa. Jay Steiger San Diego, CA From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 18:44:04 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28237; Wed, 27 Mar 96 18:44:03 +0100 Received: from godot.lysator.liu.se (godot.lysator.liu.se [130.236.254.154]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA00391 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:46:05 +0100 (MET) From: Italorican@aol.com Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by godot.lysator.liu.se (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA09348 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:43:40 +0100 (MET) Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02161; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:40:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:40:35 -0500 Message-Id: <960327114035_363435018@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: More on Sacked Officers Status: O Content-Length: 825 In a message dated 96-03-26 20:05:04 EST, you write: > >More on sacked British officers. I believe Chink Dorman-Smith was sacked >shortly after Monty arrived in the desert in Aug '42 - there are many >unflattering comments regarding Dorman-Smith in Monty' official biography - >one staff officer described him as "He really was as near being a lunatic as >you can get". This was particularly in reference to the use of brigade >groups in the post Gazala period. > > That was Dorman-Smith's first sacking, part of the so-called Cairo Massacre that brought down Auchinlek and ultimately his staff. But the incident I refer to happened during the Italian campaign, after Dorman-Smith got a brigade again, and then was sacked again. So if any one has details on that second incident, I'd like to see them. Antonio Lauria From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 20:23:56 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA29254; Wed, 27 Mar 96 20:23:55 +0100 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA05068 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 20:22:29 +0100 (MET) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 17:18:15 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:02:12 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: My $.0002 on More Stacking Status: O Content-Length: 3657 On 3/25/96, Alan Conrad stated: >by '43 had division attack frontage of as little as one >kilometer. So frontage wise one can fit at least 60 REs in a >hex. That the defense never had frontage that dense is >something we can try to investigate. Now it is true most >attacks were not 20 divisions strong in one hex point, but >there were some that were not that far off. So the implication is that 5-6 corps [2 armies] attacked on a 16-mile frontage. Please give doctrinal or even anecdotal citations to back this assertion. >Should not construction units building an airfield behind >the line be above stacking limits? How about police units >and AA units. If units are 'behind the lines' then they should be allowed to overstack, but contribute nothing to the offense/ defense, and suffer all negative effects of combat, since such negative effects indicate some enemy units at least marauding into the hex, and these units are not prepared for combat, but doing their other duties. If they do contribute their factors to attack/defense, then they are perforce 'on the line, and count against stacking. Seems simple enough to me. >One thing to keep in mind that the Corps markers are just >that, markers for ease of play, and have nothing to do with >actual corps HQs. Secondly when we look at history it is >hard to get a good handle on this since most books (and >games too) do not include sub division units so it is hard >to know how many of them, were doing what, where, at >any time. Corps markers can represent anything they are said to represent, as long as there are valid rules backing up that representation. Yes, we might not know exactly what subdivisional units XXX corps had on July 15th, 1942, but we know beyond a shadow of a doubt what the TO&E said they should have, which is partially what Europa is based on, not day-to-day OBs for every force for the entire war. >Why can one put 3 REs as regiments in the line but not as >divisions? I can not see any logical reason with respect to >unit frontage. It would seem likely to me that there is some connection here with doctrinal directives about corps TO&Es [3 divs IS the basic textbook definition of a corps] and frontages [as in: was Europa originally developed from information indicating that the 'average' corps frontage was 16 miles, leading to the game hex scale and original stacking?]. >Standard Russian doctrine '43 on, was to have infantry >divisions open the attack and have the armor right behind >to go through the holes. Now any Europa Russian knows >that this doctrine is wrong. With infantry divisions in the >line they can not get enough attack factors in a hex to >make any kind of attack. Standard doctrine for anyone means absolutely nothing unless you make adjustments in order to make an apples to apples comparison. It was not standard doctrine for the Soviets to leave their armor 16 miles behind the front lines for two weeks, so therefore to make an accurate comparison, you need to adjust the concepts in the doctrine to compare with the Europa time/distance scale, which is an objective, rather than subjective, comparison. In these terms, it makes perfect sense that the armor is right up there with the infantry in the attack. And beside which, to cite one example, look at Zhukov's attack on the Oder, 4/16/45. He puts the Tank Armies up on the line, in addition to the infantry, and chaos reigns. >The Old DNO, memory tells me, just used a number for >REs to a hex. If memory serves [and it sometimes doesn't], it also had limitations on how many divisional sized units could be in a hex. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 20:28:29 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA29305; Wed, 27 Mar 96 20:28:28 +0100 Received: from hsrnfs-101.mayo.edu (hsrnfs-101.mayo.edu [129.176.101.4]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA05167 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 20:28:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from tweedy.Mayo.edu (tweedy.mayo.edu [129.176.132.22]) by hsrnfs-101.mayo.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA11615 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 13:27:11 -0600 Received: by tweedy.Mayo.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA26063; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 13:27:11 -0600 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 13:27:11 -0600 From: barry@Mayo.edu (Jon Barry) Message-Id: <199603271927.NAA26063@tweedy.Mayo.edu> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: War in the Desert X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 263 Ok, nobody has said any thing for a while and it's late March - is Europa-boss listening and can we get an update on the progress of "War in the Desert" and the "First to Fight" reprint? Not whining or hassling just wondering. :) thanks, jon barry.jon@mayo.edu From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 20:58:24 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA29652; Wed, 27 Mar 96 20:58:23 +0100 Received: from crash.cts.com (root@crash.cts.com [192.188.72.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA05876 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 20:56:57 +0100 (MET) Received: from fhi by crash.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0u21Ku-0000akC; Wed, 27 Mar 96 11:56 PST Received: from notes.san.fhi.com by fhboot1.san.fhi.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0u217J-0000msC; Wed, 27 Mar 96 11:42 PST Received: by notes.san.fhi.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA3713; Wed, 27 Mar 96 11:42:35 -0800 Message-Id: <9603271942.AA3713@notes.san.fhi.com> Received: from Forte with "Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP" id A7C3DD21BEED7131882562FA006A6A5B; Wed, 27 Mar 96 11:42:34 To: europa From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 27 Mar 96 11:39:24 PS Subject: Origins Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Status: O Content-Length: 1512 Greetings all, As you may or may not know, Europa does not seem to ever win CSR awards at Origins. Frank Watson won a few years back for "Enter Rommel" from TEM, otherwise Europa is consistantly ignored. Now, that said, let me remind you all that you have to VOTE for a game for that game to win. I voted for AWW because I thought it was a damn fine game. It didn't win. I also think FWTBT is an excellent game. I plan to vote for it this year, and I urge all of you to do so as well. I have heard that very few votes were recieved last year in any category. I think Europa actually has a fairly substantial membership (as far as the game world goes) and if a mass of Europa players voted, I think this game would win. I also think that John Astell should be nominated for a Clausewitz Award and TEM should win in the best Amature Wargame Magazine category. There are also slots available for best wargme articl if any would care to pick a good one from TEM. Europa is the oldest system still being developed and played. It even outranks the ubiquitous Dungeons and Dragons. It really deserves an award, and so does it's co-founder. I am not sure wether FWTBT should be nominated in best pre WWII or best WWII category, but if you are interested in helping this game win, we should take a vote and go with the decision. Let's show the gaming world and the industry that Europa is not a dinosaur. Let's give Europa a deserved win! My humble opinion, Jay Steiger San Diego, CA From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 21:48:57 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00225; Wed, 27 Mar 96 21:48:56 +0100 Received: from hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca (hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca [205.206.207.101]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA06901 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 21:46:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from hal-ham-g01-u01 (i486nt01.harte-lyne.ca) by hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA299139689; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:48:09 -0500 Message-Id: <3159AAF0.7092@harte-lyne.ca> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:54:08 -0500 From: "James B. Byrne" Organization: Harte & Lyne Limited X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (WinNT; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Ray Kanarr Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se, abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: My $.0002 on More Stacking References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 3909 Ray Kanarr wrote: On 3/25/96, Alan Conrad stated: >by '43 had division attack frontage of as little as one >kilometer. So frontage wise one can fit at least 60 REs in a >hex. That the defense never had frontage that dense is >something we can try to investigate. Of course, by 1943, depending on whose army we're talking about, a division could be as small as 2000-3000 effectives including support troops. Various sources that I have read over the years have lead me to the conclusion that for an 'average' western style division (which means a total strength of ~12,000 and a rifle strength of 5-6000); an attack frontage of about 3 Km was normal and a defence frontage of 9-10 Km usual. Increasing the density beyound this for offensive operations either manifested itself in greater depth, or terrible traffic control problems, or both. Now as Europa has a nominal hex scale of 1 hex = 16 miles or 25 Km then each edge of a hex size equals 12km. This is about the nominal defence frontage of one full strength western style division. It also equals the attack frontage for four full strength divisions. Now of course, in WWII, a division didn't put everything that it had in the shop window so to speak. A 12,000 man strong division, attacking on a 3 Km front would have an expected depth of deployment of between 7 and 12 Km, with the rear echelon dictated by the state of the road net and the caliber of divisional artillery assets. On the Defensive, it would occupy a about 3/4 of the offensive depth or 6 to 8 Km. Additional divisions would be deployed in depth or held in reserve rather than used to re-inforce the front line. By my way of figuring this means that Europa should allow attacks of up to four 4 divisions across a single hex-side. It should also allow a deployment of up to 3 divisons (defense in depth) defending against an attack across a single hexside with an additional two divisions per additional hexside attacked. The issue of attachments to divisions is a subject for much argument, I personally do not feel comfortable with the idea that a division can adequately control a Regimental or Brigade sized ad hoc attachment on the offence. And while is was standard US policy to cross attach battalion strength augmentations to divisions on the offensive, most other nations did not as a mater of course. Artillery supplementation of the offence was normally provided by corps and army level assets for western divisions. Indeed, sometimes US Inf divisions had control of their divarty placed directly in the hands of the corps HQ. The issue of command control needs to be handled too. My own prefrence based on space and command span is that each hexside attacked would permit the use of one corps sized organization, which would probably consist of 2-4 full sized standard divisions, 1-2 brigade sized attachments, and 4-8 battalion sized assets, mainly arty. The total corps span of command should hover somewhere around seven units with the maximum being 9 and the minimum being 5. Stacking in excess of these limits would be permitted but ignored for all purposes except perhaps movement. My reading is that 3-3-2 is a fair approximation of the real capabilities for the scale of units and hexes that we are using in Europa. But this is only true for organizations which meet the nominal standard of ~12000 total / 6000 infantry. 'Divisional' organizations which had nominal strengths of ~9000/4000 or less should be allowed an additional 1 unit per hexside attacked. Anything less than ~6000 should be treated as a brigade sized unit. So long as we work on an area type (hex based) of combat system instead of a boundry type (hexside) this is probably the best approximation that we can get. -- James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241 From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 22:36:14 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00672; Wed, 27 Mar 96 22:36:13 +0100 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA08047 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 22:32:17 +0100 (MET) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA11233 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:23:38 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:31:01 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Order Police Status: O Content-Length: 3846 Keith Pardue wrote: > > This note is a follow-up to John Astell's ... post: >> 2.1.4 The "SS-Police" in Europa represent the German national police >> forces, national security forces, and SS security forces. > > Actually, the German national police forces were not part of >the SS. Himmler was chief of German police after 1936, but in a >strictly speaking separate capacity from his role as Reichsfuhrer SS.... This is, to put it mildly, somewhat misleading. Single-party totalitarian states (be they fascist or communist) almost always have state and party functions intertwined, with the party running everything government-related either directly or behind the scenes. Heinrich Himmler was the head of the SS (Reichsfuehrer-SS), and the SS handle internal security within the Nazi Party. After the Nazis gained control of Germany, Himmler and therefore the SS acquired control of the Gestapo (the Secret State Police, a governmental, not party, organization), thereby intertwining party and state internal security. In 1936, Himmler and therefore the SS acquired control of the entire police forces of Germany. "In his office, which Himmler held from June 1936, the RF-SS succeeded in creating a closely knit national police force in accord with the principles of the SS" (referece #1). At this time, the Nazi Party Security Service and the German national Security Police (which included the Gestapo) were grouped together under the Central Security Department (RSHA). The SS divided Germany into SS districts (have the same borders as, but separate from, the Wehrkreise). Each district has a Higher SS and Police Commander (HSSPF). The HSSPF was the representative of the RF-SS and controlled all SS and police units in the districts, except those which were subordinated to the Army (OKH) or were part of the Waffen-SS. As you can see, the SS and the German police were intertwined at the top (Himmler as Reichsfuehrer-SS, a party post, and as Chief of the German Police, a governmental post), with SS and police elements intertwined at various levels, with the SS in charge (via the HSSPF and RSHA). Again to put it mildly, the SS did not run the police for Germany's benefit, but for the SS's and Nazi Party's benefit. In 1943, Himmler gained further control when he and thus the SS took control of both the German and Prussian Ministries of the Interior. (Prussia was by far the largest "province" in Germany and thus very important in itself.) The Ministries of the Interior controlled the police and other civil services in Germany. (Before 1943, Himmler as Chief of the German Police nominally reported to the Minister of the Interior.) German Order Police (Ordnungspolizei) formed police regiments and battalions for service outside Germany. In 1943 (as Himmler increased his power), these units were redesigned from "Police Regiment" (or btl) to "SS Police Regiment" (or btl) (reference #2). This redesignation did not mean that the units changed their function or who they reported to -- it signifies that Himmler was simply visibly claiming the units he had long controlled. References: #1 "Hitler's Elite Guards: Waffen SS, Parachutists, U-Boats," ed. by W. Victor Madej. Despite its garish title, this is not a pro-Nazi reference but a collected of wartime US intelligence reports (and supposedly other sources) on Germany. The introductory section on the SS is a good overview of the entire SS and not just the Waffen-SS. #2 "Verbaende und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945" (Units and Troops of the German Armed Forces and Waffen-SS in the Second World War 1939-1945), vol. 1, Georg Tessin. Volume 1 is the overview volume and includes various supplemental information on the German police units that took the field. (Hint: Look for it in the SS overview.) From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Mar 27 22:41:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00726; Wed, 27 Mar 96 22:41:18 +0100 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA08171 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 22:38:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA11246 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:30:13 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:37:38 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: War in the Desert Status: O Content-Length: 747 >Ok, nobody has said any thing for a while and it's late March - is >Europa-boss listening and can we get an update on the progress >of "War in the Desert" and the "First to Fight" reprint? Not >whining or hassling just wondering. :) WITD: I'm not sure Europa-boss (Winston) monitors every post here, but I'll give it a try: Maps: Finalized, in art production, some ready for or already at the printers. Counters: Finalized, in production and/or at the printers. OBs: In proof reading (except for 1-2 pages on Spanish Torch, which are being finalized this week). Rules and Charts: Under final development and to go to proofing ASAP. I don't know the turn-around time for the printers, but we're almost there. FTF Reprint: Don't know. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 00:07:45 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01406; Thu, 28 Mar 96 00:07:44 +0100 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz ([192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA16261 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 00:05:42 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02428; Thu, 28 Mar 96 10:31:10 NZS Message-Id: <9603272231.AA02428@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 10:29 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: U-Boats south of the border Status: O Content-Length: 935 The story about U-boats to Lake Titiaca sounds like a Robert Ludlum novel to me, you know the one I mean, The Marsupial Knish. He was a double agent for Iceland and Albania. She was Charles De Gaulle's dental hygienist. Together they uncovered a secret formula to turn the entire world into potato knish, hidden in the pouch of a kangaroo at the Berlin Zoo. But seriously, folks, German-South American relations will probably best be covered when GRD creates the counter sheets, maps, and rules for Latin America, to link Europa with the Pacific games. The game package will probably include rules for such events as the Chaco War, and hypothetical conflicts between various local powers, which would probably be good training tools to learn the Europa system, and provide a lot of what-ifs. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 00:07:47 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01411; Thu, 28 Mar 96 00:07:47 +0100 Received: from ns.rmc.com (ns.rmc.com [137.25.23.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA16070 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 00:01:32 +0100 (MET) Received: by ns.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA31490; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:50:30 -0500 Received: from internet.rmc.com(137.25.3.24) by ns.rmc.com via smap (V1.3) id sma014806; Wed Mar 27 17:50:04 1996 Received: from lanmail.rmc.com by internet.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA07590; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 18:01:50 -0500 Received: by LANMAIL.RMC.COM; Wed, 27 Mar 96 18:01:21 EST Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 18:01:41 EST Message-Id: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re:Re: Stacking Status: O Content-Length: 4011 Well, I guess it's my fault for starting all this in Battle for Rome. I'll limit my pot-stirring to my original problem with DIADEM. The 3-3-2 stacking limits creates a slight problem in recreating the initial DIADEM attacks. What makes it really messy is the 2-2-1 mountain stacking applying for attacks into mountain hexes. That gave the Allies only 6 divisions to legally attack with. They used a lot more than this. Don't get me wrong, the 2-2-1 rule seems to make a lot of sense to me intuitively, but it just didn't seem to apply May I 44. IF I remember correctly, you could almost do DIADEM the "right" way by restricting the attack to 2-2-1 mountain stacking per hexSIDE, allowing the French CEF and the British Corps to both attack out of the same hex. This amounted to 8 XXs attacking. So did forgetting the rule about 2-2-1 stacking attacking into a mountain hex. If you allowed BOTH of these heresies you could pull the thing off "as was." While struggling with the whole thing, I also thought things like "if Arthur had just bent the coast line out into that next hex there I wouldn't have these problems." But I actually like the coastline like it is. It also seemed a little irritating that I could legally stack an 8-7-8 Art [XX] but not fire it into the mountain hex, but that is minor. The thing that repeatedly struck me about the whole thing was that these two super-stack attacks took a LOT of planning and organization to pull off. The traffic jams then occurred in the exploitation of the success, not in the attacks themselves. JMA wrote: > 3) Show that super-stacked units are all indeed > stacking. Again, I suspect you'll find that some > units in super-stacked attacks are just holding the > flanks for the attack and not actually attacking. Good point, John. I suspected so to in DIADEM, but when I looked deep, I couldn't translate it like that. The Polish attack on Cassino fits 2-2-1 very nicely but not the British / French / American attacks along the rest of the line. I think the Canadians, 3rd Alg XX and 78 Br XX were in reserve, everybody else was fighting, taking casualties, causing casualties, and advancing. (From memory, it's been a quite a few months now.) It did strike me that the Polish Corps are the only attacking units IN a mountain hex in this attack. I don't think a unit has to be "actually attacking" historically to contribute its attack strength to a Europa attack. If it is holding the flanks for the units attacking from its hex then it is contributing to the attack - the attacking units don't have to detach units to look after their flanks, they can act more boldly, etc. This logic has to hold to recreate MANY Europa level attacks in a rational manner. Consider the following situation (I can't pin it to a particular attack - I'm still in my office - but I've run across it many times doing EaH's for TEM.): Several units are in a hex, but historically only 1 (or 2) actually attack. The Europa re-creation of this event could either be: A) "Gee, I think I'll attack at 1.5:1 with only 1 XX instead of 4:1 with all of them." B) An attack at 5:1 with all units, historically justifying the contribution of the other units in the hex as "available if needed," "guarding flanks," etc. I think that B is what actually happens in most Europa games, not A. (Granted A does protect against AR results - now there's a cautious player!) Now that I think of it, I think that's the way I worked out a historical version of Surprise turn in WD. 7th Arm XX attacks Italians in camps, even though in reality they were sitting over the horizon and letting the Indians and RTR do the work. In a Europa as History analogy, 7th Armored pretty much has to help nail the poor Libyans. Well, with totally unlimited stacking, totally unlimited movement rates, and a completely random CRT (no odds calculations or drms) I could do Europa as History perfect every time. Just wouldn't make a very fun game. Frank From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 00:23:33 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01498; Thu, 28 Mar 96 00:23:32 +0100 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA16612 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 00:20:09 +0100 (MET) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:40:39 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:24:35 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr To: pardue@hilda.mast.queensu.ca, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Order Police Status: O Content-Length: 2309 To add/amplify to Keith Pardue's post of 3/27/96: The Ordnungspolizei [Order Police, or Orpo], were the uniformed 'cops on the beat', who were used to keep civil order, according to Rupert Butler's *An Illustrated History of the Gestapo*. They also contributed members to the Einsatzgruppen murderers, as did the SS, Gestapo, auxiliary police, Kripo, and SD. The Kriminal Polizei [Criminal Police, or Kripo] were what we would call the detective, or plainclothes, level of police. Germany had a bewildering number of police organizations, including: waterway police, fire police, factory police, railway police, agricultural police, Orpo, Kripo, Sipo [Sicherheits Polizei, or Security Police], counter-espionage police [Abwehrpolizei, separate from the Abwehr, the army counterintelligence corps], the political police [Staatspolizei, or Stapo], the Geheime Staatspolizei [Gestapo, which incorporated some of the earlier-mentioned police arms], the SD [Sicherheitsdienst, or Security Service, the SS/Nazi police, which eventually incorporated the Gestapo in the RSHA, Reichssicherheitshauptamt, the Reich Security Main Office, which also became at least the coordinating organization for most other nonmilitary police and intelligence services], postal police, each of the armed services had their own military police [feldpolizei], and the army, additionally, had the Geheime Feldpolizei [Secret military police]. A lesser-known fact is that it was Goring, not Himmler, who formed the Gestapo. Goring became the Prussian Police President, a fairly prestigious and wide-ranging job on the Nazi assumption of power; Himmler was only the Bavarian Police President, although he used this as a springboard to greater and finally total police control in Germany, and eventual control of the Gestapo. Since Himmler was in control of all police activities by 1939, as well as chief of the SS, and operational control in the field of the SS units came under the jurisdiction of the army anyhow [at least until 7/44], it doesn't seem to make much difference whether the Polizei division is shown in Feldgrau or Black colors in Europa. >So, are the units that you are refering to, John, >non-German units? Oskar Dirlewanger's unit, at least, was comprised of German nationals, many of whom were convicts. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 00:36:07 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01639; Thu, 28 Mar 96 00:36:06 +0100 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA16891 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 00:34:30 +0100 (MET) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:52:09 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:36:00 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, Jay_Steiger/Forte.FORTE@notes.san.fhi.com Subject: Re: Origins Status: O Content-Length: 117 Great idea Jay! It would be good if you could send out the procedure for voting, and any necessary addresses. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 00:55:00 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01748; Thu, 28 Mar 96 00:54:59 +0100 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA17239 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 00:53:42 +0100 (MET) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:21:28 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:05:07 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr To: byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se, abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: My $.0002 on More Stacking Status: O Content-Length: 718 Jim, Much thanks for a well-reasoned and detailed response. Lack of time presently prevents much additional discussion on my part today, but I did want to ask, based on your statement: >But this is only true for organizations which meet the >nominal standard of ~12000 total / 6000 infantry. >'Divisional' organizations which had nominal strengths of >~9000/4000 or less should be allowed an additional 1 unit >per hexside attacked. Didn't armies whose organizations fit this mold generally have this structure because of concomitant command and control concerns [such alliteration!]? Therefore, the issue is raised as to whether or not they SHOULD be allowed to 'control' additional units in the hex. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 01:04:04 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01825; Thu, 28 Mar 96 01:04:02 +0100 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA17474 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 01:03:19 +0100 (MET) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA245600619; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 23:50:20 GMT Message-Id: <199603272350.AA245600619@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Wed, 27 Mar 96 23:50:19 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Wed, 27 Mar 96 23:47:53 UTC 0000) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 23:52:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 4761893 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 236702 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Sino-Japanese Playtest Status: O Content-Length: 2817 Sino-Japanese Playtest Oct II 37 Japanese Player Turn Having outdistanced their supply wagons in the north, the Japanese North China Area Army pauses for a brief respite to take a needed breather and allow their logistics system to catch up. Only minor attacks are conducted along the southward going rail lines leaving Japanese forces poised along the Hoto and Hwang (Yellow) Rivers facing significant Chinese contingents in the partial hex cities of Shihkiachuang (in Hopei Province) and Tsinan (in Shantung Province). In Shansi province, Japanese brigades of the Kwantung Army move deep into the province, unopposed by Chinese forces since the Communist 115th division evacuated to form a guerilla base. Meanwhile, the Kwantung Army, led by the Senda Mechanized Division, strikes across southern Suiyuan in Inner Mongolia pushing towards the terminus of the Peiping-Suiyuan Railway. In Chahar (also an Inner Mongolian province) the Japanese have formed the Southern Chahar Committee, a puppet government charged with maintaining order in the province. The Mongolian Prince Teh proclaims that soon the state of Mengchukuo can be formed liberating the oppressed Inner Mongolian region from Chinese rule. In Shanghai, Japanese attack supply stockpiles are dwindling. Due to the limited supply situation, Japanese commanders chose to make a single "safe" attack, rather than two risky attacks, thereby capturing the fifth of seven city hexes. The attack resulted in a HX, causing the Japanese to cadre the 3rd division. The naval guns of the Japanese 3rd fleet have thus far been decisive in the Shanghai battle. Oct II 37 Chinese Player Turn The Chinese use the Japanese pause in the north to bolster their defensive lines. Construction on several forts is begun along the Hwang Ho (Yellow River) at the strategic crossing of the PinghanRailway. In Shansi, reinforcements and supplies are shipped by river transport along the Fen Ho to the provincial capitol of Taiyuan in hopes of blocking the Japanese thrust into the region. Things are beginning to become unhinged for the Nationalists in Shanghai. Only two hexes of the city remain Chinese controlled and the Japanese are edging them out of the city. The defensive lines around the city perimiter are bolstered in anticipation of the Japanese breakout towards the Nationalist capital at Nanking. Two guerilla bases have taken form in the north, a communist base in the mountains along the Hopei-Shansi border, and a nationalist base in the central hills of the Shantung peninsula. In both base regions, the number of sabotage attempts has risen dramatically, with Japanese held rail lines being the primary target. Several hits on the railway were scored by the communist base. As yet, no guerilla units have made an appearance. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 01:09:58 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01913; Thu, 28 Mar 96 01:09:57 +0100 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA17577 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 01:08:48 +0100 (MET) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA254450953; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 23:55:53 GMT Message-Id: <199603272355.AA254450953@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Wed, 27 Mar 96 23:55:53 UTC 0000 ( from inet00# ; Wed, 27 Mar 96 23:55:46 UTC 0000) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 23:52:00 UTC 0000 To: jay=5fsteiger/forte.forte%notes.san.fhi.com%inet#%forwarder@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 9611437 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 824086 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Origins Status: O Content-Length: 148 Reply: Item #3412173 from JAY_STEIGER/FORTE.FORTE@NOTES.SAN.FHI.COM@INET#on 96/03/27 at 15:20 Jay, How does one vote for CSR awards? -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 02:04:39 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02305; Thu, 28 Mar 96 02:04:38 +0100 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA18678 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 02:03:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02820; Thu, 28 Mar 96 12:59:21 NZS Message-Id: <9603280059.AA02820@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:02 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: War in the Desert Status: O Content-Length: 227 Good news on War in the Desert. What's happening on new counters for Second Front? Best, David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 02:06:05 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02335; Thu, 28 Mar 96 02:06:04 +0100 Received: from travel1.travel-net.com (root@travel1.travel-net.com [204.92.71.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA18700 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 02:05:17 +0100 (MET) From: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Received: from 204.92.71.2.travel-net.com (tv135.travel-net.com [205.150.57.135]) by travel1.travel-net.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA23031 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 20:11:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 20:11:20 -0500 Message-Id: <199603280111.UAA23031@travel1.travel-net.com> X-Sender: bradbury@mail.travel-net.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Antwerp & SF Supply Status: O Content-Length: 1712 The following is based on my understanding of the SF supply rules - if my interpretation is incorrect, I would appreciate a correction. I understand SF Rule 12B4 to mean that an unlimited number of Allied units can be supplied via a Naval element through a functioning major or great port (given that the other elements of the supply line conform to the balance of Rule 12B). In other words, if the Allied player owns Le Havre as a functioning port, he could supply all land and air forces through this port (given the appropriate rail lines, etc). This to me seems unduly generous to the Allied player. Certainly much of the controversy regarding strategy between the U.S. and Britain in 1944 concerned the need for Anvil, with the Americans pushing and winning the case for the need to open Marseille. In the autumn of 1944, the need to open Antwerp led to the Canadian army being tied down opening the Scheldt. The importance of opening Antwerp is amply demonstrated by the fact that Monty even admitted that he had erred in not providing sufficient forces to open it earlier. I have experimented with restricting the Allies to trace 60 RE through a major port and 120 RE through a great port and further restricted them by reducing the supply capacity of all ports by RE per hit of damage. These changes have certainly focussed the attention of both sides on the ports and do give the Axis an additional incentive to garrison ports, even if they will eventually be cut off. I would like to hear if anyone has done similar experimentation, or can explain how the RAW lead to the historical emphasis placed by the Allies on the availability of both Antwerp and Marseille. Nigel Bradbury Ottawa, Ont. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 03:35:02 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03055; Thu, 28 Mar 96 03:35:01 +0100 Received: from hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca (hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca [205.206.207.101]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA19951 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 03:33:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from ham_hal_g02_u01 ([205.206.207.30]) by hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA024910489; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 21:34:49 -0500 Message-Id: <3159F973.64D6@harte-lyne.ca> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 21:29:07 -0500 From: "James B. Byrne" Organization: Harte & Lyne Limited X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (WinNT; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Ray Kanarr Cc: byrnejb@hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca, europa@lysator.liu.se, abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: My $.0002 on More Stacking References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 1551 Ray Kanarr wrote: > > > >.... only true for organizations which meet the > >nominal standard of ~12000 total / 6000 infantry. > >'Divisional' organizations which had nominal strengths of > >~9000/4000 or less should be allowed an additional 1 unit > >per hexside attacked. > > Didn't armies whose organizations fit this mold generally have this > structure because of concomitant command and control concerns [such > alliteration!]? Therefore, the issue is raised as to whether or not > they SHOULD be allowed to 'control' additional units in the hex. > Generally, the smaller divisions were designed to provide more manoeuver and fire elements from a restricted manpower pool. They generally were defensive organisations which substitued firepower for manpower. Command and control were not really the issue. Because of their smaller size, they tended to be more brittle in combat, even on the defensive. Offensively, they had little weight as their supply of riflemen would be consumed rapidly and they lacked the organic reserves necessary to rotate frontline battalions while maintaining an offensive posture. They could cover the same frontage as a 'standard' division, but at a cost of reduced depth. I feel that the additional 'division' could have been adequately controlled by a corps level organisation and would be able to backstop the first three. -- James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241 From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 04:07:49 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03296; Thu, 28 Mar 96 04:07:48 +0100 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA20719 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 04:06:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03163; Thu, 28 Mar 96 15:02:23 NZS Message-Id: <9603280302.AA03163@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 15:03 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: More on Nazi decisions Status: O Content-Length: 6201 David Thornley put out a lot in a recent argument on Nazi leadership, such as it was, so I thought I'd comment. Len Deighton points out in "Blitzkrieg" that Hitler was in many ways the epitome of the common man. Most of Hitler's views as expressed in "Mein Kampf," are fairly common talk in any factory canteen in Europe, and probably some in the United States, particularly after WW1...a hatred of Communism and the Jews...a distrust of big business...whining about the collapse of morality and morals...and a conviction that the old warriors of the last war have been betrayed by present leadership. Nowhere in this or in the Nazi campaign, down to the present-day neo-Nazis, were specific proposals or plans to redress grievances, beyond strengthening the Aryan race, removing racial inferiors, setting up an authoritarian state, and rebuilding pride in Germany. Lacking a clearly defined program, the Nazis had a weak base for making decisions. Hitler himself avoided them, living at Berchtesgaden the life of a man who had won a gigantic lottery...sleeping until noon...enjoying the Alpine vistas...partying late at night with old cronies from the early days, endlessly reminiscing...watching the same movies (Hound of the Baskervilles) and listening to the same operettas (The Merry Widow) over and over again... and, most of all, issuing his ad hominem pronouncements on the world over the teacups to his courtiers and secretaries. The pithier apercus were recorded by Martin Bormann, and a good chunk of them vanished in the crash of a Luftwaffe transport plane in April 1945. Those that survived tell posterity that Red is the best color for political posters...hunting is green Freemasonry...if the Reich doubles the ration in Czechoslovakia, the whole nation will go Nazi...only the Greeks knew how to make a window...the Jews were perverting the culture of Lapland...all great American inventors were descendants of immigrants from Swabia...the father of Jesus was not Joseph but a German legionary in the Roman army...Eleanor Roosevelt was a mulatto...it would not be wise to name a battleship the Adolf Hitler...the future belonged to vegetarians...Napoleon should never have proclaimed himself emperor, as that made Beethoven change the dedication of his Third Symphony...and that Hitler's dearest wish was to wander Italy as an unknown painter. Such was the banality of evil. He repeated this stuff right up to the last day of his life, and eventually the courtiers were so exhausted they devised rotations to provide Hitler with a continuous audience while getting the work of the Reich Chancellor's office done. Nonethless, material like this was the basis of Hitler's decision. Albert Speer told interviewers that Hitler had a considerable "digest" of information, not enough to really know a subject, but enough to be dangerous. One writer, Joseph O'Donnell, has suggested that there was a touch of Walter Mitty about the Fuhrer, in that Hitler, a former lance-corporal, enjoyed pushing around gold-braided generals and admirals like they were lance-corporals, which is highly likely. Sir Hugh Trevor-Roper noted that for the last few years of the war, Hitler's round-the-clock company were military men and their conversation, the tedious trivialities of barracks and mess, "closed off" Hitler's mind. Alan Wykes was grimmer. He argued that the Fuhrer suffered from syphilis. Be that as it may, Hitler's decision-making was decreasingly based on reality as the war ground on, and there wasn't much to start with in the first place. Eliminating the Jews and the Bolsheviks was the be-all and end-all of his philosophy. How he went about it was through opportunism, time and again overriding his commanders on decisions like the attack on France, the declaration of war on the United States, and leaving the 6th Army to perish at Stalingrad. Through it all, he did show a curious consistency. His briefings of generals were always the same...he'd start off with how he formed the Nazi Party, created it into a perfect tool to lead the German people, and that the will would triumph over the brute forces of his enemies. It sometimes amazes me that people followed where he led. But it was vague enough such that the horrifying parts of it...mass murder, aggression, the police state...sounded like idle rhetoric or campaign slogans, not to be taken seriously. Hitler's paranoia was certainly massive. He hated all kinds of people, Jews, Freemasons, Slavs, generals, the German and Austrian monarchy, capitalists, art and architecture teachers, Churchill, Roosevelt, and some of his allies...ordering death sentences for Der Treue Heinrich Himmler and Hermann Goering at the end of the line. After the 1944 Bomb Plot, Hitler had a special hatred for those generals he associated with the Attentat. He delighted in watching the films, over and over again, of the bomb plotters being strangled with piano wire, and showed them to his courtiers, who were appalled. A few years ago, military historian John Keegan analyzed Hitler as one of his four "masks of command," the others being Alexander The Great as a heroic leader, the Duke of Wellington as an anti-hero, Ulysses S. Grant for unheroic leadership, and Adolf Hitler for false heroism. To be sure, Hitler avoided sharing the hardships of his soldiers. He didn't visit bombed areas of Berlin, Goebbels took on that task. Hitler shied from hospitals full of wounded soldiers. When his train was stopped next to another one full of wounded troops, Hitler had the curtain shut so as not to see the face of his war. He demanded an iron will and no retreat from his generals, but directed the war from the Berlin-Rastenburg-Berchtesgaden axis. In the end, he shot himself, but had his propaganda machine announce that he had fallen in battle in Berlin. There was nothing heroic about Hitler's end. It was perfectly squalid, befitting the man. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 05:29:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03842; Thu, 28 Mar 96 05:29:02 +0100 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA21793 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 05:27:28 +0100 (MET) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id XAA06915; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 23:57:56 -0600 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 23:57:56 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Peaceful Russia Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199603260231.UAA27175@smtp.utexas.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 119 Yes, all that I mentioned should be available to greater or lesser degrees by late spring '42, say around May. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 05:49:20 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03921; Thu, 28 Mar 96 05:49:19 +0100 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA22050 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 05:48:30 +0100 (MET) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA061387734; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 04:35:34 GMT Message-Id: <199603280435.AA061387734@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Thu, 28 Mar 96 04:35:34 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Thu, 28 Mar 96 04:35:01 UTC 0000) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 96 04:42:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 5832539 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 24090 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: my $0.02 worth (cont.) Status: O Content-Length: 3352 1. Dorman-Smith: Joslen lists Brig. E. E. Dorman-Smith as commander of 3 Inf Brig/1 Inf Div from 27 Apr 1944 to 14 Aug 1944; Dorman- Smith is NOT otherwise listed in any of indexes of any of the books that I have in my library on the Italian Campaign (of course some don't have indexes and Joslen's index covers only units, not commanders); there was also a brigadier in the Italian Campaign named Graham H.G. SMITH-DORRIEN who commanded 169 (London) Inf Brig/56 (London) Inf Div during the Gothic Line campaign and was killed in action 13 Sep 1944. Sources: Joslen ORDERS OF BATTLE and Orgill THE GOTHIC LINE. 2. The Canadian Army High Command: I believe that the book that covers this topic is THE CANADIAN ARMY AND THE NORMANDY COMMAND A STUDY OF FAILURE IN HIGH COMMAND, by John A. English, New York: Praeger, 1991 (I read this book a few years ago, English is or was an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces) 3. The "Ordnungspolizei" and other nasties: Tessin briefly lists all of the numbered regiments of "SS-Polizei" that appear in Europa [1 to 30 and four from Galacia] but notes that they were raised as Police Regiments and given the title of SS Police Regiments on 24 Feb 1943 and were not part of the Waffen SS. He cites a book that he wrote which I would like to find and seems to have been published in 1957 as part of a larger series, "Schriften des Bundesarchivs." However, I'd like to note that some of these SS- Police regiments were gathered up late in the war and formed into a second Waffen SS "Polizei" division: 35.SS-und-Polizei-Grenadier- Division (formed Feb 1945); along with 1.SS-Polizei-Jager-Brigade (formed Apr 1945). Earlier the four Galacian SS-Polizei regiments had been used to build 14.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (gal.Nr.1) (one of these regiments had served in France). "Galacia," if I have it down correctly was that part of Poland given to Stalin under the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression pact and was pre-WW1, the largest province of Austria. It is now part of the Ukraine. From Tessin and from Bender's Waffen SS Series, Volume 4. As noted in my article in TEM#45, the Hermann Goring unit started as a unit of Goring's Prussian police and was used to "put down" Communist resistance and its first commander was executed for war crimes. SOLDIERS OF DESTRUCTION (mentioned in a previous post) has an extensive discussion of the cross-over between the front line soldiers of the Waffen SS and the concentration camp guards and death squads of the SS. It seems that if one failed (or could no longer serve due to wounds or injuries) as a Waffen SS soldier he would be transferred to concentration camp duties. One fellow began as a concentration camp guard, served with the Totenkopf Division in Russia, and was transferred back to camp duties. After being "promoted" to camp commandant, he was found to have authorized "especially brutal treatment" [!] of camp inmates. He was removed from command, court-martialled and sent back to the Totenkopf Division as a private (and was killed in action in 1945). 6. German punctuation: I use Word-Perfect 5.1 for my letters. I finally (after many years) figured out how do umlauts for correct punctuation of German words. Apparently although these are ASCII characters, they come across garbled in some people's messages. I will try to avoid them in the future. Sorry. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 06:07:33 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03986; Thu, 28 Mar 96 06:07:32 +0100 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA22337 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 06:06:16 +0100 (MET) From: Italorican@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23144 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 00:05:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 00:05:43 -0500 Message-Id: <960328000542_257933126@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: Europaboss@aol.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: AOI Status: O Content-Length: 2965 In a message dated 96-03-27 13:01:00 EST, Jay_Steiger/Forte.FORTE@notes.san.fhi.com (Jay Steiger/Forte) writes: > >>Let me add my vote for a revision of "Africa Orientale" as a GRD >>project. I would push the start date back to 1936 and include the invasion >of >>Abyssinia as part of the game, with a link-up to the WitD maps for GE. > >Right On!!! Excactly what I have been wanting to hear! Please send >endorsments to Winston Hamilton so he knows I am not the only one who wants >the >1940-41 campaign and the 1935-36 Ethiopian campaign as one game. > > I, too, endorse the idea. You could also put in a what-if OB for those of us who like to play with these things, if somone in this community with the requisite knowledge could be persudded to put it together: a what-if OB if the Italians had not re-organized their divisions as binary formations. Antonio Lauria --------------------- Forwarded message: From: Jay_Steiger/Forte.FORTE@notes.san.fhi.com (Jay Steiger/Forte) To: europa@lysator.liu.se (europa) Date: 96-03-27 13:01:00 EST Patrick Haugh said... >Let me add my vote for a revision of "Africa Orientale" as a GRD >project. I would push the start date back to 1936 and include the invasion of >Abyssinia as part of the game, with a link-up to the WitD maps for GE. Right On!!! Excactly what I have been wanting to hear! Please send endorsments to Winston Hamilton so he knows I am not the only one who wants the 1940-41 campaign and the 1935-36 Ethiopian campaign as one game. also said... >...is there any interest in GRD doing...the 1914-1918 war in East Africa? I have spoken to Eric Pierce who is running the show in the Great War Project along with Arthur Goodwin. Regarding this campaign he said that it is a fascinating one, and he and Arthur have done the ob and map research, however it won't really work as a game. The reason for this is that at Europa scale, you start with a German colonial brigade - unsupported, and by the end of the game you have a commando battalion being chased by several South African and Indian divisions. The amazing ability of von Lettow to slap the British and then dissapear into the jungle would be very hard to simulate through Europa. Even if the game was converted to a Narvik style company/battalion level fight, it is still largely a guerrilla conflict, not one of major set piece battles (Tanga excepted). I can give you a rundown on where the Great War series stands as of now. 1) March to Victory: France and N. Italy Aug 1914 to Oct 1916 2) Over There: France and N. Italy Nov 1916 to ??? (Fuller's plan 1919 will be an option) 3) Bloody Eagles: E. Prussia and Russia from Aug 1914 to the end. 4) Balkan Web: Serbia, Greece, Gallipoli, and Palestine Aug 1914 to the end. 5) River of Death: Mesopotamia, Caucus, and Persia Aug (Nov?)1914 to the end. It will be an excellent series and a great addition to GR/D and Europa. Jay Steiger San Diego, CA From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 06:29:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04050; Thu, 28 Mar 96 06:29:16 +0100 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA22620 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 06:27:57 +0100 (MET) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id AAA07064; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 00:58:24 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 00:58:24 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: my $0.02 worth (cont.) To: j.broshot@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199603280435.AA061387734@relay1.geis.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 121 Actually, We have a copy of Tessin Ordungspolizei book here at the U of Chicago. Email me you want further info. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 15:55:56 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11794; Thu, 28 Mar 96 15:55:56 +0100 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA04792 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 15:53:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA12193 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 08:44:58 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:52:22 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Italian what-if OB Status: O Content-Length: 2856 >...I've always wanted to plah >areojnd with the BF OB, for instance, to see what might have happened if the >Italians had not roeganized their army. But I do not have access to enough >information for do this. Do you have any suggestions as to whom I could >contact? In the meantimem do you have any suggestions as to what kind of >factors I might use to make roungh and ready approximations (like doubling >the BF ingantry divsons aqnd then appplying taking 67% ? 75%?? or whatever?. 1. You can try contacting: Michael Parker RR1 Box 5346 Willow Springs, NC 27592 USA 2. As a quick stab at it, assuming the Italians went with three infantry regiments per division but kept other factors the same (i.e., did not modernize their equipment or improve their training), then try this: Inf Div: 5-8 becomes 6-8 (2-8 cadre; breakdowns 2x 2-8 and 1x 1-8 inf rgts) 4-8 becomes 5-8 (2-8 cadre; breakdowns 1x 2-8 and 2x 1-8 inf rgts) 4-6 becomes 5-6 (2-6 cadre; breakdowns 1x 2-6 and 2x 1-6 inf rgts) 3-4-6 becomes 4-5-6 (1-6 cadre; breakdowns 1x 1-2-6 and 2x 1-6 inf rgts) 3-6 becomes 4-6 (no cadre; breakdowns 3x 1-6 inf rgts) Mot Div: Unchanged (already at 3 rgt org) Cav Div, Mtn Div, Arm Div: Unchanged 3. Now, where would Italy get the extra manpower for adding a third rgt to the divs? Possibilities: A. Disbanding existing formations. Breaking up an inf div would immediately yeild two inf rgts, and probably enough men from the art rgt and other div units to form a third inf rgt. Therefore, for every 3 inf divs you put on a 3-inf-rgt basis, remove one inf div. This seems the MOST LIKELY course Italy would pursue, entirely in keeping with their past practices. B. Expanding the army. Italy would simply draft more men and increase the size of the army. This seems VERY UNLIKELY, as the Italians were reluctant to take too many men out of their economy. Don't forget, Italy fought WW2 at war with France, Britain, the USSR, and the US without ever declaring full mobilization! C. Disbanding the CCNN. The CCNN -- the fascist political troops -- contained enough manpower to give every inf div a third inf rgt. Remove all CCNN units except AA ones. This option is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to occur, as all major fascist and communist regimes in WW2 used political troops to prop up the party's control of the state. D. Improve the CCNN. Give the portion of the CCNN attached to Army formations better training and better officers, thereby in effect giving each inf div a third rgt. (Many Italian inf divs had an attached CCNN "legion" (regiment) or at least a battalion, but the CCNN was so bad that these rate out at 0.) This option is RATHER UNLIKELY to occur, as political troops typically disdained the Army (as being non-ideological and thus suspect) and resisted the Army having control over training. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 15:56:04 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11803; Thu, 28 Mar 96 15:56:03 +0100 Received: from colossus.barclays.co.uk (colossus.barclays.co.uk [193.128.3.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA04798 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 15:53:47 +0100 (MET) Received: from bognor.barclays.co.uk by colossus.barclays.co.uk with local SMTP (PP) id <27746-0@colossus.barclays.co.uk>; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 14:51:08 +0000 Received: from pepsi.gra.barclays.co.uk by bognor.barclays.co.uk with BarclayNet SMTP (PP) id <05129-0@bognor.barclays.co.uk>; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 14:50:53 +0000 Received: by pepsi (1.37.109.14/16.2) id AA006414557; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 14:49:17 GMT From: Stefan Farrelly Message-Id: <9603281449.ZM639@pepsi.gra.barclays.co.uk> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 14:49:15 +0000 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 31aug95) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: African maps Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: O Content-Length: 562 To all those who expressed an interest in maps for Africa - ie. Europa scale Somailiand, the Sudan (for those games where the Axis push the Allies here) Winston has said he can produce the maps as long as someone has them prepared, eg. A Goodwin, and theyll cost $50 bucks ea to make (doing say a run of 50). I for one am a buyer. All we have to do now is find Mr Goodwin on the net and ask him if he has the proofs ready to go. All those who would like these maps, even at $50 ea. please express and opinion and ill chase it up with Winston. Stefan Farrelly From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 18:36:02 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14243; Thu, 28 Mar 96 18:36:01 +0100 Received: from crash.cts.com (root@crash.cts.com [192.188.72.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA09355 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 18:35:26 +0100 (MET) Received: from fhi by crash.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0u2LbT-000080C; Thu, 28 Mar 96 09:35 PST Received: from notes.san.fhi.com by fhboot1.san.fhi.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0u2LP1-0000jyC; Thu, 28 Mar 96 09:22 PST Received: by notes.san.fhi.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA3890; Thu, 28 Mar 96 09:22:10 -0800 Message-Id: <9603281722.AA3890@notes.san.fhi.com> Received: from Forte with "Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP" id B6F3C164685CF254882562FB005E8CF1; Thu, 28 Mar 96 09:22:09 To: europa From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 28 Mar 96 9:20:54 PS Subject: Re: African Maps Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Status: O Content-Length: 831 Regarding the $50 option for maps of E. Africa, spoke to Winston about this and he said it is an indiviual option. It is a cleaned up AOI map (thank you Arthur), at the 32 mi/hex scale. However, this said, he also confirmed that there will be a game of Ethiopia. It will have both the Italain 1935-36 war and the WWII campaign. He said this game is not an if...it's a when. There will not be linking maps for WitD, it costs too much for too little gain. Additionally, for those who are worried about re-release schedules, this game is not near the top of the priority list. It won't delay Narvik or FiTE, etc. Given that the game will probably be less than $50...and I already have AOI, I think I'd rather just wait for the game to show up in a few years than pay $50 for maps only now. Sincerely, Jay Steiger From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 19:47:54 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15220; Thu, 28 Mar 96 19:47:53 +0100 Received: from naybob.ghq.com (naybob.ghq.com [204.73.247.161]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA11386 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 19:46:23 +0100 (MET) Received: (from jwhite@localhost) by naybob.ghq.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) id MAA27705; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 12:44:44 -0600 From: Jeff White Message-Id: <199603281844.MAA27705@naybob.ghq.com> Subject: Re: Antwerp & SF Supply To: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 12:44:44 -0600 (CST) Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199603280111.UAA23031@travel1.travel-net.com> from "bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com" at Mar 27, 96 08:11:20 pm Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 3299 bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Said: > > The following is based on my understanding of the SF supply rules - if my > interpretation is incorrect, I would appreciate a correction. > > I understand SF Rule 12B4 to mean that an unlimited number of Allied units > can be supplied via a Naval element through a functioning major or great > port (given that the other elements of the supply line conform to the > balance of Rule 12B). In other words, if the Allied player owns Le Havre as > a functioning port, he could supply all land and air forces through this > port (given the appropriate rail lines, etc). > > This to me seems unduly generous to the Allied player. Certainly much of > the controversy regarding strategy between the U.S. and Britain in 1944 > concerned the need for Anvil, with the Americans pushing and winning the > case for the need to open Marseille. In the autumn of 1944, the need to > open Antwerp led to the Canadian army being tied down opening the Scheldt. > The importance of opening Antwerp is amply demonstrated by the fact that > Monty even admitted that he had erred in not providing sufficient forces to > open it earlier. > > I have experimented with restricting the Allies to trace 60 RE through a > major port and 120 RE through a great port and further restricted them by > reducing the supply capacity of all ports by RE per hit of damage. These > changes have certainly focussed the attention of both sides on the ports and > do give the Axis an additional incentive to garrison ports, even if they > will eventually be cut off. I think the game system might already take care of this, in a slightly off kilter way. First off, you need the 10 rail cap on the net to draw supply through the net. Before you can build rail cap, you need two rail marshalling yards. (Here's a rules question, does a German destroyed port count as a RMY, or only until it's undestroyed?) So, if the Allies land in Normandy in June, don't capture two RMY's until July. Then it takes 4 more turns to get above 10 rail cap. Meanwhile, you're only working ports are Mulberries, and the Germans have blown up the rest, or are hold out. So they need Antwerp for supply and to move more troops in. Plus, it is close enough to the real front to bring supplies in via road. I'd be game for the limits, but it soon gets to be real hard to count ALL of those REs at some point. That alone could take 10 minutes. Plus it can get wacky. If I link up France and the Italian front, can I use Palermo to supply units in France? > > I would like to hear if anyone has done similar experimentation, or can > explain how the RAW lead to the historical emphasis placed by the Allies on > the availability of both Antwerp and Marseille. We found minors to be really useful. Mostly because they do not blow up. They eliminate isolation and reduces some of the demand for supply points. We landed in France real early, in the south. It was a big deal to get a major port. It made a bigger deal having time to build up a large Allied rail cap in France. Plus a build up in Winter/Spring for a Summer offensive. > > Nigel Bradbury > Ottawa, Ont. > -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY jwhite@ghq.com "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 20:40:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15926; Thu, 28 Mar 96 20:40:41 +0100 Received: from motgate2.mot.com (motgate2.mot.com [129.188.136.20]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA12700 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 20:29:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.7.3/8.6.10/MOT-3.8) with ESMTP id TAA13372 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 19:28:02 GMT Received: from fwans12 (fwans12.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com [160.2.12.7]) by mothost.mot.com (8.7.3/8.6.10/MOT-3.8) with SMTP id NAA27612 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:28:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (fwhre14) by fwans12 (5.67b/FTW-1.62) id AA20593; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:25:57 -0600 Received: by fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (8.6.12/FTW-1.62) id LAA20860; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:00:30 -0600 From: psmith@hpmail2.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Paul Smith) Message-Id: <199603281700.LAA20860@fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com> Subject: Re: Italian what-if OB To: europa@lysator.liu.se (Europa maillist) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:00:30 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "John M. Astell" at Mar 28, 96 09:52:22 am Reply-To: psmith@ftw.mot.com *Return-Receipt-To: psmith@ftw.mot.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Status: O Content-Length: 1176 > >Inf Div: >5-8 becomes 6-8 (2-8 cadre; breakdowns 2x 2-8 and 1x 1-8 inf rgts) >4-8 becomes 5-8 (2-8 cadre; breakdowns 1x 2-8 and 2x 1-8 inf rgts) >4-6 becomes 5-6 (2-6 cadre; breakdowns 1x 2-6 and 2x 1-6 inf rgts) >3-4-6 becomes 4-5-6 (1-6 cadre; breakdowns 1x 1-2-6 and 2x 1-6 inf rgts) >3-6 becomes 4-6 (no cadre; breakdowns 3x 1-6 inf rgts) > > >A. Disbanding existing formations. Breaking up an inf div would immediately >yeild two inf rgts, and probably enough men from the art rgt and other div >units to form a third inf rgt. Therefore, for every 3 inf divs you put on a >3-inf-rgt basis, remove one inf div. This seems the MOST LIKELY course >Italy would pursue, entirely in keeping with their past practices. > So, basicly I could exchange 4x 4-8 for 3x 5-8, for example. I may want to do this sometime.... -- 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 europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 21:10:23 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16268; Thu, 28 Mar 96 21:10:21 +0100 Received: from ns.rmc.com (ns.rmc.com [137.25.23.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA13655 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 21:09:51 +0100 (MET) Received: by ns.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA09214; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 14:58:52 -0500 Received: from internet.rmc.com(137.25.3.24) by ns.rmc.com via smap (V1.3) id sma012250; Thu Mar 28 14:58:40 1996 Received: from lanmail.rmc.com by internet.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA14322; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 15:07:57 -0500 Received: by LANMAIL.RMC.COM; Thu, 28 Mar 96 15:07:35 EST Date: Thu, 28 Mar 96 15:07:50 EST Message-Id: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re:Re: African Maps Status: O Content-Length: 511 Waiting sounds like a reasonable course to me. Regarding Sudan, I suppose that at the appropriate time (after or in conjunction with the East Africa game, I guess in a future millenium) we could always put some black and white 11x17 maps in TEM that would fill in the strip up the Nile to Khartoum and along the Red Sea Coast. They wouldn't be very pretty of course, but then you could play a lot of games of WitD / E. Africa and never use them anyway. My Urals Maps have not yet seen any blood. Frank From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 21:28:00 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16456; Thu, 28 Mar 96 21:27:59 +0100 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA13963 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 21:26:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA05316; Fri, 29 Mar 96 08:22:14 NZS Message-Id: <9603282022.AA05316@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 08:22 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: East Africa Status: O Content-Length: 294 I'd like to see an East African game like those described, including the Ethiopian campaign. The latter could have optional rules for League of Nations intervention. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 21:37:55 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16596; Thu, 28 Mar 96 21:37:54 +0100 Received: from ns.corona.navy.mil (ns.corona.navy.mil [137.67.32.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA14273 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 21:37:01 +0100 (MET) Received: from ccgate.corona.navy.mil (ccgate.corona.navy.mil [137.67.40.4]) by ns.corona.navy.mil (8.7.1/1.4) with SMTP id MAA05841 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 12:34:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ccMail by ccgate.corona.navy.mil (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 15af8dd0; Thu, 28 Mar 96 12:38:53 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 12:33:27 -0800 Message-Id: <15af8dd0@corona.navy.mil> From: Renaud.Gary@corona.navy.mil (Renaud.Gary) Subject: WITD: still waiting To: europa@lysator.liu.se Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Status: O Content-Length: 1207 I just heard that the company that prints the counters has some MAJOR quality problems with the 2 print runs ahead of the WITD run (front and back misaligned by, oh, about 1/2" I can see that "Hey! My panzer division has a position AA unit as a cadre!"). Needless to say, Mr. Hamilton isn't going to let them go ahead until they have things right. I heard that TEM #46 has shipped, but being on the west coast, I don't have it yet. Maybe Saturday... Supposedly this will not delay the release, as it's not on the Critical Path. As far as I'm concerned, it would be OK if it DID delay the game. I'll take any delay to get better physical quality. Rules revisions are another matter, as everyone always tears them apart ANYWAY. A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114 a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1 than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__ W: 909-273-5378 block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--' H: 714-750-9243 `-----''(_/--' `-'\_) DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge I HATE UNIX I CAN'T speak for this administration; I tell the truth. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Mar 28 22:44:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17226; Thu, 28 Mar 96 22:44:02 +0100 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA15799 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 22:43:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA05584; Fri, 29 Mar 96 09:39:23 NZS Message-Id: <9603282139.AA05584@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 09:39 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: And the wait goes on Status: O Content-Length: 1078 The delays with WitD don't bother me that much, as long as they deal with the quality control issues. My main concern right now is the reprint of counters for SF, which had (as has been beaten to death) serious TQA problems. Having just put out a 20-page newsletter singlehandedly, with only two mistakes (a misspelled word and a by-line in the wrong font), I understand the problems GRD's production people have to go through. Look at the bright side...compare today's production abilities with those of the late 60s and 70s. My copy of SPI's early game Korea has hand-scrawled XX's and III's for divisions and regiments. I think Barbarossa had the same problem. And before that came SPI's Bastogne, with a two-color gameboard of the Ardennes with gray hills and black roads. This was not a fault of the game, it was the handicap of the technology of the times, when linotype was dying, and computer layout did not exist. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Mar 29 01:11:09 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18737; Fri, 29 Mar 96 01:11:02 +0100 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA19561 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 01:10:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA13750 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 18:01:49 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 19:09:14 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Italian what-if OB Status: O Content-Length: 771 >>...4-6 becomes 5-6 (2-6 cadre; breakdowns 1x 2-6 and 2x 1-6 inf rgts)... >> >>...for every 3 inf divs you put on a >>3-inf-rgt basis, remove one inf div.... > >So, basicly I could exchange 4x 4-8 for 3x 5-8, for example. I may want to >do this sometime.... Yes. This is best done an option/fantasy assumed to occur before the game starts -- cash in your divs during pre-game. If you want to do it "on the fly" during play, then you'd better build reorganization time for the third regiment to be integrated into the div structure and for the Italian supply services (and other rear area functions) to adjust to handling the structure. As a guess, divisions reorganized in this manner should sit around in training for 2 game turns before they are fully functional. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Mar 29 01:12:07 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18753; Fri, 29 Mar 96 01:12:06 +0100 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA19591 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 01:11:57 +0100 (MET) Received: from slip-14-10.ots.utexas.edu (slip-14-10.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.128.42]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA00231 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 18:09:48 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 18:09:48 -0600 Message-Id: <199603290009.SAA00231@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: WITD: still waiting Status: O Content-Length: 443 >I just heard that the company that prints the counters has some MAJOR >quality problems with the 2 print runs ahead of the WITD run (front and >back misaligned by, oh, about 1/2" I can see that "Hey! My panzer >division has a position AA unit as a cadre!"). Yes, but think what a nice surprize it will be when he eliminates your AA unit and you flip it over to a panzer cadre! - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Mar 29 04:56:30 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20315; Fri, 29 Mar 96 04:56:28 +0100 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA23047 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 04:55:55 +0100 (MET) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA28382 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Thu, 28 Mar 1996 21:55:47 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 21:55:47 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: Jeff White Cc: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Antwerp & SF Supply In-Reply-To: <199603281844.MAA27705@naybob.ghq.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2852 On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, Jeff White wrote: > bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Said: > > > > The following is based on my understanding of the SF supply rules > > I understand SF Rule 12B4 to mean that an unlimited number of Allied units > > can be supplied via a Naval element through a functioning major or great > > port (given that the other elements of the supply line conform to the > > balance of Rule 12B). In other words, if the Allied player owns Le Havre as > > a functioning port, he could supply all land and air forces through this > > port (given the appropriate rail lines, etc). > > > > This to me seems unduly generous to the Allied player. Yes I agree. Some limitation on total number of REs through big ports is necessary, either by Numbers of REs, or Length of rail element. > > I think the game system might already take care of this, in a slightly > off kilter way. First off, you need the 10 rail cap on the net to draw > supply through the net. Before you can build rail cap, you need > two mashaling yards > So, if the Allies land in Normandy in June, don't capture two RMY's until > July. Then it takes 4 more turns to get above 10 rail cap. Meanwhile, > you're only working ports are Mulberries, and the Germans have > blown up the rest, or are hold out. So they need Antwerp for > supply and to move more troops in. Plus, it is close enough to the real > front to bring supplies in via road. > You are correct almost to the end. You don't need Antwerp. If you get Cherbourg and Caen you have the two marshalling yards. Then four turns and 30 resource points later you can supply anywhere in Europe without any other port (Caen is a major port). > I'd be game for the limits, but it soon gets to be real hard to count > ALL of those REs at some point. That alone could take 10 minutes. It's not that hard, you just keep a running total as you bring them ashore. > Plus it can get wacky. If I link up France and the Italian front, > can I use Palermo to supply units in France? Not from Palermo. The straits of Messina are not a rail link for the Allies. However, Taranto will do. > > > I would like to hear if anyone has done similar experimentation, or can > > explain how the RAW lead to the historical emphasis placed by the Allies on > > the availability of both Antwerp and Marseille. > > We found minors to be really useful. Mostly because they do not > blow up. They eliminate isolation and reduces some of the demand for > supply points. We landed in France real early, in the south. Question - when you say `real early', how early? '43... winter '44? Did you have the danger zone in place for your southern invasion? If so how many losses did the allied naval forces take? Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Mar 29 05:34:13 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20550; Fri, 29 Mar 96 05:34:12 +0100 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA23412 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 05:33:38 +0100 (MET) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA04576 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Thu, 28 Mar 1996 22:33:27 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 22:33:24 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: "James B. Byrne" Cc: Ray Kanarr , byrnejb@hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: My $.0002 on More Stacking In-Reply-To: <3159F973.64D6@harte-lyne.ca> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1843 On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, James B. Byrne wrote: > Ray Kanarr wrote: > > > > >.... only true for organizations which meet the > > >nominal standard of ~12000 total / 6000 infantry. > > > > Didn't armies whose organizations fit this mold generally have this > > structure because of concomitant command and control concerns [such > > alliteration!]? Therefore, the issue is raised as to whether or not > > they SHOULD be allowed to 'control' additional units in the hex. > > > > Command and control were not really the issue. > They could cover the same frontage as a 'standard' division, but at a > cost of reduced depth. I feel that the additional 'division' could have > been adequately controlled by a corps level organisation and would be > able to backstop the first three. > Let's not get too hung up on corps control abilities. While a three division to a corps organization may be optimal, corps had huge varieties of what they could or did control. Example: 6th US corps at Anzio, May '44. It had 7 divisions + 3 regiments of the Special Service Force in the front line; + 30 battalions of US artillery + 9 regiments of British artillery in what was essentially a one hex area. (see previous stacking posts; and future post for bib source). Plus 9 REs of support troops (from Frank Watson's Battle for Rome, TEM 45) Now one could argue that those 26 REs were not as efficient has 26 REs under two corps HQs. But in Europa terms does it matter. Although what one can stack in a hex may be a command and control issue, whether a corps can control a one hex stack is moot. We don't have corps units, we don't pay for corps HQs. And western corps HQs would normally command an area of two or more hexes in distance, so length of corps control is not an issue in current Europa terms. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Mar 29 05:48:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20631; Fri, 29 Mar 96 05:48:02 +0100 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA23609 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 05:47:37 +0100 (MET) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA106704077; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 04:34:37 GMT Message-Id: <199603290434.AA106704077@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 29 Mar 96 04:34:37 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Fri, 29 Mar 96 04:34:16 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 04:31:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 6346431 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 33714 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: The Italian Army Status: O Content-Length: 3115 I think that the "fantasy Italian OB" is just that, a fantasy. Based on what I have read (specifically Madej's ITALIAN ARMY ORDER OF BATTLE 1939-1943, a reprint of a wartime Military Intelligence Service publication; and IRON ARM THE MECHANIZATION OF MUSSOLINI'S ARMY, 1920-1940, by John Joseph Timothy Sweet (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1908) I don't think that the Italian High Command ever considered any of the options presented. The decision to reorganize from a triangular infantry division ("divisione ternaria") to a binary infantry division ("divisione binaria") has already been made. My copy of the LEAGUE OF NATIONS ARMAMENTS YEAR-BOOK for 1937 states that Italy has 31 infantry divisions each composed of one infantry brigade of THREE regiments and one field artillery regiment. So when was the reorganization decision made? It is interesting to note that the British Army infantry division, as late as 1938 (?) was composed of three brigades each of four battalions (12 infantry battalions total); and that, although the U.S. Army had experimented with triangular divisions, when the war started, it still retained the old square division TO: two brigade each of two regiments each of three battalions (again, 12 infantry battalions total). All of the National Guard infantry divisions were mobilized in this form. This is discussed by Shelby Staunton in his ORDER OF BATTLE WWII book. Back to the Italians. Most, if not all, of the binary infantry divisions were mobilized with a "third" regiment, a CCNN Legion with two battalions. Some of the infantry divisions that were stationed in the Balkans did form a third infantry regiment, those are the 1 x 1-6 Inf III in the "300" series in the BF and SF OBs. As John Astell noted, due to internal political and economic considerations, full mobilization was never attempted and incorporation of the "Blackshirts" into the army never considered. Sweet's book notes that, despite Mussolini's efforts at "politica automobilistica" policy (announced in Feb 1939) Italy remained a country without enough industry to build enough tanks and trucks to equipt a mechanized army AND a country without enough people familiar with motor vehicles to drive them. Some interesting statistics (offered by Sweet) as to ratio of cars to people of the combatant countries, pre WW2: France (42 million people-1.8 million cars) 1 to 23 Britain (48 million people-1.5 million cars) 1 to 32 Germany (75 million people-2 million cars) 1 to 37 USA (132 million people-30 million cars) 1 to 4.4 Italy (no population or vehicle statistics given), ratio given as 1 to 112 or 1 to 130; Mussolini wanted 1 to 60 or 1 to 80. Jim Broshot, St. James MO P.S. to David H. Lippman "My copy of SPI's early game Korea has hand-scrawled XX's and III's for divisions and regiments. I think Barbarossa had the same problem. And before that came SPI's Bastogne, with a two-color gameboard of the Ardennes with gray hills and black roads." If you owned these games, you're as old as I am!! I recall that SPI also had a game of the Normandy invasion at this time (early 70's). From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Mar 29 06:04:40 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20782; Fri, 29 Mar 96 06:04:35 +0100 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA24035 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 06:04:08 +0100 (MET) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA09437 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for Europa LIst ); Thu, 28 Mar 1996 23:04:01 -0600 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 23:04:00 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: Stephen Graham Cc: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com>, Europa LIst Subject: Re: Stacking In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2723 On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Stephen Graham wrote: > At 2:19 AM 27/3/96, Jim Arnold wrote: > > 1) 3-3-2 stacking is an ahistorical restriction, > > Is changing a system mechanic the best way to solve the problem in FoF? > Or would it create problems in other games? > Yes it might be trouble in other games. So we must study each change to see what it will do, and then weigh the values of the change vs the result of the change in the way ALL the Europa games then work. > It would unbalance Fire in the East in favor of the Germans, simply because > more Soviet stacks could be overrun. If the Soviet attrition rate goes up, > they bleed out before reinforcements let them build a new and stable defense > line. Similarly, the German task in Second Front gets much harder. > Again correct. But that is the point. To an extent we MUST make the German's attacks in FitE/SE more potent to get rid of the NODLs. I think everyone agrees that the NODL is ahistorical, the question has just been how in the game system do we get rid of it. And yes the Allies would be more potent in SE. But while playing through a game and a half (as both sides) I think it needs to be more potent. But what we have to do if we agreed that higher stacking is both more historically accurate and will solve some Europa game problems, is then come up with some solutions to any problems that the increased stacking will introduce. Higher stacking for defense IS a problem. One would have hero cities stacking full and forcing city battles that did not happen. But if the cost (in game terms or VP terms) of letting a city full of troops get eliminated while surrounded, since you did not have the troop strength to both fill up the city and build a line near it, is high enough, perhaps a commander will only do it with a real decision of costs vs benefits. Not just do it every time since in the game it's a no brainer. And for attacks, many have already argued that it is necessary through logistics or command control, or something, to keep the side with the higher troop strength from attacking turn after turn in a grinding attrition war. That's how most of my Europa games turn out. And that's not the way the war ran. How many of your east fronts had no action through May and June of '42 & '43 as happened for SOME reason. Or many have pointed out that attacking costs troops. And the current CRT provides high odds attacks that cost nothing. So perhaps we need to change the CRT to provide a more realistic decision to the attacker. But I hope we will not just dismiss out of hand the idea of higher stacking because it will cause problems. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Mar 29 19:08:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04132; Fri, 29 Mar 96 19:08:58 +0100 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA12622 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 19:05:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 13:25:37 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 14:08:41 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr To: byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca, abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Cc: byrnejb@hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: My $.0002 on More Stacking Status: O Content-Length: 1068 On 3/28/96, Alan Conrad posted: >Now one could argue that those 26 REs were not as >efficient has 26 REs under two corps HQs. But in Europa >terms does it matter. It should, if Europa is meant to be an operational-level simulation. If its just meant to be a competitive game, with distinct winners and losers, according to a strict set of rules criteria, then no, I guess it doesn't matter. But then let's not kid ourselves about what it is or isn't. >And western corps HQs would normally command an >area of two or more hexes in distance, so length of corps >control is not an issue in current Europa terms. Not just Western, by any means. You are absolutely correct, that currently length of corps control is meaningless in Europa terms. My question is: shouldn't it matter, or are we all willing to agree that, for Europa play, French, Bulgarian, Iraqi, American, British, etc., etc. are all equal? And what does that make Europa, then, other than a two-player GAME not really different from Axis and Allies, just more time-consuming and complex? Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Mar 29 19:30:09 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04263; Fri, 29 Mar 96 19:30:08 +0100 Received: from naybob.ghq.com (naybob.ghq.com [204.73.247.161]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA13431 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 19:29:20 +0100 (MET) Received: (from jwhite@localhost) by naybob.ghq.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) id MAA31659; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:27:36 -0600 From: Jeff White Message-Id: <199603291827.MAA31659@naybob.ghq.com> Subject: Re: Antwerp & SF Supply To: abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (conrad alan b) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:27:35 -0600 (CST) Cc: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com, europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: from "conrad alan b" at Mar 28, 96 09:55:47 pm Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 4236 conrad alan b Said: > > > > On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, Jeff White wrote: > > > bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Said: > > > > > > The following is based on my understanding of the SF supply rules > > > I understand SF Rule 12B4 to mean that an unlimited number of Allied units > > > can be supplied via a Naval element through a functioning major or great > > > port (given that the other elements of the supply line conform to the > > > balance of Rule 12B). In other words, if the Allied player owns Le Havre as > > > a functioning port, he could supply all land and air forces through this > > > port (given the appropriate rail lines, etc). > > > > > > This to me seems unduly generous to the Allied player. > > > Yes I agree. Some limitation on total number of REs through big > ports is necessary, either by Numbers of REs, or Length of rail element. > > > > > I think the game system might already take care of this, in a slightly > > off kilter way. First off, you need the 10 rail cap on the net to draw > > supply through the net. Before you can build rail cap, you need > > two mashaling yards > > So, if the Allies land in Normandy in June, don't capture two RMY's until > > July. Then it takes 4 more turns to get above 10 rail cap. Meanwhile, > > you're only working ports are Mulberries, and the Germans have > > blown up the rest, or are hold out. So they need Antwerp for > > supply and to move more troops in. Plus, it is close enough to the real > > front to bring supplies in via road. > > > You are correct almost to the end. You don't need Antwerp. If you > get Cherbourg and Caen you have the two marshalling yards. Then four > turns and 30 resource points later you can supply anywhere in Europe > without any other port (Caen is a major port). Only if Cherbourg and Caen do not blow, only a 1-in-6 chance. If they blow, you need 2+ turns to get them online. (Minimum two turns for a port cons X to fix it, maybe longer in bad weather and to move cons X into position). Also, I think Caen is an inland port and I recall some rule about not being able to fix it (if blown) in the duration of the game. > > > > I'd be game for the limits, but it soon gets to be real hard to count > > ALL of those REs at some point. That alone could take 10 minutes. > > It's not that hard, you just keep a running total as you bring them > ashore. Planes, losses, new units (French), etc ad nauseum count. If you have capacity on the rail net (10+) and several working major ports, why bother? > > > > Plus it can get wacky. If I link up France and the Italian front, > > can I use Palermo to supply units in France? > > > Not from Palermo. The straits of Messina are not a rail link for > the Allies. However, Taranto will do. I could be wrong here, but I don't recall that the allied side can not use it. > > > > > > I would like to hear if anyone has done similar experimentation, or can > > > explain how the RAW lead to the historical emphasis placed by the Allies on > > > the availability of both Antwerp and Marseille. > > > > We found minors to be really useful. Mostly because they do not > > blow up. They eliminate isolation and reduces some of the demand for > > supply points. We landed in France real early, in the south. > > > Question - when you say `real early', how early? > '43... winter '44? > Did you have the danger zone in place for your southern invasion? > If so how many losses did the allied naval forces take? Feb I 44. None. The rules for danger zones are ambigious. Such as, when do they change hands? We decided they would change ala airfields, when the ownership changed. We used a para drop in Southern France and landed in explotation more troops. It was very very weakly defended. The para boys took a port out. In any respect, I think the danger zone rules are a good idea, but not implemented well. They lead to oxymoronic behavior. Such as the more powerful your force is, the more danger you are in. Same with mines. -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY jwhite@ghq.com "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Mar 29 19:56:20 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04470; Fri, 29 Mar 96 19:56:19 +0100 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA14157 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 19:54:58 +0100 (MET) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA01255 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:50:56 -0600 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:50:47 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: Ray Kanarr Cc: byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca, byrnejb@hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: My $.0002 on More Stacking In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1933 On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Ray Kanarr wrote: > On 3/28/96, Alan Conrad posted: > > >Now one could argue that those 26 REs were not as > >efficient has 26 REs under two corps HQs. But in Europa > >terms does it matter. > > It should, if Europa is meant to be an operational-level simulation. > If its just meant to be a competitive game, with distinct winners and > losers, according to a strict set of rules criteria, then no, I guess > it doesn't matter. But then let's not kid ourselves about what it is > or isn't. Please don't misunderstand me. Yes these things would matter if we can get to an operational game as close to perfection as we can make it. My only point here was that `at this time' in Europa the term corps is a meaningless one since it does not come into play in any action or number that the players work with. But I certainly would support many concepts that would bring meaningful corps activities into the game. That after all, is one on the reasons I am advocating higher stacking levels, with actual corps units potentially being one of the ways to best incorporate higher stacking. > > >And western corps HQs would normally command an > >area of two or more hexes in distance, so length of corps > >control is not an issue in current Europa terms. > > Not just Western, by any means. You are absolutely correct, that > currently length of corps control is meaningless in Europa terms. My > question is: shouldn't it matter, or are we all willing to agree > that, for Europa play, French, Bulgarian, Iraqi, American, British, > etc., etc. are all equal? And what does that make Europa, then, other > than a two-player GAME not really different from Axis and Allies, just > more time-consuming and complex? > Yes I would be in favor of corps control of units that would have different capabilities for different nationalities AND different times in the war. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Mar 30 14:00:32 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA09670; Sat, 30 Mar 96 14:00:31 +0100 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA02551 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 13:58:56 +0100 (MET) Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id MAA05943 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 12:58:05 GMT Date: Sat, 30 Mar 96 12:55 GMT From: nicklaw@cix.compulink.co.uk (Nicholas Law) Subject: Re: FWTBT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Reply-To: nicklaw@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Status: O Content-Length: 892 In-Reply-To: Mvh Elias Nordling said: >> For the republicans, major efforts should go to link up with the n-coast gobernitos and reinforce Madrid. Cnsequently, the Nationalists should try to counteract this.<< At the risk of committing a sweeping generalisation, I'd say that this is the whole war. If the Republicans can keep Madrid/Med Coast in contact with the Biscay Coast they will win; otherwise they'll lose. This makes control of the rail hub of Zaragoza (33:2833) very important -- that's one town I wouldn't have wanted to live in from '36-'39. Keith Pardue asked: >>Any advice on the logistics of playing the game?<< My advice is to try not to forget, as I did, halfway through a turn, which supply counters represent resource points and which supply steps. That sort of thing can completely ruin your afternoon... Nick From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Mar 30 16:28:37 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10219; Sat, 30 Mar 96 16:28:35 +0100 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA05056 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 16:27:34 +0100 (MET) Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id KAA13559; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 10:26:46 -0500 Date: 30 Mar 96 10:25:02 EST From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com> To: Europa LIst Subject: Re: Stacking Message-Id: <960330152501_74133.1765_BHR71-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 4054 John Astell writes, > Nick has a valid point -- if somneone claims something doesn't work, it's > up to that person (or like minded individuals) to thoroughly document it. > It seems unfair to tell people who may not agree with you to do the > checking for you. Documentation can be good, although for widely available map data with an abundance of examples to support my claim, and given the limitation of this non-graphical medium, my best advice for a persistent sceptic remains the same. When an email thread starts to sound like Scholastics debating the number of teeth in the head of a horse, it's time to go look for a stable. You may have missed my specific example of stacking in Diadem, examples of what "overstacking" would look like and how it would be described in fact, and the list of cities captured by the Germans in the first 15 days of France '40. I suggested that Nicholas and others look for themselves only after they persisted in saying simply that 3-3-2 stacking and the course of FOF "seem about right" without addressing my specific questions and examples. I don't mind providing more documentation, although I'm not really sure whether for some this is an issue of fact or orthodoxy. In flipping through a few of the official histories (U.S. and British) on France '44 I found the following: The US VII and VIII Corps in a major push down the west side of the Contentin in mid to late July '44: 6-7 divs on a 20 mile front, with more on the left flank (i.e. try to fit them into a two-hex configuration and you have to allow for more divs). Operation Goodwood: 5+ divs on a 10 mile front, with more on each flank. The British 30 and 8 Corps in late July and early August: 6 divs in 20 miles, with more on each flank. The Brit 2nd Army with 8 divs on the north side of the Falaise pocket, with 24 miles of frontage. The US XIII and XIX Corps in late Nov'44, attacking toward the Roer: 5 divs on a 12 mile front, with more on either flank. I can't find anything in the commentaries to suggest that any of the above operations experienced the telltale problems of "overstacking" - traffic jams, difficulties in deploying their full strength. On the other hand, consider the Germans at the start of the Bulge: 5th Panzer Army: 20 miles of front, 7 1/2 divs in the line, inflicting and taking casualties. 6th SS Panzer Army: 20 miles of front, 8 divisions. The "hexes" on either side were well-stacked. With snow and rough terrain, it's not surprising that by historical accounts they were definitely "overstacked" - but this is 15.5 divs in 2.5 hexes. (It's interesting that at least some of the German general staff - no amateurs in planning - thought they could pull it off.) > The current stacking rules cover most stacking/attacking situations. If you > want to show the rule is broken, you got to: > > 1) Show that there are numerous cases when the rule doesn't work. If > there's just a handful of exceptional cases, then that's what they are: > exceptional cases. That "exceptional" clause worries me. If the Allies only used a "4-4-3" five times in France in '44 (not), does that make it "exceptional"? Or do we look at the requirement in mobile warfare for a continuous front, at the availability of forces for minimum coverage, and at the number of times that a concentrated thrust was especially important, compared with how often it was carried out? "Exceptional" is when quadruplets are born to next-door neighbors; "normal" is when troops are concentrated as often as the overall situations allow, and without unusual difficulty. If someone is going to support their assertion that 3-3-2 is "about right" they should 1) stop calling 4-4-3 a "super stack" until they've demonstrated that it's excessive, and 2) document cases where something like 4-4-3 showed signs of being "over-stacked". Ouch. I just re-read this vile and argumentative post. Lest I be misinterpreted, I mean no disrespect to anyone, and I'm pressing the key in the spirit of enjoyable controversy. Go ahead, abuse me. Jim From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Mar 30 18:14:53 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10615; Sat, 30 Mar 96 18:14:52 +0100 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA06852 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 18:14:04 +0100 (MET) Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id MAA26557; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 12:13:31 -0500 Date: 30 Mar 96 12:11:25 EST From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com> To: Europa LIst Subject: Stacking - errata Message-Id: <960330171124_74133.1765_BHR54-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 142 I meant to include the Goodwood example with the Bulge as another case where "overstacking" could be detected in the way it transpired. Jim From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Mar 31 08:11:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13385; Sun, 31 Mar 96 08:11:49 +0200 Received: from mail.cs.umn.edu (mail.cs.umn.edu [128.101.149.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA22852 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 08:09:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from deci.cs.umn.edu (thornley@deci.cs.umn.edu [128.101.224.10]) by mail.cs.umn.edu (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA16075 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 00:09:50 -0600 (CST) From: "David H. Thornley" Received: (thornley@localhost) by deci.cs.umn.edu (8.6.11/8.6.12) id AAA25178 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 00:09:42 -0600 Message-Id: <199603310609.AAA25178@deci.cs.umn.edu> Subject: Re: Stacking To: europa@lysator.liu.se (Europa mailing list) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 00:09:41 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <960327071859_74133.1765_BHR41-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Jim Arnold" at Mar 27, 96 02:19:00 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 1282 >[Some comments on stacking omitted] > > I'm having a difficult time comprehending the persistence of this debate. Sorry > to say, I started it with specific examples of the Allies in Diadem. It's not > complex, it's not subjective. Just try setting up the Allied (and German) lines > in Normandy, the Bulge, Kursk, or Stalingrad. If you're really interested, see > for yourself - there are examples aplenty. The seemingly simple points which The ones I've been seeing most often in this discussions are set-piece situations. To narrow the debate, would it be acceptable to assume that the Europa stacking limits work in general, but not necessarily in pre- planned operations? > Sometimes it seems that the real issue is whether The Laws of Europa have some > sort of religious significance, or whether as rules for war games they are > subject to improvement. To me at least, that's not an interesting question > either. > Well, they are the status quo, and should not be changed lightly. David H. Thornley, known to the Wise as thornley@cs.umn.edu O- Disclaimer: These are not the opinions of the University of Minnesota, its Regents, faculty, staff, students, or squirrels. Datclaimer: Well, maybe the squirrels. They're pretty smart. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Mar 31 16:41:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14857; Sun, 31 Mar 96 16:41:58 +0200 Received: from emout06.mail.aol.com (emout06.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.43]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA28698 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 16:41:20 +0200 (MET DST) From: EuropaStag@aol.com Received: by emout06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00292; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 09:40:48 -0500 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 09:40:48 -0500 Message-Id: <960331094047_459044358@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: Stefan.Farrelly@barclays.co.uk Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: African maps Status: O Content-Length: 772 In a message dated 96-03-28 10:22:24 EST, you write: >To all those who expressed an interest in maps for Africa - ie. Europa scale >Somailiand, the Sudan (for those games where the Axis push the Allies here) >Winston has said he can produce the maps as long as someone has them >prepared, >eg. A Goodwin, and theyll cost $50 bucks ea to make (doing say a run of 50). > >I for one am a buyer. All we have to do now is find Mr Goodwin on the net and >ask him if he has the proofs ready to go. Mr Goodwin at last look is not on the net. His color work is good enough to color Xerox. Color Xerox is not too expensive in quantity! >All those who would like these maps, even at $50 ea. please express and >opinion >and ill chase it up with Winston. > >Stefan Farrelly > > > From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 01:15:52 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16983; Mon, 1 Apr 96 01:15:51 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA09564 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 01:14:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 18:11:30 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 19:20:16 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr To: EuropaStag@aol.com, Stefan.Farrelly@barclays.co.uk Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: The world according to Europa [was: Re: African maps] Status: O Content-Length: 496 One question and one statement regarding maps: 1) As the current Europa map set is already pushing the edge of the envelope, in terms of a flat-surface representation of a spherical one, how do any large additionally represented areas [either Africa or the Far East] address this issue? 2) For fifty bucks a pop, through the miracle of NAFTA, we can probably hire a non-American company to render each and every single map by hand. No way is this a cost-effective proposal, as it stands. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 04:10:53 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00730; Mon, 1 Apr 96 04:10:52 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA11980 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:08:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA25198 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sun, 31 Mar 1996 20:08:09 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 20:08:08 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: stacking (evidence) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 9444 Gents, In resent posts and replies, several of you, including Ray Kanarr, have asked for evidence of stacking beyond the Europa rules. I see my ally Jim Arnold has just posted some of this data. However I spent a lot of time digging this stuff up so I'm going to lay it on all of you anyway. What I will try to do is give you the data itself, along with the bib reference it came from. Then I would like to mix that in with how the date relates to Europa. In most of this we have little or no date on support troops, the flak, engineers, AT units in the line, or the artillery behind the line. So in some cases we are looking at the numbers vs the 3 divisions (9 REs) that Europa lets us stack in the line. In other cases we are looking at the total 3-3-2 (14 Res) in direct action. First the West Front. I'll start as Jim did, at the Bulge. From Hitler's Last Gamble, by Trevor Dupuy. A pretty fair book with a good OB, a lot of casualty data I have never seen anywhere else. Maps only fair. Gives a lot of info of how the American doctrine of divisions in the line worked in practice. Very good for Europa kind of discussions. 12-16-44; whole German attack - 61 miles (4 hexes): 11 inf XX, 5 Pz XXs, 1 PZ X, in the line. Plus entering the battle within 3 to 8 days (well within one Europa turn) 3 Pz XXs, 2 Pz Xs, 2 PzG XXs, 1 inf XX , or about 69 REs or 17 REs/hex. More specific - 1st SS Pz Corps, 12 mile front: 5 XXs + 6 art IIs + 5 art Xs + flak III + 2 HvPz IIs on the attack from corps plus whatever Army allocated from it's troops : 5 eng II, 2 flak III, 9 bridging columns. Or by my estimate about 28 REs in a one half hex front. From History of the Second World War United Kingdom Military Series, Victory in the West, Vol I, by L.F. Ellis: British attack at Caumont, 7-29-44, 12 mile front, 6 XXs. Mortain Counter Attack, 8-6-44, 25 mile front (1.6 hex) 6 U.S. XXs were defending; 7 German XXs + 2 kampgruppe on attack. Note that this is not a set piece battle. It is an on the fly attack - counteratttack - response situation. As is the Falaise Pocket: 8-16-44. In an area of 13 by 26 miles were the Germans, less than two total hexes. 7 XXXs, 9 inf XXs + 5 KG + 9 Pz XXs, 1 PzG KG plus all the remnants and support troops. It is hard to gauge in Europa terms what state all these units were in. Many would be cadre, some might not exist at all, so I won't try to estimate RE density in the pocket. However the Allies, on a 70 mile front ( 4.5 hex front, but 6 hex sides) had 7 XXXs of 17 XXs. Normandy bridgehead 7-24-44, 75 mile front (5 hexes), Allies have 8 XXXs of 28 XXs in the line (5+/hex) some on defense, some getting ready for attacks. Plus at least 4 XXs in reserve in those same hexes. Even with overstack, we can not stack that much in Europa. On Defense the Germans had 22 XXs on that 5 hex line, although many might be cadre or elim in Europa terms. From U.S. Army in World War II, European Theater of Operations, Breakout and Pursuit, by Martin Blumenson. Cobra, 7-25-44, 4.5 mile(.3 hex) front. 7th U.S. Corps had 6 XXs + 21 art IIs on attack, showing quite well how while three divisions to a corps might be standard practice, its not how things were always done. Add in all the known attached tank and AT and Eng units the Americans always would have, both in history and in the game, by my estimate it would have been at least 36 REs on the attack. Overall 1st U.S. Army had 7 more divisions in the line on either side of 7 corps, on a total 35 mile or 2.2 hex front. So there was not a lot of give on the edges for those troops, stacking wise. Med Front - from the U.K. series, Mediterranean & Middle East, Vols 5 & 6, by C.S.C. Molony. Anzio is a very good example of what doesn't work in Europa stacking. 2-16-44 German counterattack, on a 19 mile front the Germans had 8 divisions in the line, 5 XXs on a 4 mile point of attack. Again this was not a set piece battle just whatever the Germans could throw together. 5-23-44 Allied breakout. This is an excellent point for discussion. The pocket had a 31 mile frontage, about 110 square miles of beachhead. By my view well under one total hex, but if a hex, it has three hex sides of 27 miles. We had a point made in one of the recent posts about hex sides being more important than hex width. This may show whether that point has any validity. Most of the time in our games we have those (needed or dreaded) points in line where three hexes can attack one. It's part of the system we must live with. In hex side terms that lets an attacker with three full hexes of troops attack one hex of troops even though the actual frontage is exactly the same. Those 27 miles. It would be more accurate if we could have a system that let us stack along the hexside. But I rather doubt any of us are quite that crazy yet. And anyway when I look at the Europa game vs history discussion I see two weeks of combat that goes well within the whole hex. So even if units are not in the line on day one, before day 14 is done they will be in action. Or as Jim put it so well, they will be giving and taking casualties. So I always look at the whole hex and state things from the 16 miles/hex frontage. At Anzio we have the opposite of the norm since one hex is attacking out and it puts a different burden on the defense since they have to defend three hex sides. Back to Anzio. Here we have Frank Watson's Battle for Rome scenario from TEM 45 to guide us in Europa terms. I think he has been very generous to give the beachhead TWO hexes. In the attack the 1st and 5th Br XXs held an 8 mile front and were only going to be making initial attacks since they were down 3,600 men. Frank made the 1st a cadre to show this. On an 11 mile front (.7 hex) there were 5 XXs + 3 IIIs of the 1st Special Service Force. Frank made those 3 IIIs a single brigade in the game. There were 30 battalions of U.S. + 9 regiments of British artillery in the beachhead, Frank valued that at 3 art units. Frank put 9 REs in hex 1825, and 11 REs in hex 1925, and let the players put 10 REs in either. With only 3 artillery units present ( for four stacking slots), we must put 5 units into overstack. Now if one were to evaluate the beachhead as only one hex, then even with overstack one cannot fit that many troops there, and of course one can't get the 15+ REs in the attack. Note lastly that all those troops are in one corps the U.S.6th. Did that hurt the commant control? Also in the Med, right after the Diadem battle we've seen discussed, the British advanced up the Liri-Sacco river valley with 5 XXs on a 5 mile front. With the 6th S.A. Armored XX right behind. This was a fighting advance, 37 mile advance in 11 days. Now on to the East Front. First from the game Stalingrad Pocket from The Gamers I have set up at the moment. 5th Tank Army on a 27 mile front (1.7 hexes) 2 Tank XXXs, 1 Cav XXX, 6 inf XXs or 14 REs/hex. Lastly, from From the Don to the Dnepr by David Glantz. I can not recommend this book too highly. For Europa gamers it is the best. It has a series of daily maps with each division's progress detailed. The maps are hand drawn and hard to read at times, but just great. Add to that a good OB and a good text of what's happening and it is an almost ideal text. Just after Kursk, the Soviet attack towards Belgorod, 8-3-43. The Voronez Front had a 110 mile front (7 hexes) In the line: 28 Rifle XXs, 10 Tank & Mech XXXs, 1 art XXX, 3 art XXs, 41 art IIIs, 5 AA XXs, 4 tank Xs, 6 tank IIIs, 4 AT Xs, 43 AT IIIs, 4 eng Xs. Or about 23 REs/hex. If you think that's not that bad vs Europa's 14 REs/hex, note: 38th, 40th & 27th amies were holding 90 miles (5 hexes) of this front with 16 Rifle XXs and 3 Tank XXXs. Next to them on a 10 mile front was 6th Guards Army, with 6 Rifle XXs and 1 Tank XXX. Then the main attack with the 5th Guards Army on a 10 mile front with 7 Rifle XXs. Right behind them, in that hex was the 1st Tank Army and the 5th Gds Tank Army with 6 Tank & Mech XXXs. These were not in overstack or waiting to advance in exploitation phase. The plan was for 6th Gds Army's infantry to open up the holes so in about day three or four the tank corps could smash through. The infantry did not measure up and the tanks had to go in on day two. But in any case all of this stuff was in the attack in Europa terms. And we would not want to forget that right next to 6th Gds was the Steppe Fronts' 53rd Army with 7 Rifle XXs and a Mech XXX on a 6 mile front. By my rough estimate on the flank the stacks were `filled' with 14 REs/hex. In the attack there were 120 REs in less than a 23 mile front or one & a half hexes. Or about 80 REs/hex. And was there congestion? These armies all advanced 58 to 71 miles in the next 14 days. Fighting, giving and taking casualties all the way. Now I am not advocating a stacking rule of 80 REs to the hex. But I would hope that this data, plus the reasons I gave in a previous post of how the 3-3-2 rule forced players to do wrong things, would let us go forward to see what level of stacking we need to get the game to work `right' Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 04:26:17 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00854; Mon, 1 Apr 96 04:26:16 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA12119 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:23:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA27652 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sun, 31 Mar 1996 20:23:45 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 20:23:44 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: Ray Kanarr Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: My $.0002 on More Stacking In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2605 > > >Should not construction units building an airfield behind > >the line be above stacking limits? How about police units > >and AA units. > > If units are 'behind the lines' then they should be allowed to > overstack, but contribute nothing to the offense/ defense, and suffer > all negative effects of combat, since such negative effects indicate > some enemy units at least marauding into the hex, and these units are > not prepared for combat, but doing their other duties. If they do > contribute their factors to attack/defense, then they are perforce > 'on the line, and count against stacking. Seems simple enough to me. > That's the point. Units in overstack can do nothing, except get out of overstack. They can not build or anything. They are not even sitting on the roads since any other stacks can walk right through them with no penalty. And in two weeks of combat in that hex those backfield units will contribute something to the defense. > > Corps markers can represent anything they are said to represent, as > long as there are valid rules backing up that representation. Yes, we > might not know exactly what subdivisional units XXX corps had on July > 15th, 1942, but we know beyond a shadow of a doubt what the TO&E said > they should have, which is partially what Europa is based on, not > day-to-day OBs for every force for the entire war. > That is what I'm trying to say. Right now they represent nothing. They are just a way to put one counter on the map rather than a stack. Now if you are talking about T.O.& E. and doctrine of corps being what the stacking rules are about then you are making a point. One I disagree with but a point. > > Standard doctrine for anyone means absolutely nothing unless you make > adjustments in order to make an apples to apples comparison. It was > not standard doctrine for the Soviets to leave their armor 16 miles > behind the front lines for two weeks, so therefore to make an > accurate comparison, you need to adjust the concepts in the doctrine > to compare with the Europa time/distance scale, which is an > objective, rather than subjective, comparison. In these terms, it > makes perfect sense that the armor is right up there with the > infantry in the attack. See my last post. Just my point. In Europa the infanty just holds the line where the attack isn't. One can not attack with a few Rifle XXs for a couple days, then hit the line with the Tank XXXs. There is not enough stacking allowed in one hex to do that. You can not get the needed attack points. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 04:39:28 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00975; Mon, 1 Apr 96 04:39:27 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA12237 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:37:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 21:34:53 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 22:43:37 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr To: abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: My $.0002 on More Stacking Status: O Content-Length: 1054 On 3/31/96, Alan Conrad wrote: >And in two weeks of combat in that hex those backfield >units will contribute something to the defense. Yeah, if they are construction units building something, or police units on occupation duty, they'll contribute a mass of corpses for the heroic fighting men to hide behind. Seriously, REMFs contributed suberbly in their own fashion, but they are NOT combat troops. They should be allowed to perform their functions in a hex, but not contribute to defense. Over the course of a two-week turn, their major contribution to the fighting front would be to grease enemy treads. The point that I'm trying to make here is that Europa is a hybrid super-tactical/sub-operational game, precisely because it DOES NOT take corps and doctrinal effects into account. Now, these may not make all that much difference in the individual games [and that's called into question for even a game as 'small' as FoF, let alone the monsters SE and SF], but they sure will affect trying to get GE to resemble anything like WW II. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 04:44:31 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01001; Mon, 1 Apr 96 04:44:30 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA12250 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:40:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA00320 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sun, 31 Mar 1996 20:38:24 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 20:38:24 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: Jeff White Cc: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Antwerp & SF Supply In-Reply-To: <199603291827.MAA31659@naybob.ghq.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1692 Jeff White wrote: > > Only if Cherbourg and Caen do not blow, only a 1-in-6 chance. If > they blow, you need 2+ turns to get them online. (Minimum two turns > for a port cons X to fix it, maybe longer in bad weather and > to move cons X into position). Also, I think Caen is an inland port > and I recall some rule about not being able to fix it (if blown) > in the duration of the game. > Agreed you do have to fix them. That must have been why Mongomery was so keen to capture Caen as soon as possible. He knew the port would blow up and it would take time before it could get fixed. No the rule is an inland port WITH an artificial harbor can not be fixed. Caen is just inland. But this brings to mind a question for all. As my previous post showed, by my estimate there must have been as many as 150 REs in Normandy by the end of July II. A) is it possible in Europa to actually get that many units into that bridgehead? B) how are you going to supply them? Historically there were only the two mulberries, and in game terms was one of them destroyed in the great storm in June? Cherbourg was captured, but I assume did not roll the six to escapt destruction. Caen had not yet been captured. Can one fly in that many supplies? And even if physically possible, I'm pretty sure that flying in supplies was not the way they got things done historically Even if the `Allied' player has playing games with keeping some units in then out of supply, by the Aug I turn it seems they were all able to make the big push. I have not tried to set that up, but my gut feeling is that it is not possible in Europa terms. Alan From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 05:51:39 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01368; Mon, 1 Apr 96 05:51:37 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA12804 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 05:49:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-53-11.ots.utexas.edu (slip-53-11.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.251.43]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA10179 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 21:47:53 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 21:47:53 -0600 Message-Id: <199604010347.VAA10179@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: stacking (evidence) Status: O Content-Length: 524 Alan said: >Gents, ... And a whole lot more! Thanks, Alan, for taking the time to research it and write it up; I found it very interesting even without reference to the debate over stacking limits. His post also makes me wonder: what will be the stacking limits for GR/D's WWI games? In particular, will there be an allowance for piles of artillery units in a hex? (I'm aware that WWI praxis won't tell us much about the "shoulds" of representing WWII.) - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 06:04:29 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01443; Mon, 1 Apr 96 06:04:28 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA12887 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 06:02:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-53-11.ots.utexas.edu (slip-53-11.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.251.43]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA10380 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 22:00:42 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 22:00:42 -0600 Message-Id: <199604010400.WAA10380@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Antwerp & SF Supply Status: O Content-Length: 391 Alan said: > Historically there were only the two mulberries, and in game terms >was one of them destroyed in the great storm in June? Cherbourg was >captured, but I assume did not roll the six to escapt destruction. Caen >had not yet been captured. I understand that Cherbourg was destroyed with shocking thoroughness. - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 06:34:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01594; Mon, 1 Apr 96 06:34:17 +0200 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA13073 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 06:31:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AB16610; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:31:44 -0500 Message-Id: <9604010431.AB16610@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: stacking To: europa@lysator.liu.se (europa mailing list) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:31:44 +4300 (EST) From: "Arius V Kaufmann" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 1576 > >And in two weeks of combat in that hex those backfield > >units will contribute something to the defense. > > are NOT combat troops. They should be allowed to perform their > functions in a hex, but not contribute to defense. Over the course of > a two-week turn, their major contribution to the fighting front would > be to grease enemy treads. This is reflected in the fact that the SEC III units have a 1 combat while combat III's have strengths of 2,3, or more. Some construction units are 0-1-5 III's and the rail III's are 0-6's. I think in practice they'll be grease for the tank treads without taking away the defense capability. One must remember that stacking works both ways. Sure, the Germans'll have monster stacks, but at the expense of smaller supporting stacks, which are, in turn, vulnerable to a surprise counter-attack with a Soviet monster stack. The front would probably be more fluid, but a competant Soviet player can stop the Germans at Narva and Luga on the Leningrad front in a 3-3-2 game, and stop them cold. (I did this at last year's Origins.) The Germans then have to slug it out ahistorically to get anywhere near Winter '41 lines, eating up resources needed in the South to get historical results. I won't go into an in-depth analysis of how to play the Soviets, (I'm hardly an expert, I just haven't made massive defensive errors costing me a game), but suffice to say that I think a move to 4-4-3 will make it easier for the Germans to get historical end of summer '41 results. (And I LIKE playing the Soviets.) Arius From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 07:23:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02022; Mon, 1 Apr 96 07:23:02 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA13555 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 07:20:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA24866 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:20:40 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:20:40 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: unit strengths & losses Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 5541 Gents, I would like to take a look at how units are lost and return. With a particular eye as to how this should be thought out advancing towards GE. First a slick trick from SF to show part of the problem. Question - what is one of the best ways to defend long coastal areas, and the best way to have a reserve that the allies can do nothing about as well as not knowing where it is? Answer by example. In a game of mine my allied opponent made an invasion at Ancona and points north in Italy on the Adriatic. I only had the troops to garrison a couple of the ports. But he had foolishly made a mistake and in the last turn destroyed a PzG division. And I had a couple of infantry units in the dead pile also. So since I had enough replacement points these units popped out of thin air and destroyed the 101st a/b. So the answer to the slick trick question is to leave some dead units in the pile with enough points to bring them back. There is nothing the allies can do about it, and they can be everywhere you might need them in a theater. In Russia the ability to bring back dead units anywhere was not much of a problem since there were so few towns around and so few surprise situations. But in SF I think is makes for bad gaming. Let's take a look at units, their strengths, and their replacements. Look at the U.S. 1st Infantry division. It had a TO&E of 14,000. I'd estimate about 6,000 of there are line infantry. Now John Astell was telling us in a post recently about unit strengths. I believe he and most of you would see how if the 1st lost about 4,000 men if could be considered a cadre. In game terms from a 11-8 to a 5-8. If the division losses another couple thousand men it is eliminated in game terms. This then starts the above problem. The loss generated 2.2 Special Replacements, but add 8.8 and the Big Red One is as good as new ANYWHERE in the theater you want it. But actually there were about 8,000 men plus most of the equipment of the division wherever the unit was "lost". And you do not have to transport these guys to wherever the unit is rebuilt. First off, but very difficult to do, looking at GE, is to put losses in `real' terms. In above I lost 6 points of `replacements', but I should have still have those 8 points of guys somewhere. This is real important if a unit is lost surrounded. In the game if I lose the cadre surrounded I just lose the 1 point of Special Replacements not the 10 points of people really lost. Of course in SF you lose VPs as the Americans but the Germans or Russians would not lose in a similar situation. How to figure those point losses and work them into a replacement chart or possibly a production chart is difficult. As many have argued there are a lot of ways to look at what is in a division and how to put it in terms of production. But I feel it is a topic worth discussion. But there is a way to solve part of the problem, i.e. bringing back units anywhere, too quickly. I propose this: if a cadre is destroyed it becomes a remnant. It is not too difficult to do this logistically. Just as we have a breakdown chart, we can have a remnant chart. 1st XX dies it goes on the next open spot, remnant 17. Counter Remnant 17 now goes on the map. It still is a stacking point, it provides no defense, but you do have to get it back to a town (or whatever is declared as legal points for rebuilding). It take one turn to rebuild the cadre, one turn to rebuild the cadre to the unit. That is at least some downtime. And you can only rebuild it where it actually is. Now what that cost is for the remnant to cadre, is part of that cost problem. And it is important too. If that cost is made properly high enough one has to be careful not to lose troops surrounded. On the East Front, the Soviet player will not automatically stack Minsk full of units if losing those units surrounded cost a lost more than the 1/5 replacement point. That's part of the solution I would like all of you to think about and comment on. Here's some more data, about what is a loss? From Stanton, our 1st Infantry division lost a total of 18,800 casualties during the entire war; North Africa, Sicily, Normandy, across France into Germany and the Bulge. In game terms how many times, IF ever, was the 1st flipped to cadre? From Blumenson: in Normandy the German 352nd lost 8,000 men thru turns June I, June II, and July I, Would it still be a cadre? From Dupuy, at the Bulge, the German 5th Parachute started with a strength of 13,500. It lost on Dec II: 6,900, on Jan I a further 1,400 and had a strength of 5,900. Should it be a cadre? It was certainly giving a couple of U.S. divisions problems while trying to reduce the bulge. The poor old U.S. 106th Infantry, right off it lost 8,500 of 13,900. And was mostly surrounded too. Lost in game terms? Yet The regiment that was not lost fought at St. Vith. And was in the line latter in the battle as will. They lost 677 casualties in the Jan I turn. American doctrine was loaning them regiments from other divisions so they could have two in the line and fight on. So are they a cadre? Actually they were fighting with the firepower of a full division. I hope we can come to a concensus that this is a problem that needs a fix. With all of our minds we should be able to come up with a proper fix. Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 07:30:37 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02075; Mon, 1 Apr 96 07:30:36 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA13702 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 07:29:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-56-14.ots.utexas.edu (slip-56-14.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.251.94]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id XAA11788 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:26:25 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:26:25 -0600 Message-Id: <199604010526.XAA11788@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: stacking Status: O Content-Length: 1502 Arius said: > ... a competant Soviet player >can stop the Germans at Narva and Luga on the Leningrad front in a 3-3-2 >game, and stop them cold. (I did this at last year's Origins.) The Germans >then have to slug it out ahistorically to get anywhere near Winter '41 lines, >eating up resources needed in the South to get historical results. My experience exactly, except that I've never done it at Origins! In hopes of forestalling reiteration of the claim that the Soviets profit from hindsight, I'll mention that the Axis do so as well. In particular, I doubt that many players undertake the Axis side in a game of FE/SE without an operational plan that extends beyond the first 2-1/2 turns, and I'll bet it's something more specific than "We'll sic the Luftwaffe on whatever escapes across the Volga!" You can argue that the imbalance during Barbarossa arises from other causes, such as unit strength and movement ratings, replacement rates, supply, etc., but unless or until such is established and addressed, I think higher stacking will improve the simulation for this part of Europa. (For those of you who don't see such an imbalance, I can't ask you to disbelieve your own observations any more than I am willing to disbelieve mine. I just hope members of both camps can get together at one of the next conventions and see how playing style factors into the balance.) - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 07:34:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02098; Mon, 1 Apr 96 07:34:24 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA13761 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 07:33:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA26569 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:32:45 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:32:44 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: "John M. Astell" Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Stacking In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1312 On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, John M. Astell wrote: > On 25 March 96, Nick Forte wrote: > > >I will concede that it is impossible to reach Abbeville on schedule in Europa. This is due to movement limitations, however, NOT stacking. That being said, The timetable may slip a turn here or there, but the general flow of the campaign is correct. > > Nick is right. When FoF was developed, we "re-created" the historical > campaign, moving units and fighting per their historical moves, up to the > limits the rules permitted. As I remember, you can even capture Abbeville > on schedule -- you don't occupy it with a unit but you can get an > uncontested German ZOC there by the end of exploitation movement. > Without having stacked the counters myself I would agree to point. I do believe the usual game campaign `slips'. Taking France out in under 10 turns may be difficult. But if one just decided the turns were one week rather than two those 10 turns are just off the mark. Since there is no particular rational for the momement rates or CRT being tied to 14 days that is not that bad an idea. After all that is what was done more or less in FtF. That only means we have to look at the two week turn time and see if that is causing of solving more Europa problems. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 08:36:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02643; Mon, 1 Apr 96 08:36:58 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA14667 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 08:36:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.123.69] (ip-pdx14-05.teleport.com [206.163.123.69]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA17566 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 22:36:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604010636.WAA17566@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 22:41:28 -0800 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: crated aircraft problems Status: O Content-Length: 953 My understanding about crated aricraft was that it was an extremely expensive and time consuming way to move aircraft. Any aircraft that could possibly be moved by flying itself was flown. Others were moved by aircraft transports (the French carrier Bearn ended up serving as an aircraft transport) in this way, many types of aircraft -especially short ranged fighters- could be transported by sea without having to completely disassemble them. It is interesting to note that huge numbers of American and other aircraft were written off after being flown on arduous shuttle transfers from North American to places like Australia. B17s were flown to England then to North Africa then to Egypt, India and then Australia. Many aircaft simply failed to show up. Most made it of course, but of these many were already experiencing severe wear and tear before ever being used operationally. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 08:36:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02644; Mon, 1 Apr 96 08:36:58 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA14680 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 08:36:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.123.69] (ip-pdx14-05.teleport.com [206.163.123.69]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA17709 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 22:36:30 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604010636.WAA17709@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 22:41:49 -0800 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: (WWII) no neo-nazis! :) Status: O Content-Length: 2804 >Huh? If you mean that I should accept the possibility that Hitler was >a raving looney (rather than a raving megalomaniac, which he was), I >don't see that as a problem. I also don't see it as an argument. >As far as I can tell, Hitler was profoundly evil, possessed of normally >good political instincts, a very bad military strategist, and made >military decisions in a rational manner, considering the previous >caveats. As always and by instinct, I take the most contraversial possible view on anything. I think that cases can be made for Hitler being an intelligent person and for being correct about some things (better to have a hi-velocity 50mm gun or whatever)*. It's an over-generalization to wax poetic about his dilletantish behaviour. I don't think that FDR and Churchill look particularly inspiring when their personal peccadilloes are scrutinized. Stalin's personality flaws are quite as glaring as Hitler's. Was the fact that Hitler's father beat him the reason he was so hateful and selfish? Maybe, but I don't beleive that Germany was doomed to making asinine decisions and losing the war by the hand of fate. Certainly some Generals were able to stand up to Hitler and some of them could even outshout him to his face. So, in real life, it might be that in one or another particular situation, his military commanders might have pushed him back to his original role of observer-which he played in the Polish and Western campaigns. After that he became Alexander the Great in his own mind, although he was crediting himself with other's successful ideas (the Manstein plan that defeated France was Manstein's idea and not Hitler's after all- Hitler only chose the plan as being obviously more imaginative than the stale WW1 rehash that Manstein's rivals were pursuing) Really, though when playing Europa- even Grand Europa, it shouldn't matter what specific political scenario could be used to justify good player decisions resulting in success. What it all comes down to for me is that somebody has to play the "bad guys". Also, although I can't claim to be a Nazi, I do find David Irving's work to be useful. I refuse to not read someone's work because of his noxious political beliefs or because of the smug pontifications of an author's detractors. I have had some personal contact with him and he is *very* creepy. SP *It seems on the evidence that Hitler would have been much better off as a quartermaster sergeant and that in some brighter alternate reality he was promoted to such a position. Also, comes to mind some quote I once heard about how much better the world would be if he would have been accepted into Architect School in Vienna- "Vienna could easily have suffered one more mediocre architect." "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 13:44:20 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA07650; Mon, 1 Apr 96 13:44:19 +0200 Received: from mailgate.ericsson.se (mailgate.ericsson.se [130.100.2.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA20744 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:42:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lmera (lmera.lmera.ericsson.se [147.214.60.16]) by mailgate.ericsson.se (8.6.11/1.0) with SMTP id NAA08216 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:42:28 +0200 Received: from y0107 by lmera (5.x/LME-DOM-2.2.3) id AA06350; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:41:01 +0200 Received: by y0107 (4.1/client-1.5) id AA16110; Mon, 1 Apr 96 13:40:59 +0200 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 13:40:59 +0200 Message-Id: <9604011140.AA16110@y0107> From: Johan Herber Z/XU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: (message from conrad alan b on Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:20:40 -0600) Subject: Re: unit strengths & losses Status: O Content-Length: 868 Concerning rebuilding of lost units. A first step should be to differentiate more between units that are lost isolated and others. My suggestion is that units lost isolated are to be rebuilt using the forming/full system in addition to paying the replacement cost. This should take a standard amount of time from the replacement cost is paid. This should also reduce the amount of special OB events (ie the withdrawals after Stalingrad etc) in GE games. Forcing entirely lost divisions to be rebuilt in two steps reduces the flexibility of the replacement system in providing emergency reserves. /Johan Johan Herber | Email: eraherr@lmera.ericsson.se Rydsvagen 104A | Phone: +46 13173013 S-582 48 LINKOPING | -Work: +46 13284160 SWEDEN | From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 17:43:33 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11330; Mon, 1 Apr 96 17:43:32 +0200 Received: from ns.rmc.com (ns.rmc.com [137.25.23.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA02803 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 17:41:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ns.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA20448; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:30:41 -0500 Received: from internet.rmc.com(137.25.3.24) by ns.rmc.com via smap (V1.3) id sma013740; Mon Apr 1 10:30:25 1996 Received: from lanmail.rmc.com by internet.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA12334; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:10:16 -0500 Received: by LANMAIL.RMC.COM; Mon, 1 Apr 96 10:10:46 EST Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 10:11:02 EST Message-Id: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re:unit strengths & losses Status: O Content-Length: 1675 The remnants category is an interesting idea. "Magic" replacements are a mild irritant in most wargames that use a traditional replacement system I might be tempted to use the remnant concept in the desert or SF, but I balk at tracking remnants for Soviet rifle XXs. Maybe the Soviets rifle XXs would be exempt from remnantizing? (Is a remnantizor a sub-assembly in the Star Trek transporter?) Maybe if you used higher HQs, could some of the remnants be assigned to these "units." That might cut down on some of on-map counters ( a thought that could be considered radical in this game). You could have some of the remnants on the map but far back - the others assigned to various Army HQs closer to the front. Alan, could a remnant be overrun? Should an overrun cadre generate a remnant? And some comments on the specific historical loss instances: > In game terms how many times, IF ever, was the 1st flipped to > cadre? The Sicily EaH (TEM 48) flips it for the attack on Troina. Don't know about NW Europe. 352nd XX Cadre or eliminated by July II? I would say eliminated but with one of your remnant things lying around if they were in use. 5th Parachute Cadre at Bulge? Yes, cadred by Patton's attack to relieve Bastogne Dec II. A cadre can still give problems to an attacker. > The poor old U.S. 106th Infantry. Perhaps it began the battle broken down with two supported regiments in that nasty looking hex jutting into the westwall and one regiment one hex to the west. The two up-front IIIs get waxed Dec II but the other retreats with 7th Arm XX when St. Vith hex falls. The last regiment stays in action stacked with other units. Frank From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 19:56:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12750; Mon, 1 Apr 96 19:56:43 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA10743 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:53:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.89] (gw1-089.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA00294 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:53:44 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:56:02 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Stacking & the dismal Mr. Irving Status: O Content-Length: 2736 Re. the on-going stacking debate: I think Alan Conrad's *excellent* evidential post does indeed suggest a change in stacking is in order. I still think it would be interesting to look at the effects of stacking on casualty levels, though. I can not help thinking the well known high level of Soviet casualties/day vs. the experience on the Western Front (Axis & Allied) might have something to do with a lack of dispersal. I am reminded on Zhukov's remark to Eisenhower in 1946 (I think...possibly in Ike's book 'Crusade in Europe'?) that we wished he had had half the amount of artillery but twice the amount of ammunition. Also, using the *Goodwood* example, given the lack of success in this operation, I wonder if a point of diminishing returns does not manifest itself beyond a certain density. This might be worth looking at, i.e. set up the counter a la the historical situation (ignore current Europa stacking rules) and see what the odds would have been...if it looks too good, then this suggests diminishing returns are indeed a factor. Instinctively, it seems to make sense but I hesitate to say this is so without some sort of evidence. Dupuy's equations suggest casualty rates and dispersal are linked, therefore as frontage and dispersal are also linked and casualty rates and combat power are also linked (naturally).... you can see where I am going with this. Although I agree with Alan that stacking needs to be re-jiggered, I still agree with Nick Forte and John Astell that FoF does NOT play out ahistorically due to stacking problems but rather due to the fact Gamelin suffered from rather more cognitive dissonance than all but the most inept Europa player. Re. the dismal David Irving Steve wrote: >Also, although I can't claim to be a Nazi, I do find David >Irving's work >to be useful. I find the paper quality of his books a little harsh on the buttocks >I refuse to not read someone's work because of his noxious >political beliefs or because of the smug pontifications of an >author's >detractors. Nevertheless, certainly I agree with Steve on that point. >I have had some personal contact with him and he is *very* creepy. > This is all a bit off-topic but seeing as it has come up: I too have had the dubious pleasure of meeting Mr. Irving (at a militaria fair in Baltimore, USA, a few years ago). I found him utterly immune to rational discourse and I had the singular pleasure of shoving him on his arse: not I must add, because of his absurd views, which I think MUST be aired in order to be refuted, but over a personal insult (he does like to provoke people & I am certainly not a pacifist). It was not a rational response on my part but damn, it felt good :-P Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 20:14:45 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12928; Mon, 1 Apr 96 20:14:44 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA11344 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:14:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA18229 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:05:49 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:13:22 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: stacking (evidence) Status: O Content-Length: 952 > In resent posts and replies, several of you, including Ray Kanarr, >have asked for evidence of stacking beyond the Europa rules. I see my >ally Jim Arnold has just posted some of this data. However I spent a lot >of time digging this stuff up so I'm going to lay it on all of you >anyway. What I will try to do is give you the data itself, along with >the bib reference it came from. Then I would like to mix that in with >how the date relates to Europa. Thank you for your (and Jim's) input. Without being critical, I note that it's exact enough to let you feel you've made your point, while still being vague enough that I'd have to spend many hours re-creating the cases and then determining how valid it is and if it comes under any of the 4 amerliorating cases I outlined in a previous post. I regret that I lack the time to do this at present, and I will your posts in my already-bulging stack of interesting things to do someday. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 20:14:49 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12933; Mon, 1 Apr 96 20:14:48 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA11352 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:14:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA18231 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:05:56 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:13:30 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Antwerp & SF Supply Status: O Content-Length: 608 >> Also, I think Caen is an inland port >> and I recall some rule about not being able to fix it (if blown) >> in the duration of the game. > No the rule is an inland port WITH an artificial harbor can not be >fixed. Caen is just inland. I never noticed it on the printed maps... Caen SHOULD BE an artificial harbor port! It had an extensive lock system that connected it to the sea, a system that, once destroyed, would render the port unusable. The Germans did wreck the locks, and as I remember Caen remained inaccessible to ships until 1946 or 47. If this is not in the SF errata, it should be. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 21:16:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13484; Mon, 1 Apr 96 21:16:17 +0200 Received: from psyche.the-wire.com (psyche.the-wire.com [198.53.192.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA13966 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 21:15:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mhughes.the-wire.com (mhughes.the-wire.com [205.206.32.167]) by psyche.the-wire.com (8.6.10/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA02597 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 14:14:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 14:14:53 -0500 Message-Id: <199604011914.OAA02597@psyche.the-wire.com> X-Sender: mhughes@psyche.the-wire.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_828393599==_" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: mhughes@the-wire.com (Marian Hughes) Subject: RUSSIAN GRAND EUROPA OB X-Attachments: A:\EUROPA\LETTERS\INTERNET.1; Status: O Content-Length: 2588 --=====================_828393599==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This is a Word Perfect 5.1 file. If preferance is for Word 6.0 or ASCII let me know. E Mail software is EUDORA. Signed David Hughes --=====================_828393599==_ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="INTERNET.1"; x-mac-type="42494E41"; x-mac-creator="6D646F73" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="INTERNET.1" /1dQQ1IBAAABCgABAAAAAPv/BQAyAAwBAAAHAA4AAABCAAAADwBWAAAAUAAAAAwAWgAAAKYAAAAD AAwAAAAAAQAAQ291cmllciAxMGNwaQAAAP//iQA/AHgAeAB4AAoAAQAAAABpEvQBeAD+FTYQWAcA AAAEEUDJAJM4AQABAFgCQP////////////////////7//////////////////////////1N0YW5k YXJkIFByaW50ZXIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABTVEFOUFJJTi5QUlMA2wF4ABQeDBeMCgAA AAQRQMkAh88BAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAYDR9dpFgCQNMRCABVU1VLCAAR0/v/BQAyAAAAAAAJAAIAAAA+ AQAABgAQAAAAQAEAAAgAAgAAAFABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUPwAI3wAeAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAADQC/cA kDPYJwEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACQM9gnAQhTdGFu ZGFyZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACQM9gnAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJAz2CcBAFN0YW5kYXJkALQA//8AAAMAZCBQcmlu dGVyAAD/AAD/BP//AAAkAJ0BAABQ/LAEsASwBLAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9wAL0NMRCABVS1VLCAAR0wpBZnRlciBmaW5pc2hpbmcgdGhlIEJyaXRp c2ggZXRjIERlc2VydCBPQiBmb3IgSm9obiBBc3RlbGwgcGx1bmdlZA1pbnRvIGEgR3JhbmQgRXVy b3BhIGdhbWUuIFdlIGRvIG5vdCBtZXNzIGFyb3VuZCCpIHRoZSBzdGFydCBkYXRlDXdhcyBBcHJp bCAxOTQxLiBOb3cgTm92ZW1iZXIgMTk0MSCpIEhpdGxlciBpZ25vcmVkIFJ1c3NpYSwNcGx1bmdl ZCBzb3V0aC4gUGFuemVycyBub3cgaW4gQWxleGFuZHJpYSwgSGFpZmEgYW5kIFR1bmlzISBNZWFu dA10aGF0IFJ1c3NpYW4gT0IgaGFkIHRvIGJlIHJlY29uZmlndXJlZC4gQSBuaWNlIGNoYWxsZW5n ZSwgYWZ0ZXINYWxsIHRoZSBzdWdnZXN0aW9ucyB0aGF0ICdHcmFuZCBFdXJvcGEnIHZhcmlhYmxl IE9CJ3MgZXRjIGNhbm5vdA1iZSB3b3JrZWQgb3V0LiBQcm9kdWN0IHVzZWQgdHdvIE9CJ3M6IE9u ZSBpcyBkYXRlIGRyaXZlbiAoY29tYmF0DW1vdG9yaXNlZCwgYXJ0aWxsZXJ5IGV0Yyk7IHRoZSBv dGhlciBjb25kaXRpb24gqSBXYXIgb3INSW52YXNpb24gqWRyaXZlbiAoaG9yZGVzIG9mIDOpNiwg Mqk2LCAyqTGpOCBldGMpLiBUaGUgbGF0dGVyDXZhcmllcyBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gVG90YWwgb3Ig TGltaXRlZCBXYXIsIGFuZCBGYXIgRWFzdCBSZXNlcnZlDVJlbGVhc2UuIEl0IHNlZW1zIHRvIHdv cmsgqSBiZWluZyBzZW50IHRvIENoYXJsZXMgU2hhcnBlIGFzIHRoZQ1Ob3J0aCBBbWVyaWNhbiBl eHBlcnQgb24gYWxsIHRoaXMgZm9yIGhpcyBjb21tZW50cy4gT25jZSBoaXMNcmVwbHkgcmVjZWl2 ZWQsIHdlbGNvbWUgdG8gc2hhcmUgdGhpcyBhbmQgb3RoZXIgaW5mbyBvbiBvdXIgZ2FtZS4NQmUg aGFwcHkgqSBHcmFuZCBFdXJvcGEgSVMgcGxheWFibGUgqSB0aG91Z2ggdmVyeSBkaXNjb3VyYWdp bmcgaW4NMTk0MSBmb3IgdGhlIEJyaXRpc2ggaWYgSGl0bGVyIGRvZXMgbm90IEdvIEVhc3QhCgoK SU5URVJORVQuMQ== --=====================_828393599==_-- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 22:04:00 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13905; Mon, 1 Apr 96 22:03:59 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA15611 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 22:02:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 Apr 1996 14:59:12 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 15:05:40 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, zaius@teleport.com Subject: Re: crated aircraft problems Status: O Content-Length: 172 I don't recall that anyone addressed Bill Stone's original point asking why, and whether, anyone would take the time and make the effort to crate up "used" aircraft. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 1 22:47:35 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14196; Mon, 1 Apr 96 22:47:34 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA16579 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 22:46:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 Apr 1996 15:33:21 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 16:16:07 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: What is Europa [was: unit strengths & losses] Status: O Content-Length: 4281 On 3/31/96, Alan Conrad wrote: >So since I had enough replacement points these units >popped out of thin air and destroyed the 101st a/b. --snip-- >But in SF I think is makes for bad gaming. Doesn't this rather accurately model what happened to Brit 1st abn at Arnhem, in Europa terms, given 2-week game turns with perfect intelligence? >How to figure those point losses and work them into a >replacement chart or possibly a production chart is >difficult. As many have argued there are a lot of ways to >look at what is in a division and how to put it in terms of >production. But I feel it is a topic worth discussion. I completely agree with you on this! >On the East Front, the Soviet player will not automatically >stack Minsk full of units if losing those units surrounded >cost a lost more than the 1/5 replacement point. I disagree with you here, as Soviet manpower replacements were not the issue that they were for the Western Allies, and German doctrinal requirements [stand fast orders] dictated actions in opposition to your proposal, both for what the respective governments felt were good reasons. >So are they a cadre? Actually they were fighting with the >firepower of a full division. The issue that you raise here goes to the question of how losses are represented. In Europa, losses are represented over a two-week turn, and replaced after that period. So, if a surrounded American division suffers a DE, and is then replaced using RPs in the following turn, does that represent that every men in the division is KIA/WIA? My belief is that it represents the replacements, collection of scattered elements, issue of new equipment, etc. "Encirclements" on the Western front were also never as complete or tight as some of those on the Eastern front. As you noted, one regiment of the 106th did survive essentially intact, but the division was obliterated, including rear-area services, making the DIVISION unable to fight. One of the things that is not currently agreed upon in the Europa community is what units, losses, RPs, SPs, and everything else actually represent [because they are just representations, not the actual units and such]. The founders/designers have one set of conceptuatizations, but different posters have cited all sorts of "problems" with the time scale, distance scale, terrain, stacking, unit factors, losses, air subsystem, naval subsystem, logistics subsystem, is it/is it not a role-playing game, and just about everything else having to do with Europa, and over the years there have been literally hundreds of "fixes" proposed [most having their own sets of unresolved problems, which is why they aren't RAW now]. Do note that the rules set has evolved substantially over the last 22 years, and without the need to rescale maps, reprint all of the counters, or reassess all of the factors, and much of this has been as a result of reasoned discussion to try to make Europa a better SIMULATION of historical events, since it was already a great GAME system. I think that the basis for this is that Europa is many different things to different people, and the true essential beauty of the system is that there is room in it for us to discuss these differences, and make proposals for bettering the simulation aspects of the game. Most other game systems are a LOT more prescriptive in their approach, and not nearly as good, and don't have nearly the following that Europa does. Unless we can reach a consensus on what Europa is [since it is very obvious at this point that we are not likely to accept without discussion the founders/designers vision of Europa], and I don't think that, in the end, there can be a "consensus" on what Europa is, for the reasons above, "Official" Europa will continue to be a basic framework on which everyone hangs their individual superstructure. I think that, at this point, the only arguments for changing Europa RAW that are going to hold any weight with me will be those where the person proposing the changes shows, by creating scenarios and/or playing out existing ones, and with reporting reporting on them from both sides, how the changes are successful in all theatres [ETO, MTO, and Eastern front], without severely unhinging the game historically. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 2 00:29:23 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15011; Tue, 2 Apr 96 00:29:22 +0200 Received: from dax.cc.uakron.edu (root@dax.cc.uakron.edu [130.101.5.4]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA19027 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 00:28:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from vox15.cc.uakron.edu by dax.cc.uakron.edu (5.65/Ultrix4.3) id AA18846; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 17:29:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 17:29:37 -0500 Message-Id: <9604012229.AA18846@dax.cc.uakron.edu> X-Sender: apanius@uakron.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Mike Apanius Subject: Europa ground rules Status: O Content-Length: 3400 Everyone is aware that there are quite a few problems with the Europa ground rules. NODL's, non-existant attacker casualties, hit and run c/m tactics, etc., are all problems with the Europa ground rules. My friend, Greg Madey, my brother, and I have devised a completely new ground system. If anyone has the old game, Normandy Campaign, made by GDW, that's where these rules started. The main difference is that combat is now based on step losses, and that there are only 3 phases in a turn. In each 1 week player turn these are the phase in order: initial phase, first action phase, reserve action phase, and second action phase. All movement and combat is done in an action phase. A player gets to spend all his or her MP's for each unit in each action phase. If a unit doesn't move in the second action phase and didn't attack in the first action phase, it is put into reserve status if the player chooses. Units in reserve status may spend 1/2 of their MP's in the following reserve action phase. A step loss constitutes 2 points from a division, a regiment or brigade, or 2 battalions. There are three types of attacks: overruns, preliminary attacks, and assaults. In any type of attack the attacker must spend the MP's to enter the to be attacked hex before rolling the dice. It costs a unit 0 extra MP's to make an overrun. Each player than rolls on the combat chart, defender first, implementing the results immediately after rolling the die. if an overrun fails, defending units are still in the hex, the attacker can't spend any more MP's for the rest of the player turn. A preliminary attack is done as follows: The attacking units, in addition to the MP's to enter the attacked hex must spend 2 MP's for non c/m units and 1 for c/m. A assault is done by units spending 3 MP's for c/m and 4 MP's for non c/m. Also during an assault artillery may fire suppression, which is fire step before the defender gets to fire and causes temporary losses. Right now, Greg and I are playing FoF with our new rules, so far things are going very close to their historical counterparts. I will soon be able to send much more detailed rules. Greg is in high school and I am in junior high, so both of us don't have much Europa experience, so we'll probably need help play testing our new rules. If anyone is interested please contact me at: apanius@uakron.edu. Here is part of the combat chart: Die Roll Attack strength 1 10 30 50 70 -2 0 0 0 2 3 -1 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 2 5 7 1 0 0 2 5 8 2 0 0 4 6 8 3 0 1 5 7 9 4 0 1 5 8 11 5 0 2 6 8 11 6 0 2 8 10 13 7 1 3 9 11 14 8 1 3 11 14 17 9 1 4 14 16 18 Each number consists of x step losses, or in suppression the number subtracted from the defenders fire strength. If you wish to use this chart fill in all the numbers in between the ones I have given. I'm still not sure if this is the an accurate chart, but it's a start. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 2 00:48:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15161; Tue, 2 Apr 96 00:48:24 +0200 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA19461 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 00:47:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa22483; 1 Apr 96 23:13 +0100 Received: from consecon.demon.co.uk ([158.152.9.235]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab05184; 1 Apr 96 23:07 +0100 Message-Id: Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 17:04:03 +0100 To: Mark H Danley Cc: Steve , m.royer3@genie.com, europa@lysator.liu.se From: Reg Danford-Cordingley Subject: Re: GE politics In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.10 Status: O Content-Length: 970 In message , Mark H Danley writes > > >On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, Steve wrote: > > I'm only 29 and I keep hearing about how the wargame hobby is fading >> away because "kids these days are a bunch of idiots that don't understand >> history" > >YOU SAID IT. I'm only a scawling brat of 26, but I played my first >Europa game (no, it wasn't DNO, it was _Marita Merkur_) at 14. And, >frankly, I enjoy studying history as well, (or I wouldn't be pounding my >brains out in grad school)! > > >Mark I don't think you have to be in your 40s and 50s to be interested in the Second World War, wargaming, military history etc. I am 32, have all the current Europa wargames, collect military history and orders of battle & play both Europa and computer wargames such as the ones by Atomic. My problem is finding the time to play Europa while earning a living etc. Reg DC -- Reg Danford-Cordingley From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 2 01:48:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15482; Tue, 2 Apr 96 01:48:58 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA21097 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 01:48:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17224; Tue, 2 Apr 96 11:44:13 NZS Message-Id: <9604012344.AA17224@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 11:45 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: The poor old 106th Status: O Content-Length: 1996 That outfit took a beating from both the Germans and the historians, as the surrender of two of its regiments on the Schnee Eifel were the biggest American surrender in WW2 after Bataan. Among the many problems of the 106th was a communications breakdown such that the two regimental commanders up on the Eifel, Descheneaux and Cavender, did not hear orders to pull out of their position. It was also a new outfit of draftees, in their first battle. It wasn't an easy baptism of fire, they faced the teeth of 6th SS Panzer Army and their Nebelwerfer mortars, the famed "Screaming Meemie." After the war, historians debated how well the 106th fought, some writers lambasting it, among them John Toland in Battle: The Story of the Bulge, and Charles Whiting in Death of a Division. A more recent book, A Blood-Dimmed Tide, defends the 106th. I don't know what the answer is, but my father's cousin Stanley Samberg was one of the draftees in that outfit, and the SS captured him and his buddies on a road near Ligneuville and shot him and the other guys. This was one of the subsidiary massacres to the Malmedy Massacre. The didn't shoot Stanley because he was Jewish. Like many American, British, and Canadian soldiers in WW2, when he had his identity discs stamped, he left the religion category a blank. Many Jewish soldiers did so to avoid German retribution if captured. Others threw their dogtags away when in danger of capture. In Hong Kong's Stanley Commonwealth War Cemetery, among the Canadian graves is a Private Stanley Rosenberg, who lacks the Star of David or Cross of other graves. Obviously the unfortunate Pvt. Rosenberg, when he joined the Winnipeg Grenadiers in 1940, expected to be shipped to Europe to fight the Germans. Instead he was sent to Hong Kong, and was killed by the Japanese. Such is war. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 2 01:53:31 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15503; Tue, 2 Apr 96 01:53:31 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA21146 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 01:53:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17240; Tue, 2 Apr 96 11:49:20 NZS Message-Id: <9604012349.AA17240@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 11:49 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: A bunch of old fogeys? Status: O Content-Length: 896 I'm 33 years old, and I've been playing wargames since I was 10. Most of the games gathering dust in my bookshelf back in New Jersey are early SPI and AH games like Battle of the Bulge, Blitzkrieg, USN, Kursk, El Alamein, Panzerarmee Afrika, Origins of World War II, France 1940, and other blasts from the past. History never goes away, it's always right there, and just wants to be remembered. All that's required to understand history is to make the effort to do so, to learn from it, and to abe able to think...about what the decision-makers of 1912 or 1940 faced, the world they lived in, who they were, and their backgrounds, so that you can see events straight on. And yeah, it's hard to find the time and space to play Europa. Especially SF. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 2 02:39:46 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15824; Tue, 2 Apr 96 02:39:45 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA21740 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 02:39:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-27-15.ots.utexas.edu (slip-27-15.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.111.79]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA27604 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:35:29 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:35:29 -0600 Message-Id: <199604020035.SAA27604@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: unit strengths & losses Status: O Content-Length: 4162 Alan said: > I would like to take a look at how units are lost and return. With >a particular eye as to how this should be thought out advancing towards GE. Another great post, Alan. The rules have evolved somewhat over the years. The representation of units is very much a grandfathered heritage from DNO. If I remember correctly, only German C/M units had KGs there, another special ability to go along with ZOC movement and advantageous overrun costs. For everyone else, "elimination" meant exactly that. The introduction of cadres for most other units in the later games effectively changed a unit-elimination system into a limited step-reduction system, but some of the underlying conception of the KG/cadre as a "remnant" seems to remain. (More recently, the special replacements rules were introduced to credit the players for the value of what you are calling a remnant. Note in particular how they don't appear when units are eliminated in isolation, i.e., they can't get back to friendly lines.) Up through FitE or so, a cadre could not move on the turn it was replaced, and so was more or less out of action for two turns (one to move to a town, another for taking the rebuild). But this was rather odd, because it meant a totally eliminated unit could be rebuilt faster than a cadre could. The inactive turn for cadres was eliminated after we mentioned this in the press, which I take as a sign that the designers do have an ear to the ground (although they could have come to the same conclusion independently, or even changed the rule for unrelated reasons). Of course, from your perspective this was a change in the wrong direction, since time should have been added for the eliminated unit rather than reduced for the cadre. This never bothered me much until I saw the long delays for units rebuilt in the OB in SF. I know these are described as "by special mechanisms", but it's not immediately clear why ordinary circumstances should be so much faster. I would be in favor of a more explicit tracking system for where and when rebuilt units appear, but I'm afraid it will lead to a huge bookkeeping problem. (Your suggestion for tracking on-map remnants is both simple and elegant, but would require a mighty lot of remnant markers on the East front! And it still does not address the appearance of rebuilds for totally eliminated units, though it should be pretty easy to place them in homeland recruiting areas, such as WKs or MDs, after a specified delay. But that delay is more bookkeeping.) Also, notice that your scenario for a rifle XX being ground down to a remnant that is essentially equal to a breakdown HQ might be typical for units on a static front with reserves to replace them in the line, but many other circumstances would not leave a remnant at all (e.g. when the enemy perrupts the line and gets into the divisional rear with more mobile units, thus destroying the artillery and services). Thus if the designers do pursue your suggestion, there will need to be rules to specify exactly when a remnant exists and when the unit is *totally* eliminated. As something of an aside, I will mention that some of GDW's non-Europa games made the distinction between "eliminated" and "destroyed" (_Road_to_the_Rhine_ comes to mind), so that one class was more expensive to rebuild than the other. Also, units in the less-dead box could be cannibalized to provide what amounted to special replacements. (The whole thing was reminiscent of the EET/EFT boxes for the old Europa air replacement system.) - Bobby. p.s. -- I can recommend a small patch to the rules that, while it hardly cures the magic transportation problem, is at least *very* easy to implement: when units are eliminated, set them to the side in a "dead pile", but don't move them into the official replacement pool until the *end* of the next friendly initial phase. (This builds in a minimum of one turn's delay, so that e.g. an NKVD III overrun in the exploitation phase of the Axis Aug II turn does not reappear hundreds of miles away in the Soviet Sep I initial phase.) From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 2 02:59:22 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15934; Tue, 2 Apr 96 02:59:21 +0200 Received: from psyche.the-wire.com (psyche.the-wire.com [198.53.192.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA21916 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 02:58:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mhughes.the-wire.com (mhughes.the-wire.com [205.206.32.167]) by psyche.the-wire.com (8.6.10/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA11196 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:57:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:57:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199604020057.TAA11196@psyche.the-wire.com> X-Sender: mhughes@psyche.the-wire.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: mhughes@the-wire.com (Marian Hughes) Subject: Russian Grand Europa OB #2 Status: O Content-Length: 1118 Sorry for the problem, lets try another system. See below for comments in original attachment #1. This is now supposed to be in plain text. After finishing the British etc Desert OB for John Astell plunged into a Grand Europa game. We do not mess around - the start date was April 1941. Now November 1941 - Hitler ignored Russia, plunged south. Panzers now in Alexandria, Haifa and Tunis! Meant that Russian OB had to be reconfigured. A nice challenge, after all the suggestions that 'Grand Europa' variable OB's etc cannot be worked out. Product used two OB's: One is date driven (combat motorised, artillery etc); the other condition - War or Invasion -driven (hordes of 3-6, 2-6, 2-1-8 etc). The latter varies according to Total or Limited War, and Far East Reserve Release. It seems to work - being sent to Charles Sharpe as the North American expert on all this for his comments. Once his reply received, welcome to share this and other info on our game. Be happy - Grand Europa IS playable - though very discouraging in 1941 for the British if Hitler does not Go East! mhughes@the-wire.com Marian Hughes From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 2 03:21:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16080; Tue, 2 Apr 96 03:21:02 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA22217 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 03:20:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17490; Tue, 2 Apr 96 13:16:45 NZS Message-Id: <9604020116.AA17490@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 13:17 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Adolf, again Status: O Content-Length: 1909 Len Deighton argued that people often miss the point on Adolf Hitler, in that he was the epitome of the common man. He had a variety of hatreds for a number of ethnic groups he never met. So do a lot of other people. He went to fight WW1 in a spirit of great patriotism and some idealism, and came back bitter and disillusioned. As did most of those who fought the war. The opinions he held, a vague dislike of large business, Jews, Freemasons, Bolshevism, banks, the old order, are still to be heard throughout the Western world. He sought both personal power and personal wealth, which many people want, and once he had it, he enjoyed both, ordering around Field Marshals like they were lance-corporals and living a life of ease at the Berghof, endlessly screening Hound of the Baskervilles and listening to The Merry Widow. He was certainly no dummy, as it took brains to lead the Nazi Party to power, and he showed considerable ability keeping his lieutenants divided such that they could not overthrow him. And he used his abilities to grip the German popular mind such that to the last hour of the war, Germans loyal to Hitler, along with Fascistic Frenchmen, Danes, Norwegians, and others, were still killing Allied soldiers, sailors, and airmen. The day before Hitler committed suicide, the defenders of the Reichstag launched a battalion-sized counterattack against Zhukov's troops in the Unter Den Linden that threw the Soviets off-balance momentarily. It takes considerable ability to be able to orchestrate this kind of loyalty and fanaticism. What makes him unique is the depths to which he sank (the sadism of his policies are echoed in his own private conversations, which I've been reading of late) and the butcher's bill he ran up. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 2 19:09:35 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28239; Tue, 2 Apr 96 19:09:34 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA12475 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:05:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA28503 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:56:44 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:04:18 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: The poor old 106th Status: O Content-Length: 1314 > Among the many problems of the 106th was a communications breakdown >such that the two regimental commanders up on the Eifel, Descheneaux and >Cavender, did not hear orders to pull out of their position. It was also >a new outfit of draftees, in their first battle. It wasn't an easy >baptism of fire, they faced the teeth of 6th SS Panzer Army and their >Nebelwerfer mortars, the famed "Screaming Meemie." > > After the war, historians debated how well the 106th fought, some >writers lambasting it, among them John Toland in Battle: The Story of the >Bulge, and Charles Whiting in Death of a Division. A more recent book, A >Blood-Dimmed Tide, defends the 106th.... The 106th dishonored itself because of the rapid surrender of the two regiments. A more veteran outfit would have held out longer, slowing the German advance and possibly finding a way to breakout. When you compare the 106th's performance to that of the many other US units caught in the initial deluge at the Bulge, the 106th's action is little short of disgraceful. Of course, it wasn't supposed to be that way -- the 106th was a green outfit and was sent to a quiet sector, the Ardennes, to come up to speed without facing heavy action. Had the 106th had a few more weeks in the line, it probably would have performed creditably. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 2 19:47:09 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28628; Tue, 2 Apr 96 19:47:08 +0200 Received: from postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu [128.146.214.20]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA13398 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:46:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from BRPC34 by postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (8.6.9/5.901231) id MAA19145; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:46:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:46:24 -0500 Message-Id: <199604021746.MAA19145@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> X-Sender: mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark Pitcavage) Subject: The 106th and Europa X-Mailer: Status: O Content-Length: 1100 >The 106th dishonored itself because of the rapid surrender of the two >regiments. A more veteran outfit would have held out longer, slowing the >German advance and possibly finding a way to breakout. When you compare the >106th's performance to that of the many other US units caught in the >initial deluge at the Bulge, the 106th's action is little short of >disgraceful. Of course, it wasn't supposed to be that way -- the 106th was >a green outfit and was sent to a quiet sector, the Ardennes, to come up to >speed without facing heavy action. Had the 106th had a few more weeks in >the line, it probably would have performed creditably. This is the sort of thing that I think Europa does not simulate well. Being reduced to essentially three factors--attack, defense and movement--Europa units do not simulate proficiency adequately. The difference between the 106th Infantry Division and the 2nd Infantry Division, for instance, is more than simply an attack factor or two. Dr. Mark Pitcavage mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu http://www.greyware.com/authors/pitman From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 2 23:18:46 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01020; Tue, 2 Apr 96 23:18:45 +0200 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA18873 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 23:17:45 +0200 (MET DST) From: RedDog994@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22693 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:17:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:17:13 -0500 Message-Id: <960402161712_262378103@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: pet peeves Status: O Content-Length: 5907 Allow me a few minutes to divert from the regular discussion of the past few days to voice my opinion on a subject that is of a great concern to me. The current state of stewardship of the legacy of Europa held by GRD is not what long time consumers of the series expect it should be. The series under GDW's direction was noted for excellent graphics and a system that was capable of rendering a reasonable simulation of WW2 ground combat. The intricate weaving of tactical and strategic decision making made the system challenging and fun to play. The retreat of GDW from active participation in the conflict simulation market left the series incomplete and a source of great concern to all of those who had invested considerable time and money in it. GRD stepped in to rescue the series from the Great Dust Bin of history that has claimed so many of the great wargames of the past. For this they should be commended. I like so many others are grateful to them for their efforts to maintain the continuity of Europa into the nineties. However, with great opportunty comes great responsibilty. The series under GDW's leadership established standards that have not been kept up with in terms of counter design and timely development of games. GRD's decision to redo all the previously released games was one I could live with even though it meant that all of my Europa collection became obsolete in gaming terms if it meant that inconsistances in the system could be cleared up and better OB's maps and counter were made available. The increase in price was acceptable because everyone knows that everything cost more in the nineties than it did when the Europa system first came on the market. What was not acceptable was the shoddy counters of First to Fight that split in half when you punched them out and the hideous shade of orange of the Greek army in Balkan Front. Also the eternal delay in the publishing of Second Front and the subsequent discovery of the great counter snafu that came with it. Add to that the publishing of two secondary games that really don't have that much to do with WW2, Winter War and For Whom the Bell Tolls and I think I have a justitifiable bone to pick with the leadership of GRD. The capper on all of this is their decision to redo the counters of FoF and SF and charge we the Europa consumer for their mismanagment of the quality of their product. The Europa community is a loyal group of folks who have faithfully supported the system for twenty years and should not be taken advantage of like this. Other gaming companies when confronted with teething problems in production of their product have made corrections in counters and rules available to their customers free of charge, even though it meant they lost money doing so. The quality of their product and their desire to keep the good will of their customers was paramount to them. I do not doubt the sincerity of GRD in this regard, but I believe they are guilty of taking the Europa community for granted. A wake up call is needed so they will know that their consumers expect a product done correctly the first time and not oops we messed up again. Once Europa was the class act of the wargame industry in terms of quality and entertainment. Today the system has been overtaken by other companies. The Gamers and Clash of Arms come to mind. They have made mistakes but they have not passed the buck literally to the consumer. Rumors of decisions that are being batted around in Grinnel concerning Grand Europa and upcoming reprints of War in the Desert and Fall of France/Their Finest Hour have me concerned. The Europa system is simple in design but complex in execution on a master level. Therein lies its great beauty as a gaming system. To monkey around with it now to dovetail it into a massive system that few of us have the room or time to play could prove to be suicidal to the system as a whole. To blame the current woes of the wargame industry on card games is simiarly irresponsible. Other companies continue to release games on a regular timely basis, and they operate under the same market conditions as GRD. Perhaps the woeful predictions that constantly are heard from Grinnel are self fullfilling. Rather than attributing it to factors they can control, they palm them off on an outside scapegoat.Then they never confront the real problem. What I want as a consumer is a product that is released when it is supposed to be, that has components that are mistake free as much as humanly possible and when they are not, are corrected without another reach into my wallet. I also expect a gaming system that is the same at the end as it was when I first began to buy it without massive changes in the rules charts and tables. I know this is a longer than average post about a topic that has never been mentioned as long as I have been reading the Europa E-Mail list. If you sat through all of this I appreciate your patience and thank you for allowing me to blow off some steam. If you agree with me, join me in writing GRD and letting them know of our concerns. After all, they can only improve the product if they are made aware of the problem. thank you Michael Funderburke From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 2 23:26:47 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01097; Tue, 2 Apr 96 23:26:46 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA19072 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 23:26:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20085; Wed, 3 Apr 96 09:22:34 NZS Message-Id: <9604022122.AA20085@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 09:25 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: The Golden Lions again Status: O Content-Length: 2394 Mark Pitcavage raises a good point...the 106th performed extremely badly, but this isn't in Europa. In other armies, the differences are made clear in strength points. The 44th Hoch und Deutschmeister Division is a powerful outfit (a 10-6 or 8-6) in Second Front, which represents its reputation and fighting abilities (at least as I remember them). On the other hand, the divisions Hitler scraped up from the training schools in 1945, like Theodor Korner, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, and Potsdam, are, as befitting their deficiencies in manpower, equipment, and training, 4-6-6s. What then, is the case of 106th US Infantry Division, which was the product of the standardized US military training and development system? On paper, it was a carbon copy of the 2nd Infantry, the 1st Infantry, and other veteran outfits. On the snow, it fell apart. Torch had a rule for "American Tactical Problems," which gave the Germans an advantage in a given battle to help them win at Kasserine. One possibility might be to restrict some of the later American divisions and the "ghost divisions" in a similar manner, making them take a die roll modifier in their first offensive or defensive battle. One exception might be the 104th Timberwolf Division, which was a draftee outfit that fought well in Holland as part of 1st Canadian Army. The 104th was formed under Maj. Gen. Terry de la Mesa Allen, a colorful and inspiring leader who had previously led the 1st Infantry Division in North Africa and Sicily. Allen was a controversial figure, but no-one questioned his leadership skills or the esteem with which his men held him. He motivated the Minnesota draftees of this outfit very well. (source: Carlo D'Este's Bitter Victory, on the Sicily campaign, which delves into Terry Allen) I don't like to think too much of the 106th Infantry, because of what happened to Stanley Samberg. He and my father grew up together, spending summer vacations together in Far Rockaway, New York. My dad talked with great enjoyment of those days, but a shadow came over him when Stanley's draft notice and subsequent military service came up at the end of the monologue. And today is the anniversary of my father's death last year. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 00:19:36 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01511; Wed, 3 Apr 96 00:19:35 +0200 Received: from dragon.ti.com (dragon.ti.com [192.94.94.61]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA20600 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 00:18:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dlep1.itg.ti.com ([128.247.123.43]) by dragon.ti.com (8.6.13/ac3i.dseg.ti.com) with ESMTP id QAA09635 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:18:50 -0600 Received: from holmes (1236262.dseg.ti.com [128.247.230.151]) by dlep1.itg.ti.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA12059; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:17:34 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:17:34 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199604022217.QAA12059@dlep1.itg.ti.com> X-Sender: a0189614@dlep1.itg.ti.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se, europa@lysator.liu.se From: David Holmes Subject: Re: pet peeves Status: O Content-Length: 1619 At 04:17 PM 4/2/96 -0500, RedDog994@aol.com wrote: Description of GRD's assumption of Europa responsibilities deleted Mention of Collector's Series games making older version obsolete deleted. >What >was not acceptable was the shoddy counters of First to Fight that split in >half when you punched them out and the hideous shade of orange of the Greek >army in Balkan Front. Also the eternal delay in the publishing of Second >Front and the subsequent discovery of the great counter snafu that came with >it. I tend to agree. There are far too many counter problems for the price we are paying. Unfortunately, seeing as how the GRD crew is mainly part-time, I think the only option is getting no game whatsoever. I hope that the quality problems can be corrected before the faithful decide they're wasting their money. >Add to that the publishing of two secondary games that really don't have >that much to do with WW2, Winter War and For Whom the Bell Tolls and I think >I have a justitifiable bone to pick with the leadership of GRD. I disagree. I was ecstatic to see those 2 games. I entered the Europa fold late (Balkan Front was my first experience) and was immediately hooked. Unfortunately, I don't own my own football stadium in which to set up FITE or SF. I would urge development of more small-scale games, because those are probably the only ones I'll get to play. Complaints about having to pay for corrected counters deleted I agree with this. I'm fairly PO'ed about having to pay more to get what my games were supposed to contain to begin with. David Holmes >you Michael Funderburke > From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 01:02:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01927; Wed, 3 Apr 96 01:02:16 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA21566 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 01:01:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id SAA23062 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:01:46 -0500 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21391; Tue, 2 Apr 96 17:54:30 EST Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA10654; Tue, 2 Apr 96 17:53:32 EST From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604022253.AA10654@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: Red Dog's Pet Peeves To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 17:53:31 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 3528 Hi, The pet peeves note does bring up some important points about the current state of Europa. I think that it is certainly true that the reputation of Europa and GR/D has been seriously damaged by the shoddy production work in their early games. (I really don't mind the bright orange Greek units and I think that the SF counters are OK; but the First to Fight counters are unforgivable. I haven't read the editorial which people occasionally bring up about card games destroying the wargaming industry. But, I really don't think that the card games are doing much to Europa; Europa appeals to hard core wargamers, who mostly don't sink too much money into the card games. In the last few years, as I've been moving around, I've had a hard time getting new game parteners, all hard core wargamers, to get that interested in Europa BECAUSE OF PRODUCTION PROBLEMS. When I lived in Boston, I got my game partner to play First to Fight with me. He thought it was a nice game, but he was so unimpressed by the counters falling apart that he certainly wasn't going to sink money into the Europa series; he'd rather spend his money on World in Flames products, which are pretty spiffy, whatever you might think of the simulation value. My current game parter is an old Europa player. He has not spent a single dollar on GR/D products, new or used, because of GR/D's reputation for messing up on production. He does not want a copy of Scorched Earth with updated counters, because he knows that GR/D did them and not GDW. But, he's not sinking his money into card games. I think that production of counters has definitely improved. People complain about the SF counters, but I really think that they're OK, even if their not beautiful. I'm a little upset about the misprints in the FWTBT counters, but they're OK as well. The maps are beautiful. I only wish that I could tell the difference between a standard and a major port in those dark blue sea hexes. My biggest complaint at the moment is the quality of the rules editing. While production has gotten better, the presentation of the rules has gotten noticeably worse in the last two games. Presumably, this is due to a redirection of effort at GR/D. I really don't agree with Red Dog's (I'm sorry; I remember your address, but I've forgotten your name) complaint about A Winter War and FWTBT being peripheral to WWII. The Soviet invasion of Finland happened during WWII and had a noticeable impact on the course of the war. The Spanish Civil War is more peripheral, but you need to get Spain in somewhere and FWTBT seems like such a nice game. I really can't begrudge them that. I also like alot of the new rules systems, although this also has been driving away players. My current partner observed that Case White only had a few pages of rules; you could just set it up and play. For Whom the Bell Tolls has about sixty pages of rules. I'm currently making a great effort to mark them up and make them as easy as possible for him to take in so that we'll play it. (I'm afraid that I've made him seem like somewhat of a dummy; he's not.) I am still a loyal GR/D customer, though not an association member. I'm sad that I've encountered so many wargamers who either are not interested in getting in to Europa, or have abandoned it. They all spend money are wargames. Not one of them spends money on card games. I'll keep buying the games that GR/D puts out. But, it's pretty clear to me why others won't. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 01:06:17 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02015; Wed, 3 Apr 96 01:06:16 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA21639 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 01:06:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id SAA23507 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:05:53 -0500 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21403; Tue, 2 Apr 96 17:58:36 EST Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA10663; Tue, 2 Apr 96 17:57:39 EST From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604022257.AA10663@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: more on pet peeves To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 17:57:39 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 350 And one more thing! I really don't mind the production DELAYS. I would rather have more delays to make sure that everything is right. Also, with delays I only have to put out the big bucks once in a while. It's always hard convincing my wife that it's worth it. It helps if it's been awhile. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 01:14:54 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02076; Wed, 3 Apr 96 01:14:52 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA21806 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 01:14:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20441; Wed, 3 Apr 96 11:10:37 NZS Message-Id: <9604022310.AA20441@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 11:11 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: More on pet peeves Status: O Content-Length: 2892 I'm less than thrilled with shoddy counters in Europa myself. I never bought First to Fight, but I don't like counters that fall apart. I was extremely annoyed with the counter quality in Second Front. The copy I purchased lacked symbols for the Jewish Brigade and Newfoundland Artillery outfits. GRD replaced them gratis, but the British air units are badly off-center, the British ground units are extremely splotched, and the US Army comes in several color tones. And we know about the American air units with the position AA on the back and the Position AA with inoperative air units on the back. Given the amount of time and endless delays in producing this game, there should have been stronger QA. I know it's very hard with such a huge game, and that the GRD staff put the games out as a second job, but someone in all organizations, corporate or military, has to be the designated son-of-a-bitch, who whinges and yells at subordinates to quit yapping about NODLs and the "perfect plan" and get things done. In the newspaper business, the chief of the copy desk is the designated son-of-a-bitch. He or she makes sure the wonderful stories the writers create are tight, accurate, punctuated properly, headlined accurately, and conform to the newspaper's style. Writers hate his guts for emasculating their copy, sub-editors hate his guts for kicking back stories for re-editing or a better headline, the paper's readers don't know who he is, but the copy desk chief keeps the newspaper out of all kinds of trouble, ranging from illiteracies in print to libel. GRD may need just such an individual. I saw plenty of the latter at SPI playtesting nights 20 years ago. Teenagers who stood around arguing over the best way to win at Panzergruppe Guderian, but couldn't figure out the best way to ship a game to Duluth. I remember they issued a game in S&T once, called Paratrooper, in which one of the three games of this trilogy did not give movement rates for the various counters. Consumers didn't know how to move their units The teenagers were relieved by a number of highly competent black women who got things moving, but by then SPI was collapsing, anyway. I also enjoy both A Winter War and For Whom the Bell Tolls which are fascinating sidelines to WW2 in Europe. FWTBT taught me a lot about the Spanish Civil War, which I had hitherto ignored. And I agree that loyal consumers of Europa shouldn't have to shell out more bucks on top of $99 for SF and $79 for WitD for counters that should have been QA'd from the start. I'd put up with long gaps between GRD games if the QA problems on counters were sorted out. Maybe GRD should hire a copy editor who'll be out of a job in two years. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 01:40:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02278; Wed, 3 Apr 96 01:40:58 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA22267 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 01:40:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA17184 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:40:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199604022340.AA17184@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:40:27 -0500 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa Subject: "Chink" Dorman-Smith Date: Tue, 02 Apr 96 18:32:00 EST Encoding: 42 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 1936 The somewhat chequered career of "Chink" Dorman-Smith (later O'Gowan) is quite fascinating. A deep personal dislike existed between Monty and himself dating back to the inter-war years at staff college, where he described Monty's methodology as like using "a sledgehammer to crack a nut".Bernard Law Montgomery was not amused. Monty hated Ireland and things Irish. Chink prided himself on his Irish heritage. Extraordinarily, for an officer in the crown forces, he appears to have had cordial relations with members of the Irish Free State army and government during the inter-war years. He served as unofficial chief of staff to Auchinleck after Gazala in 1942. The entire issue of who "saved" Egypt and the Delta is too detailed to go into at this time: sufficient to say that there were several nasty lawsuits after the war to attempt to clarify the historical record. Chink was also in action in Italy but was relieved of command in murky circumstances in December 1944. After the war, he became "more Irish than the Irish", eventually advising the old (i.e. pre-provisional IRA) I.R.A. on military operations against the British in Northern Ireland, going so far as to allow training on his extensive Irish estate. The best account of his life is: CHINK: A BIOGRAPHY by Lavinia Greacen. MacMillan London 1989. Correlli Barnett covers him briefly in THE DESERT GENERALS For the "other side's" opinion, check out: MONTY : THE MAKING OF A GENERAL by Nigel Hamilton THE HINGE OF FATE by Winston Churchill My opinion: Probably the most intelligent officer in the British Army, but with a personality garuanteed to alienate almost every officer in that army. Look at the people with whom he had a good rapport: Wavell, O'Connor, Auchinleck, Fuller...(and Hemingway..He served as the inspiration for ACROSS THE RIVER AND INTO THE TREES). Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh, Washington D.C. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 01:53:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02341; Wed, 3 Apr 96 01:53:01 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA22396 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 01:52:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA17360 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:52:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199604022352.AA17360@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:52:45 -0500 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa Subject: Little Wars Date: Tue, 02 Apr 96 18:44:00 EST Encoding: 18 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 805 The nice thing about Europa is the inclusivity. In response to Red Dog, I would vote to keep going with the peripheral wars that no-one else is covering, or is likely to cover. AWW and FWTBT are excellent one-of-a-kind simulations which people with actual jobs can play with some hope of either completion or being able to stow away between sessions without having to buy a new house. Sure, I'd like to play Clash of Titans, all I need is the aforementioned new house and six months of vacation. Short of winning the lotto, it ain't gonna happen. I suspect many Europaphiles are, like Churchill, inveterate messers-about at the periphery of the main area of operations. I look foward to the strategic war modules, especially the U-boat war. Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh Washington D.C. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 02:53:26 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02845; Wed, 3 Apr 96 02:53:25 +0200 Received: from naybob.ghq.com (naybob.ghq.com [204.73.247.161]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA23216 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 02:50:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from jwhite@localhost) by naybob.ghq.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) id SAA01397; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:49:33 -0600 From: Jeff White Message-Id: <199604030049.SAA01397@naybob.ghq.com> Subject: Re: The Golden Lions again To: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:49:32 -0600 (CST) Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <9604022122.AA20085@iac.iac.org.nz> from "Public Affairs Officer" at Apr 3, 96 09:25:00 am Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 2787 Public Affairs Officer Said: > > Mark Pitcavage raises a good point...the 106th performed extremely > badly, but this isn't in Europa. > In other armies, the differences are made clear in strength points. > The 44th Hoch und Deutschmeister Division is a powerful outfit (a 10-6 or > 8-6) in Second Front, which represents its reputation and fighting > abilities (at least as I remember them). We were wondering about that unit. Was it just good, or was it oversized, perhaps square? > On the other hand, the divisions Hitler scraped up from the training > schools in 1945, like Theodor Korner, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, and Potsdam, > are, as befitting their deficiencies in manpower, equipment, and > training, 4-6-6s. > What then, is the case of 106th US Infantry Division, which was the > product of the standardized US military training and development system? > On paper, it was a carbon copy of the 2nd Infantry, the 1st Infantry, and > other veteran outfits. On the snow, it fell apart. My understanding is that the "early" US Inf divisions tended to aquire "extras" through special odd assignments. For instance, they'd get a few extra 50cal MG's for some odd reason, and never return them. Or like Panzerfausts (none of these silly bazooka's). I would guess that the older divisions were way beyond an official TO&E. A few dozen extra heavy MG's can make a big difference. Also note that the 106th was given a VERY long patch of ground to defend. So long that various platoons could hardly see each other, let alone help each other. It was also brand spanking new. Never seen combat before. It was being put in a part of the line that was to be quiet to get experience. It also had just moved into the line, replacing 2nd Inf division a few days earlier. In fact, pre-arrainged artillery had not been setup. The division was just getting used to the ground. I think more than anything it was just bad luck. The wrong unit at the wrong place at the wrong time defending the wrong piece of ground. The surrender of two of the regiments was due in part to lack of communications. With anyone. Under those circumstances, it is hard to fault the commaders who from their point of view had no hope of being relived or rescued. It was a 7-8 that was overrun by a 70+ point stack. Now if they had just added a 1-2-10 AT II.... Bulge was doomed from the start. It was a case of Dolph trying to WIN the war. Obviously if the Germans lost, he was a dead man, so you can't win the lottery if you don't by a lottery ticket. Here's another question for SF, what victory level did the Allied side get historically? -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY jwhite@ghq.com "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 03:04:05 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02911; Wed, 3 Apr 96 03:04:03 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA23454 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 03:03:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-11-12.ots.utexas.edu (slip-11-12.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.204.172]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA19638 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:52:16 -0600 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:52:16 -0600 Message-Id: <199604030052.SAA19638@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: pet peeves (fairly long) Status: O Content-Length: 7273 Michael (Red Dog #994) said: > ... However, with great opportunty comes great responsibilty. The >series under GDW's leadership established standards that have not been kept >up with in terms of counter design and timely development of games. ... I'm hardly the one to posture as GR/D's champion, but I should point out that the games weren't exactly pouring out of GDW in a steady stream when GR/D took over the system. In fact, I think GDW handed it over to GR/D because they had flat lost interest in it. Add the fact that GDW was a company with a full-time staff, and GR/D doesn't look quite so bad in the timeliness department -- disappointed though I am about not getting things faster. As to the quality of the productions, I'm disappointed there too, but I also remember DNO wasn't much to look at. And its visual design wasn't nearly so ambitious as even GR/D's earliest releases. I'm just glad to see that things have improved a lot after a few releases. (I may not have all the information needed to respond properly to the complainers. My SF had a couple of half-sheets that looked like a bit of ink had squirted across them, but nothing so bad as some of the posts seem to imply. Overall, the game looked pretty good -- especially in comparison to the earlier GR/D releases. I was more disappointed in quality control for the rules: the amphibious invasion rule is a major, major, major element of SF -- yes folks, a major one! -- and it really shocks me to see that it got into the RAW in the form it did even after the massive playtest effort. Fortunately, rules problems are easier to correct.) [GR/D employees and Chauvinist fans take note! You may want to stop reading here, because I'm *not* rising to your defense in what follows!] > ... GRD's >decision to redo all the previously released games was one I could live with >even though it meant that all of my Europa collection became obsolete in >gaming terms if it meant that inconsistances in the system could be cleared >up and better OB's maps and counter were made available. ... > ... Add to that the publishing of two secondary games that really don't have >that much to do with WW2, Winter War and For Whom the Bell Tolls and I think >I have a justitifiable bone to pick with the leadership of GRD. ... Personally, I would have preferred a finished system in the format GDW was providing before all the retreads started coming out. I wouldn't mind an Europa-II if I had an Europa-I to play with while I waited, but I seriously doubt that I'll ever see either. In all the years since GR/D took over, Second Front has been the only substantial addition to the series. Everything else has been re-re-release version N+1 of the various games, or else (as you mentioned) peripheral games that are nice, but hardly major facets of the system. Or retreads of periphials, to throw two stones at one bird. And so far as the consumer can see, the "grand" aspects of Europa are still just talk. > ... To monkey around >with it now to dovetail it into a massive system that few of us have the room >or time to play could prove to be suicidal to the system as a whole. ... I'm not exactly sure what you refer to, unless it is linking Glory and the WWI series. All the recent clamor for "more maps, more exotic campaigns!" make me think that in many minds, including consumers that post to this list, Europa has ceased to be the Holy Grail of wargaming and become just another module in a game called Terra, that will re-create the military history of our species in two-week turns. And I can't help wondering whether for GR/D Grand Schemes are not just a mechanism for avoiding the completion of the task in hand. Have they come to the same negative conclusions as I have about the feasibility of the whole thing? Personally, I have very strong negative feelings about Glory and Whatever, because they are manifestly diverting resources from Europa. If they flop, those resources are irrecoverable. If they succeed, they will likely divert more resources as GR/D -- using sound military judgement -- reinforces success. > ... To >blame the current woes of the wargame industry on card games is simiarly >irresponsible. ... I do think the wargaming industry has passed its heyday, but long before collectibles came around. I hardly think card-collectors have the wargaming mentality, at least in the typical case. Wargaming took its first/worst hit from RPGs (which also attracted a lot of people without the wargaming mentality), and has been hit more recently by computer games. However, I have recently come to the conclusion that this is not all to be pinned on misguided consumers. There is a clear advantage to a company if it can sell a RPG system for a modest price, then look forward to several years of selling innumerable scenarios and play aids each at about 1/3 the price of the original system. Then a revised rule set, followed by another stream of compatible scenarios. And I can't help but feel (pardon my bluntness, Winston!) that GR/D is using this as their model for producing and marketing the Europa series. > ... I also expect a gaming system that is the same at the end as it was >when I first began to buy it without massive changes in the rules charts and >tables. ... I have to disagree here. The system was state-of-the art 23 years ago, but move-fight-exploit seems rather crude now. While we've had an endless series of changes to the details of the system, John has shown an enormous reluctance to change the core system that he inherited from Frank. Limited change was probably a good idea when we expected to be playing Europa-level scenarios by 1980, but after a quarter of a century and with no end in sight, it's time to upgrade the system to a new state of the art. I refer to rule systems, using the existing counters and maps. But instead, we get minor, sometimes cosmetic changes that require reissues to update the "hardware". If they're going to reissue ever damb thing, let's at least have a system that we'll be proud of in the 21st century. They could ease the burden of upgrades by providing a standard set of system rules in each box, separate from scenario-specific rules. As the rules are upgraded -- usually a stepwise process -- you just learn the new standard and use it when you go back to play the older games. If things don't jibe when you try that, well, that's a problem we're going to have to face sooner or later anyway if we really have an Europa, isn't it! Keith's first reply included: > ... I am still a loyal GR/D customer, though not an association >member. ... I as well. I dropped the association because it was outrageously expensive for what I was getting. I know our society works in such a way that we won't have any Europa at all if Winston can't make a buck at it, but I'm not in a position to support it by buying an endless stream of "stuff" -- especially when the patronage does not result in new releases that hint of an Europa somewhere out there on the horizon. - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 03:49:53 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03227; Wed, 3 Apr 96 03:49:52 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA24081 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 03:49:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-11-12.ots.utexas.edu (slip-11-12.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.204.172]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA20514 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:44:45 -0600 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:44:45 -0600 Message-Id: <199604030144.TAA20514@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: The Golden Lions again Status: O Content-Length: 2042 After reading: >> The 44th Hoch und Deutschmeister Division is a powerful outfit (a 10-6 or >> 8-6) in Second Front, which represents its reputation and fighting >> abilities (at least as I remember them). Jeff asked: >We were wondering about that unit. Was it just good, or was it >oversized, perhaps square? I think I read in some Europa-related publication (designer's notes? TEM? this list???) that it and the 9-8 (78th?) XX were the only ones left with three battalions in each of their three regiments. The conversion of the 7-6 and 8-6 XXs to 5-7-6 represents (I think) an officialization of what was already mostly a de facto organization into three regiments of two battalions each. So presumably the 10-6 and 9-8 ratings represent the late-war firepower on an early-war organization. (Contrary to the earlier post, I think it was more a matter of manpower than "fighting abilities". The counter ratings seem to focus more on throw weight than on intangibles.) Jeff continued: >I think more than anything it was just bad luck. The wrong unit >at the wrong place at the wrong time defending the wrong >piece of ground. > >The surrender of two of the regiments was due in part to lack of >communications. With anyone. Under those circumstances, it is >hard to fault the commaders who from their point of view had >no hope of being relived or rescued. I agree. Faulting someone for surrendering borders (in my mind) on the Hitler "give no ground" mentality. You can't expect humans to behave as at Thermopylae, the Alamo, or Bagstone in every engagement. Let's face it, "our side" can't always win, but "our side" did pretty damn well overall, and if the success rating was 98% instead of 100% we don't need to find scapegoats for it. - Bobby. p.s. -- I *do* hope it was the 78th division. I dug out FoF to check the rules for the debate that was raging a week or two ago, and after I put it away I found the lone 78th XX on the living room floor. But it's a 7-6 in 1940. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 03:53:48 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03241; Wed, 3 Apr 96 03:53:47 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA24110 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 03:53:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 02 Apr 1996 20:51:36 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 21:59:11 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Everybody's [?] pet peeves Status: O Content-Length: 1900 On 4/2/96, Bobby Bryant stated a number of things far better than I could. However: >There is a clear advantage to a company if it can sell an >RPG system for a modest price, then look forward to >several years of selling innumerable scenarios and play >aids each at about 1/3 the price of the original system. >Then a revised rule set, followed by another stream of >compatible scenarios. Note that this is EXACTLY how GDW moved from being a small gaming company to a BIG NAME in the industry, with the advent of Traveller/MegaTraveller. It may well have kept Europa alive at GDW by enabling them to pump bucks earned from Traveller into the board games, which were beginning to slide in sales even then. That's my take, any ex-employees of GDW [you know who you are] currently on-line, feel free to agree/disagree. >The system was state-of-the art 23 years ago,... --snip-- >but after a quarter of a century and with no end in sight, it's >time to upgrade the system to a new state of the art. I refer >to rule systems, using the existing counters and maps. Hell, Bobby, if the games are being REDONE anyhow, and delivery is DELAYED anyhow, and counters need to be REDONE anyhow, what game component of package of rules, counters, and maps really HAS to remain static [my vote goes for keeping the maps as is, since redoing the terrain research at another scale would be the seriously biggest bitch of all, for the least amount of payback, the old 80/20 rule]. I think that, under all the other complaints [see my last post for a list], the "hidden", or subconscious, or whatever agenda is that recent or upcoming reissues, in concert with the problems in recent "new" games, are leading us all to wonder if it wouldn't be just as easy to re-examine ALL of our assumptions about Europa, and possibly update/revamp the whole system before we go any further down the present path. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 04:27:49 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03407; Wed, 3 Apr 96 04:27:47 +0200 Received: from nico.bway.net (root@nico.bway.net [205.198.116.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA24520 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 04:27:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nico.bway.net (dial208.bway.net [205.198.116.208]) by nico.bway.net (8.7.1/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA20374 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 21:25:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by nico.bway.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BB087E.C51F87A0@nico.bway.net>; Sat, 2 Mar 1996 21:25:24 -0500 Message-Id: <01BB087E.C51F87A0@nico.bway.net> From: James Kelly To: "europa@lysator.liu.se" Subject: Europa counters Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 21:25:15 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Status: O Content-Length: 931 Gentlemen, I think we all agree that GR/D's Europa counters need improving. As I = mentioned in a post about a month ago, my Balkan Front Germans look like = Italians, my BF Italians like Albanians, my AWW Russians like BF Greeks, = my FtF counters are unpunched but they look like shit anyway (and I'm = sure they would start peeling the minute I punched them, etc...) I = think you get the point - and I still have not even mentioned SF. Fortunately, there is a solution. What we need is for GR/D to reprint = ALL the Europa counters (BF, FtF, AWW, and SF) using the same vendor as = the one who did the impressive countersheets for FWTBT. Every one of = these games has countersheets which are deficient in one way or another, = and I for one would like to see ALL of them reprinted properly. E-Mail = Winston Hamilton, E-Mail GR/D, and let's see if we can get it done = before the millenium. =20 Jim Kelly =20 =20 From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 07:40:23 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04469; Wed, 3 Apr 96 07:40:23 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA26715 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:38:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.125.162] (ip-pdx23-34.teleport.com [206.163.125.162]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA26728 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 21:37:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199604030537.VAA26728@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 21:43:19 -0800 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Unit replacement system Status: O Content-Length: 1831 I had never perceived the system for replacement of units lost to be a problem. It seems weird that you can rebuild units at whatever town you want, but I like to think of it this way (to use conrad alan b's example: If an invasion wipes out some units on the coast and plunges inland. Then some units from the dead pile are rebuilt and march into action-defeating the invasion or destroying famous units. To me this simply represents deployment of scratch formations or whatever to react to an emergency- Europa doesn't have a significant 'reaction movement' phase allowing reaction to invasions (especially) or river crossings or airborne attacks, whatever... If I see any problem in the current replacement system, it's that the regions within which dead units are assigned are too broad- >This then starts the above problem. The loss generated 2.2 Special >Replacements, but add 8.8 and the Big Red One is as good as new ANYWHERE >in the theater you want it. But actually there were about 8,000 men plus >most of the equipment of the division wherever the unit was "lost". And >you do not have to transport these guys to wherever the unit is rebuilt. ***How about this: Perhaps if a seperate dead pile was maintained for each military district/zone? Then if the allies invaded Sicily, they wouldn't have to worry unecessarily about German panzer units in a dead pile in (whatever district Milano is in) being replaced and overrunning the invasion units. I think that if there were powerful Axis units in the Sicilian dead pile (in this instance) then the Americans should certainly be aware that there are units being reformed in the area, or depots of equipment/reservists/veteran survivors (all the things a dead pile represents) Rather than come up with "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 07:48:47 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04526; Wed, 3 Apr 96 07:48:46 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA26788 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:46:48 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA136859605; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 05:33:25 GMT Message-Id: <199604030533.AA136859605@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Wed, 3 Apr 96 05:33:25 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Wed, 3 Apr 96 05:32:59 UTC 0000) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 96 05:39:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 6353456 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 74370 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: my $0.02 worth Status: O Content-Length: 2391 1. Old Fogeys: as I mentioned before, I think that I qualify for one (45 going on 46). As noted by others, as you get older you have more $$$ to devote to your obsessions, unfortunately you have less time to play with your toys. 2. The poor 106th: I am privileged to know Dean R. Trosper, retired Circuit Clerk of Caldwell County MO. During WW2 he served in the 27th Armored Infantry Battalion/9th Armored Division. The Bulge was the first battle for this unit and CCB (which included the 27th) backstopped the 106th and suffered heavy casualties. See the official U. S. Army history THE ARDENNES: BATTLE OF THE BULGE, pp. 158-160. The 9th was rebuilt after the battle and the 27th took the Bridge at Remagen in 1945. My impression (and its only an impression) that the combat performance of U. S. divisions in WW2 depended in large part on who their commanding general was. Terry Allen commanded, first, the 1st Infantry Division (North Africa and Tunis) and later the 100th Infantry Division (both good units). The 90th Infantry Division was considered a poor division and went through a number of generals before coming around. I confess this impression may be built on the large number of official histories that I have read (which seem to emphasize the commanders) and Russell Weigley's EISENHOWER'S LIEUTENANTS. With the generic organization and equipment shared by each U. S. division, the only way to account for the difference in value would be the commander. I will say the the personnel making up the divisions might differ but the quality would not remain the same during the course of war. Weigley notes (p. 374) that a lot of high quality personnel were taken out of training programs in the States late in the war and shipped to Europe as infantry replacements. Another anecedote, I also knew a distinguished attorney (now deceased) who was a teenaged aviation ground crewman in the United Kingdom and was sent to the front as an infantry replacement (after he volunteered!) late in the war. Jim Broshot St. James MO P.S. Just a note on the Hoch und Deutschmeister (1 x 10-6 Inf XX 44 HuD) in SF. I will check Tessin but I really don't see how a reformed division of Austrians (the original was lost at Stalingrad) can be justified as a 10-6 Inf XX. As I recall it was reformed in 1943 along the original three regiments with three battalion TO but with nothing else special. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 07:53:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04553; Wed, 3 Apr 96 07:53:41 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA26845 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:51:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA16767; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 01:23:40 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 01:23:40 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: The Golden Lions again To: Public Affairs Officer Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <9604022122.AA20085@iac.iac.org.nz> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 845 Frankly I was disappointed to see the great spread between divisions when SF came out. Since they were all organized identically I feel they should have the same rating, with the exceptions of divisions like 1st, 3rd, 9th, 88th, etc. that performed consistently above average. The Americans are just about the only Army in Europa that doesn't treat units with the same equipment levels identically (within a point), and I don't think that that's correct. Sure the 106th was poorly led in the Bulge, but it would have been just fine given a couple of months to shake itself out. A few commanders relieved, a lot of lives lost and it would have improved dramatically. Just like the 90th did after Normandy. It was probably the worst single American division in the beachhead, but it was one of the best in 3rd Army by the fall. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 09:19:36 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05735; Wed, 3 Apr 96 09:19:35 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA27887 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 09:16:53 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA214865010; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:03:30 GMT Message-Id: <199604030703.AA214865010@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Wed, 3 Apr 96 07:03:30 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Wed, 3 Apr 96 07:03:19 UTC 0000) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 96 06:58:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 3100507 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 74833 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Hoch und Deutschmeister etc. Status: O Content-Length: 4138 1. The Hoch und Deutschmeister: from VERBANDE UND TRUPPEN DER DEUTSCHEN WEHRMACHT UND WAFFEN SS 1939-1945 (Volume 5), (44.) Reichsgrenadier-Division-Hoch-und Deutschmeister: destroyed at Stalingrad January 1943, reformed beginning 17 Feb 1943 in Belgium under Fifteenth Army from NCO classes from Wehrkreis XIII and XVII with Reichsgrenadier-Regiment Hoch und Deutschmeister (three bns) [note formerly Grenadier-Regiment 134] Grenadier-Regiment 131 (three battalions) Grenadier-Regiment 132 (three battalions) Artillerie-Regiment 96 (four battalions) Aufklarungs-Abteilung 44 Panzerjager-Abteilung 96 Pionier-Bataillon 80 Reorganized 28 August 1944 as "Division neuer Art 44" with six grenadier battalions. It should be noted that this division, a "Welle 1" regular infantry division starts the war (in FTF) as a 6-6 Inf XX (as opposed to the normal 7-6 Inf XX rating for Welle 1 divisions) and is a 7-6 Inf XX in FOF (as opposed to an 8-6 Inf XX). It is an 8-6 Inf XX in FiE/SE. As shown in SF, most of the recreated "Stalingrad" infantry divisions (113, 297, 305, 371, 376, 384, 389 were formed on the six battalion plus one fusilier battalion organization ("Division nA 44") or 1 x 5-7-6 Inf XX; The 71.Infanterie-Division was reformed, like the 44th, with the old nine battalion TO, but is rated as an 8-6 Inf XX; The 94.Infanterie-Division was reformed, like the 44th, with the old nine battalion TO, but is rated as an 7-6 Inf XX; The 295.Infanterie-Division (originally 1 x 7-6 Inf XX) is reformed in Norway as a fortress division (1 x 5-8-4 Fort XX); The 76.Infanterie-Division was reformed, like the 44, 71, and 94, with the old organization, but is shown for some reason (and perhaps incorrectly) as a static ("bodenstatig") division, 1 x 5-8-4 Static XX. (again from Tessin, especially Volume 1). There is a good discussion on how the "Stalingrad" divisions were reformed in France in SECOND FRONT NOW-1943, by Walter Scott Dunn, Jr., chapter 8, pp. 122-132. I submit that the HuD is overrated in SF. It was given its title by Hitler for morale and propaganda purposes, just like the 60. Panzergrenadier-Division was renamed Panzergrenadier-Division "Feldherrnhalle" with no special organization or extra equipment. The Hoch und Deutschmeister was a famous regiment of the old Imperial Austro-Hungarian Army (and appears in Clash of Arms' "Battles of the Age of Reason" "Kolin" game). Tessin calls it the Vienna "haus-regiment." The 78.Sturm-Division I leave to another post. This division DID get a special organization which included an assault gun battalion, a mortar battalion and an army flak battalion. 2. Pet Peeves: everybody makes good points and I am not going to quibble with them. However, I would like to point out that the Europa system has been around for over 20 years, and I know of no other game system that has lasted and been supported for that long. The fact that this mailing list exists testifies to the system's longevity. I buy products by The Gamers and by Clash of Arms. I'd like to point out that Clash of Arms' Napoleonic battle series (by Ed Wimble) has good graphics and colorful counters and the worst set of rules that I have ever seen in a major game system. There is or was a whole topic on GEnie devoted to rewriting them. Wimble won't change them, and I don't buy them anymore. The Gamers has good graphics and colorful counters and excellent consumer support. I like their TCS series but they have revised the basic rules several times; their OCS series, something of a Europa counterpart, emphasizes command and control and supply. In closing, don't forget Squad Leader, I had a lot $$$ sunk into this series when AH changed the rules and the counters in midstream, making all of my stuff obsolete overnight. I don't buy AH games anymore. Despite all of the changes in Europa, I can still use FOF counters in SF if I want to. The game has evolved and is still evolving. Jim Broshot St. James MO P. S. I note that I screwed up in listing the divisions that Terry Allen commanded. I think (and I will try and check) that Allen and George Patton were at West Point together. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 15:57:36 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11801; Wed, 3 Apr 96 15:57:35 +0200 Received: from ns.rmc.com (ns.rmc.com [137.25.23.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA07067 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 15:53:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ns.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA21754; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 08:42:08 -0500 Received: from internet.rmc.com(137.25.3.24) by ns.rmc.com via smap (V1.3) id sma023764; Wed Apr 3 08:41:42 1996 Received: from lanmail.rmc.com by internet.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA12668; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 08:51:04 -0500 Received: by LANMAIL.RMC.COM; Wed, 3 Apr 96 8:49:55 EST Date: Wed, 3 Apr 96 8:52:11 EST Message-Id: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re:Re: The Golden Lions again Status: O Content-Length: 832 At Europafest 95, Shelby Stanton gave an interesting talk about the US Army, including the ratings of the US Inf XXs. His main reason for the differences were not due to equipment, organization, or performance, but due to their different origins in the American "mobilization" scheme. This involved the pre-war regular army, different expansion waves, and the National Guard. If I remember correctly, the last units formed had much less training before they were committed, in addition to not getting the creme of American males (apologies to Mr. Broshot's friends - don't show them this, Jim!). I also was surprised to see the spread in US XX ratings (particularly 1st, 3rd, and 9th) but it does give a little bit of flavor in American units for a heavily American audience - and grounds for interesting debate. Frank From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 20:53:35 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15236; Wed, 3 Apr 96 20:53:34 +0200 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA14496 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 20:48:19 +0200 (MET DST) From: EuropaStag@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03827; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 13:47:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 13:47:47 -0500 Message-Id: <960403134745_183973782@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: raven@bway.net, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Europa counters Status: O Content-Length: 598 In a message dated 96-04-02 21:55:50 EST, raven@bway.net (James Kelly) writes: >Fortunately, there is a solution. What we need is for GR/D to reprint ALL >the Europa counters (BF, FtF, AWW, and SF) using the same vendor as the one >who did the impressive countersheets for FWTBT. Every one of these games has >countersheets which are deficient in one way or another, and I for one would >like to see ALL of them reprinted properly. E-Mail Winston Hamilton, E-Mail >GR/D, and let's see if we can get it done before the millenium. Here Here I agree. although my FtF counters were just fine. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 20:53:37 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15241; Wed, 3 Apr 96 20:53:36 +0200 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA14491 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 20:48:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: EuropaStag@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24873; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 13:47:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 13:47:36 -0500 Message-Id: <960403134733_183973660@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: More on pet peeves Status: O Content-Length: 510 In a message dated 96-04-02 18:36:41 EST, NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) writes: > I also enjoy both A Winter War and For Whom the Bell Tolls which are >fascinating sidelines to WW2 in Europe. FWTBT taught me a lot about the >Spanish Civil War, which I had hitherto ignored. Thanks for your comments on AWW The counters are well done even tho the Soviets do not match the rest of the series. The problem is with the printer. Now we are using the same printer that does GMT games. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 22:28:38 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16051; Wed, 3 Apr 96 22:28:36 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA18506 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:27:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA23057; Thu, 4 Apr 96 08:03:08 NZS Message-Id: <9604032003.AA23057@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 08:01 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Terry Allen's commands Status: O Content-Length: 603 I noted in an earlier post (that may not have been posted, as I think I screwed up the address line again) that he took over the 104th Infantry when it was formed. The "Timberwolf" Division was drawn from Minnesota draftees, and fought in The Netherlands in 1st British Corps of 1st Canadian Army. Under his aggressive and inspired leadership, it did extremely well. The division's official history is called "Timberwolf Tracks," and is fairly interesting reading. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 23:35:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16601; Wed, 3 Apr 96 23:35:41 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA22816 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 23:34:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA23310; Thu, 4 Apr 96 09:30:47 NZS Message-Id: <9604032130.AA23310@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 09:33 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: The Golden Lions again Status: O Content-Length: 2618 I meant to send this about the 106th and 1st US Infantry Divisions, but I think it got lost in the shuffle. If I'm repeating myself, my apologies. ************ ORIGINAL MESSAGE FOLLOWS ************ Mark Pitcavage raises a good point...the 106th performed extremely badly, but this isn't in Europa. In other armies, the differences are made clear in strength points. The 44th Hoch und Deutschmeister Division is a powerful outfit (a 10-6 or 8-6) in Second Front, which represents its reputation and fighting abilities (at least as I remember them). On the other hand, the divisions Hitler scraped up from the training schools in 1945, like Theodor Korner, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, and Potsdam, are, as befitting their deficiencies in manpower, equipment, and training, 4-6-6s. What then, is the case of 106th US Infantry Division, which was the product of the standardized US military training and development system? On paper, it was a carbon copy of the 2nd Infantry, the 1st Infantry, and other veteran outfits. On the snow, it fell apart. Torch had a rule for "American Tactical Problems," which gave the Germans an advantage in a given battle to help them win at Kasserine. One possibility might be to restrict some of the later American divisions and the "ghost divisions" in a similar manner, making them take a die roll modifier in their first offensive or defensive battle. One exception might be the 104th Timberwolf Division, which was a draftee outfit that fought well in Holland as part of 1st Canadian Army. The 104th was formed under Maj. Gen. Terry de la Mesa Allen, a colorful and inspiring leader who had previously led the 1st Infantry Division in North Africa and Sicily. Allen was a controversial figure, but no-one questioned his leadership skills or the esteem with which his men held him. He motivated the Minnesota draftees of this outfit very well. (source: Carlo D'Este's Bitter Victory, on the Sicily campaign, which delves into Terry Allen) I don't like to think too much of the 106th Infantry, because of what happened to Stanley Samberg. He and my father grew up together, spending summer vacations together in Far Rockaway, New York. My dad talked with great enjoyment of those days, but a shadow came over him when Stanley's draft notice and subsequent military service came up at the end of the monologue. And today is the anniversary of my father's death last year. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 23:43:13 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16634; Wed, 3 Apr 96 23:43:12 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA23023 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 23:42:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id RAA03676; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 17:13:57 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 17:13:57 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Terry Allen's commands Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <9604032003.AA23057@iac.iac.org.nz> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 647 I have been preparing material from the magazine to be uploaded onto the GR/D website. So far I've been concentrating on finishing the 1st Divisions series and have been preparing the designer's notes from FtF to be uploaded. I'll probably do the designer's notes from BF next, but I'm not sure what to do after that. I've noted that a number of 20xx issues are out of print as well as 1-7. I intend to focus on material from those issues, but I wish to solicit people's preferences for priority and type of the material to make an appearance on the Webpage. Do y'all want to see OB articles, scenarios, battlefield reports, what? Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 3 23:57:38 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16749; Wed, 3 Apr 96 23:57:37 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA23652 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 23:57:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA23379; Thu, 4 Apr 96 09:53:09 NZS Message-Id: <9604032153.AA23379@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 09:56 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: The U.S. Infantry Status: O Content-Length: 495 There were indeed a fair amount of problems in the later US Army infantry units, not only due to speeded-up training, but because of the Army's classification system, whereby the brightest minds were assigned to specialized units or the ever-expanding Army Air Force. A lot of potentially capable infantrymen joined the OSS, the Marines, or the Navy. Best, David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 00:07:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16829; Thu, 4 Apr 96 00:07:41 +0200 Received: from motgate2.mot.com (motgate2.mot.com [129.188.136.20]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA23913 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:07:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.7.3/8.6.10/MOT-3.8) with ESMTP id WAA05176 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:06:07 GMT Received: from fwans12 (fwans12.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com [160.2.12.7]) by mothost.mot.com (8.7.3/8.6.10/MOT-3.8) with SMTP id QAA23146 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:06:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (fwhre14) by fwans12 (5.67b/FTW-1.62) id AA11510; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:03:25 -0600 Received: by fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (8.6.12/FTW-1.62) id QAA24383; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:06:34 -0600 From: psmith@hpmail2.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Paul Smith) Message-Id: <199604032206.QAA24383@fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com> Subject: Magazine articles on WWW To: europa@lysator.liu.se (Europa maillist) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:06:34 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Jason Long" at Apr 3, 96 05:13:57 pm Reply-To: psmith@ftw.mot.com *Return-Receipt-To: psmith@ftw.mot.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Status: O Content-Length: 488 >Do y'all want to see OB articles, scenarios, battlefield reports, what? > >Jason > I vote for scenarios and battlefield reports. -- 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 europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 00:49:27 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17270; Thu, 4 Apr 96 00:49:26 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA24938 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:48:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA23519; Thu, 4 Apr 96 10:44:29 NZS Message-Id: <9604032244.AA23519@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 10:45 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: What to put on the page Status: O Content-Length: 252 All of the above look snappy, but my personal taste runs to OB reports, which would explain the history behind the counters. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 00:58:54 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17381; Thu, 4 Apr 96 00:58:53 +0200 Received: from mail-e2b-service.gnn.com (mail-e2b-service.gnn.com [204.148.102.170]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA25107 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:58:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from www-40-229.gnn.com. (www-40-229.gnn.com [205.188.40.229]) by mail-e2b-service.gnn.com (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA16472 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 17:58:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199604032258.RAA16472@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> X-Mailer: GNNmessenger 1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 15:54:14 From: NormPratt@gnn.com (Norman Pratt) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Terry Allen's commands Status: O Content-Length: 134 >Do y'all want to see OB articles, scenarios, battlefield reports, what? > >Jason I vote for scenarios and battlefield reports. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 02:06:07 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17996; Thu, 4 Apr 96 02:05:51 +0200 Received: from mail-e2b-service.gnn.com (mail-e2b-service.gnn.com [204.148.102.170]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA26329 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:04:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from www-40-42.gnn.com. (www-40-42.gnn.com [205.188.40.42]) by mail-e2b-service.gnn.com (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA05241 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 19:03:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199604040003.TAA05241@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> X-Mailer: GNNmessenger 1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 17:00:09 From: NormPratt@gnn.com (Norman Pratt) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: The poor old 106th Status: O Content-Length: 3104 >The 106th dishonored itself because of the rapid surrender of the >two regiments. A more veteran outfit would have held out longer, >slowing the German advance and possibly finding a way to breakout. >When you compare the 106th's performance to that of the many other >US units caught in the initial deluge at the Bulge, the 106th's >action is little short of disgraceful. Of course, it wasn't >supposed to be that way -- the 106th was a green outfit and was >sent to a quiet sector, the Ardennes, to come up to speed without >facing heavy action. Had the 106th had a few more weeks in >the line, it probably would have performed creditably. I think I must take exception here with Mr. Astell. I don't think it is fair to attempt a comparison between the fate of the 106th versus that of the 2nd Inf Div or any other veteran outfit in the Bulge. The circumstances surrounding the what befell the 106th indicate that while it may have held out for a short while longer, the end results would have only been more dead Americans without any real change to the outcome. As stated above, the 106th was a green outfit. Look at what happened to the 1st Inf Div at Kasserine in its first real combat. Recall also, that over 60% of the trained men from the 106th were taken from the division and used as replacements during 1944. In return, the division received, only just prior to shipping overseas, 1,200 men from the ATSP, 1,100 from training as air cadets, 1,500 from other divisions not yet scheduled for overseas, and 2,500 from various disbanded small units, mostly service troops. Additionally, when the 106th replaced the 2nd on the Schnee Eifel, there was to be a gun for gun replacement on the line. As the 2nd had accumulated extra weapons in excess of normal issue, when the 106th had no weapon for exchange, the 2nd took their extras with them. While the 2nd also left its telephone system in place when it left, the 106th did not have the large number of sound-powered phones to use it. The 106th also lost most of its artillery support after the first day, either by displacement or capture. The 2nd Div on the other hand, had enormous artillery support during its battle in the twin villages and readily acknowledged that without it, it could not have succeeded in stopping the Germans. The lack of experience, extra weapons, and communications problems experienced by the two regiments on the Schnee Eifel would have made it difficult even for a veteran unit to succeed. This was a green outfit in which the troops still thought one stood guard at right shoulder arms and was stilling wearing neckties only a few days earlier when they entered the lines. I agree that while it was possible for the two regiments to hold out longer (as some smaller units did), the end result would not have significantly changed the end result. I do not necessarily defend the 106th, I only mean to suggest that any comparison between what the 106th accomplished versus what a veteran unit accomplished in the Bulge is not realistic. Norman Pratt From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 02:40:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18205; Thu, 4 Apr 96 02:40:26 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA27006 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:40:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA09126 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Wed, 3 Apr 1996 18:29:56 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 18:29:56 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: "Frank E. Watson" Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: re:unit strengths & losses In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1482 On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Frank E. Watson wrote: > > I might be tempted to use the remnant concept in the desert or SF, but I > balk at tracking remnants for Soviet rifle XXs. Maybe the Soviets rifle > XXs would be exempt from remnantizing? > > Maybe if you used higher HQs, could some of the remnants be assigned > to these "units." That might cut down on some of on-map counters ( a > thought that could be considered radical in this game). > Certainly the remnant concept needs a lot of thought. One problem is the potential of greater clutter. My original thoughts would have had not only the soviet divisions as remnants but possibly all sub-division units also. That is a huge potential clutter, although in practice one can cut it down. In War in Europe we had some of that. The German infantry divisions flipped from a 6-5 to a 1-5, and had to go back home to be rebuilt. As soon as one could be sure they had escaped any danger we always tossed them in the rebuild hopper. Certainly I have always played Resource Points from a pool and not on the board. Now that is in the rules in SF. An HQ that holds remnants, (and where one might then rebuild them?) is an excellent suggestion. > Alan, could a remnant be overrun? Should an overrun cadre generate a > remnant? > Without having worked it out, I would say yes, a remnant, just like a positional AA unit, can be overrun. And yes an overrun cadre becomes a remnant. Alan From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 02:47:34 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18227; Thu, 4 Apr 96 02:47:19 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA27132 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 02:47:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA23844; Thu, 4 Apr 96 12:43:01 NZS Message-Id: <9604040043.AA23844@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 12:43 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: The 106th, yet again Status: O Content-Length: 351 Norman: Very well-researched post on the 106th Infantry Division. I used to hear people make jokes about it, which bothered me, because, as I've mentioned, I lost a member of my family in that outfit. Sincerely, David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 03:45:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18637; Thu, 4 Apr 96 03:45:41 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA28104 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 03:45:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 03 Apr 1996 20:42:40 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 22:50:08 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Everybody's [?] pet peeves Status: O Content-Length: 1617 From: >EXACTLY how GDW moved from a small company to a >big name. Well, that is an >OPINION, isn't it? I have been closely involved with GDW >from 1974 on. That is not my opinion. So, we disagree. >As far as the rest goes, well, we does the best we can, so >you have two options, buy or don't buy. >bye bye winston Actually, a fairly rudimentary accounting procedure comparing GDW's unit sales/revenue/profits for the two years preceding and following the introduction of Traveller, or a comparison of the sales/revenue/profits generated by Traveller and Europa over a span of time equivalvent to both would show EXACTLY whether or not this precipitated GDW's upward mobility, without any ambiguity or subjectivity whatsoever. I'm not at all saying that GDW wasn't a "good" or valuable company before Traveller, but Frank, Mark, and Paul were certainly not being treated as equals by SPI, AH, or TSR before Traveller, nor were they as influential in the gaming community as they later were as a result of Traveller. Also, until the advent of Traveller, there were a number of stores the the New York metropolitan area [probably the largest single concentration of board gamers in the country, if not on the planet!] that didn't carry GDW games because they were "so small". As far as the rest goes, I know that you're doing the best that you can, and that s--t happens, and you've gotta roll with the flow. I wasn't taking issue with that, as had some other posters. I still think that Europa is the best durn gamin system in the known universe, as I've posted numerous times before. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 04:32:51 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18930; Thu, 4 Apr 96 04:32:50 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA28733 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 04:32:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-66-11.ots.utexas.edu (slip-66-11.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.253.139]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA13373 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 20:29:50 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 20:29:50 -0600 Message-Id: <199604040229.UAA13373@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Terry Allen's commands Status: O Content-Length: 590 Jason said: >I intend to focus on material from those issues, but I wish to solicit >people's preferences for priority and type of the material to make an >appearance on the Webpage. Do y'all want to see OB articles, scenarios, >battlefield reports, what? I vote for errata as first priority, though I know it wasn't on your list of offerings. If we have to stick to the list, my preference runs in the order you listed them. (But I wouldn't mind seeing a few more battlefield reports posted here by subscribers to the list.) - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 04:48:09 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA19012; Thu, 4 Apr 96 04:48:08 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA28953 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 04:47:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-66-11.ots.utexas.edu (slip-66-11.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.253.139]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA13537 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 20:39:47 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 20:39:47 -0600 Message-Id: <199604040239.UAA13537@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: The poor old 106th (new twist) Status: O Content-Length: 425 Did the German plans for "the bulge" escape ULTRA? I'm curious whether Allied high command was expecting it and was eager for it, in order to be able thrash the cream of the German army in the countryside rather than having to root them out of the Westwall. - Bobby. p.s. -- I think my evil twin was posting messages under my name last night -- his spelling was horribel! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 05:36:35 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA19272; Thu, 4 Apr 96 05:36:34 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA29624 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 05:36:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 03 Apr 1996 22:32:37 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 00:39:54 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu Subject: Bulge Intel: [was: Re: The poor old 106th (new twist)] Status: O Content-Length: 676 On 4/3/96, Bobby Bryant asked: >Did the German plans for "the bulge" escape ULTRA? Hi Bobby! At the risk of getting my tail twisted again, I'll put in my cent and a half on this. My understanding is that Hitler, in one of his few moments of lucidity, commanded a complete electronic communications blackout with regard to the operation, thereby rendering the Ultra avenue useless. Probably a damn good thing it was so near the end anyhow, or the Germans might have been able to catch their breath and pull their thumbs out long enough to put two and two together, and come up with a compromised code system. Well, anyhow, that's the way I read it, so now ya know. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 07:35:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20017; Thu, 4 Apr 96 07:35:18 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA01185 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 07:34:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA15575 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Wed, 3 Apr 1996 23:34:54 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 23:34:54 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: unit replacements Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 3818 Thanks to J. Broshot for the fine info on the 44 HuD. It being a 10-6 in a world of 7-6s (or less) is just a larger point to a question I wanted to bring up. I've always wondered about the fact that on the Eastern Front the German army had this mix of 8-6s & 7-6s. Both cadred to the same 3-6, yet they would be rebuilt to the original strength. John has pointed out recently some of the criteria of what goes into unit strengths. And many have heard the story of where the original unit strengths came from; different German divisions came from different waves of call up and had different levels of equipment, training, and best manpower pools to draw from. But by may '41 much of that difference is gone. Most divisions had been through some combat had taken losses, been rebuilt, etc. So at this point what makes a 8-6 not a 7-6. Could be a unit that's closer to proper T.O.& E. By '41 most German units were under strength. Or perhaps a unit had a good record from the previous campaigns so that rated it higher. I asked Frank Chadwick if he remembered what when into those unit decisions back then. It was long ago, so he was not sure except to say he was sure it was a combination of these factors. My point is that when an infantry division is cadred one of two things should happen. If the strength is just a matter of putting the guns and bodies into the unit, then the cadre should be able to be rebuilt to an 8-6 no matter what it started as (or to stretch the point to the 10-6 of the 44 HuD). However if that strength is a matter of the expertise and experience of the unit then it could be considered a fragile unit since just replacing the bodies won't do the trick. Someone will surely make the counter argument that the Germans were very good at rebuilding units to fine fighting form. Even if we grant that, the concept is the same for many nations. Several have brought up the point that many references like to equate the value of American units with the commanders they might have had. And the unit values came along for the ride. Is that the way we want GE to be? One big quantifier will be the counter sets that could reasonably be provided. There are real factors why the Germans can not build an army of only 1st SS panzers. But the ability to build all your units up to the paper value of the T.O.&E. if time allows is not an unreasonable thought. Example: a resent post tells us that John Astell is now playing a Europa game that has the Germans trying the African strategy. Certainly one of the prospects that history has asked about. However what kind of German army is he allowing himself? Army plans as France was falling were to trim back the size of the army, send some needed manpower back to the factories. Then get manpower and equipment levels in the remaining divisions up to proper levels. And try to motorize a bigger chunk of the army. Of course Hitler pulled the rug out from under those plans with the Barbarossa campaign that need more divisions no matter what that might do to the whole army structure. In the game John is playing it would be very reasonable for the German army to give up 20 or 30 divisions, get maybe 5 more motorized divisions, and get a large portion of the rest to proper T.O.&E. (8-6, or maybe even higher?). Any perhaps a bigger Luftwaffe too. Not Me 262s of course, but a few more Ju-88s, and maybe more Fw190s too, as those factories come on line. And the navy could get a bigger slice of the industrial pie too. To get those subs after England, and try to build a little bit of transport to help the Med campaign. I think that is reasonable. What do all of you think? Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 07:47:01 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20099; Thu, 4 Apr 96 07:47:00 +0200 Received: from mail-e2b-service.gnn.com (mail-e2b-service.gnn.com [204.148.102.170]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA01292 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 07:46:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from www-46-42.gnn.com. (www-46-42.gnn.com [205.188.46.42]) by mail-e2b-service.gnn.com (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA22656 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:46:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199604040546.AAA22656@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> X-Mailer: GNNmessenger 1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 22:42:19 From: NormPratt@gnn.com (Norman Pratt) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: ULTRA and the Bulge Status: O Content-Length: 1303 >Did the German plans for "the bulge" escape ULTRA? I'm curious whether >Allied high command was expecting it and was eager for it, in order to be >able thrash the cream of the German army in the countryside rather than >having to root them out of the Westwall. > > - Bobby. > It would seem that in one last fit of sanity, Hitler placed a complete black out on transmission of anything having to do with Wacht am Rhein via radio or telephone. Everything had to be carried by officer courier with a Gestapo guard. While ULTRA did reveal a few items which, interpretred correctly, could have given a hint as to German plans, ULTRA really didn't give the Allies anything on the forthcoming counterattack. Allied commanders seem to have grown so confident and dependent on ULTRA providing them everything about the Germans, that when it didn't tell them anything, they accepted that it wasn't going to happen. There is nothing to indicate that Eisenhower or any other Allied commander knew about the attack before hand and let it happen in order to draw out the last vestiges of German strength from the West Wall. Not even the German divisional commanders found out about the forthcoming counterattack until days before it happened. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 15:30:10 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26955; Thu, 4 Apr 96 15:30:09 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA10773 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 15:29:31 +0200 (MET DST) From: l.hanna@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA047153762; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 13:16:02 GMT Message-Id: <199604041316.AA047153762@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Thu, 4 Apr 96 13:16:02 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Thu, 4 Apr 96 13:14:56 UTC 0000) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 13:18:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: L.HANNA X-Genie-Qk-Id: 0426755 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 376229 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: ULTRA and the Bulge Status: O Content-Length: 1241 The German clampdown on electronic communications did indeed keep ULTRA from warning about the December offensive, but not all Allied intel was fooled. US Third Army intelligence had indicator of an attack building, but no specifics on size or strength, I seem to recall. Patton's postwar supporters (not an unbiased group, I know) were careful to point this out. The speed of planning and execution of Third Army's wheeling movement helps to bear this out. As for some other topics floating about, I thought it was a given that divisions (especially the US ones) were rated for leadership and esprit as reflected by performance. Statistical analyses emphasized that only a handful of US divisions could regularly defeat the Germans, and these are the ones that have higher ratings. As for replacing these divisions as fragile, the American practice of adding replacements to the survivors ensures that some unit identity and experience survives, unlike the Soviet prewar fragile divisions, which had _all_ of the trained individuals that could not be replaced once they were wiped out. As for the unlucky 106th ID, can we agree that they got caught in a bad poistion (no retreat routes), and suffered a bad dr? From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 16:55:37 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28319; Thu, 4 Apr 96 16:55:36 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA13153 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 16:54:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA07077 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 08:46:19 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:53:58 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Bulge Intel: [was: Re: The poor old 106th (new twist)] Status: O Content-Length: 681 >Did the German plans for "the bulge" escape ULTRA? Yes, to a large degree. Once the Germans in the west were pushed back to Germany, they tended to use their internal phone network rather than radio among the higher command units. Thus there was less radio traffic for Ultra to decode. Ultra caught some of the preparations for the Bulge but not enough for the Allies to figure out what was going on. (Also, Allied regular intelligence lost track of various German panzer divisions in Nov-Dec 44, but this apparently didn't cause the Allies to wonder what the Germans were up to.) As I remember, Eisenhower's Lieutenants summarizes well the intelligence loss before the Bulge. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 19:39:21 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00442; Thu, 4 Apr 96 19:39:19 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA17347 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 19:36:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.39] (gw1-039.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA25580 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:36:11 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:38:30 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Bulge Intel: [was: Re: The poor old 106th (new twist)] Status: O Content-Length: 1166 Ray wrote: snip >Probably a damn good thing it was so near the end anyhow, or the >Germans might have been able to catch their breath and pull their >thumbs out long enough to put two and two together, and come up with >a compromised code system. I do not think the Germans had much chance of figuring their codes were being decyphered, particularly as after they added the fourth wheel to the Enigma machines, it was felt an already good code machine was now even better (it DID cause panic for a few months at Bletchley Park until they cracked that one too, using the world first computer (in the modern sense of the word)). Suggestions the Brits WERE reading Enigma codes (usually by the Kriegsmarine) were discounted for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons the story of Ultra took so long to come out after the war was that the British sold a large number of 'unbreakable' ex-German enigma machines to various foreign governments after the war and the Enigma system was still in use until the 1960's. When the story of Ultra finally broke, there were some acute 'sense of humour failures' in various government circles =:-O Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 19:58:00 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00665; Thu, 4 Apr 96 19:57:59 +0200 Received: from crash.cts.com (root@crash.cts.com [192.188.72.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA17747 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 19:57:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fhi by crash.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0u4tHc-0000VEC; Thu, 4 Apr 96 09:57 PST Received: from notes.san.fhi.com by fhboot1.san.fhi.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0u4szt-0000qxC; Thu, 4 Apr 96 09:39 PST Received: by notes.san.fhi.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA5078; Thu, 04 Apr 96 09:38:43 -0800 Message-Id: <9604041738.AA5078@notes.san.fhi.com> Received: from Forte with "Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP" id F5AC039B7A38CDE188256302005A839A; Thu, 4 Apr 96 09:38:42 To: europa From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 4 Apr 96 9:37:39 PS Subject: Origins Voting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Status: O Content-Length: 906 Hi all, I was glad to see some enthusiasm for trying to get FWTBT, TEM, and John Astell a win at this years Origins. There does seem to be a bit of confusion regarding the voting proceedures though. The voting is done by mail in ballot, due to the judging coordinator by late June. Copies of the ballot are ususally sent in various industry magazines during the spring. I have recieved one in Command and one in Paper Wars. If one of the other on-line members has a fax machine and a scanner, I would be happy to fax my blank copy. This can be scanned into document format and put on-line as a posting. Please post a response or send it to me at: steigerj@notes.san.fhi.com The voting format is write in. You can select up to 3 choices or just list one if you'd like. The address to sent it to is listed on the ballot. That's all... Europa deserves a win! Jay Steiger San Diego, CA From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 21:26:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01494; Thu, 4 Apr 96 21:26:02 +0200 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA19557 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:24:28 +0200 (MET DST) From: Italorican@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25359; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:23:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:23:56 -0500 Message-Id: <960404142353_505685302@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: civguy@dusable.cps.k12.il.us Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Terry Allen's commands Status: O Content-Length: 355 In a message dated 96-04-03 17:06:41 EST, civguy@dusable.cps.k12.il.us (Jason Long) writes: >Do y'all want to see OB articles, scenarios, >battlefield reports, what? > > I would`like to see errata & rules clarifications, OB articles, scenarios, facts behind the counters (entire series probably bears reprinting), variants, play reports Antonio Lauria From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 4 22:37:49 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02041; Thu, 4 Apr 96 22:37:48 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA20877 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 22:36:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 04 Apr 1996 15:35:56 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 17:42:27 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Unit factor evaluations [was: Re: unit replacements] [longish] Status: O Content-Length: 5874 On 4/3/96, Alan Conrad noted: >I've always wondered about the fact that on the Eastern >Front the German army had this mix of 8-6s & 7-6s. --snip-- >But by may '41 much of that difference is gone. Most >divisions had been through some combat had taken >losses, been rebuilt, etc. So at this point what makes a >8-6 not a 7-6. --snip-- >By '41 most German units were under strength. As you noted, the earlier 'welle' [wave] units were generally the premier units of their wehrkreis, or had been a part of the professional Weimar army, and so the most likely to be kept up to max TO&E levels, with the best equipment. They were also the least likely to be disbanded in the aftermath of the French campaign, and so had continuity of service. To state that by May '41 significant differences between infantry divs had disappeared, or that by 1941 most German units were understrength [one source states that the German amry was never as close to full strength as it was on 6/21/41 (the day before the invasion of the USSR)] is not borne out by either Mitcham's *Hitler's Legions* or Tessin's overview book. Can you give some references to support these views? Likely, a partial reason for some of the 1-point difference between inf divs is combat experience, and the reason why 7-6s don't become 8-6s after the invasion of the USSR is possibly due to manpower shortages counterbalancing increased combat effectiveness. Also, asking Frank Chadwick about German unit strengths in DNO/Unt at this point in time is a dead end, because [to my knowledge, as a proofreader for the OBs] John Astell re-evaluated all unit strengths for FitE. I'm very willing to argue for or against a lot of things, including stacking, step losses, time scales, inclusion/exclusion of air/sea/logistics/political considerations. HOWEVER, if the relationship [NOT the actual combat factors] between the combat factors of all units is being called into question, then what you are saying is that John didn't do a good research job, and the factors for EVERY SINGLE UNIT need to be re-evaluated. And that's just crazy talk. John is undoubtedly one of the best, if not the best, most detail-oriented researcher I've known. Out of the vast mass of units, to think that, for units that stand out [as much as a 10-6 or 9-8 does] in Europa, John didn't give a bit of extra time and attention to the factors of those units is ludicrous. To argue about the strengths of particular units is patently absurd, as those strengths varied widely, and sometimes daily, over the course of a six-year. A particular unit strength is a REPRESENTATION of the doctrine, time, political considerations, etc., etc., blah, blah behind the historical unit at a particular point in time. It is a snapshot of the unit on a particular date, and Europa history can vary wildly from what then happened historically. Not one SE game in a thousand likely ends up with Hoch und Deutschmeister getting their frozen asses handed to them on a plate at Stalingrad. And NO ONE would suggest that HuD be automatically eliminated on 2/I/43, wherever it happens to be in the USSR just because that was the historical result on that historical date. >Several have brought up the point that many references >like to equate the value of American units with the >commanders they might have had. And the unit values >came along for the ride. Actually, several have SPECULATED that this MAY be the case. This is NOT a proven fact at all. >Army plans as France was falling were to trim back the >size of the army, send some needed manpower back to >the factories. I think [and will hunt up references if asked] that the German army actually scaled back to get the harvest in, freeing up men for agricultural, not industrial, work. Germany, at various times, had absurd plans for both much larger mechanized and air forces [and the slightly less adsurd "Z" naval plan], to the extent where such forces would have required ALL available oil resources to operate. Germany's capability to churn out additional c/m units, above and beyond what they historically did, is extremely questionable, given all of the material constraints on their production/ use of materials: 1) They did not have significantly more POL at any time during the war than what was available in May 1941, and they didn't have enough then for their current c/m and air needs. 2) a variety of strategic materials were in short supply throughout the war, necessitating the melting down of large numbers of church bells, and the eventual production of laquered-steel cartridges which were next to useless. 3) finally, if the Germans could have produced more c/m units, why didn't they? Strategic bombing doesn't start to impede manufacturing at all until 1942, and the Germans couldn't even fully activate the 27th[?] Pz div. German a/c and AFV production continues to increase throughout the war, but they can't even motorize the artillery of many of their inf divs. Why? Germany built what they built because that's what they intended to build. If you say, well, let's delete lots of [and 30 is LOTS of] inf divs, and add c/m divs, you might run the risk of a real, successful army coup in 1940 or 1941. If you say, well, lets scale back the Luftwaffe significantly and allocate those resources to the army, then what you're saying is: Hermann Goring is not head of the Luftwaffe, or doesn't have Hitler's ear, neither of which was true, and both of which have to be taken into account. Europa is meant to be flexible, within fairly realistic limits, which is why you CAN build the 27th [?] Pz div [if you have the resources].But if you want to posit a completely different military-industrial-economic-political context for Germany, that's fine, but now you're well into geopolitical/global economic roleplaying, and way out of Europa. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 01:24:21 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03428; Fri, 5 Apr 96 01:24:20 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA23831 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 01:23:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA17017 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:23:40 -0500 Message-Id: <199604042323.AA17017@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:23:40 -0500 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa Subject: Or What? my wish list. Luft-peeves Date: Thu, 04 Apr 96 18:15:00 EST Encoding: 44 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 2396 Jason asked what we would like to see posted on the Website. My vote is for Designer's Notes/OoBs and scenarios. I would particularly like to see the rationale for the dizzingly complex new Luftwaffe OoB and hyperspecialization of aircraft types. What is, for instance, the difference between an Fw 190A heavy fighter (HF), regular day fighter (F), and ground attack (A). As far as I've been able to determine, in most cases the units in the field bolted hardware onto the wings to suit the mission at hand using "Rustsautze" conversion kits. The same Fw could go up as a regular fighter one day, have two 30mm cannon attached to it's wing the next day as a bomber killer (with a marked deterioration in performance), and round off the week as a Jagdbomber with a 1,000 kilo bomb carried on the centerline. I'm not sure how to represent this sort of multi-role capability: maybe allow the German player to shift the posture of certain multi-role units during his initial phase. I'm thinking especially of the FW 190 A and F, and the Me 109 G. (The 190 D was a specialized fighter, the 190G a specialized bomber, the 109 F did not seem to have been used in bomber-killer role much, and the 109K carried it's 30mm cannon internally, gaining the best of both worlds.) Similar suggestions might be made for other air forces maids-of-all-work. There are some arguments against this suggestion: 1. Too complex: The air system has so much chrome it will never take off 2. Too many new counters: This is Europa. Counters are our friends. There is no overall increase in counter numbers, and the amount of bimonthly fiddling about looking for that one last type A Fw 190F to switch for a type F Fw 190F goes down dramatically. 3. Lack of cross-training of pilots. Fighter jocks won't do ground attack (all that hostile Flak) and Ground attack pilots can't dogfight. This may be a reasonable point for preventing F-and-HF-to-A conversions on the spur of the moment. In defence of my proposal, however, I believe that the Luftwaffe frequently turned at least part of each JG (fighter group) into a jabo ( fighter-bomber)unit for intruder missions. The training the Luftwaffe was getting in 1943-4-5 was so lousy that most learning was being done on the job, not at flying school. Enough ranting, Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh, Washington D.C. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 02:38:47 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03866; Fri, 5 Apr 96 02:38:46 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA29821 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 02:37:55 +0200 (MET DST) From: l.hanna@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA247533864; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 00:24:24 GMT Message-Id: <199604050024.AA247533864@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 5 Apr 96 00:24:24 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Fri, 5 Apr 96 00:22:24 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 00:01:00 UTC 0000 To: cloister%dircon.co.uk%inet00#@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: L.HANNA X-Genie-Qk-Id: 3486780 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 385975 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Bulge & Enigma Status: O Content-Length: 515 I'm trying to recall, but somewhere along the line during the war, a neutral diplomat heard that the Allies were reading either the German or the Japanese codes, and warned either a Japanese or German diplomat, whose warning to the other Axis power was ignored, and the warning power then wrote off any possibility of their own codes being broken because of their own superiority, and laughed at their hapless ally. I wish I could remember more details of this story, but I got it from a lecture on WWII. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 02:44:33 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03904; Fri, 5 Apr 96 02:44:31 +0200 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA29893 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 02:44:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from osf1.gmu.edu by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA22442; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 19:44:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 19:52:57 -0500 From: Nicholas Forte Reply-To: nforte@gmu.edu Subject: Re: Terry Allen's commands To: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 873 On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 17:13:57 -36000 civguy@dusable.cps.k12.il.us (Jason Long) wrote: >I have been preparing material from the magazine to be uploaded onto the >GR/D website. So far I've been concentrating on finishing the 1st >Divisions series and have been preparing the designer's notes from FtF to >be uploaded. I'll probably do the designer's notes from BF next, but I'm >not sure what to do after that. >I've noted that a number of 20xx issues are out of print as well as 1-7. >I intend to focus on material from those issues, but I wish to solicit >people's preferences for priority and type of the material to make an >appearance on the Webpage. Do y'all want to see OB articles, scenarios, >battlefield reports, what? My preference would be for more OBs and what-if scenarios, focusing on operations that may have been planned but not actually carried out. Nick From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 04:15:32 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04459; Fri, 5 Apr 96 04:15:31 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA00951 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 04:14:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.21] (gw1-021.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA11962 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 5 Apr 1996 03:14:34 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 03:16:57 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Multi-role aircraft (was Luft pet-peeves) Status: O Content-Length: 3579 Patrick wrote: (snip) >I would particularly like to see the rationale for the dizzingly >complex >new Luftwaffe OoB and hyperspecialization of aircraft >types. What is, for >instance, the difference between an Fw 190A >heavy fighter (HF), regular >day fighter (F), and ground attack >(A). Sometimes a fair bit, actually >As far as I've been able to determine, in most cases the units >in the >field bolted hardware onto the wings to suit the mission >at hand using >"Rustsautze" conversion kits. >The same Fw could go up as a regular fighter one day, have two >30mm >cannon attached to it's wing the next day as a bomber >killer (with a >marked deterioration in performance), and round >off the week as a >Jagdbomber with a 1,000 kilo bomb carried on >the centerline. Yes and no. *Rustsatz* (e-mail unfriendly umlaut on the *u*) field conversion sets could be (and were) changed, but my understanding is that this was not on a mission by mission basis but rather depended on the squadron's basic role. Within that role, some heavy fighters might be fitted out to (say) Rustsatz 4 (4 x MG 151), others might have variations (extra oblique weapons or delete the ventral tray weapons) etc.. However, some of the more extreme alterations involved adding extra armour and structural reinforcements (The Fw.190 HF counters in question) and I suspect this was not a *Rustsatz* but a *Umrust-Bausatz* (a factory conversion set). This made the Fw.190 double distilled purple poison against a Flying Fortress but also made it dog-meat for a Mustang. In this, I think the Europa team got it spot on! > I'm not sure how to represent this sort of multi-role >capability: maybe >allow the German player to shift the posture >of certain multi-role units >during his initial phase. I'm >thinking especially of the FW 190 A and F, >and the Me 109 G. >(The 190 D was a specialized fighter, the 190G a >specialized >bomber, the 109 F did not seem to have been used in >>bomber-killer role much, and the 109K carried it's 30mm cannon >>internally, gaining the best of both worlds.) Similar >suggestions might >be made for other air forces >maids-of-all-work. This is indeed a problem, but not just for the Germans. For example, RAF No.2 Group flew its Mosquitoes in Nightfighter (Intruder to be precise), Daylight Intruder, Daylight precision attack and Night Attack. These were the same crews flying the same Mosquitoes (mostly FB.VI). Similarly, Coastal Command flew their Mosquitoes in an anti-shipping role, but also a maritime intruders (hunting German coastal reccon aircraft and also attacking escorting fighters trying to protect returning U-boats). The easy solution is to simply rate them (and other aircraft in other airforces which operated in a true dual role) as fighters with a high ground attack value. The 'bomb-load penalty' rule can take care of any resulting anormalities (thought I have never liked the 'Jettison' rule as written). (snip) >3. Lack of cross-training of pilots. Fighter jocks won't do >ground attack >(all that hostile Flak) and Ground attack pilots >can't dogfight. Broadly true but not always the case (units like No.2 Group really were all-singing-all-dancing outfits). >This may be a reasonable point for preventing F-and-HF-to-A >conversions >on the spur of the moment. F to HF is a fairly drastic rebuild rather than a re-role number and so does not make much sense. F to A just needs the counter to be F (or HF, depending) plus a better written rule. >Enough ranting, No, no. Never enough! More! More! Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 04:22:00 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04497; Fri, 5 Apr 96 04:21:59 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA01037 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 04:21:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.21] (gw1-021.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA12093 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 5 Apr 1996 03:21:42 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 03:24:06 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Rock the vote (boat?) Status: O Content-Length: 302 >My preference would be for more OBs and what-if scenarios, focusing on >operations that may have been planned but not actually carried out. > >Nick Yup. Me too. I just love the idea of the Armee d'Air & RAF bombing Baku etc...truth is stranger than fiction (and so am I). Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 04:46:05 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04614; Fri, 5 Apr 96 04:46:04 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA01216 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 04:43:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26838; Fri, 5 Apr 96 14:39:19 NZS Message-Id: <9604050239.AA26838@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 14:37 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: ULTRA and the Bulge Status: O Content-Length: 355 I have a copy of A Time For Trumpets and Hitler's Last Gamble at home, along with The Bitter Woods, which have a lot of discussion of the Allied intelligence failures just before the Bulge. I'll look at them over the weekend. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 04:51:24 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04637; Fri, 5 Apr 96 04:51:23 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA01301 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 04:50:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 04 Apr 1996 21:49:41 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 23:56:31 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: cloister@dircon.co.uk, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Multi-role aircraft (was Luft pet-peeves) Status: O Content-Length: 76 Perry, Great exact post on German field mods. Keep up the good work! Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 05:34:43 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04845; Fri, 5 Apr 96 05:34:42 +0200 Received: from dax.cc.uakron.edu (root@dax.cc.uakron.edu [130.101.5.4]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA01578 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 05:31:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from vox08.cc.uakron.edu by dax.cc.uakron.edu (5.65/Ultrix4.3) id AA14656; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 22:32:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 22:32:37 -0500 Message-Id: <9604050332.AA14656@dax.cc.uakron.edu> X-Sender: apanius@uakron.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Mike Apanius Subject: Re: Europa ground rules Status: O Content-Length: 819 >Your rules sound OK, but seem like a lot of work. I'm interested in >insanely huge Grand Europa games, so I don't know if I'd be able to track >units in reserve status or whatever. The Europa community has seen >proposals along that line before, but I don't know how sucessful they may >have been in practice. >Good Luck > >"Freedom is always against the law." >-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs I'm not positive yet, but I think these revised rules will not lengthen the playing time by much. One of the most time consuming things in Europa is the calculation of the combat odds, and this is not present in the revised rules. So far in FoF, keeping track of units in reserve status has been an easy thing, because generally entire fronts will be in reserve status with a couple of odd stacks in other places. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 06:44:27 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05226; Fri, 5 Apr 96 06:44:26 +0200 Received: from freenet.hamilton.on.ca (main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca [199.212.94.65]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA02164 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 06:41:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca [199.212.94.66]) by freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA12102 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:41:16 -0500 Received: (af453@localhost) by james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21167; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:42:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:42:38 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Lunny To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Hello and a Question Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 754 I have been for the past few weeks reading the posts of this group. I have found your material both informative and entertaining. I have a question for the general group to ponder but more specifically it is addressed to John Astell. Q/ In the winter of 1941 Hilter sent a directive to his generals on the eastern front forbiding them the option of retreat in the face of extreme enemy pressure. From my readings on the outcome of this directive I could only find one instance of non-compliance. Von Rundstedt tried to shorten his line of defense and was relieved of command. This situation would seem appropriate material for an optional or advanced rule much like NKZD troops for the soviets and yet no such rule is in evidence? Andrew From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 06:50:22 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05255; Fri, 5 Apr 96 06:50:21 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA02241 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 06:49:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA002468936; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 04:35:36 GMT Message-Id: <199604050435.AA002468936@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 5 Apr 96 04:35:36 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Fri, 5 Apr 96 04:35:16 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 04:33:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 7273927 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 92061 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: My $0.02 worth Status: O Content-Length: 3799 1. Re HITLER'S LEGIONS (by Samuel W. Mitcham Jr.): Sorry, Ray, but in my humble opinion this book is so poorly researched that it is dangerous to rely on. Mitcham is sloppy (and I have noted that in another one of his efforts). 2. Re German unit strengths: a discussion of German infantry division strengths, organizations etc. could go on forever. Actually, the Europa people have hit it right. Except for static units, the basic German infantry division until 1941 was triangular, three regiments each with three rifle battalions and an artillery battalion with four battalions, plus AT, recon and engineer battalions. The distinction came (as noted) in the type of personnel that was used to form the division and its equipment. Some had Czech equipment and what ever else the Germans could lay their hands on. The later waves ("Welle") may have had one less artillery battalion and reduced AT and recce units (later combined into the so-called "Schnelle-Abteilung"). Tessin (in his overview volume) tracks the shrinking of German infantry strengths. By 1943 the Germans, to recognize realities, created the Division nA which had three regiments of two rifle battalions each. The "Schnelle -Abteilung" became the "Fusilier Battalion" (usually on bicycles) and a separate AT battalion again appeared. It was supposed to include a company of SP guns. These are represented by the 5-7-6 Inf XX counter. A chrome rule might require any infantry division reduced to cadre after certain date (say Jul I 43) to be reformed as a 5-7-6 Inf XX. Therefore the 8-6 Inf XX are the divisions of Welle 1 and Welle 2; the 7-6 Inf XX are the other divisions formed up until Barbarossa; and the "emergency" divisions are the 6-6 Inf XX and 5-6 Inf XX of FiE/SE. These had reduced complements and some had two regiments each with three rifle battalions. The Germans began forming nine "Welle 10" infantry divisions in in June 1940 (plus the original 4.Gebirgs-Division). This was cancelled after France surrendered. Many of the Welle 4 (series beginning with 206 and composed of older men, "Landwehr") and Welle 5 (formed from replacement units, "ersatz") divisions were furloughed during 1940-1941. Some of the Welle 4 divisions were actually disbanded or converted into security divisions. There is a good discussion of this in THE GERMAN ARMY 1933-1945, by Albert Seaton, who notes that, "on 15 June [1940] the dictator ordered the immediate reduction of the army to an interim size of thirty motorized and ninety infantry divisions. Industrial and equipment priority was to be given to the Luftwaffe and the navy [!];" and that 17 divisions were disbanded and that the personnel of 18 were sent on leave "provided that they took jobs in industry or agriculture," and cadres were retained so that the divisions could be speedily reformed. Conclusion: the Europa system correctly models the strengths of German infantry divisions. Now can someone explain why American infantry divisions are rated so much higher than even the best British infantry divisions? :) Re Ultra and the Battle of the Bulge: from Dupuy's last book HITLER'S LAST GAMBLE, p. 361, "...at the higher levels of command -where the underestimate of German capabilities was most serious- the intelligence officers had come to rely too much on information from ULTRA. And German security measures denied ULTRA an opportunity to obtain information about the German plans." But see also Chapter 7 in ULTRA IN THE WEST, by Ralph Bennett, "it remains extraordinary that Ultra did not arouse more forbodings." Bennett worked in Hut 3 at Bletchley Park which handled army and luftwaffe Enigma signals. He notes that, by 1944, the Allies had broken the German State Railway's codes which gave information about troop movements. Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 07:34:57 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05558; Fri, 5 Apr 96 07:34:56 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA02579 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 07:32:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-4-5.ots.utexas.edu (slip-4-5.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.204.53]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id XAA05922 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:31:51 -0600 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:31:51 -0600 Message-Id: <199604050531.XAA05922@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: My $0.02 worth Status: O Content-Length: 1250 Jim Broshot said: >Therefore the 8-6 Inf XX are the divisions of Welle 1 and Welle 2; >the 7-6 Inf XX are the other divisions formed up until Barbarossa; Do I vaguely remember discussion that the original 8-6 ratings were based on some of the divisions being beefed up for Barbarossa? DNO included a pretty good number of 1-8 infantry IIs, and I seem to remember someone saying that they and the 8-6's were just different ways of showing the same thing. (But caveat emptor my vague memories: my post on 10-6 and 9-8 XXs was, well, wrong. A recent addition to the "famous firsts" at the GR/D page includes an excerpt from an article in TEM #4, which is probably what I thought I was remembering. The 10-6 was indeed a 9-battalion organization, but it was the 1st XX rather than the 44th. And the article says the 9-8's were reinforced 6-battalion organizations, so ignore my earlier misstatement on that.) And quoted: > "... Industrial >and equipment priority was to be given to the Luftwaffe and >the navy [!];" Seems reasonable to me -- *IF* he had not yet decided to invade the USSR. Thanks, everyone, for responses on Ultra vs. Bulge. - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 08:58:58 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05935; Fri, 5 Apr 96 08:58:56 +0200 Received: from arl-img-7.compuserve.com (arl-img-7.compuserve.com [198.4.7.7]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA03653 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 08:56:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by arl-img-7.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id BAA06519; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 01:56:01 -0500 Date: 05 Apr 96 01:52:36 EST From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com> To: Europa LIst Subject: Exciting logistics stuff Message-Id: <960405065235_74133.1765_BHR46-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 4922 ...(well, mildly interesting for some, maybe)... There's a nice harmony in the various Europa supply quantities that could provide a good framework for a much-needed logistics system. What I'm going to discuss here might be more involved than most players would like, but it could at least serve as a basis for evaluating a more abstract and playable alternative to the current supply system. It's reasonably accurate to say that a typical WWII division used 300 tons of supply a day while inactive, and another 300 in combat. We can call it roughly 100 tons each for general supply (GS) and combat supply (CS) per RE per day, or 1500 tons of each per RE per turn. [A US div is always described as using more, but that's often a reinforced div, or a "division slice", and besides, US trucking largely compensated by being bigger, better, and using lots of trailers.] If by the above premise, and according to Europa rules, 1/4 RE of supply provides GS and CS for an RE for a turn, an RE of supply would equal 12,000 tons. A minor port, with a 3 RE capacity, would clear 36,000 tons per turn, or 2400 per day, and a great port 19,200 per day. These are good, ballpark historical numbers. If a 1x RE transport counter can lift about 3000 men, at 12 men per truck that's 250 trucks. At 2.5 tons per truck, the same counter could be expected to carry 625 tons. A transport counter in Europa can move up to 40 hexes in a turn; with an adjusted movement factor of 8 to allow for loading and unloading , that would be 16 hexes round trip. The Red Ball Express could move supplies 16 hexes (in a round trip) in 52 hours - for about 7 round trips per turn. ("714 miles in 71.2 hours" - see Logistical Support of the Armies, Vol II, p135.) An average for the war might be 5 such round trips, which would amount to about 3000 tons moved 16 hexes by the equivalent of a transport counter in a turn - just about enough for GS and CS for 1 RE for 1 turn. [There's a discrepancy between an RE of supply being defined as 12,000 tons and a 1 RE xport counter moving only 3000 tons in a turn; much if not all of the difference can be attributed to the greater efficiency of ships and ports at bulk handling, and the relative inefficiency of ships at moving men (they have to provide living space and full support services).] So how can all this get translated into a logistical system? I've been experimenting with using HQ units of variable sizes to handle supply: An HQ is sized by a status marker placed under it: each step allows an HQ to supply 8 REs. (Thus the smallest HQ with a "1" status marker would represent a small independent corps.) For compatibility, a supply counter is defined as 1 RE in size, and to have enough tonnage (12,000) to provide 8 REs with GS _or_ CS for a turn. To be in general supply, and to attack, a 1-step HQ would therefore need 2 supply counters per turn. (BTW, I use "flank markers" placed under units on each flank of an army to keep track of who's being supplied by who.) The last piece of the puzzle is SMPs. An SMP represents trucking enough to move 1 supply counter 1 hex. Given the calculations above, where a 1 RE xport counter (250 trucks) could move enough GS and CS for 1 RE 16 hexes, that would equal GS + CS for 8 REs moved 2 hexes, which is equal to 2 supply counters moved 2 hexes, or 4 SMPs. Xport counters shouldn't be easily used as SMPs - my point is just to show the equivalence. The US averaged about 4500 trucks (about 72 SMPs as defined above) supporting the 1st and 3rd armies' advance in August '44. Let's say the 2 armies had 50 REs between them moving east (probably much less than that actually forward), and a total of 7 HQ steps. If a HQ acts as a supply head within 7 hexes of its units, then by looking at the front on 1 Sept. '44, I'd estimate that in Europa terms the 1st Army HQ would be at 17A:1502, and the 3rd at 16A:1932 - 16 and 19 hexes from Cherbourg (13 and 16 from the beaches). At this point it would take about 16 hexes times 7 hq steps, or 112 SMPs just to keep them in GS. By September they probably had as many as 6000 trucks moving supplies (about 100 SMPs) plus air supply, some rail, and various improvisations. (A Red Ball modifier might be appropriate here.) These are admittedly rough estimates, and lots of factors are ignored, but I think it illustrates the problem the Allies had in game terms, and I hope it shows that something like what I'm proposing is both "do-able" and indispensable to simulating the campaign. How hard is it to use supply counters and SMPs at this level? If you know you've got to move 8 steps of supply from Cherbourg 12 hexes to the Seine, it's as easy as 12x8. If you've got a hq sized at 4 steps, there's no need to count REs - it costs 4 supply counters to attack. And face it, how else are you ever going to be able to test Monty's "rapier-like" angry-as-a-rabbit thrust thru northern Germany? Jim From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 16:28:36 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA09045; Fri, 5 Apr 96 16:28:35 +0200 Received: from ns.corona.navy.mil (ns.corona.navy.mil [137.67.32.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA08867 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:27:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ccgate.corona.navy.mil (ccgate.corona.navy.mil [137.67.40.4]) by ns.corona.navy.mil (8.7.5/1.4) with SMTP id GAA27297 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 06:25:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from ccMail by ccgate.corona.navy.mil (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 1652e650; Fri, 5 Apr 96 06:29:57 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 06:17:14 -0800 Message-Id: <1652e650@ccgate.corona.navy.mil> From: renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil (Renaud.Gary) Subject: Web-pages & Multi-purpose airplanes To: europa@lysator.liu.se Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Status: O Content-Length: 2114 "Jason asked what we would like to see posted on the Website. My vote is for Designer's Notes/OoBs and scenarios. " My priorities are: 1. Everything from the TEMs that are out of stock (I don't have #5-7 and guess I never will) or will not be printed because they are too long or complex or whatever. 2. "Database" articles. Those which have tables or lists or OOBs or whatever that could be useful to have in a database or other computer format. As an example, the articles that listed all the airplanes the US flew, with their Europa ratings. (last) Straight text articles. I hate reading long passages of text from the screen. "What is, for instance, the difference between an Fw 190A heavy fighter (HF), regular day fighter (F), and ground attack (A). As far as I've been able to determine, in most cases the units in the field bolted hardware onto the wings to suit the mission at hand using "Rustsautze" conversion kits. The same Fw could go up as a regular fighter one day, have two 30mm cannon attached to it's wing the next day as a bomber killer (with a marked deterioration in performance), and round off the week as a Jagdbomber with a 1,000 kilo bomb carried on the centerline. " I don't know how to represent the HF vs. F mission. On the other hand, don't the rules ALREADY let a fighter with a Tactical Bombing value act as an attack plane, with a penalty on its air-to-air value? Maybe there's some subtle point I'm missing (probably...), but I can already use a P-47 as either a fighter or ground-attack plane from turn-to-turn. A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114 a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1 than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__ W: 909-273-5378 block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--' H: 714-750-9243 `-----''(_/--' `-'\_) DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge I HATE UNIX I CAN'T speak for this administration; I don't lie enough. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 18:47:17 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA09893; Fri, 5 Apr 96 18:47:16 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA10963 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 18:46:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA09878 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 10:38:15 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:45:59 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Hello and a Question Status: O Content-Length: 1261 >Q/ In the winter of 1941 Hilter sent a directive to his generals on the >eastern front forbiding them the option of retreat in the face of extreme >enemy pressure. . . . This situation would >seem appropriate material for an optional or advanced rule much like NKZD >troops for the soviets and yet no such rule is in evidence? I don't have time at present to dwell on this long, but Hitler's order didn't give the Germans NKVD no-retreat ability. Hitler issued the order not to give up ground uncontested on 18 Dec 41; Rundstedt had already been relieved in November for arguing with Hitler about holding Rostov. (Rundstedt was right, and the Germans had to retreat from Rostov anyway by the end of November.) It was Guderian who got the chop for making a voluntary retreat to better positions on 24 Dec. Note the term "voluntary retreat" above. The Germans by no means stopped retreated on 18 Dec. Instead, Hitler's order required them to contest any Soviet advance, but they could still (and did) withdraw when the Soviets piled on the pressure. The front kept rolling westwards until about late January 1941, when it mostly stablilized and when the Germans could launch some counterattacks. None of this seems to require any special rule in the game. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 18:47:17 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA09898; Fri, 5 Apr 96 18:47:16 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA10956 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 18:46:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA09874 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 10:38:02 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:45:44 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Multi-role aircraft (was Luft pet-peeves) Status: O Content-Length: 480 >Perry, > >Great exact post on German field mods. Keep up the good work! > >Ray Yes, indeed. Also, for the Fw 190s, the ground attack versions went to the ground attack units (Schlachtgruppen) and to pilots who neither had fighter pilot training nor flew fighter operations. (The Fw 190s replaced the obsolete Ju 87s.) Thus, even though various attack Fw 190s could be configured for fighter operations, this doesn't mean their pilots magically acquired fighter pilot skills. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 21:03:43 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10953; Fri, 5 Apr 96 21:03:42 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA12865 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 21:02:21 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA080050121; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 18:48:41 GMT Message-Id: <199604051848.AA080050121@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 5 Apr 96 18:48:41 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Fri, 5 Apr 96 18:47:17 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 18:50:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 3690666 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 399796 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: The Sino-Japanese Conflict Status: O Content-Length: 4465 The Sino-Japanese Conflict - Massachusetts Playtest Nov I 37 Japanese Player Turn Clear weather holds out over virtually all of China. In an effort to crack the staunch Chinese defense of Shanghai, General Matsui led the newly arrived 18th division on an amphibious assault along the northern shore of Hangchow Bay. The world witnessed the first use of the MLCC (Military Landing Craft Carrier) under combat conditions during the landings. The first wave of the assault, executed by the 23rd and 35th infantry brigades (organic to the 18th division) and the divisional engineers was unopposed and the force turned westward to attack the partial hex city of Hangchow. Massive air battles ensued in the skies over Hangchow, as Chinese bombers attempted to lend defensive air support. However, Chinese Hawk III and Mxd F fighters were ineffective in shielding the bombers from Japanese Naval fighters (A4N1s and A5M2 Claudes). Both the Gamma 2E and the Mxd B Chinese bomber units were eliminated in by the interceptors. Heavily supported by NGS fire from the Imperial Japanese Navy, elements of the 18th division took Hangchow destroying the defending Chinese 48th division thus securing the vital major port intact. The second wave, consisting of the 114th division and the remainder of the 18th division (the HQ and lt. tank company) came ashore leaving the Japanese with two divisions and a major port in a flanking position south of the main Chinese line of resistance in the Shanghai area. In Shanghai proper, the Shanghai Expeditionary Force undertook a risky 2:1 attack (due to lack of attack supply). Japanese combat engineers were employed (allowing a +1) and the attack was successful forcing the Chinese 71st corp to retreat beyond the city limits. The Japanese now control 6 of the 7 Shanghai hexes. The Chinese situation in the region has become tenuous at best. In the north, while continuing to regroup, the North China Area Army managed to assault and capture Tsinan, the Capital of Shantung province, destroying several Shantung provincial divisions in combat. However, the battle resulted in an EX forcing the Japanese to lose the 20th Reserve division. Other minor skirmishes and overruns occured in the north, but the primary focus was to regroup and stockpile supplies for an upcoming thrust southward. The Chinese 46th corp, a continuing thorn in the Japanese side, continue to hold Shihkiachuang blocking the principle rail line southward through Hopei Province from Peiping (Beijing) to Hankow in the heartland of China. Nov I 37Chinese Player Turn With Hangchow lost and the south flank of their defensive line compromised, the Chinese commanders in Central China faced difficult strategic decisions. Hoping to showcase Chinese determination to western observers inthe Shanghai International Concession, Chiang Kai-shek decides to maintain the vigil in Shanghai and its environs as long as humanly possible, thereby risking the bulk of the best Nationalist units to isolation. In an effort to forestall a strike out of Hangchow, the southern flank of the Chinese defense line has swung 90 degrees to a lateral east-west line along the southern shores of Tai Hu (Lake). In the north, the Chinese continued to build a defensive line along the Hwang Ho (Yellow River) in anticipation of the inevitable southward thrust. In the first appearance of guerillas during the conflict, two guerilla regiments sally forth from the Communist Huai-pei Base menacing the Pinghan railway. Occurances of general sabotage are becoming more prevalent throught northern China. While the west has been quick with verbal condemnation of the Japanese assault on China, the Soviet Union has come through with men and materials. The flow of Soviet supplies and resources from Odessa to Canton has begun in earnest. Further, two "volunteer" VVS air units arrive in Central China. The units, composed of I-152s and SB-2s, are manned by Soviet pilots and ground crews. Moreover, enough I-152s were delivered to the Chinese Air Force (CAF) to equip another air unit flown by Chinese pilots. With their new found strength, the CAF immediately runs a bombing operation directly into the heart of the IJN fighter strength overShanghai. The Chinese I-152 escort is downed by Japanese interceptors and the SB-2, running an airbase bombing mission, misses its target. However, the Soviet fighters manage to abort the IJN A2N1 figher unit. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 5 21:12:12 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10996; Fri, 5 Apr 96 21:12:10 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA12961 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 21:11:59 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA089940704; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 18:58:24 GMT Message-Id: <199604051858.AA089940704@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 5 Apr 96 18:58:24 UTC 0000 ( from INET02# ; Fri, 5 Apr 96 18:58:08 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 19:05:00 UTC 0000 To: a.lunny%freenet.hamilton.on.ca%inet#@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 0173912 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 650487 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Hello and a Question Status: O Content-Length: 901 Reply: Item #1088423 from A.LUNNY@FREENET.HAMILTON.ON.CA@INET#on 96/04/04 at 23:42 > Q/ In the winter of 1941 Hilter sent a directive to his generals on the > eastern front forbiding them the option of retreat in the face of extreme > enemy pressure. From my readings on the outcome of this directive I could > only find one instance of non-compliance. Von Rundstedt tried toshorten > his line of defense and was relieved of command. This situation would > seem appropriate material for an optional or advanced rule much like NKZD > troops for the soviets and yet no such rule is in evidence? > Andrew I suspect the Hitler directive, at Europa's scale, is applicable to a strategic withdrawal which is under the control of the player and not the tactical retreat which is the result of local combat. When you're looking down the barrel of a 76mm gun, you retreat - directive or not. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 6 00:58:10 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12096; Sat, 6 Apr 96 00:58:08 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA16159 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 00:57:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA10884 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:48:38 -0500 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 17:56:18 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: The Sino-Japanese Conflict Status: O Content-Length: 320 >The Sino-Japanese Conflict Great stuff! Sounds like a fun game. I hope M. Royer saves his post and submits them to TEM with a sketch map -- could make an interesting article. If you have the time, what are the ratings of the aircraft you mention in the post. I'm guessing that the best fighter would be about 3F3! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 6 01:23:32 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12282; Sat, 6 Apr 96 01:23:31 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA16472 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 01:23:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA00110 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Fri, 5 Apr 1996 18:23:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199604052323.AA00110@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 5 Apr 1996 18:23:04 -0500 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa Subject: Luft-peeves Date: Fri, 05 Apr 96 18:14:00 EST Encoding: 32 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 1813 Thanks for the additional info on rustsautze. I still feel there should be a limtied capability for choosing the profile of your multirole capable aircraft. It is difficult to fit some multipurpose planes wide range of abilities onto one counter. The genesis of my posting was that the level of pseudo-detail creeping into the air system (in the form of multiple sub-type counters for each model of each of the luftwaffe's better known planes) is threatening to swallow up factors that are not covered at all at this time. Pilot quality is vastly more important than aircraft quality, but is covered in a fairly static fashion in Europa. Germans get more bang per pilot as do the US and GB, the Soviets about 50% less. (40 vs 60 a/c per counter). In addition the Germans, Italians and Finns get fighter pilot superiority vs Soviet non-guards. This does not seem to address the drastic fall-off in quality that the Luftwaffe day-fighters experienced in 1944-45 as the infrastrucure for providing combat ready pilots collapsed. Do the numbers of pilots per Luftwaffe counter increase? Should you reach a critical point of Reich-wide fuel shortage at which fighter pilot superiority is lost vs Soviets, and eventually a point at which aliied fighter pilots gain superiority. This would represent the crippling fuel shortage cutting back even further the limited flying time of pilot trainees. Until we address these issues, I vote for a simpler Air OoB. I do not (yet) advocate a "bomber in a plain brown wrapper gets intercepted by a generic fighter" system, but in truth the current system is exaggerating techinical minutiae at the expense of the more important factors of individual training and doctrine. Haya Safari Patrick Haugh Washington D.C. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 6 02:02:46 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12486; Sat, 6 Apr 96 02:02:45 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA16791 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 02:01:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 05 Apr 1996 19:00:49 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 21:06:58 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, pjh3@mhg.edu Subject: Re: Luft-peeves Status: O Content-Length: 990 On 4/5/96, Pat Haugh sent in: >This does not seem to address the drastic fall-off in quality >that the Luftwaffe day-fighters experienced in 1944-45 as >the infrastrucure for providing combat ready pilots >collapsed. Do the numbers of pilots per Luftwaffe counter >increase? >Should you reach a critical point of Reich-wide fuel >shortage at which fighter pilot superiority is lost vs Soviets, >and eventually a point at which aliied fighter pilots gain >superiority. This would represent the crippling fuel >shortage cutting back even further the limited flying time of >pilot trainees. It is my understanding, from some long-ago communications about the time that FitE came out, that POL constraints and pilot quality were built into the system in the GA and reinforcement/replacement rates for aircraft, which made sense to me. Now that this system has changed significantly, however, it may be time to call for a re-evaluation of what this all really means. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 6 03:10:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12785; Sat, 6 Apr 96 03:10:48 +0200 Received: from psyche.the-wire.com (psyche.the-wire.com [198.53.192.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA17668 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 03:10:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mhughes.the-wire.com (mhughes.the-wire.com [205.206.32.167]) by psyche.the-wire.com (8.6.10/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA23692 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 20:09:14 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 20:09:14 -0500 Message-Id: <199604060109.UAA23692@psyche.the-wire.com> X-Sender: mhughes@psyche.the-wire.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: mhughes@the-wire.com (Marian Hughes) Subject: multi-role fighters Status: O Content-Length: 2286 On Aircraft Types:Complexity of system: Matter of opinion - what matters is to balance the level of the ground game with that of the air. Personally I think that showing the difference between F and HF balances making a distinction between Full AEC and Half AEC. How far one goes is a matter of taste - when working on the 'new' system I know that some thought that an H for High Level Fighter should be added - certainly it would show the superiority of aircraft like the Spit XIV better than adding extra factors. I note that the 'younger' members of our Europa group (younger is very relative bearing my age in mind!) are far more interested in the difference in rating between a Spit 9 and an Fw 190A2 than in that between Panzer and Armoured Divisions. On Multi Function use of Fighters: John Astell is quite correct - any high powered single engine plane could be used as a fighter, but the question is were the pilots trained in the function. I have never come across an example of FB versions of the 190A intercepting or even initiating fighter combat against the British in 1942. Granted, they dogfought when intercepted, but that ability is reflected in their A rating. Multi-function fighter action was very rare in the European air forces. The doctrine seems to more common, at least in theory, in the US forces. 9th Air Force fighter groups were supposed to be equally capable of both ground and air combat. In practise, this demand seems to have limited their effectiveness in both roles - at least this was the perception of British squadrons of 2nd TAF. Tempest and Typhoon units in particular became upset at the sloppy quality of 9th AF aircraft identification. Several nasty (and hushed up) dog fights ensued - in one case 9th AF fighters made six successive attacks on innocent C-47's before being (the word used was 'dispersed') by their RAF escorts! The other proponent on multi-use fighters was the US Navy in the latter stages of the Pacific War. But note that by this stage the overwhelming Allied superiority made the issue moot. Interestingly, the British Pacific Fleet retained specialised roles and trained its pilots almost exclusively in the aircrafts major role- its Seafires remained pure fighters - its Corsairs became pure ground attack aircraft. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 6 05:03:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13174; Sat, 6 Apr 96 05:03:48 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA18633 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 05:02:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-18-4.ots.utexas.edu (slip-18-4.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.128.100]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA20856 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 21:00:33 -0600 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 21:00:33 -0600 Message-Id: <199604060300.VAA20856@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: The Sino-Japanese Conflict Status: O Content-Length: 409 >>The Sino-Japanese Conflict > ... > >If you have the time, what are the ratings of the aircraft you mention in >the post. I'm guessing that the best fighter would be about 3F3! I've also been curious about the ratings of ground units. What are ratings of "typical" XXs, and maybe a few elite/exotic units? No need to type up the entire OB! - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 6 06:02:54 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13382; Sat, 6 Apr 96 06:02:52 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA19017 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 06:02:29 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA021452533; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 03:48:53 GMT Message-Id: <199604060348.AA021452533@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sat, 6 Apr 96 03:48:53 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Sat, 6 Apr 96 03:47:20 UTC 0000) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 96 03:50:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 2253163 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 407076 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: The Sino-Japanese Conflict Status: O Content-Length: 1198 Reply: Item #5792662 from EUROPA@LYSATOR.LIU.SE@INET#on 96/04/05 at 16:56 > Great stuff! Sounds like a fun game. I hope M. Royer saves his post and > submits them to TEM with a sketch map -- could make an interesting article. Thanks! Actually, Rick Gayler, as one of his last editorial actions, captured the first few turns off of GEnie and says that they will appear in TEM 47 as a Glory teaser. > Ifyou have the time, what are the ratings of the aircraft you mention in > the post. I'm guessing that the best fighter would be about 3F3! Good Guess! These are the ratings currently in use for the aircraft. Most of the ratings come fromArthur Goodwin and Jason Long. However, they are not official as Arthur, etal., has only reviewed a portion of them. Japanese IJA Ki-10 2F3 0/12 K1-3 1A2 1/12 Ki-1 1B1 1-2/12 Ki-2-I 1B1 L 1/16 Japanese IJN A4N1 2F2 C 0/8 A5M2 3F3 C 0/11 D1A1 1D1 C 2/12 G3M2 2B3 2-4/32 B4Y1 1A1 CV 2/17 Chinese Air Force & VVS Curtis Hawk II 1F2 0/6 Curtis Hawk III 2F2 0/6 I-152 3F2 0/6 SB-2 2A2 1-1/16 Northrup Gamma 2E 2A2 1-1/25 Douglas O2MC 1B1 L 1/9 -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 6 09:56:22 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14113; Sat, 6 Apr 96 09:56:20 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA20613 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 09:55:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id DAA15354; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 03:28:10 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 03:28:09 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Or What? my wish list. Luft-peeves Cc: europa In-Reply-To: <199604042323.AA17017@medlantic.mhg.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1437 We considered making a number of German fighter units multi-role, but only interms of switching between bomber killer and regular fighter roles as the 190 and 109 could, as you mentioned, bolt on extra guns for the former role. We decided that it was too much trouble and we'd have to provide extra counters when everything possible needed to be done to minimize the number of counters. The HF type 190s in the counter mix represent the rammjaegers; aircraft that were heavily armored and armed to go in close and kill bombers. These units were designated sturm by the Luftwaffe, making our tracking of them much easier. II (Sturm)/JG 4 and IV (Sturm)/JG 3 were the two most prominent such units. All type A 190s were flown by the specialist ground-attack Schlachtgeschwadern, many of which had previously flown Stukas and Hs 129s. Ground attack was a difficult skill to master which is why the ordinary fighter units have much weaker TBFs than the type As despte being able to carry about as much of a bombload. Conversely the type As cannot go out a cruise for enemy aircraft despite the fact that II/SG 2 shot down over 160 aircraft over the Crimea in '44. I'd translate that success into Europa terms as successful rolls against Soviet aircraft trying to intercept them. The jabo staffeln assigned to many fighter units were either added as reinforcements and giving a select few lots of extra training. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 6 10:16:04 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14167; Sat, 6 Apr 96 10:16:03 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA20767 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 10:15:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id DAA15412; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 03:48:12 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 03:48:11 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Luft-peeves Cc: europa In-Reply-To: <199604052323.AA00110@medlantic.mhg.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 597 I've already dealt with a number of the ways in which I dealt with the German pilot degradation, but forgot to mention one more. Most fighter gruppen converted to the 4 staffeln of 16 aircraft apiece during the summer fall of '44. This was mostly ignored when working out the air OBs despite the increase by a factor of 50% in strength, from approx 40 to 68 or so. I don't believe that in most games the Luftwaffe can put up any real resistance to the Allies by summer/fall '44. Seems pretty accurate to me, enough so that additional penalties of DRMs and the like seem unnecessary. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 6 14:00:48 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14720; Sat, 6 Apr 96 14:00:46 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA22303 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:00:02 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA291541184; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:46:25 GMT Message-Id: <199604061146.AA291541184@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sat, 6 Apr 96 11:46:24 UTC 0000 ( from inet01# ; Sat, 6 Apr 96 11:46:18 UTC 0000) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 96 11:30:00 UTC 0000 To: bdbryant%mail.utexas.edu%inet#@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 0195102 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 119978 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: The Sino-Japanese Conflict Status: O Content-Length: 2318 Reply: Item #7752739 from BDBRYANT@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU@INET#on 96/04/05 at 22:00 > I've also been curious about the ratings of ground units. What are ratings > of "typical" XXs, and maybe a few elite/exotic units? No need to type up the > entire OB! At the start of the game, most of the Japanese divisions are large (22,000 man) square formations. In game terms, these units have a unique, two-tiered breakdown structure first breaking into two brigades which can then (at the Japanese player's option) immediately break into two regiments each. 10-6 Inf XX 1 x 6 Inf XX HQ 1 x 1-6 Eng III 1 x 1-0-8 Lt. Arm I 2 x 4-6 Inf X 2 x 2-6 Inf III Between 1937 and the start of the Pacific War, the Japanese reorganized their divisions into the more modern triangular form. These units rate 7-6 Inf XX. Many of both the square and triangular divisions are self-supported, representing the shortage of large artillery pieces and the employment of mountain guns in the divisional artillery roll. Japanese cadre's are generally a point or so higher than their European counterparts, reflecting the Japanese Code of Bushido. Chinese forces come in several flavors: Typical provincial division: 1-4 Inf XX (unsupported) "Quality" provincial div: 1-2-5 Inf XX (unsupported) Typical nationalist div: 3-5* Inf XX "Elite" Nationalist div: 4-6 Inf XX Communist div: 7-5 Inf XX (unsupported) The provincial units were essentially armies of self-interested warlords who pledged various degrees of allegiance to the Nationalist government. These units form the bulk of the Chinese army. The "Elite" Generalissimo's-Own were 10 German trained and equipped divisions which formed the backbone of the Central Army. However, most of these unitswere squandered in Shanghai in the first year of the war. Both the 3-5* and 4-6 divs are fragile, being replaced by unsupported 1-4's. The Communists, at this time, were arguably the best trained and disciplined units in the Chinese Army (except for possibly the Generalissimo's Own). At the outset of the conflict, they fielded three 20,000 (or so) man divisions, but were totally lacking in support equipment. Again, all of this is still unofficial, pending detailed review by GR/D. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 6 21:17:46 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16403; Sat, 6 Apr 96 21:17:45 +0200 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA26790 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:16:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ab12639; 6 Apr 96 20:15 +0100 Received: from consecon.demon.co.uk ([158.152.9.235]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa14169; 6 Apr 96 19:00 +0100 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:09:48 +0100 To: Keith Pardue Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Reg Danford-Cordingley Subject: Re: Red Dog's Pet Peeves In-Reply-To: <9604022253.AA10654@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.10 Status: O Content-Length: 2134 In message <9604022253.AA10654@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA>, Keith Pardue writes snip... Dear Keith and all, Balkan Front was the first Europa game I ever bought so didn't notice the counter colour discrepancy until I bought FITE! I though the counters in both FITE & BF were good! The maps in BF were great too. As you say FTF was different story and I did have to glue some of them together again while I was punching them out. I had the same problem with the SE reprint. I haven't punched the SF ones out yet, but the Brits are a bit blotchy which is sad (being a Brit!). The FWTBT & AWW counters seem great! Its very difficult to criticise GRD because they are doing this part- time out of love. People should really appreciate what they have done to keep Europa going. If it wasn't for them, I would never have been able to buy any of the Europa games new. (I have bought some of the old GDW ones second hand). I would agree that the rules books seem to be getting bigger and bigger which is a bit off-putting. I do however love the detail and care that went into the OBs. In fact the OBs are the main reason I buy the games since I play solo when I can find the time and the space. It would be great if GRD could reissue the counters in one job lot, but it would be a lot of work for them and it is a bit unfair to expect them to pay for it all, do we want to put GRD out of business? I don't know what the solution might be, it is very disappointing to pay a lot of money for a game (they are quite pricey over here, SF was about 80 Pounds or so) and find that the counters aren't up to scratch. I remember an issue of Europa in which Winston explained the mechanics of printing a sheet of counters and there are plenty of places where things can go wrong....perhaps the best idea is to use the company that did AWW or FWTBT and appoint a QA person to ensure that everything is top-quality. After all, GRD's reputation is on the line here, there seem to be some unhappy people out there! Finally, I love the smaller games like AWW, BF and FWTBT. Cheers, RDC -- Reg Danford-Cordingley From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 6 21:43:17 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16469; Sat, 6 Apr 96 21:43:16 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA26988 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:42:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-35-7.ots.utexas.edu (slip-35-7.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.112.23]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA25340 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 13:42:07 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 13:42:07 -0600 Message-Id: <199604061942.NAA25340@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Red Dog's Pet Peeves Status: O Content-Length: 337 RDC said: >I had the same problem with the SE reprint. Other than these two recent posts, I was not aware of this reprint. Does it have updated materials, such as 3rd-generation maps, SF-style icons on the units, and back-printed air units, or is it simply a reprint? - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 6 23:54:08 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16954; Sat, 6 Apr 96 23:54:07 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA28065 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 23:53:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA25670 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:53:20 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:53:20 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Air Counters Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 870 I for one do not have any problem with the different counters and typing for the air units that did different jobs, a la the FW-190 debate that has been going on. My peeve is changing a counter for a one point factor change. As in: P-38g's that replace P-38f's, for one extra hex of range. That extra range is a very arguable point, i.e. effectiveness at max range. I hate to see a counter mix that is limited in numbers be wasted on such. And the time to dig up these counters. Example: we are currently playing SF on a 4 x 7 foot table that holds the maps and most of the corps and breakdown charts. Next to this we have most of an 8 x 8 foot table that hold a few more charts and has all the counters spread out so we can find them quickly. And sometimes we still can't find what we're looking for. Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 00:12:15 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17041; Sun, 7 Apr 96 00:12:14 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA28211 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:11:58 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA139247898; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:58:18 GMT Message-Id: <199604062158.AA139247898@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sat, 6 Apr 96 21:58:18 UTC 0000 ( from INET02# ; Sat, 6 Apr 96 21:58:07 UTC 0000) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 96 22:03:00 UTC 0000 To: bdbryant%mail.utexas.edu%inet#@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 1604913 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 657952 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Red Dog's Pet Peeves Status: O Content-Length: 362 Reply: Item #3770514 from BDBRYANT@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU@INET#on 96/04/06 at 14:42 > Other than these two recent posts, I was not aware of this reprint. Does it > have updated materials, such as 3rd-generation maps, SF-style icons on the > units, and back-printed air units, or is it simply a reprint? Its simply a reprint with some errata taken care of. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 00:25:07 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17089; Sun, 7 Apr 96 00:25:06 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA28293 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:24:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA00038 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sat, 6 Apr 1996 16:24:44 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 16:24:43 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Reg Dog reply Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2628 Michael Funderburke (aka Red Dog) really opened a can of worms here! I would like to add my thoughts too. I would agree with all those who have voted their thanks to John, Winston and the crew of GR/D for keeping the system going. Without them none of us would be concerned with anything any of us are saying. To the cost of the games, I do not really complain. $100 for SF divided by the hundreds of hours I will play it is not much of an expense for the entertainment. Although I would see where those who collect the games and never have the chance to play them would look at that differently. I am more concerned when I invest those hundreds of hours to then come up against victory conditions that belittle all that time spent. I do not complain about the physical production problems. I am just disappointed that after the Urals, FtF, BF, aWW, SE reprint, they would still have those problems. How many times have I heard Winston state that `now we've got the suppliers that will do the job', only to find him soon saying that those guys were bums. And lets remember those other companies correctly. My Case White German air counters were mis-cut. I just didn't use them. Who needed air units to overrun the Poles? Yes the Gamers put out fine games. I played Stalingrad Pocket a lot. They did send out, free of charge, correction and expansion counters with the errata. Fine and dandy. But in that errata they decided to change the ZoC movement costs from +2 to leave to +2 to enter a zone. Boy does that make obsolete all your previous playings, and make dicey a game between players with one not having seen that errata. My biggest concern is that the powers that be (basicly John?) are not willing to change the Europa system to make it better. The biggest part of that is that they like the way the games plays now, whereas I for one do not like the way the game plays now. They have often stated that they will only change something if overwhelming evidence proves a change needed. And in some areas where I have seen that evidence provided, the response is still, NO. After all they like the way it plays now. I hope that this mailing list will, among other info providers, give enough constructive criticism, new data and points of change, that we will be able to advance the system as we march towards GE. It will not help any if some try to hurl bad guy labels at GR/D. They are wonderful guys that just don't happen to agree with wonderful guys like me. I hope we can change that. Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 01:19:45 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17220; Sun, 7 Apr 96 01:19:44 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA28742 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 01:19:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA06978 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:19:03 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:19:03 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: EuropaFest Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1108 I have a suggestion for this year's EuropaFest in Columbus at Origins. I felt the EuropaFest at Fort Worth had been a really useful one with some seminars that brought up good topics and had good information. But the Europafests at San Jose and last year at Philadelphia had adequate seminars, but not up to previous standards. Having contacted the Andon people it seems the pre-registration stuff is just about to come out. So any Europafest seminars already are set up presumably. But if they are along the same lines as the last two years, I would suggest that we either set up some additional get togethers, or possibly plan on restructuring seminars already in place. I would like to see some of the topics that have been brought up in this mailing list, brought up at Origins. Some of us will be there, although we do have some regulars posting here from points far away. If we can pre set up agendas and start off points for discussion we may be able to have some very useful and constructive meetings that affect the future of GE. Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 01:33:10 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17249; Sun, 7 Apr 96 01:33:09 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA28820 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 01:32:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-25-14.ots.utexas.edu (slip-25-14.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.111.46]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA26863 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:28:35 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:28:35 -0600 Message-Id: <199604062328.RAA26863@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: The Sino-Japanese Conflict Status: O Content-Length: 590 Thanks, Mark, for the additional info. Of course, I have another crop of questions. 1) Are the lt. arm. companies treated as 1/2 RE for AEC? (Do the games even use AEC?) 2) Do those large Japanese divisions stack as an ordinary division? Both these questions raise my curiosity about the WWI series of games. Will tank units have AEC? Will the games be in some sense "unit compatible"? (This would mean the air units would have to be *really* weak, if a good fighter was 3/3 in 1937!) Does anyone know the plans on this? - Bobby From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 01:36:27 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17266; Sun, 7 Apr 96 01:36:26 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA28829 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 01:36:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA09208 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:35:58 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:35:58 -0600 From: conrad alan b To: j.broshot@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: My $0.02 worth In-Reply-To: <199604050435.AA002468936@relay1.geis.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1479 On Fri, 5 Apr 1996 j.broshot@genie.com wrote: > 1. Re HITLER'S LEGIONS (by Samuel W. Mitcham Jr.): Sorry, Ray, but > in my humble opinion this book is so poorly researched that it is > dangerous to rely on. Mitcham is sloppy (and I have noted that in > another one of his efforts). > 2. Re German unit strengths: a discussion of German infantry > division strengths, organizations etc. could go on forever. > Actually, the Europa people have hit it right. Good post! A book I have found very useful here is: Forgotten Legions: German Army Infantry Policy 1918-1941, by S.J. Lewis. It has a very good listing of the way the German army raised, equipped and used infantry. He gives a lot of tactical evidence of the way the war affected the infantry. One of Lewis's points is that German infantry divisions did equally as well in many cases as the German armor that is so usually lauded. I have seen, more than once, data and quotes as to the understrength of the German army going into Barbarossa. I could not find such a quote in Lewis, although he did quote Halder saying that on September 1, 1941, "at the front" 142 divisions were "lacking" 700,000 men. Since I do not remember the casualties being that high to that date, and there had been replacements sent to the front (Army Group Center had received 151,000 replacements to offset 219,000 casualties thru 9-26-41), to me that alone shows that the army was understrength. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 01:52:06 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17306; Sun, 7 Apr 96 01:52:05 +0200 Received: from mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (grunt.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA28994 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 01:51:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nbc.ksu.ksu.edu (danley@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.5]) by mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA01158; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:51:31 -0600 Received: by nbc.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12/1.34) id RAA19795; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:51:28 -0600 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:51:27 -0600 (CST) From: Mark H Danley To: m.royer3@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: The Sino-Japanese Conflict In-Reply-To: <199604061146.AA291541184@relay1.geis.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1179 On Sat, 6 Apr 1996 m.royer3@genie.com wrote: > At the start of the game, most of the Japanese divisions are large (22,000 man) > square formations. In game terms, these units have a unique, two-tiered > breakdown structure first breaking into two brigades which can then (at the > Japanese player's option) immediately break into two regiments each. > > 10-6 Inf XX > 1 x 6 Inf XX HQ > 1 x 1-6 Eng III > 1 x 1-0-8 Lt. Arm I > 2 x 4-6 Inf X > 2 x 2-6 Inf III Very interesting! Briefly, what made you decide to include in breakdown components specialized divisional support units like armor and engineers as actual manuever units that make up the division? In European armies as shown in Europa, all you get when you break down the div. is usually the manuever units (brigades or regiments) and the HQ, representing other division assets (art. engineers, antitank I', AA, etc.) I see the a Japanese division has a whole engineer regiment rather than just a battalion - does size has something to do with it? I realize this is a complex question, but I was just curious, since we hardly ever see breakdowns in Europa like that. Mark From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 02:03:23 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17358; Sun, 7 Apr 96 02:03:22 +0200 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA29049 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 02:03:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: EuropaStag@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA06906; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 19:02:33 -0500 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 19:02:33 -0500 Message-Id: <960406190232_186053737@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Air Counters Status: O Content-Length: 562 In a message dated 96-04-06 17:14:06 EST, you write: > I for one do not have any problem with the different counters and >typing for the air units that did different jobs, a la the FW-190 debate >that has been going on. I agree here > My peeve is changing a counter for a one point factor change. As >in: P-38g's that replace P-38f's, for one extra hex of range. I would rather HAVE the counter for the F's If you dislike the detail just put all the P38s in one cup and draw the reinforecements from them. ie: do not keep tract of the subtypes. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 04:47:28 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18125; Sun, 7 Apr 96 04:47:27 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA00805 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 04:46:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.37.46] (gw5-046.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA15015 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Sun, 7 Apr 1996 03:46:40 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 03:49:04 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Peeves about Luft-Peeves Status: O Content-Length: 4468 Patrick wrote: >The genesis of my posting was that the level of pseudo-detail >creeping >into the air system (in the form of multiple sub-type >counters for each >model of each of the luftwaffe's better known >planes) is threatening to >swallow up factors that are not >covered at all at this time. I must disagree. The difference between an Fw.190A2 and an Fw.190A8 is well worth showing as they really were significantly different. My only grouse is the same detail is lacking for the Allies. =46or example: The Spitfire V, one of the more important RAF fighters on the mid-war period, is displayed as a single type. However, the Spit 5 was produced with 14 different engines...so lets have 14 different counter types - Sorry, just joking ;-) In 'Europa' terms, the only important distinction is between the F, LF and HF versions (and that is important). Whereas most Spitfire Vs had the Merlin 45 or 46 engines with float carburettor, later production Spitfire 5B and 5C were produced as the LF 5B or LF 5C, featuring the improved Merlin 50M/56M. The Merlin 50M engines featured a diaphragm type 'negative-G' carburettor plus a re-ratioed supercharger, giving these Spitfire variants the same speed at low altitudes as an early Fw.190A. It also featured clipped wings to improve rate of roll (although most Spitfire LF versions had clipped wings, LF refers to the engine/supercharger combination and not the wing type. This is a common mistake in many books about the Spit, which state that an LF is a clip-winged Spit=8Anot strictly true). Extensive tests at Boscombe Down showed the Spit LF 5 (-B or -C) to be significantly superior to the *normal* Spit 5 in most respects below 12,000 ft. These LF kites should be broken out as they were at measurably less of a disadvantage vs. the Fw.190A, although certainly not their equal (I would suggest 7F7, up from 7F6). The diaphragm carburettor was not a complete solution to the problems of negative-G (that did not happen until the Bendix-Stromberg fuel injector on the Merlin 66/70), as it allowed negative-G only for a short period. However, it was good enough to go into a transitional negative-G manoeuvre without immediately loosing the engine. This matters as most later production Spitfire Vs were LF variants. >Pilot quality is vastly more important than aircraft quality, >but is >covered in a fairly static fashion in Europa. Too sweeping a statement, Patrick. Sure, pilot quality *is* important, but no amount of skill will save you if the other guy has a much better kite. Even a *really* good RAF pilot in a Spitfire V is at a *major* disadvantage against ever an average skill Luftwaffe pilot in an Fw.190A2. Likewise, read Willi Johnen's book 'Duel under the Stars' or Gebhard Aders book 'History of the German Nightfighter Force' to see how even a fabulous pilot like Johnen could not nail a Mosquito. To look at it from your point of view however, at the most **extreme** end of skill levels, Oblt. Welter nailed 35 of the 50 confirmed German nightfighter kills of Mosquitoes. Yet this is freaky stuff (like Rudel, the flying can-opener): the fact is that all the other brilliant German nightfighter pilots did very poorly as Mosquitojagers: no reflection on their skill - the Mossie was just a better aircraft. Don't get me wrong: skill matters, but only to a point. (snip) >Until we address these issues, I vote for a simpler Air OoB. I >do not >(yet) advocate a "bomber in a plain brown wrapper gets >intercepted by a >generic fighter" system =3D:-O Off with his head! ..Okay, I've calmed down now :-) Actually, as I have posted before, I advocate a *broad church* approach with modular rules. As far as I am concerned, you can have your simplified air units (use a rule along the lines of: A USAAF *F* counter has a generic value of x at x date) using any old air counter (ignore the printed factors). For those of us who are aviation/naval oriented, we want more, not less, detail. We want air rules that track altitude into two bands (Hi/Lo), electronic warfare and proper command & control rules. >but in truth the current system is exaggerating techinical >minutiae at >the expense of the more important factors of >individual training and >doctrine. To reiterate, the air war is primarily, not tangentially, a matter of technology. Training certainly matters, but not more than the type of kite being flown. Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 05:08:15 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18174; Sun, 7 Apr 96 05:08:14 +0200 Received: from postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu [128.146.214.20]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA00991 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 05:07:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip1-47.acs.ohio-state.edu by postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (8.6.9/5.901231) id WAA00867; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 22:07:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 22:07:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199604070307.WAA00867@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> X-Sender: mpitcava@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: mpitcava@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark Pitcavage) Subject: Re: EuropaFest X-Mailer: Status: O Content-Length: 173 Who is going to be at Origins? I will, of course, since the convention center is only about two miles away... Dr. Mark Pitcavage http://www.greyware.com/authors/pitman From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 06:03:34 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18333; Sun, 7 Apr 96 06:03:33 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA01387 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 06:03:06 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA146348965; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 03:49:25 GMT Message-Id: <199604070349.AA146348965@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sun, 7 Apr 96 03:49:25 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Sun, 7 Apr 96 03:47:08 UTC 0000) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 03:53:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 5956796 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 420022 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: The Sino-Japanese Conflict Status: O Content-Length: 1357 Reply: Item #4915166 from EUROPA@LYSATOR.LIU.SE@INET#on 96/04/06 at 18:28 > 1) Are the lt. arm. companies treated as 1/2 RE for AEC? (Do the games even > use AEC?) Yes. The lt. armor company is a 1/2 AEC capable, 1/2 RE unit. > 2) Do those large Japanese divisions stack as an ordinary division? They do stack as ordinary divisions. However, they (the 10-6's only) are currently treated as 4 REs in size. > what made you decide to include in breakdown components specialized divisional > support units like armor and engineers as actual manuever units that make up > the division? Historically, the divisions operated broken down as often as not. Much of the mechanized forces available to the Japanese in China were officially organic to the divisions, but often (maybe even usually) operated separately. Thus, to give the Japanese player the historical flexability to reconfigure his forces as the game needs dictate, I divised the two-tiered breakdown system and show the engineer regiment and lt. armor company explicitly. According to Victor Madej's "Japanese Armed Forces Orders of Battle 37-45", the organic engineering regiment typically contained 956 men. BTW, I forgot to point out earlier that the engineers and lt. armor are always unsupported, even if the division breaks into self-supported components (i.e., no HQ). -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 06:08:35 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18352; Sun, 7 Apr 96 06:08:34 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA01419 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 06:08:22 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA150469282; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 03:54:42 GMT Message-Id: <199604070354.AA150469282@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sun, 7 Apr 96 03:54:42 UTC 0000 ( from inet00# ; Sun, 7 Apr 96 03:54:21 UTC 0000) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 03:58:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 3987011 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 904822 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: EuropaFest Status: O Content-Length: 256 Reply: Item #8906949 from EUROPA@LYSATOR.LIU.SE@INET00#on 96/04/06 at 22:07 I plan to attend E-fest. I'll be looking for hotel room-mates soon if anybody is interested. I'd prefer to stay in which ever hotel is nearest to the convention hall. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 06:16:45 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18377; Sun, 7 Apr 96 06:16:44 +0200 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA01478 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 06:16:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA02603; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 23:16:30 -0500 Message-Id: <9604070416.AA02603@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Origins To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 23:16:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Arius V Kaufmann" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 210 I shall be attending Origins. I volunteered to help with the Auction, however, I hope to get some Europa game playing in during Europafest. Anyone looking for a Soviet Leningrad-District commander? Arius From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 06:59:51 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18442; Sun, 7 Apr 96 06:59:49 +0200 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA01895 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 06:59:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA26790; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 23:59:34 -0500 Message-Id: <9604070459.AA26790@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Origins '96 To: europa@lysator.liu.se, consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 23:59:34 -0500 (EST) From: "Arius V Kaufmann" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 735 Here's the hotel info for Origins: Hotel Name Phone # (614)- Blocks $ Hyatt Regency 463-1234 0 90 Crowne Plaza 461-4100 .5 89 Courtyard by Mariott 228-3200 2 74 Great Southern 228-3800 7 92 Doubletree Suites 228-4600 6 95 Holiday Inn City Center 221-3281 7 89 Holiday Inn on the Lane 294-4848 20 69 All prices are single/double per night. The convention is July 4-7, in Columbus, Ohio. For more info, call Andon at (206) 204-5815, fax x5820, email ANDON@AOL.COM. Arius Kaufmann akaufma2@osf1.gmu.edu Ban the bomb. Save the world for conventional warfare. Non-sequitors make me eat lamp-shades. "Power corrupts. Absolute power's kind of neat." --John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987 From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 07:18:13 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18505; Sun, 7 Apr 96 07:18:11 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA02028 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 07:17:44 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA210953442; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 05:04:03 GMT Message-Id: <199604070504.AA210953442@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sun, 7 Apr 96 05:04:02 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Sun, 7 Apr 96 05:03:49 UTC 0000) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 04:57:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 4640464 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 105955 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: More of My $0.02 Worth Status: O Content-Length: 4009 A brief personal note: this is the 51st anniversary of the death of Flight Lieutenant James Bryan Thompson, RCAF, who died in a night flying accident this date flying a Harvard from No. 11 (P) Advanced Flying Unit at RAF Wrexham North Wales (he was my mother's only brother and, in an ironic twist in light of what happened in this country in the Sixties, went to Canada in 1941 to enlist to be a pilot and is buried near Chester). Re Ultra and the Battle of the Bulge: HITLER'S JAPANESE CONFIDANT (by Carl Boyd) notes that the Allies were reading the messages sent by General Oshima, the Japanese ambassador to Germany, back to Tokyo because the Americans had cracked the Japanese diplomatic code ("Magic"). Oshima's messages contained numerous statements and hints that the Germans were planning a major counter-offensive against the Allies. This point seems to have been ignored by most modern historians of the Bulge, I think. Re the Luftwaffe "Army:" I have been working on the Luftwaffe ground units in Europa with Tessin and other sources and ran across an interesting quote from LUFTWAFFE FIELD DIVISIONS 1941- 1945, Osprey Men-At-Arms Series No. 229, "by 1941 [the Luftwaffe's] strength had grown to nearly 1,700,000 personnel, most of whom served in non-flying capacities. In fact the anti-aircraft artillery branch had 35 per cent (571,000 men) of the Luftwaffe's strength in 1941, while signal troops formed another 18 per cent. The number of men serving in flying units totalled 588,000 in late 1941 (approximately 36 per cent of the Luftwaffe), but most of these men were ground support personnel or paratroopers. Altogether, the Luftwaffe amounted to 20 per cent of Germany's total manpower under arms that year,..." An nit-picky question. Does anybody know why Infanterie-Battalion der Luftwaffe 41, 42, 51, 52 (late war formations) are 4 x 0-1-6 Punitive II 41, 42, 51, 52 (LW) in SF when their Eastern Front counterparts, Infanterie-Battalion der Luftwaffe 81, 82, 85 are 3 x 1-6 Inf II 81, 82, 85 (LW) in FiE/SE? My research leads me to believe all of the units in this series (all formed late in 1944 regular infantry and not penal or "bewahrungs" units. The Luftwaffe penal units were know (after 1943) as "Luftwaffen-Feld-Jager-Battalion zbV" (roughly translated, "Air Force Special Duties Light Infantry Battalion"). These are the 10 x 0-1-6 Punitive II 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (LW) that appear in FiE/SE and SF. Re "Luft-Peeves:" I like the air unit variety, my only gripe is why they keep changing the values for the Wellington bomber. :) On a more serious note, I'd also like to see something done about taking into account radar and night-fighters. There are negative modifiers for firing at night on the SF AA Fire Tables, but no negative modifier for air combat at night. Is a 1939 German or French night fighter with no airborne radar and a primitive ground control system based on sound and searchlights just as effective as a mid or late war German or British nightfighter with airborne radar and a sophisticated ground control system also based on radar? Just something I'd like to throw out. Re the Japanese Army: I don't mean to poach in Mark Royer's preserves. He has done one heck of a job of researching and recreating a very obscure conflict from meager sources. However, based upon my knowledge of the Japanese Army, a Japanese Army engineer "regiment" or cavalry "regiment" was often the equivalent of an American battalion. From Victor Madej's JAPANESE ARMED FORCES ORDER OF BATTLE, VOLUME 1, an engineer "regiment" in a triangular infantry divisions (two different TOs) had from 900 to 956 men organized into three companies. Likewise, a divisional cavalry regiment had 950 men. I believe that I have my wife talked into letting me and my "Battletech"/"Warhammer 40K" fanatic son going to Columbus this summer (she has an uncle living in Dayton). James A. Broshot, St. James MO P.S. I see that Mark already anticipated my kibitizing on his field. Sorry, Mark. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 17:41:51 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20181; Sun, 7 Apr 96 17:41:50 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA06731 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 17:41:02 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA204090840; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:27:20 GMT Message-Id: <199604071527.AA204090840@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sun, 7 Apr 96 15:27:20 UTC 0000 ( from INET02# ; Sun, 7 Apr 96 15:27:15 UTC 0000) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 15:23:00 UTC 0000 To: j.broshot%genie.geis.com%inet#@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 3860378 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 661503 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: More of My $0.02 Worth Status: O Content-Length: 1953 Reply: Item #4626261 from J.BROSHOT@GENIE.GEIS.COM@INET#on 96/04/06 at 23:57 > From Victor Madej's JAPANESE ARMED FORCES > ORDER OF BATTLE, VOLUME 1, an engineer "regiment" in a triangular > infantry divisions (two different TOs) had from 900 to 956 men > organized into three companies. Likewise, a divisional cavalry > regiment had 950 men. > P.S. I see that Mark already anticipated my kibitizing on > his field. Sorry, Mark. Jim Broshot, Please, kibitiz away... I'd rather get it right than preserve my ego. I rated the Japanese divisional engineers at 1-6 to reflect that they only had about 956 men. I made them combat engineers (as opposed to construction eng) based on a number of narrative accounts which describe their use against Chinese fortified positions. However, I am always open to suggested changes/corrections. For comparison, how many men, and what equipment, composed a typical German 2-6 Eng III? A problem with Madej in general, is that his detailed descriptions of the Japanese divisions are after their conversion to triangular. I don't really know what, if any, changes were made to the engineers during this conversion. I'm assuming none. Regarding the cavalry regiment, I showed it as a separate unit altogether with the same unit ID as its parent division. In retrospect, I guess this decision is somewhat arbitrary. As another aside, the Chinese start the game with three lt. armored battalions each rated at 1-0-6 Lt. Arm II. These units contained a variety of light AFV such as the Carden-Lloyd amphibious tankette, the German PzKpfw IA, and Italian L3/35. However, one of the battalions contained a number (perhaps as many as 20) British Vickers 6 ton MkE & MkF medium tanks which supported a 47mm gun. I chose to show all of the battalions as lt. armor, but I could easily be swayed to rate one of them (the one with the 6 ton tanks) as a full armor unit if that makes sense. Thanks, -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 19:05:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20412; Sun, 7 Apr 96 19:05:41 +0200 Received: from dax.cc.uakron.edu (root@dax.cc.uakron.edu [130.101.5.4]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA07432 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 19:05:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from akr-dial-6.apk.net by dax.cc.uakron.edu (5.65/Ultrix4.3) id AA15190; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 13:06:23 -0400 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 13:06:23 -0400 Message-Id: <9604071706.AA15190@dax.cc.uakron.edu> X-Sender: apanius@uakron.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Mike Apanius Subject: E-Fest Status: O Content-Length: 117 I'll be attending the EuropaFest this years in Columbus. I'm also going to take some other people with me. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 7 19:50:14 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20602; Sun, 7 Apr 96 19:50:13 +0200 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA07891 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 19:49:50 +0200 (MET DST) From: NullmVoid@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06774 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 13:49:18 -0400 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 13:49:18 -0400 Message-Id: <960407134917_370789577@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE Status: O Content-Length: 12 Unsubscribe From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 8 01:36:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA21816; Mon, 8 Apr 96 01:36:42 +0200 Received: from psyche.the-wire.com (psyche.the-wire.com [198.53.192.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA10918 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:35:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mhughes.the-wire.com (mhughes.the-wire.com [205.206.32.167]) by psyche.the-wire.com (8.6.10/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA18979 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 19:35:01 -0400 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 19:35:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199604072335.TAA18979@psyche.the-wire.com> X-Sender: mhughes@psyche.the-wire.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: mhughes@the-wire.com (Marian Hughes) Subject: MULTI-ROLE AIRCRAFT Status: O Content-Length: 2249 Multi-Role Aircraft Whoops: On rereading my last file I can see that some 9th AF supporters would get very upset: What I left out was the telling comment that "compared with the 8th AF units, for which they had the utmost respect, some RAF squadrons found the 9th AF lacking in etc etc" - rate this up to my being a wire neophyte. On Pilot Quality: I agree with Perry de Havilland that this is significant, but less so than technical factors. In reality I suspect that the 'quality' of all the European nations and the US were for practical purposes identical. The belief is that some 10% of fighter pilots scored 80% of the kills - quality translates into seeing how many of the maybe 0.5% of the general population with this 'situational awareness' as Spick calls it, finished up as pilots. Mind you these guys would be equally effective as Tank commanders or submarine captains. The distribution varied between countries - Japan and Germany having extremes of quality due to rotation (or lack of), training time etc; the US and Britain the opposite; France and Italy in between. But it all comes out even in the end. The real problem is that 'quality' is defined in terms of the most glamorous job - the fighter pilot, and counted in terms of 'kill' rates. These fast become myths, and distort the real position: Recently researched 'corrections' to them are: - In World War I the RAF/RFC overclaimed horrendously (Shores) - In the Guadalcanal campaign the US Marines and the Japanese Navy were both overclaiming at the same time - often at rates of 10 to 1 (Lundstrom) - In Korea the famed 11-1 kill rate of Sabres vs Migs has been corrected with the release of Russian loss data. The real rate was some 3 or 4 to 1 - very meritorious, but explicable in terms of technology (radar control), equipment, guns and aircraft, rather than as was originally claimed purely pilot quality. In passing - it was the inability of US pilots in Vietnam to match this imaginary 11-1 rate that led to the 'Top-Gun' programmes (Air Enthusiast) In summary - be careful of pilot quality in simulating WW II. What did matter was experience. It might make sense to give positive modifiers for example to Germans attacking Russians for a few turns. DAVID HUGHES From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 8 01:41:10 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA21828; Mon, 8 Apr 96 01:41:10 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA10955 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:40:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA23429 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sun, 7 Apr 1996 18:40:52 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 18:40:52 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: air counters II Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2074 RE: previous post; yes I still would rather not see the extra, essentially useless counters since that `counter space' could be devoted to other counters with better uses in the Europa system. I still agree with Patrick, that the dicing of the air units is too much. As someone posted a while ago, we don't rate each armored unit depending on what model of tank is in it this month. The altitude point that Perry makes is very true, for a tactical air game. But we don't rate armored divisions depending on whether the terrain is real flat, which is an advantage for some tanks and ATs, or just rolling open, or some woods or, etc. I agree the most important qualifier is pilot quality. But in Europa terms I doubt if much can be done about this. Second IS technology, but on the other hand no matter how one weighs all the tech specs, in reality, most air-to-air kills were against foes who never saw you coming. Since there appears to be no counter = air unit, algorithm used for Europa (just total plane strength divided by a number), and at least to the SF moment the replacement rates are such that one need not care how many counters one loses, an extra defense point (as in the FW-190A2 to the FW190-A8) is such is small statistical blip, I would prefer that designer's energies, and counter mix realities be put to better uses. In fact I wonder what kind of air strength date the designers were able to get. Most of the accurate date I've seen is by air units. Most gross number of aircraft data is very slippery at best. So much depends upon aircraft servicability, unit strength and current doctrine. An example of doctrine and pilot quality. At the Battle of Britain, Galland tells of the stress of having to fly three and four missions per day. The actual sortie flown data shows that if he was flying four missions, then four or five pilots (and their planes) in his unit were not flying at all that day. How would we factor that into the Europa system? Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 8 01:43:01 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA21834; Mon, 8 Apr 96 01:43:00 +0200 Received: from psyche.the-wire.com (psyche.the-wire.com [198.53.192.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA10976 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:42:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mhughes.the-wire.com (mhughes.the-wire.com [205.206.32.167]) by psyche.the-wire.com (8.6.10/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA19109 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 19:42:01 -0400 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 19:42:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199604072342.TAA19109@psyche.the-wire.com> X-Sender: mhughes@psyche.the-wire.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: mhughes@the-wire.com (Marian Hughes) Subject: Unit Factor Evaluations Status: O Content-Length: 2518 Re Unit Factor Evaluations I came late to this site, so misssed some of the discussion on German unit values. I thought it might help in putting German values into perspective to comment on how the British ones were arrived at. Let's stick to Infantry Divisions. The rating reflects three factors (all operating at the same time). 1) Quality. The best are British Regulars - Divs 1-5, 70, 78, and the Volunteers from Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Next come the Territorial Divisions (the higher rated ones such as the 51st including a Brigade or more of Regulars). Finally the Static and Reserve Divisions, together with the Territorials who were stripped of troops later in the war - such as the 45th. 2) Time period: Divisions increased in size and capability, adding a MG II, SP AT guns etc. Since the same holds true for most Armies, in the case of the British, there is only one upgrade - typically from 8-8 to 9-8 in 1942. 3) Location: This is least understood. The US Army produced units with identical TOE regardless of where they fought (I ignore obvious points like unit transport methods in desert or jungle). The British, however had different unit equipment scales depending on Theatre. In general, the highest was the ETO, then North Africa/Italy, followed in order by Middle East, Near East and India. Note that this had very little to do with the nationality of the unit - after all a General assigning tasks to his divisions in, say, North Africa, wanted to ensure that all were equally capable of the assignments. This led to situations where units became stronger as they moved West! As an example, Gurkha battalions leaving India for Iraq got 3" mortars and 2 lb AT guns. Transferred to the Middle East they turned in the 2 lb guns for 6 lb. Similarly, tank battalions leaving Britain for Egypt gave up about 20% of their tanks. By 1943-44 things had evened out in the Europa area, but Far East establishments were still lower. This is real tricky to show in Europa - who wants to swap counters as an unit shifts from ETO to MTO. By and large it is ignored, except that units are rated according to where they first appear - so that the MTO 70 XX is a 7-8, while the ETO 5 XX is an 8-8. This is the reason why the Canadian Infantry are 10-8 - volunteers in the ETO from 1943 on. Were Australians in the ETO at that time period, they too would be 10-8's. Hope this gives an useful outline of the issues involved in rating units for Europa. David Hughes mhughes@the-wire.com Marian Hughes From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 8 01:45:39 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA21840; Mon, 8 Apr 96 01:45:38 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA11026 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:45:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA24200 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sun, 7 Apr 1996 18:45:26 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 18:45:26 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Origins Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 364 I have had the privilege, as well as devoting the time, money and energy, to attend all the Origin game conventions. So I will not be missing this one either. My attentions will be devoted to Europafest, historical seminars, game company seminars, the auction, and the exhibitor area, in more or less that order. Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 8 01:49:17 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA21851; Mon, 8 Apr 96 01:49:16 +0200 Received: from linux.nildram.co.uk (root@linux.nildram.co.uk [194.164.5.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA11058 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 01:48:58 +0200 (MET DST) From: mulhllnd@gardencitynet.co.uk Received: from mulhllnd.gardencitynet.co.uk (pppg.nildram.co.uk [194.164.5.26]) by linux.nildram.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA11989 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:49:28 +0100 Message-Id: <3168C43D.7556@gardencitynet.co.uk> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 00:46:05 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Victory Conditions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 590 I discovered this group the other day and have been hooked ever since. One thing Alan Conrad mentioned in passing struck a chord with me - the investment of hundreds of hours in playing a Europa game only to find victory conditions 'that belittle all that time spent'. Having messed about with Europa for nearly twenty years now, this has always been the one area I've had problems with. Narvik in particular, used to cause me great angst - despite being an excellent game overall. Am I alone? Alan - what did you mean exactly? Andy Mulholland, Letchworth, Hertfordshire, England. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 8 05:49:52 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA22533; Mon, 8 Apr 96 05:49:51 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA13086 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 05:48:58 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA241024513; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 03:35:13 GMT Message-Id: <199604080335.AA241024513@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Mon, 8 Apr 96 03:35:12 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Mon, 8 Apr 96 03:34:43 UTC 0000) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 03:18:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 4979211 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 111343 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: the Japanese Army etc. Status: O Content-Length: 3838 Mark: Always glad to try to be of assistance. You are correct about Madej since it is a reprint of a U. S. intelligence publication from 1945. Do you have HANDBOOK ON JAPANESE MILITARY FORCES, a reprint of a U. S. War Department publication circa October 1944? It goes into a bit more detail about Japanese Army engineer units. I can send the information if you need it, i.e., "division engineers include among their personnel men trained in tank trap construction, demolition work, and small river crossing operations. The 3 companies of the regiment do not specialize in one particular aspect of engineering, but are designed for sub- allotment, one to each infantry regiment, to fulfill their ordinary engineer requirement." In TEM#24, John Astell stated that (in FTF, anyway) each German Army engineer regiment represented an engineer regiment headquarters and contained "the equivalent of 2 to 2 1/2 combat engineer battalions plus two construction battalions (to give the regiments construction capabilities)." Here is the OB of the Japanese 7th Infantry Division in the Nomonhon Incident as distilled from NOMOHON (by Alvin D. Coox). Coox is great on giving the names of all of the commanders, sometimes down to platoon level, but weak on organization details. Note that the engineer regiment is listed with only two companies (one for each brigade?): 7th Infantry Division division headquarters 13th Infantry Brigade brigade headquarters 25th Infantry Regiment regimental gun company (75mm regimental guns) rapid fire gun company (37mm AT guns) three battalions each battalion: three rifle companies one machine gun company battalion gun platoon 26th Infantry Regiment 14th Infantry Brigade brigade headquarters 27th Infantry Regiment 28th Infantry Regiment (later to go into history as the Ichiki Detachment on Guadalcanal) 7th Field Artillery Regiment four battalions (each with two batteries?) (less one battalion) 7th Cavalry Regiment 7th Engineer Regiment (two companies) 7th Transport Regiment (three companies) 7th Signal Unit 7th Division Medical Unit I am curious about the "British Vickers 6 ton MkE & MkF medium tanks which supported a 47mm gun." The semi-famous Vickers Medium Tank which first appeared in 1921 (as a light tank) weighed, depending on the model, between 11.7 tons and 14 tons and was usually armed with a 3pdr (47mm). The final variant, the A6 (and later built as the Vickers Medium III) had the 3pdr and 2-3 mgs. and weighed 16 tons. Armor was about the same as the U. S. M3 Stuart, so personally I'd leave them as light tank battalions. The Vickers Medium was hauled out of retirement early in WW2 and was used briefly by 7th Armored Div in 1940-1941 and by the British Army in the United Kingdom after the loss of most of the modern tanks in France. From AFV#12 "Mediums Marks I-III," and BRITISH AND TANKS OF WORLD WAR II (Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis). David: glad to hear from. Thanks for explaining the British infantry division ratings. Would you have to account for the difference between the "first-line" and "second-line" Territorial Army infantry divisions, at least initially? As a minor point can you explain why the 201st Guards Motor Brigade is a 1 x 3-10 Mot X 201 Gds in WiD and a 1 x 2-3-10 mot Inf X 201 G in SF? Is it because there is an error in Joslen (showing 2 bns after mid-1943 instead of 3 bns) and the brigade really did continue to have three battalions of Guards in Italy (before it was rotated back to the United Kingdom)? As I recall the British (and Indian) Infantry Divisions in Burma had a modified TO with a combined LAA/AT regiment and a headquarters infantry battalion (besides the specialized jungle equipment). Jim Broshot St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 8 06:49:56 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA22721; Mon, 8 Apr 96 06:49:55 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA13675 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 06:49:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA15374 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:48:58 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:48:58 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: mulhllnd@gardencitynet.co.uk Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Victory Conditions In-Reply-To: <3168C43D.7556@gardencitynet.co.uk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1550 On Mon, 8 Apr 1996 mulhllnd@gardencitynet.co.uk wrote: > I discovered this group the other day and have been hooked ever since. One thing Alan > Conrad mentioned in passing struck a chord with me - the investment of hundreds of hours > in playing a Europa game only to find victory conditions 'that belittle all that time > spent'. > > Having messed about with Europa for nearly twenty years now, this has always been the one > area I've had problems with. Narvik in particular, used to cause me great angst - > despite being an excellent game overall. > > Am I alone? Alan - what did you mean exactly? > In a previous post I told of a recent SF game of mine. I thought I had done very well as the German; Rome falling late '44, Paris April '45, none of Germany falling at all; yet I `lost' the game. With that example I was more concerned with finding out what the designers had figured for the VP count for history. Historically the VPs for geography would have yielded an overwhelming Allied victory. Similarly, two friends played a FitE/SE game, took a year to play it thru '44. The last turn an attack on Odessa decided who won the game, all that time for one die roll. In that case a victory point area with a draw might have been worthwhile. Its been years since I've played them, but my memory says that I was not happy with FoF or Narvik either. But SF I believe is better than the older games so we are heading in the right direction. We only need some more explanation and work. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 8 17:12:12 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA25702; Mon, 8 Apr 96 17:12:11 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA20107 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 17:09:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id LAA08357 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:09:00 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18648; Mon, 8 Apr 96 11:01:40 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17675; Mon, 8 Apr 96 11:00:39 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604081500.AA17675@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: Re: Victory Conditions (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:00:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 782 Hi, Alan writes: > Similarly, two friends played a FitE/SE game, took a year to play it > thru '44. The last turn an attack on Odessa decided who won the game, > all that time for one die roll. In that case a victory point area with a > draw might have been worthwhile. Nah. It's more fun to win or lose on that die roll than to have a draw. It sounds like a game well played; the sort that ballads are written about. But, Alan's point about the victory conditions for Second Front are well taken. I do remember from his earlier post that it seemed more like the replacement system had problems. This translated into a victory point problem because the Americans and British had sooooo many RPs left over. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 8 19:05:01 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26621; Mon, 8 Apr 96 19:05:00 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA21779 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 19:04:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id EAA03781; Fri, 2 Jan 1970 04:26:11 -0600 Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1970 04:26:11 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Peeves about Luft-Peeves Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 679 The Europa Air researchers wanted to divide things into 3 altitude bands, Hi, Med, Lo, to reflect the Me 109s better performance at altitude than the Fw 190A and the Typhoon's best performance at low altitude, etc. My idea was to underline or overscore the aircraft's ratings and have a table of DRMs to covers situations where a Typhoon is attacking a Me 109K at altitude. The only times altutde would be specified were strategic missions were at high, carpet bombing at medium and ground attack at low, etc. Considering that we were lucky to get heavy fighters approved, I have no real beefs as altitude bands are less important than the heavy fighter concept. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 8 19:16:07 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26763; Mon, 8 Apr 96 19:16:05 +0200 Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA22181 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 19:15:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from van0312.tvs.net ([204.191.197.82]) by haven.uniserve.com with SMTP id <47179-137>; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:18:43 -0800 X-Sender: davehum@popserver.uniserve.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Dave Humphreys Subject: resources for c/m formations Message-Id: <96Apr8.101843pdt.47179-137+1160@haven.uniserve.com> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:18:41 -0800 Status: O Content-Length: 1436 At 17:42 04/04/96 -0400, Ray Kanarr wrote: --snip-- >Germany, at various times, had absurd plans for both much larger >mechanized and air forces [and the slightly less adsurd "Z" naval >plan], to the extent where such forces would have required ALL >available oil resources to operate. Germany's capability to churn out >additional c/m units, above and beyond what they historically did, is >extremely questionable, given all of the material constraints on >their production/ use of materials: --snip-- Availability of resources for production is something we've never had to deal with in our games of Europa, but in our current game of FitE/SE, the Russians are currently building masses of armour in the winter of '42/43. This follows on the heeels of a failed German attempt to isolate the Caucasus. In the Collector's edition of these games, will/should the isolation/capture of the main Soviet oilfields curtail their ability to produce their hordes of tank and mechanized forces? Perhaps 6-6 Rifle XX would have to be substituted for a 11-8 Mech XXX. Would capturing these resources allow the Germans to build/upgrade more armour? (Assuming, of course, that the resources are not destroyed before capture). Also, I think an old suggestion made a few years ago in TEM makes a lot of sense. The Soviets shouldn't be able to stack more than one armoured XXX per hex unless a tank corps marker is present. (Ow, our poor Finns). From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 8 22:19:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28280; Mon, 8 Apr 96 22:19:40 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA25237 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 22:16:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 08 Apr 1996 14:48:33 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 16:52:57 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: civguy@dusable.cps.k12.il.us Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Or What? my wish list. Luft-peeves Status: O Content-Length: 874 On 4/6/96, Jason sent in: >The HF type 190s in the counter mix represent the >rammjaegers; aircraft that were heavily armored and >armed to go in close and kill bombers. These units were >designated sturm by the Luftwaffe This is not actually the case; the rammjaegers were just what the name states, a unit of fliers willing to ram enemy aircraft to bring them down, possibly losing their lives in the process. This technique was first codified [along with training materials for its use] by the Soviets in 1941, and the German unit set up to use this technique, which was used against bomber formations, may have been known as the "Leonidas" staffel [I'll need to confirm this]. The "Sturm" units, as noted in Jason's post, were heavily armed and armored aircraft meant to go in among the bomber formations and mix it up in a high-.50 caliber environment. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 8 23:26:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28629; Mon, 8 Apr 96 23:26:49 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA25710 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 23:14:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.32] (gw1-032.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA11865 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 8 Apr 1996 22:14:10 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 22:16:32 +0000 To: Jason Long From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Peeves about Luft-Peeves Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 2382 Jason wrote: >The Europa Air researchers wanted to divide things into 3 altitude bands, >Hi, Med, Lo, to reflect the Me 109s better performance at altitude than >the Fw 190A and the Typhoon's best performance at low altitude, etc. My >idea was to underline or overscore the aircraft's ratings and have a >table of DRMs to covers situations where a Typhoon is attacking a Me 109K >at altitude. This is *exactly* what I have been looking for. In my eternal quest for modular rules to suit all types of Europa players, this sound very much along the lines I had in mind (Generic air counters for ground-fixated heathen like Patrick and extraaddednewimprovedslicesdices details for lunatics like me who actually WANT to spend longer on air & naval turns than ground movement). It would also allow the real differences in Heavy vs. Light Flak to be demonstrated (i.e. Heavy flak = effective at medium altitude, less effective at high, less effective at low. Light flak = useless at high altitude, almost useless at medium and positively murderous at low altitude). I did up some draft rules myself on the subject of altitude but I would LOVE to see you draft rules and DRM table as I have never been happy with the fruits of my own efforts on this The only times alitutde would be specified were strategic >missions were at high, carpet bombing at medium and ground attack at low, >etc. I would also hope pretty much *any* attack mission would have the option of a low altitude penetration and a change of altitude in the target hex (this is very realistic for certain missions: penetrate low to make it difficult for the air reporting network (i.e. radar), then pull up for the attack to minimise the effects of flak. cf. the first raid on Berlin by Mosquitoes). >Considering that we were lucky to get heavy fighters approved, I have no >real beefs as altitude bands are less important than the heavy fighter >concept. I agree that HF is a very important and long needed concept and takes care of various TFH wierdness. Now all we need are some decent radar/EW/nightfighter/true route interception/air C3I rules blah blah blah :-) ... Lets go modular! Yes, we really can *all* have it all. Without more *detailed* air rules, TFH is really not worth the effort as it unique in the Europa stable for being *primarily* an air game Regards Perry ...- Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 00:41:21 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA29329; Tue, 9 Apr 96 00:41:20 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA27214 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 00:40:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 08 Apr 1996 15:36:07 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 17:40:01 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: j.broshot@genie.com, abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Barbarossa manpower [was: Re: My $0.02 worth] Status: O Content-Length: 1939 On 4/6/96, Alan Conrad stated: >I have seen, more than once, data and quotes as to the >understrength of the German army going into Barbarossa. >I could not find such a quote in Lewis, although he did >quote Halder saying that on September 1, 1941, "at the >front" 142 divisions were "lacking" 700,000 men. Since I >do not remember the casualties being that high to that >date, and there had been replacements sent to the front >(Army Group Center had received 151,000 replacements >to offset 219,000 casualties thru 9-26-41), to me that alone >shows that the army was understrength. Well...In the first place, if we believe Halder's statement, each of the 142 divisions was missing an average of 4,930 men. This essentially means that, on the 9/I/41 turn, Germany has some combination of 142 infantry-type division cadres, or about 70 eliminated divisions, or some combination thereof. Sounds like way more than the historical losses would indicate, unless a substantial number of those 'casualties' were sent back to the front after treatment of relatively minor wounds. This, of course, brings up the endlessly debatable, and totally insoluble, question of what is meant by the word casualty, which I am unwilling to get into unless someone out there has access to the German equivalent of the military surgeon general's [or whatever the position is called] reports breaking down these figures. Same for AGC at the end of September. So they show 219,000 losses and 151,000 replacements. So what. Unless a breakdown shows that that included ALL soldiers returned to duty, including those treated at divisional aid stations, etc., etc., blah, blah, its just another figure taken out of an unknown context, and so without meaning. To think that Germany would have embarked on its greatest [in terms of size and scope, ONLY] campaign without being as close to full strength as possible, is somewhat ludicrous. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 03:09:36 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00447; Tue, 9 Apr 96 03:09:35 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA28875 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 03:06:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 08 Apr 1996 20:06:28 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 22:10:58 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: cloister@dircon.co.uk, civguy@dusable.cps.k12.il.us Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Peeves about Luft-Peeves Status: O Content-Length: 490 On 4/8/96, Perry wrote in: >I would also hope pretty much *any* attack mission would >have the option of a low altitude penetration and a change >of altitude in the target hex At the VERY least, HB units flying strategic missions would be prohibited from this. >Now all we need are some decent radar/EW/nightfighter/ >true route interception/air C3I rules blah blah blah YES!!! And don't forget ground crew/installations/logistics/ serviceability rates/pilot training.... Ray Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 03:23:54 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00561; Tue, 9 Apr 96 03:23:52 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA29177 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 03:23:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-12-15.ots.utexas.edu (slip-12-15.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.128.15]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA25403 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 20:21:07 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 20:21:07 -0500 Message-Id: <199604090121.UAA25403@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Victory Conditions (fwd) Status: O Content-Length: 907 Keith said: > Alan writes: > >> Similarly, two friends played a FitE/SE game, took a year to play it >> thru '44. The last turn an attack on Odessa decided who won the game, >> all that time for one die roll. In that case a victory point area with a >> draw might have been worthwhile. > > Nah. It's more fun to win or lose on that die roll than to >have a draw. It sounds like a game well played; the sort that ballads >are written about. Though I agree that VPs need to work as well as possible, I personally subscribe to the old school that says "If you have to count VPs to know who won, it was a draw." OTOH, a well-tuned VP system can give a warm fuzzy feeling that you know something about history, which is nice for those of us who get a disproportional amount of our history lesson from games rather than from books. - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 03:30:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00596; Tue, 9 Apr 96 03:30:40 +0200 Received: from mail.cs.umn.edu (mail.cs.umn.edu [128.101.149.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA29226 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 03:30:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from deca.cs.umn.edu (thornley@deca.cs.umn.edu [128.101.228.10]) by mail.cs.umn.edu (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA27144 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 20:30:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "David H. Thornley" Received: (thornley@localhost) by deca.cs.umn.edu (8.6.11/8.6.12) id UAA20749 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 20:30:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199604090130.UAA20749@deca.cs.umn.edu> Subject: Re: Victory Conditions To: europa@lysator.liu.se (Europa mailing list) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 20:30:04 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <3168C43D.7556@gardencitynet.co.uk> from "mulhllnd@gardencitynet.co.uk" at Apr 8, 96 00:46:05 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 801 > > I discovered this group the other day and have been hooked ever since. One thing Alan > Conrad mentioned in passing struck a chord with me - the investment of hundreds of hours > in playing a Europa game only to find victory conditions 'that belittle all that time > spent'. > I'm with Jack Radey on this one. At the end of the game, you know what you did and you know what the other guy did. Who needs victory conditions? Of course, this works best for FiTE/SE and SF, and, in general, other large games. David H. Thornley, known to the Wise as thornley@cs.umn.edu O- Disclaimer: These are not the opinions of the University of Minnesota, its Regents, faculty, staff, students, or squirrels. Datclaimer: Well, maybe the squirrels. They're pretty smart. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 03:45:00 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00643; Tue, 9 Apr 96 03:44:59 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA29338 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 03:44:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-12-15.ots.utexas.edu (slip-12-15.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.128.15]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA25737 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 20:38:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 20:38:33 -0500 Message-Id: <199604090138.UAA25737@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Barbarossa manpower [was: Re: My $0.02 worth] Status: O Content-Length: 1048 Ray said: > ... Unless a breakdown shows that [such and such] ... its just another >figure taken out of an unknown context, and so without meaning. Good point. Also, generals seem to be as willing to inflate casualty counts as to deflate them, depending on the axe to be ground. ATOSG, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure!" >To think that Germany would have embarked on its greatest [in terms >of size and scope, ONLY] campaign without being as close to full >strength as possible, is somewhat ludicrous. Except that they apparently expected the USSR to show a glass jaw like everyone else had. In hindsight it looks ludicrous for Germany to take on the whole world no matter what their level of motivation, but at least one person didn't seem to think so at the time. (It may be that the General Staff thought exactly what Ray said, but even if so, how much control did they have over it? Not a rhetorical question -- feedback from the historians in the crowd is solicited.) - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 04:29:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00976; Tue, 9 Apr 96 04:29:58 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA29872 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 04:28:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-12-15.ots.utexas.edu (slip-12-15.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.128.15]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA26602 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 21:26:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 21:26:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199604090226.VAA26602@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Barbarossa manpower [correction] Status: O Content-Length: 163 I said: >the whole world no matter what their level of motivation... but should have said "mobilization". - B. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 06:31:53 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01877; Tue, 9 Apr 96 06:31:52 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA01085 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 06:31:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA00258 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Mon, 8 Apr 1996 23:31:04 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 23:31:03 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: The Air Game Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2221 Gents, Much has been posted lately about getting the tech into the air game of Europa. In general, as I have stated before, we are talking about points, that if put in the game correctly, should have no effect on the game, IMO. However one point I did want raised, and seems to have been lost lately, is the basing and using of air units. Example: in my resent SF game after Corsica had fallen, the Allies had several wings of B-25s & B-26s that would fly a mission from England, then stage down to Corsica to fly a turn or two in Italy, then stage back up to England again. Never lossing a bomb run along the way. Now I have seen a few examples of Stat forces flying to other bases (for single raids), and I suppose one can call up examples of tac forces doing that. But in the main air units operated from their own bases. The base had to move if the unit was going to move to a new area. Time in action was lost. I've never liked the Europa staging rule. It makes little sense to me. And players can really run that rule in the ground. A second SF game had the entire German fighter force in Italy staged through one airbase to run a CAP mission over a known battle hex (the fleet was there) so that DAS could then run in. The theoretical drawback of having all those fighters landing at that base were unimportant. Lots of units were lost in combat, AND many of the units were Strat call ups, so they were going to vaporize anyway. Someone asked a bit back about what were the personnel costs in the support structure of the air forces. I haven't found that data yet. I hope someone comes up with it. As someone did state in a post about American divisions, it is a oft stated assumption that the best American personnel went into the Air Corps, not just pilots, but all that ground personnel also. It would be best if either building an airbase had a personnel cost, or better yet that we would have ground air units that were tied to the planes that were flying from them. If those ground support units are overrun by the fighting, as in Barbarossa, it is a further loss than just the loss of the airfield. Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 06:53:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01996; Tue, 9 Apr 96 06:53:40 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA01269 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 06:53:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.122.95] (ip-pdx10-31.teleport.com [206.163.122.95]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA22100; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 21:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604090453.VAA22100@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 20:58:53 -0800 To: conrad alan b From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: unit replacements Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 607 Conrad- As to the difference between 7-6 and 8-6 infantry divisions: Maybe that unit that is an 8-6 got an extra artillery battery or something. Or, alternatively why not just allow Germans that want to build a 3-6 cadre up to an 8-6 to do so, even if the original division was a 7-6? I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be done. After all, I've got plenty of 8-6s laying around and in the main, I'm not too worried about historical unit numbers (if there are 4 x 12th infantry divisions running around, I really don't give a monkey's) SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 06:53:43 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02001; Tue, 9 Apr 96 06:53:43 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA01272 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 06:53:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.122.95] (ip-pdx10-31.teleport.com [206.163.122.95]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA22134; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 21:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604090453.VAA22134@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 20:59:00 -0800 To: Ray Kanarr From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Unit factors-as Ray's reply to unit rep. Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 3801 >To state that by May '41 significant differences between infantry >divs had disappeared, or ... is not borne out... That seems true. There were so many units, even static units that had 'personalities' that would show up on Europa's scale. I certainly think they should be modelled as realistically as possible. >I think [and will hunt up references if asked] that the German army >actually scaled back to get the harvest in, freeing up men for >agricultural, not industrial, work. This is the case. The winter of 1939/40 had been very harsh and the effects were exacerbated by the abscence of many citizens who were in the military and unable to get coal dug, the harvest in, or keep industry running. Germany at this time did not have the many guest workers who were shanghaid to keep German industry running later on. At the risk of running off on too much of a tangent, it's worth pointing out that Germany had a LABOUR SHORTAGE throughout the entire war. Germany had to constantly balance military and industry. Thus they resorted to slave labour and impressed 'volunteers' as the war devoured more and more men. >Germany, at various times, had absurd plans for both much larger >mechanized and air forces [and the slightly less adsurd "Z" naval >plan], Actually, the naval plan was far more absurd than their mechanization plans for their army. >Germany built what they built because that's what they intended to >build. It might be more accurate to say that they built what they built because it's what they could afford to build - taking into consideration what they hoped to achieve. You have provided some excellent reasons why they couldn't afford more. If you say, well, let's delete lots of [and 30 is LOTS of] inf >divs, and add c/m divs, you might run the risk of a real, successful >army coup in 1940 or 1941. I'm not sure this follows- the German command in 1940 were congnizant of the problems facing their country. Most of them thought the war was folly to begin with- a shrinking of the armed forces would not have resulted in a coup. *Especially* not in 1940-41. If you say, well, lets scale back the >Luftwaffe significantly and allocate those resources to the army, >then what you're saying is: Hermann Goring is not head of the >Luftwaffe, or doesn't have Hitler's ear, neither of which was true, >and both of which have to be taken into account. I don't think they should be taken into account, except for historical interest. Do we say: Well, the Luftwaffe is not successful the past 4 turns, so the Navy gets a bigger part of the German budget and the Herman Goring division is not formed. I mean- these are the kind of contortions that are going to be necessary to keep Hitler out of the game. Sorry, but I'd rather put on the black hat for a few hours a month and play the damn game. Goring had Hitler's ear at various times and for various reasons. It should not be a given that Goring will always be able to get his way, or that Raeder will not, or whatever. We again start getting into arguments about what decisions players should be allowed to make and on what level. >Europa is meant to be flexible, within fairly realistic limits, which >is why you CAN build the 27th [?] Pz div [if you have the >resources].But if you want to posit a completely different >military-industrial-economic-political context for Germany, that's >fine, but now you're well into geopolitical/global economic >roleplaying, and way out of Europa. Well, I myself would rather play the game in the spirit of WW2 and keep the same overall situation or "military-industrial-economic-political context". Others might not- but then, if they put down the money for the game, then god bless 'em every one. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 07:43:55 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02420; Tue, 9 Apr 96 07:43:54 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA01975 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:43:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-81-12.ots.utexas.edu (slip-81-12.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.219.28]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id AAA00209 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 00:35:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 00:35:11 -0500 Message-Id: <199604090535.AAA00209@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: The Air Game Status: O Content-Length: 2954 Alan said: > It would be best if either building an airbase had a personnel cost, >or better yet that we would have ground air units that were tied to the >planes that were flying from them. If those ground support units are >overrun by the fighting, as in Barbarossa, it is a further loss than just >the loss of the airfield. Good post, Alan. I've been curious about all types of transfer (I think bombing and "returning" to a new home base seems the least realistic). Don't the ground crews have tons of equipment, literally, for managing their operations? Much could be abstracted into the supply system, but I assume they carried lots of stuff along when they rebased. I doubt that you could just ring up the nearest quartermaster and request some of the specialized equipment, but then I don't know a lot about air operations. (Wouldn't major bases have things like radar dishes and firetrucks?) Was rebasing of the staff and ground crew and their equipment done by air, or by truck, historically? How effective, historically, were operations from a forward airbase created or captured by vanguard troops, before the air unit's regular ground element was brought up? In line with Alan's final paragraph, quoted above, I would like to see representation of the bases for air units ("base" as opposed to "field", the latter apparently what the games currently represent under a variety of terms). However, as part of my anti-aircraft crusade, I would suggest providing such bases *instead* of the hardware-oriented "units" that now appear in the game. I think a good solution would be to fly actual operations as points [gasp!] from such bases. (Yes, I know that this would make certain things hard to "simulate", but I'm still calling for a c. 90% reduction in the mechanics of the air system, to bring it more in line with the detail offered for the rest of the game.) As to the need for incorporating a personnel cost into creating bases, I think ground elements should appear in the OB as units, but treat them separately from the fields. Airfield + ground element = airbase. (OK, my terminology has drifted a bit since the preceding paragraph!) Airfields to be treated pretty much as are "airfield" and "airbase" under the current rules; ground elements to be represented by counters with historical IDs, subject to on-map losses as suggested by Allan, and requiring "infantry" replacement points to rebuild (and also "equipment" if such a notion ever enters the game). Air operations disallowed (or at least severely restricted) from airfields without a suitable ground element. Treatment of the actual aircraft will need abstraction if reduced to a points-system, or will remain pretty much as now otherwise. - Bobby. BTW, excess ground-element units could be disbanded/converted to form LW field XXs when/if they become more numerous than what the Germans can put to good use. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 08:03:38 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02744; Tue, 9 Apr 96 08:03:36 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA02220 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:03:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id RAA05729; Fri, 2 Jan 1970 17:25:30 -0600 Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1970 17:25:30 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: More of My $0.02 Worth Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604071527.AA204090840@relay1.geis.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 720 Mark, A German combat eng reg't has about 2 and a 1/3 combat engieer battalions plu a battalion plus of construction types to give them regular construction abilities. A Japanese engineer reg't of less than a thousand men doesn't deserve a separate counter, even when the division is broken down. Don't fixate on the title, but rather on the manpower size. Under 1500 men is still a battalion in my book. the same goes for cavalry "reg't" of many nations where a "reg't" is really a battlion in size. Can you confirm that the Japs operated all the Vickers tanks in one unit or were they distributed out? If the former than give them a 1-6 full armor battalion, but if not than keep them as you have them. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 08:11:47 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02821; Tue, 9 Apr 96 08:11:46 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA02301 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:11:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id RAA05748; Fri, 2 Jan 1970 17:33:47 -0600 Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1970 17:33:47 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: air counters II Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 594 Actually, the OBs are entirely unit-driven, since we now have data available to support such a scheme. Not the situation 10 years ago! We didn't worry at all about sortie rates and overall servacibility since those numnbers are not equally available for all airforces. Air replacements handle that sort of thing and I'm not sure that we did a good job with them. The only time I worried about actual strenght as opposed to TOE was when setting up the initial strengths at scenario start dates. That's why you see all those aborted and elimiated planes at the July I start dates. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 08:37:49 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03132; Tue, 9 Apr 96 08:37:48 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA02828 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:37:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id RAA05844; Fri, 2 Jan 1970 17:59:38 -0600 Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1970 17:59:37 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Peeves about Luft-Peeves Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 427 The whole altitude thing never really got off the ground and I, at least never put words to paper. We kicked it around abit ourselves and ran it past John for a reaction which wasn't real enthusiastic. The major problem is that the counters didn't get printed with the altitude indicators and requiring people to memoirize the altitude capabilities seems a bit much. Even for the super-detail nuts like yourselves! Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 14:53:55 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA08703; Tue, 9 Apr 96 14:53:53 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA09559 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:52:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA25159 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:52:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199604091252.AA25159@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:52:02 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa Subject: Luft-peeves II: into the breach... Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 08:45:00 EST Encoding: 82 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 5290 It's refreshing to see a post generate so much interest. (Sacked Anglo-Irish commanders, lunatic or not, seem to pale into insignifigance by comparison). So far the technophiles seem to be in the majority. The level of differentiation that one feels is optimal obviously varies with one's level of interest in the air war proper. My gripe is that there is an overconcentration on the technical factors inherent in each and every plane. We only track armoured upgrades in a cursory fashion; in the desert war from early '41 to may '43 the 15 & 21 panzer are 9-10 arm XX, despite a change-over from a mix of pz-II and short barrelled pz-III with a smattering of short-barrelled pz-IVs to a force of predominantely pz-III and pz-IV "specials" with long barrelled 50mm and 75mm guns, and organizational restructuring in one case from a light division to a panzer division with one arm III and one Mot inf III to (at least on paper) a one arm-one panzer-grenadier-one mot inf III. Yet at the same time the desert air force and USAAF have P-40 Bs, Cs, Ds, Es, Fs, Ks....some of which have the same values for everything! The designer's notes for "Torch" covered why there were no panzer upgrades and where the recce battalions had gone. I think it was probably a valid judgement call to cut down on complexity and mapboard clutter. But I for one would not have minded a tad fewer air counters and a few more low-combat value units to cover those long, exposed flanks. The (Royal?) Egyptian air force is as combat-ready as the battle-hardened veterans of the RAF (don't laugh). They start with a Glad (3F3) and upgrade all things going well, to a Hurri (5F5), kindly transferred from the RAF. Even if the counter represents a rather larger number of planes than a strict 1 for 1 transfer, it probably overstates their true combat-readiness. As good as Soviet Guards? I doubt it. Do not get me wrong... I would love to see a Europa air war module where we could follow the technological race through the various air subtypes to our hearts content. It would, though, have to track pilot quality, tactical doctrine, air defence integrity (so far only covered in TFH), air-to-air radar, intruder missions, wild sow and tame sow units, Window, H2S, pilot training quality, altitude performance and (the whole point of the module!) the strategic air war. But, as a theater commander in a regular Europa game, do I give a tinker's damn what subtype of the P-40 is delivering the air support that I so badly need? The short answer is no, I don't and shouldn't do so, any more than I worry and fret about whether the naval gunfire support is coming from a variety of named warship counters with their own individual, differentiated stats or from a generic TF. The war in the Med was a triphibious matter from the outset, yet Europa deals with the air-ground interaction, largely abstracting the naval element. The generally negative reception of "Supermarina" (TEM 20 I think) shows what the Europa community as a whole thinks of detailed naval rules.(Well OK, very, very detailed rules). I submit that in scenarios where one side has overwhelming air superiority, the air war can be abstracted as neatly as the fleets were in the desert war scenarios(The West from about 3/44 on, Finland in 1939, Poland, The Balkans). In more balanced scenarios, a less hyper-differentiated air OoB would be useful. This is really just a reflection of the detail vs playabilty debate: although in a funny way; perhaps we feel the more differentiation there is in the counters the less complex the rules regarding other intangibles have to be. It is easier to collect technical data than to gauge pilot quality. Perhaps the best of all worlds would reflect pilot training the way we treat the soviets, with Guards-equivalent upgrades for a proportion of each nations pilots: "experten" get bonuses, the rest are flying cannon fodder: a certain # of upgrades are allowed per air cycle. Once you get on the losing end of a war of attrition, your airforce disintegrates unless the pressure lets up... The parlous state of fighter command in late 1940 comes to mind.... as does the collapse in quality of the Tagjager in 1944. I realize that I have just advocated a near doubling of the # of counters, so a culling of non-necessary subtypes is in order. ( Shrieks of "No!, No!!!! counters are our friends", etc...) The other thing one might want to consider is some limits on force-mix. As several posts have noted, different pilots do different things well, yet at the moment there is no limitation on how many of your ARP's must replace certain sorts of a/c: if you want to rebuild nothing but fighters you can, if you lose all your type A planes in one cycle you can replace nothing but type A's in the next cycle. As to quality of pilot vs quality of plane: Who would you rather face: Erich Hartmann (352+ confirmed kills) in an Me 109G2 (7F6) or some fresh faced rookie ( 0 kills, cannot fly in any formation except line abreast) yetin his Fw 190D (10F9) in your spitfire V, (7F6)? Your choice of wingtip, altitude, time of day, patron saint, etc. With malice toward none, Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 17:00:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01055; Tue, 9 Apr 96 17:00:40 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA12723 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 16:59:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.121.52] (ip-pdx05-52.teleport.com [206.163.121.52]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA23392; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604091459.HAA23392@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:04:50 -0700 To: Jason Long From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Fractional unit strengths Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 317 Has the idea of fractional combat strengths been explored? I always used the fractional dice method of getting combat results, where every little scrap counts. At this point, I'd rather not see any changes, but I wondered if anyone had thought about it. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 19:08:13 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02667; Tue, 9 Apr 96 19:08:12 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA15936 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:06:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [204.217.246.137] (samarkand.crossover.com [204.217.246.137]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA23476 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 11:57:51 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:05:42 -0500 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Fractional unit strengths Status: O Content-Length: 783 >Has the idea of fractional combat strengths been explored?... >At this point, I'd rather not see any changes, but I wondered if anyone had >thought about it. Yes. I explore this back when I was working on Fire in the East/Scorched Earth. Actually, it was decimals, not fractions I examined. (Decimals are easier to add than fractions with varying denominators.) Its main use would have been for a possible guerrilla war system, where various partisan units could weigh in with strengths ranging between 0 and 1. It turned out not to add anything of real significance to the game -- the effort to rate meaningfully units at tenths of a point, and the effort for players to engage in decimal arithmetic all the time by far outweighed any minor advantage in introducing the scheme. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 22:41:26 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04887; Tue, 9 Apr 96 22:41:25 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz ([192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA20886 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:35:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09554; Wed, 10 Apr 96 08:31:25 NZS Message-Id: <9604092031.AA09554@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:31 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Air Ground Support Status: O Content-Length: 1901 If my memory serves, and it generally doesn't, air units tended to have air and ground elements. The pilots would often move their Spitfires or Tomahawks by flying from point A to point B, while the "erks," as the RAF calls its ground crew, would ride troopships or trucks, the two elements meeting up at Point B. Bomber squadrons would move their crews in the planes, on occasion. Usually in today's US Navy, air units pretty much consist of the airmen and their mechanics. Airbase services (weather forecasting, firefighting, personnel services, billeting, messing, radar, ground control, is usually provided by the base itself. In the Air Force, there are air base wings and squadrons, whose purpose is to be the innkeeper for the air units. In the Navy, that function is served by the ship's company of an aircraft carrier or the staff of a given base or naval air station. For example, my unit here in Christchurch, Naval Antarctic Support Unit, does that for the Air Force and Navy squadrons that pass through here enroute to the ice. Their mechanics and aviators come to our disbursing office for their per diem money with which they pay the bill for the hotel that our unit has also billeted them (we don't use our outdated barracks any more). The early AH game France: 1940 and SPI's equally elderly Kursk both had two units for air unit, the aircraft element and the ground support element. The aircraft element flew missions, while the ground support element was the base. It moved like a mechanized unit, going from point A to point B to keep up with the onrushing or fleeing panzers, depending on the situation. A zillion ground support elements would be a monumental hassle in a game already loaded with counters. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 9 23:03:46 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05079; Tue, 9 Apr 96 23:03:45 +0200 Received: from homer21.u.washington.edu (attila@homer21.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA21855 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 23:02:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost by homer21.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.03/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA100890; Tue, 9 Apr 96 14:02:42 -0700 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:02:42 -0700 (PDT) From: "J. Nelson" To: Europa Newsgroup Subject: Spanish Torch Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2235 Since WitD is on the horizon, and my ongoing game of FWTBTs is winding down, I cracked the OB and rules last night for Spanish Torch. I find the scenario interesting, and full of all sorts of interesting potentials, but am not sure if they will be officially be dealt with. For instance, the allies invade Spain instead of N. Africa. What happens to the sizeable Spanish garrison in Sp. Morroco? If Vichy is done away with, would those units then be free to move into French Morroco and Algeria to disarm the Vichy units there? Would Rommel continue his retreat ( which I personally doubt ) through Libya and into Tunisia, or would he turn and fist it out with the pursuing 8th army? Would not more of the occupation forces in France be committed to aiding the Spanish if the allies had indeed amphibed there ( the German reaction forces listed seem pretty minimal, as well as of meager quality )? If the Vichy N. Africa territories are occupied by Spanish ground units, how would that effect the naval situation in the western mediterranean? Would a Spanish fleet based at, say, Mallorca, attempt a link-up with the Regina Marina? How would the supply situation for Malta be effected, if at all? How would the Canary Islands, Ifni, Spanish Sahara and Guinea be treated? Would some of those places be useful as rest-stops/ replenishment facilities for U-Boats? Finally, since sea hexes within 15 ( I think ) hexes of axis-occupied Europe become danger zones for the allied player's naval units, ....How is that effected by Spain joining the axis? Is Spain then part of axis-occupied europe, and the danger zone for allied naval vessels then expanded to cover most of the Spanish Mainland's coast and that of Spanish Morocco? I realize that some of my questions will simply have to await the arrival of GE for answers, .......but c'mon, since we have so many of the pieces of what could be a very interesting and fluid scenario ( Spanish Torch ), it would be fun to take care of at least some of the questions so that linking up ST and WitD would be an option? ( Some of us have space for maps, but can't deal with huge counter densities! ) In advance, Thank you! John Nelson From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 00:12:06 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05879; Wed, 10 Apr 96 00:12:05 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz ([192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA23508 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:02:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09852; Wed, 10 Apr 96 09:58:44 NZS Message-Id: <9604092158.AA09852@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:58 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Spanish Torch and WitD Status: O Content-Length: 665 Good point on the Spanish Torch and WitD combination. Since the tools are in print, or near to, GRD might want to think about creating a package to combine the two games down the road, a la the Clash of Titans rules. Before they do that, though, I would like to see the completion of the reprint of the SF counters to eliminate the problems. Quality should be Job 1. In another note, I just got word that my Europa membership is expiring. But my checkbook says I fired off my $35 on February 20th. What's going on? David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 01:01:52 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06376; Wed, 10 Apr 96 01:01:51 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA24601 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 01:01:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 09 Apr 1996 17:55:05 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 20:00:03 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re:Spanish Torch and WitD Status: O Content-Length: 563 On 4/10/96, Dave Lippman stated: >I just got word that my Europa membership is expiring. But >my checkbook says I fired off my $35 on February 20th. >What's going on? I think that everyone got the notification of membership expiration; I renewed when I sent in my prepub money for WitD and got the notification also. I was actually surprised to find out how many of you guys out there don't belong to the Association. Of course, if the annual freebie schedule hadn't gone completely to Hell more of you guys would have kept up your memberships, IMHO. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 01:05:14 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06409; Wed, 10 Apr 96 01:05:13 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA24745 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 01:05:01 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA038510266; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:51:07 GMT Message-Id: <199604092251.AA038510266@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Tue, 9 Apr 96 22:51:06 UTC 0000 ( from inet01# ; Tue, 9 Apr 96 22:50:43 UTC 0000) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 96 22:40:00 UTC 0000 To: zaius%teleport.com%inet#@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 8739324 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 144041 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Fractional unit strengths Status: O Content-Length: 601 Reply: Item #0379754 from ZAIUS@TELEPORT.COM@INET#on 96/04/09 at 11:04 Fractional combat strengths would have come in very useful in China. In riles my Japanese playtester to no end that he can stack 5 x 1-0-8 Lt. Armor units together and they still have no defensive strength and can be overrun by a lowly 1-4 unsupported provincial division. Totally ahistoric he asserts. However, that having been said, I think I would be against fractional/decimal factors on the counters. I think the granularity of the game needs to be held in check, and integral combat factors is a good limit. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 03:34:30 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA07656; Wed, 10 Apr 96 03:34:28 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA27292 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:33:06 +0200 (MET DST) From: l.hanna@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA237499153; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 01:19:13 GMT Message-Id: <199604100119.AA237499153@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Wed, 10 Apr 96 01:19:13 UTC 0000 ( from inet01# ; Wed, 10 Apr 96 01:18:55 UTC 0000) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 01:19:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: L.HANNA X-Genie-Qk-Id: 3662066 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 145078 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Spanish Torch Status: O Content-Length: 1185 Nice to see that someone else liked that scenario. The question of the Spanish in Morocco disarming Vichy North Africa and meeting Rommel in Tunis is one I had not realy thought through. As for the Spanish fleet attempting to cut off Malta, or assisting in same, I would think the Allies would hav planned ahead for that. The German occupation forces in France would probably be busy in both taking over the newly ex-Vichy area, and building a defense line in the Pyrenees-- they were _not_ expecting this invasion this soon. It certainly makes the Germans _much_ more interested in grabbing the French fleet, though, wouldn't it? In SF, naval danger zones are 5 hexes, and if the Spanish navy were able to sail, they would be set up. But, remember, Allied ports "generate" their own danger zones, which neutralize Axis danger zones. Presumably the Allies would grab a suitable port, as well as put some effort in neutralizing the Spanish fleet. Sure, the Germans could put U-boats in the Canaries, but the Allies could put (Royal) Marines there first. I would be interested in "kitbashing" SF, FWTBT, and the new WinD, once I see what WinD looks like. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 06:07:51 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA08671; Wed, 10 Apr 96 06:07:49 +0200 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA29462 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 06:06:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from osf1.gmu.edu by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA16686; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:06:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 23:15:47 -0500 From: Nicholas Forte Reply-To: nforte@gmu.edu Subject: Re: Spanish Torch To: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604100119.AA237499153@relay1.geis.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1045 I think that any attempt by the Spanish to disarm the French in North Africa would have been resisted and would have resulted in French North Africa going over to the Allies. Furthermore, would Franco have used these troops in such a mission when they would have been desparately needed to defend Spain? A Spanish-occupied Algiers is not a fair trade for an Allied-occupied Madrid. As for the status of German forces disarming Vichy, that would depend on the status of Vichy. The Germans disarmed Vichy because they no longer viewed it as reliable after the Torch landings. I am not so sure that the Germans would have reacted the same way if Torch happened in Spain rather than North Africa. Would the need to secure the Pyrenees may have resulted in the same action or would/could the Germans have forced Vichy to abandon its neutrality and join the Axis? Would Vichy have accepted an ultimatum to join the Axis? (on reflection I think not) I will defer to anyone who is more familiar with Vichy politics and Vichy-German relations. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 06:19:30 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA08727; Wed, 10 Apr 96 06:19:28 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA29601 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 06:19:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA153679109; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 04:05:09 GMT Message-Id: <199604100405.AA153679109@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Wed, 10 Apr 96 04:05:09 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Wed, 10 Apr 96 04:04:45 UTC 0000) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 03:56:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 2013109 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 128659 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Yet more of my $0.02 worth Status: O Content-Length: 5137 1. "As to the difference between 7-6 and 8-6 infantry divisions: Maybe that unit that is an 8-6 got an extra artillery battery or something. Or, alternatively why not just allow Germans that want to build a 3-6 cadre up to an 8-6 to do so, even if the original division was a 7-6? I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be done. After all, I've got plenty of 8-6s laying around and in the main, I'm not too worried about historical unit numbers (if there are 4 x 12th infantry divisions running around, I really don't give a monkey's)" With all due respect go play some generic WW2 game like SPI's War in the East, or something. :) One of the fascinating things about the Europa is the OB variety and accuracy! The difference between an 8-6 Inf XX and 7-6 Inf XX lies in the fact that the 8-6s represent the cream of the German infantry and are the Welle 1 and Welle 2 infantry divisions (plus a few of the early war infantry divisions not assigned to a specific wave: 50, 72 and 60) with the best of the regular personnel and equipment. The 7-6s are the rest of the lot with older and/or less trained personnel and second-line equipment. The first line infantry divisions had a full recon battalion ("Aufklarungs," at least initially) the others only a company. After all of the carnage on the Eastern Front, the differences due begin to even out which is why you get all of those 5-7-6 Inf XX counters for conversions. Many of the old, first line divisions were destroyed or decimated many times over and, in late 1944, bore little or no resemblance to the 1939 version except for the unit designation. Case in point, the 26th Volksgrenadier Division. Every Bulge source and game that I have ever seen states that this unit is an Welle 1 infantry division even in December 1944 and retained the old three regiment/nine battalion organization (even the vaunted Gamers made this mistake). And it is a mistake, "By mid-December the 26th VGD contained nearly 10,600 men in the standard seven infantry battalions of a volksgrenadier division. (It has often been inaccurately reported that the 26th VGD contained 17,000 men and nine infantry battlions)." HITLER'S LAST GAMBLE (Trevor N. Dupuy et al) p.108. Dupuy further claims that the 26th was destroyed and rebuilt no less than six times between June 1941 and early 1944. Maybe so, Tessin (Volume 4) has it as a "Division neuer Art" with seven battalions and a fusiler battatalion by August 1944; absorbing the 174th Reserve Division in July 1944; and being disbanded and its personnel absorbed by the 253rd Infantry Division on 10 September 1944. On 17 September the Welle 30 infantry division, 582nd Volksgrenadier Division, is renamed the 26th Volksgrenadier Division to perpetuate the old unit. These 500 series divisions that appear, in part, in late 1944 in FiE/SE and SF are the first "Volksgrenadier" divisions and have yet another organization which is represented in Europa terms as 1 x 4-6-6 Inf XX. 2. Luft-peeves: my personal "luft-peeve" (based on getting blasted by Alan Tibbets in a PBEM of Frank Watson's upcoming Operation Husky scenario) is the fact that the CAP rule allows one to fly fighters at maximum range which can then intercept incoming missions over a hex which they could not reach if flying the regular 1/2 range interception mission. If one has lots of fighters, like the Allies, then one can fly lots of CAP. 3. U. S. Replacement System: I ran across an interesting (because of the topic) book at the local college library on Monday. THE PERSONNEL REPLACEMENT SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY. A 1954 U. S. Army Center of Military History publication, reprinted in 1982 and 1988. It does cover U. S. Army replacement systems from the Revolutionary War (!) through WW2, and has extensive coverage of the WW2 system. In case that you are interested all those (20 counters, I believe) 1 x 3-5-4* Repl XX Grp and 1 x 4-5-4* Trng XX Grp counters for the U. S. Army in SF represent "replacement depots," permanent units, usually commanded by a Colonel, composed of 4 to 5 replacement battalions (probably 10,000 men or so) and serving as a collection point for replacements from various sources to forward on the front. Some were assigned training duties to retrain service personnel as infantrymen, like the 24th RD in the MTO. Some were assigned to as depot units for a particular army: 2nd RD to Seventh Army; 3rd RD to First Army; 11th RD to Fifteenth Army; 17th RD to Third Army; and 18th RD to Ninth Army. I think that SF tracks these units and their functions very well. 4. "Can you confirm that the Japs operated all the Vickers tanks in one unit or were they distributed out? If the former than give them a 1-6 full armor battalion, but if not than keep them as you have them." According to Osprey Vanguard #35, ARMOUR OF THE PACIFIC WAR, in 1936, the Chinese assigned all of their Vickers tanks to two units: 1st Armored Battalion at Shanghai with Vickers Carden Lloyd light amphbious tanks and "some" Vickers 6-ton E tanks; and 2nd Armored Battalion also at Shanghai with the remainder of the 20 Vickers 6-ton E tanks. Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 11:21:01 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12715; Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:21:00 +0200 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA04217 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:18:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id FAA18414; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 05:17:29 -0400 Date: 10 Apr 96 05:14:25 EDT From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@CompuServe.COM> To: unknown Subject: Re: Spanish Torch Message-Id: <960410091425_100626.2267_BHL140-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 3049 J. Nelson raised some interesting points which have been commented on by others. I may have an advantage here because I have read the scenario rules carefully, before I started playing Spanish Torch recently but domestic considerations called an early halt, however here goes >For instance, the allies invade Spain instead of N. Africa. What happens to the sizeable Spanish garrison in Sp. Morroco? If Vichy is done away with, would those units then be free to move into French Morroco and Algeria to disarm the Vichy units there?< In the Spanish Torch scenario French Morocco is neutral territory, end of story. The axis is also assumed to occupy Vichy France In the axis invasion of Spain scenario the allied player determines the status of French Morocco at the start of his turn becase he also occupies Vichy There seems to be a rules conflict here, why does Morroco not undergo a status check in Spanish Torch perhaps the GURU would like to rule on this one. >Would Rommel continue his retreat ( which I personally doubt ) through Libya and into Tunisia, or would he turn and fist it out with the pursuing 8th army? < I think It would suit the 8th Army for Rommel to stand and fight and be destroyed, given the odds I cant see any other outcome. >how would that effect the naval situation in the western mediterranean? Would a Spanish fleet based at, say, Mallorca, attempt a link-up with the Regina Marina? How would the supply situation for Malta be effected, if at all? How would the Canary Islands, Ifni, Spanish Sahara and Guinea be treated? Would some of those places be useful as rest-stops/ replenishment facilities for U-Boats?< I cant see that the addition of the Spanish fleet would make much difference to the situation in the Western Med, the Italian fleet is already a broken reed with neither the fuel nor inclination to mount any serious challenge to events in Spain. Malta can be supplied from the East, with the Axis army destroyed or retreating, air cover can be provided to the convoys over the whole journey. The Canary Isles and the Azores would probably be included in a Spanish Torch for the very reasons you quote, plans for seizing the islands(Operation Puma) had existed since 1941 when Gibralter was under threat from the proposed Operation Felix. I think there were plans at one time to incude maps of these Islands with FWTBT. Spanish Guinea, there are substantial British Colonial forces in West Africa at this time which could be used to occupy it. >Finally, since sea hexes within 15 ( I think ) hexes of axis-occupied Europe become danger zones for the allied player's naval units, ...< I think you need to look up the rules on this one, but from memory the danger zone limits you refer to are 5 hexes in certain areas of SF, in the Spanish Torch scenario danger zones are only one hex adjacent to each naval base. You may be confusing danger zones with axis anti- shipping air forces which get the 15hex range from ports or airfields and use the Torch naval table for results. Alan Philson From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 11:31:26 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12894; Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:31:24 +0200 Received: from mailgw.liu.se (mailgw.liu.se [130.236.1.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA04399 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:31:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by mailgw.liu.se (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA15982 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:35:04 +0200 Received: from [194.112.37.37] (gw5-037.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA19302 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:29:18 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:31:43 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Yet more Luft-peeves flak Status: O Content-Length: 6248 Patrick wrote: >The (Royal?) Egyptian air force is as combat-ready as the >battle-hardened veterans of the RAF (don't laugh). They start with a Glad >(3F3) and upgrade all things going well, to a Hurri (5F5), kindly transferred >from the RAF. Even if the counter represents a rather larger number of planes >than a strict 1 for 1 transfer, it probably overstates their true >combat-readiness. As good as Soviet Guards? I doubt it. Very good point. I agree that the minor airforces should be rated similar to non-guard Soviet pilots. Iraq, Iran, Egypt come to mind immediately. Possibly Yugoslavia and Bulgaria as well, but certainly not Greece (the Royal Hellenic Airforce was surprisingly effective). This is a very good idea. I still believe quite strongly that it is important to track specific air types, though I do not mind the idea of grouping similar types with no *Europa level* effective differentiation (such as the various P-40's you mentions) into counter which reflect the most significant type. This is clearly what the Fw.190A2 and A8 counter are already: the A2 also obviously includes the A1, A3 and A4 (and maybe the A5?). The Fw.190A8 obviously includes the A6 and A7 (and maybe the A5?). This seems reasonable, whereas lumping the A1 and A8 into a single rating overstates the early variants. Maybe this would also be appropriate for *some* of the P-40s. > Do not get me wrong... I would love to see a Europa air war module where >we could follow the technological race through the various air subtypes to >our hearts content. It would, though, have to track pilot quality, >tactical doctrine, air defence integrity (so far only covered in TFH), >air-to-air radar, intruder missions, wild sow and tame sow units, Window, >H2S, pilot training quality, altitude performance and (the whole point of the >module!) the strategic air war. YEAH! Cancel the previously ordered decapitation. > But, as a theater commander in a regular Europa game, do I give a tinker's >damn what subtype of the P-40 is delivering the air support that I so badly >need? The short answer is no, I don't and shouldn't do so, any more than I >worry and fret about whether the naval gunfire support is coming from a >variety of named warship counters with their own individual, differentiated >stats or from a generic TF. Actually, I DO give a damn (but they you knew I'd say that, didn't you). I would much rather get gunfire support from HMS Warspite & USS Cleveland than TF2. Generic counters? Bleh :-P > The war in the Med was a triphibious matter from the outset, yet Europa > deals with the air-ground interaction, largely abstracting the naval >element. The generally negative reception of "Supermarina" (TEM 20 I think) >shows what the Europa community as a whole thinks of detailed naval >rules.(Well OK, very, very detailed rules). Not me, chaps! I rather like detailed naval stuff. >I submit that in scenarios where >one side has overwhelming air superiority, the air war can be abstracted as >neatly as the fleets were in the desert war scenarios(The West from about >3/44 on, Finland in 1939, Poland, The Balkans) I agree, **if that is what you want**. Repeat after me...Modular Rules. Modular Rules. Modular Rules: Abstracted modules! Compromise modules! Complex-as-hell modules! Yea for Modules! (big snip) >I realize that I have just advocated a near doubling of the # of >counters, so a culling of non-necessary subtypes is in order. ( Shrieks of >"No!, No!!!! counters are our friends", etc...) =:-O No! No! The counters are our friends! > The other thing one might want to consider is some limits on force-mix. As >several posts have noted, different pilots do different things well, yet at >the moment there is no limitation on how many of your ARP's must replace >certain sorts of a/c: if you want to rebuild nothing but fighters you can, if >you lose all your type A planes in one cycle you can replace nothing but type >A's in the next cycle. Excellent! I personally detest the whole air replacement system as it is in SF and would prefer something back along the line of the flipped inoperative counters located at actual airbases and rolling to repair them. This is also the ONLY way to catch fighters on the ground with an air attack. I could tolerate air replacement points if they were type specific: For example - two points of 'Spitfires' to replace an eliminated 'Spitfire' counter (only) ands one point of Spit replacements to make a inoperative counter flip to operative. **Or better still**, make it a two stage process. Spend one Spit point to activate a killed Spit counter from the eliminated pool, having it arrive *inoperative* at an airfield and then NEXT turn, make it operative by spending a second point, rather than SHAZZAM: new air counter. > As to quality of pilot vs quality of plane: Who would you rather face: >Erich Hartmann (352+ confirmed kills) in an Me 109G2 (7F6) or some fresh >faced rookie ( 0 kills, cannot fly in any formation except line abreast) >yetin his Fw 190D (10F9) in your spitfire V, (7F6)? Your choice of >wingtip, altitude, time of day, patron saint, etc. Sure, Hartmann was a great pilot. However, I think averaging quality is a better way to do thing when a counter is the size of a Wing (RAF). The German 'fly-till-you-die policy made for lots of aces but the USAAF/RAF policy of 'x number of missions and you're out' made for a higher level of *average* skills in the air due to superior (or at least more consistent) training programmes. Hell, I would not want to run into Hartmann if he was flying a Ar.68 (1F1 ?) but that is beside the point as it is more important whose *average* pilots were better, because that is who you are going to be flying against.... ....Then again :-) Modules! Modules! Modules! A rule for *experten* counters might be a nice optional rule in a air war module. Wing Cdr 'Bob' Braham's lads & Oblt Schaufer's boys had an interesting night-time shoot 'em up in August 1943... it would be interesting to simulate this, but we also need rule for things like Radar & Serrate etc. He, He. >With malice toward none, You obviously have never met my ex-wife.... Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 12:46:36 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13711; Wed, 10 Apr 96 12:46:35 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA05931 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:45:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.51] (Lilla_Red_01 [130.237.155.51]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id MAA13221 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:45:44 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:45:44 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: SF:CAP (Was: Re: Yet more of my $0.02 worth) Status: O Content-Length: 1037 You really need to come up with a more descriptive headline, don't you? ;-) >2. Luft-peeves: my personal "luft-peeve" (based on getting blasted >by Alan Tibbets in a PBEM of Frank Watson's upcoming Operation >Husky scenario) is the fact that the CAP rule allows one to fly >fighters at maximum range which can then intercept incoming >missions over a hex which they could not reach if flying the >regular 1/2 range interception mission. If one has lots of >fighters, like the Allies, then one can fly lots of CAP. Huh? I thought that was the very point of CAP missions! To extend your interception ranges by having a standing patrol over an area. Of the drawback for this is that you have to place them in advance. This seems accurate enough to me. Perhaps someone else can share some more light on the cap mission? What does it simulate, what problems with the old rules were they supposed to rectify and what are they good for? Any opinions? Comments? Designers notes? I'd like to see them. Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 12:51:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13795; Wed, 10 Apr 96 12:51:17 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA06060 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:51:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.51] (Lilla_Red_01 [130.237.155.51]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id MAA13284 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:51:00 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:51:01 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: FWTBT/WITD/SE:Spanish Torch Status: O Content-Length: 357 > I would be interested in "kitbashing" SF, FWTBT, and the new WinD, >once I see what WinD looks like. Yes, a linkup scenario of these three would be great! It feels a bit strange to play the "Spanish Torch" scenario to explore a European landing in 1942, but not be able to pursue this strategy to the end. Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 15:19:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16154; Wed, 10 Apr 96 15:19:48 +0200 Received: from ns.rmc.com (ns.rmc.com [137.25.23.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA09046 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:18:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ns.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA11236; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:07:26 -0400 Received: from internet.rmc.com(137.25.3.24) by ns.rmc.com via smap (V1.3) id sma020380; Wed Apr 10 09:07:08 1996 Received: from lanmail.rmc.com by internet.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA12966; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:17:51 -0400 Received: by LANMAIL.RMC.COM; Wed, 10 Apr 96 9:15:52 EDT Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 9:20:50 EDT Message-Id: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re:Spanish Torch Status: O Content-Length: 233 Some of you may not have noticed that back on March 27, John Astell posted a WitD update which included the following: > OBs: In proof reading (except for 1-2 pages on Spanish Torch, which are > being finalized this week). Frank From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 15:31:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16333; Wed, 10 Apr 96 15:31:17 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA09334 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:30:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [204.217.246.137] (samarkand.crossover.com [204.217.246.137]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA24968 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:22:21 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:30:11 -0500 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Fractional unit strengths Status: O Content-Length: 1086 Mark Royer wrote: >Fractional combat strengths would have come in very useful in China. In riles >my Japanese playtester to no end that he can stack 5 x 1-0-8 Lt. Armor units >together and they still have no defensive strength and can be overrun by a >lowly 1-4 unsupported provincial division.... There are three ways around this without having to resort to fractional strengths: 1. If five lt arm units should have a defense strength of 1, then rate four of them 1-0-8 and one 1-8. 2. If they ever operated historically grouped in a brigade-like headquarters, allow them to assemble to a brigade unit with a defense of 1: e.g., 5x 1-0-8 build 1x 5-1-8. 3. If they NEVER operated historically grouped in a brigade-like headquarters, then they probably had neither training nor experience to operate in a unified armored unit, so their 0 defense strength may be best after all -- that lowly 1-4 unsupported provincial division isn't overruning a coordinated armored unit, it's picking off one after another a bunch of weak units that just happen to be in the same general area. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 15:49:17 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16590; Wed, 10 Apr 96 15:49:16 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA09781 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:48:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [204.217.246.137] (samarkand.crossover.com [204.217.246.137]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA25010 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:40:00 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:47:50 -0500 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Spanish Torch Status: O Content-Length: 1709 > ....The question of >the Spanish in Morocco disarming Vichy North Africa and meeting Rommel in >Tunis is one I had not realy thought through. The Spanish in Sp. Morocco do not have anywhere near overwhelming strength against the French in Fr. North Africa -- I'm not even sure they have superior strength (I'm on a trip and don't have the OBs handy). The French would certainly resist the Spanish, and, given the mountainous terrain the Spanish would face in Fr. Morocco, it sure looks like the Spanish wouldn't get very far. Also, Sp. Morocco has only limited supplies and would soon have to get supplies from elsewhere to sustain an offensive -- which seems unlikely, as the Allies would blockade the place. > ...As for the Spanish fleet >attempting to cut off Malta, or assisting in same, I would think the Allies >would hav planned ahead for that.... 1) The Spanish fleet is really not that big, and the available Allied naval assets can handle any elements rash enough to sortie. 2) It is unclear why the Spanish fleet would cut off Malta anyway, since this would have no direct bearing on the battle for Spain. Certainly the Spanish would tell the much larger Italian Navy to do this if it's such a good idea. 3) It is also unclear what effect any Axis fleet cutting off Malta would have. Malta's effect comes from the submarines and anti-shipping aircraft operating from there, and not from surface forces. A tight blockage would hamper the submarines somewhat, but the subs have to put in to Malta only occasionally (and could replenish elsewhere). For aircraft, a tight blockade would mostly give the a/c more targets to sink. Probably only an outright invasion of Malta would work. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 16:12:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17079; Wed, 10 Apr 96 16:12:49 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA10304 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:12:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [204.217.246.137] (samarkand.crossover.com [204.217.246.137]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA25051 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:03:41 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:11:30 -0500 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Yet more Luft-peeves flak Status: O Content-Length: 1620 >>The (Royal?) Egyptian air force is as combat-ready as the >>battle-hardened veterans of the RAF (don't laugh). They start with a Glad >>(3F3) and upgrade all things going well, to a Hurri (5F5), kindly transferred >>from the RAF.... As good as Soviet Guards? I doubt it. > >...I agree that the minor airforces should be rated similar >to non-guard Soviet pilots. Iraq, Iran, Egypt come to mind immediately. >Possibly Yugoslavia and Bulgaria as well, but certainly not Greece (the >Royal Hellenic Airforce was surprisingly effective). This is a very good >idea.... Sure, the Middle Eastern states had crap air forces. For most individual E games, it hardly matters -- the crap air forces are tiny, have low-quality aircraft, and can hardly stand up to Axis or Allied air units anyway. Adding a crap air force rule/modifier just clutters up the game. Where it counts (the Soviets), we have the crap air force mods. For Europa overall, a crap air force rule is appropriate and can be applied to more than just the Soviet regulars. The Egyptian, Iraqi, and Iranian air forces almost certainly qualify. For the European nations, I really don't see many if any nations qualifying as crap other than the Soviet regulars. Perhaps some of the Baltic states, but even there things seem to be up to professional standards. All European nations have a pool of educated, technically-adept people from which they can build a competent air force, even if they can't afford to buy the most-advanced aircraft. Remember, just by varing the number of aircraft per unit, we can go along ways to account for varying pilot quality. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 17:13:14 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18306; Wed, 10 Apr 96 17:13:09 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA11587 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:10:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.120.45] (ip-pdx01-45.teleport.com [206.163.120.45]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA18317 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604101510.IAA18317@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:15:47 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: some questions Status: O Content-Length: 2160 Looking over past correspondence and posts I saved for lack of time to read earlier...some questions occured to me: *Air: It was asked by someone why air units on defensive ground support have to be tied to units where no attack occurs for a whole turn- so I wonder how the current rules were arrived at. Was there any experimentation with something like an "On Call" defensive support? I must say, the system in place is a giant leap over the old inflexible dedicated support rule- at least you can allocate after the enemy moves, having some idea where punches might land. Has any one experimented with any alternatives to this? *Stacking: Someone said that Europa's stacking limits were originally tied to simply a number of REs allowed in various types of terrain- this seems so much better than combinations of divisions, artillery and 'other'. *Soviet (and German) artillery/rocket divisions: In every game I've played, these are abused like crazy ("Oh, that didn't move!"/"Oh yes it did!" controversy notwithstanding) and I'd hope that in Grand Europa scenarios like Clash of Titans, some reins be put on these units-halving them after *any* movement- advance after combat and retreats as well as flat out movement. *Soviet advantages: Similarly , HQ rules or some sort of limits on Soviet Mech XXX would make the CoT scenario take on a more historical flow instead of the Soviets in Berlin by Summer 44. In our CoT game, it was only incredibly cautious Allied (unlike some others, we haven't played SF & SE 55 times already) play that led to a stalemate. *Southeast/Balkans post 41 - Is anybody working on a game involving the partisan war in the Balkans? There was a lot of discussion about Allied invasions here in SF, but I would think a more fun game would involve the partisan/covert war as it was- Axis security forces battling partisans and Allied special units, &c... fertile ground for a TEM scenario? I am hard pressed to find any concrete data on partisan/chetnik forces, but there are plenty of people who seem to have unlimited access to primary sources (how *do* you do it?) "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 17:25:06 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18503; Wed, 10 Apr 96 17:25:05 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA12023 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:23:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id LAA27522 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:23:10 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17377; Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:15:48 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20452; Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:14:48 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604101514.AA20452@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: Air Ground Support (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:14:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 1091 Hi, Dave writes: > The early AH game France: 1940 and SPI's equally elderly Kursk both > had two units for air unit, the aircraft element and the ground support > element. The aircraft element flew missions, while the ground support > element was the base. It moved like a mechanized unit, going from point A > to point B to keep up with the onrushing or fleeing panzers, depending on > the situation. This was also true of the (in)famous Campaign for North Africa. That game had Squadron Ground Support Units, which moved around as motorized units. A SGSU would support a number of aircraft, front line and reserve, depending on date and nationality. The aircraft were kept track of individually! Each was individually repaired, rearmed and refueled. What's more (boy are you going to like this, Perry), fighter pilots were individually rated. Definitely a game before its time. I wonder if those guys at Atomic Games have had a gander at it. I'm not sure that I want Europa to be a computer game, but CNA should be. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 20:03:09 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20630; Wed, 10 Apr 96 20:03:08 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA00924 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:00:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id NAA00764; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:32:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:32:05 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Yet more Luft-peeves flak To: Perry de Havilland Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 710 The on demand air system required a method to show which planes had already flown and the back of teh counter had to be used. I'm not comfortqble about removing aborted aircraft from the map entirely, but that's less important than preventing players from playing planes twice. The ARPs a bit to generic for myown tastes, but it is simple. As an abuse it is far less powerful to replace all fighters one turn than bombers the next than the old way of actually converting a He 111 to a Fw 190. We actually discussed breaking ARPs into F and all others, but decided it was too much trouble. If memory serves the Fw 190A-2 includes everything up to the A-6 with A-8 counter getting everything else. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 20:22:55 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20928; Wed, 10 Apr 96 20:22:54 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA01390 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:22:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id NAA00934; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:54:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:54:12 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: CoT Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604101510.IAA18317@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 140 Steve, did you guys keep any detailed notes? I'd love to run a battlefield report on CoT, even if your game was somewhat anomalous. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 22:42:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA22156; Wed, 10 Apr 96 22:42:58 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz ([192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA04038 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:41:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12824; Thu, 11 Apr 96 08:37:54 NZS Message-Id: <9604102037.AA12824@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 08:40 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Those fightin' Chetniks Status: O Content-Length: 2746 It's very hard to get exact data on any aspect of the Balkans at any time, due to the incredibly complex nature of politics there. However, a good source is Fitzroy MacLean's memoir. He was the British liaison to Tito, and he wrote a book (I think it was Inside Tito's Headquarters, someone else will doubtless correct me) on the subject. The Chetniks are very tricky to pin down. Apparently they were led by a fully-bearded guy named Draza Mikhailovich, and his armies at first made life tough for the Italian, Ustasi, and Serbian puppet forces occupying Yugoslavia. The Ustasi Croatian troops were led by the equally forgettable Ante Pavelich, who ran the puppet state of Croatia for Hitler. Pavelich sent a couple of regiments of troops off to the Ostfront and about seven or so similar sadsack outfits to kill his countrymen. The Croatian troops did so badly the Nazis reorganized them from regiments to brigades, but this paperwork shuffle did not improve troop quality. Not that the Nazis really needed to. Mikhailovich soon found a rival in Josip Broz-Tito, and the two hated each other's guts more than the Nazis. The trouble was, Mikhailovich hated Tito so much, he began to collaborate with Italian and German troops to hunt down partisans. For years, the Allies supported the Chetniks, who in turn supported the Yugoslavian monarchy, to the detriment of Tito and the benefit of the Axis. The support was so great that a 1944 US first day cover honoring Yugoslavia (part of the "Occupied Nations" series) shows a picture of Mikhailovich and bears the words, "Yugoslavia, homeland of the fighting Chetniks and other liberty loving groups." By the time this stamp came out, Chetnik outfits were fighting under German command against Tito. Ultimately, after MacLean flew to Yugoslavia, the Allies got the point, jettisoned Mikhailovich, and backed Tito, who made Yugoslavia a living hell for the Germans. After the war, Mikhailovich was captured by Tito's forces, and received the death penalty in short order. While there's little doubt about Mikhailovich's switching sides, some recent historians have noted that a number of Chetnik guerillas did their job of hounding and harassng the Nazis, and did not collaborate, so it is unfair to paint all Chetniks as pro-Fascist. I know this doesn't address the burning issues, like air replacement, fractional strengths, and NODLs, but I can't add anyway, and I'm more interested in Europa for the historical side, anyway. Without history behind Europa, it's just a math test, and I failed those. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 22:47:08 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA22193; Wed, 10 Apr 96 22:47:07 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA04134 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:46:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12838; Thu, 11 Apr 96 08:43:03 NZS Message-Id: <9604102043.AA12838@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 08:45 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Erich Hartmann, fighter ace Status: O Content-Length: 1214 On Perry De Havilland's long post, and the various points he makes: I was just reading this morning about Erich Hartmann in Martin Caidin's book on the Messerschmidt 109, and he says that Hartmann was a beneficiary of Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry. He apparently claimed kills on days that the RAF reported that no Luftwaffe planes dogfighted with the Allies. That might explain how he allegedly bagged 352 Allied planes, while the top American ace, Richard Bong, had only 80. Doubtless Hartmann was a major fighter pilot and a massive ace, but I doubt he racked up as many as 352 kills. Also, I've said before on the Naval issue that I like direct fire from HMS Warspite and USS Brooklyn, but can understand that a lot of other players don't want to spend time checking fuel and ammo boxes on HMS Enterprise, so let's have both. What the heck, when I play Grand Europa, I'll probably just slap the Spanish TF markers down on the map and leave them there until someone's about to invade Spain...then I'll swap them out for the cruisers Cerveza and Canarias. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 22:52:48 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA22255; Wed, 10 Apr 96 22:52:47 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA04227 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:52:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12849; Thu, 11 Apr 96 08:48:13 NZS Message-Id: <9604102048.AA12849@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 08:50 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: The ultimate monster game Status: O Content-Length: 1508 I have a copy of Campaign for North Africa back home in Hoboken, and every now and then I open it up, scan through the OB and rules, then put it back again, shaking my head. I quite forgot that CNA had individual pilot ratings on top of its other massive rules (the Italian pasta water point, PoW camps, flying dead camels by air, raids on Rommel, and broken-down trucks). I often wondered how anybody was actually supposed to PLAY this game, but it was clearly designed for wargame clubs, which meant that you had 10 guys to a side, so jobs were scattered out. One guy worried about PoWs, one guy worried about air units, one guy worried about the Long Range Desert Group's big raid on the well near Jalo. The depressing idea would be 40 or so CNA players playing the game for a year or so at their club, and fighting the three-year North African war to a draw. The funny thing was, most of the counters of that game weren't combat units, but markers. The entire 5th Light Division could be one counter, which was itself pretty weird, given that a roster sheet on the side would tell me how many vehicles the 5th Light had, and what type. If that game was ever to be re-issued, it would behoove some computer guy to develop a spreadsheet program with which to keep track of how many 2-lbr. anti-tank guns are in the 6th Australian Division. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 23:47:32 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23045; Wed, 10 Apr 96 23:47:31 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA05762 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:46:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.35] (gw1-035.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA20855 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:46:20 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:48:42 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Erich Hartmann, fighter ace Status: O Content-Length: 1511 David wrote: > Also, I've said before on the Naval issue that I like direct fire >from HMS Warspite and USS Brooklyn, but can understand that a lot of >other players don't want to spend time checking fuel and ammo boxes on >HMS Enterprise, so let's have both. What the heck, when I play Grand >Europa, I'll probably just slap the Spanish TF markers down on the map >and leave them there until someone's about to invade Spain...then I'll >swap them out for the cruisers Cerveza and Canarias. I could not have said not better myself. Well written modular rules could indeed allow such swaping around mid-game (with mutual player consent). Writting such rules is no mean feat but it IS possible Also, Keith wrote: > This was also true of the (in)famous Campaign for North >Africa. That game had Squadron Ground Support Units, which moved >around as motorized units. A SGSU would support a number of aircraft, >front line and reserve, depending on date and nationality. The >aircraft were kept track of individually! Each was individually >repaired, rearmed and refueled. What's more (boy are you going >to like this, Perry), fighter pilots were individually rated. I have indeed perused (in awe) the CFNA game: not so much a game as a career, a vocation even! Actually (shock, horror =:-O) this is too much detail even for me. I was told once CFNA was played at Sandhurst by some of the staff as an exercise and it took more than a dozen players to play the damn thing! Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 10 23:47:38 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23055; Wed, 10 Apr 96 23:47:37 +0200 Received: from ns.corona.navy.mil (ns.corona.navy.mil [137.67.32.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA05788 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:47:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ccgate.corona.navy.mil (ccgate.corona.navy.mil [137.67.40.4]) by ns.corona.navy.mil (8.7.5/1.4) with SMTP id OAA11066 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ccMail by ccgate.corona.navy.mil (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 16c2d0c0; Wed, 10 Apr 96 14:50:04 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:44:24 -0700 Message-Id: <16c2d0c0@ccgate.corona.navy.mil> From: renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil (Renaud.Gary) Subject: Re: Erich Hartmann, fighter ace To: europa@lysator.liu.se Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Status: O Content-Length: 593 "...the cruisers Cerveza and Canarias." ^^^^^^^ Definite possiblity of a Freudian slip, there. "Cervantes" A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114 a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1 than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__ W: 909-273-5378 block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--' H: 714-750-9243 `-----''(_/--' `-'\_) DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge I HATE UNIX I CAN'T speak for this administration; I don't lie enough. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 00:00:55 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23205; Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:00:54 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA06117 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:00:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA21860 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:00:18 -0400 Message-Id: <199604102200.AA21860@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:00:18 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa Subject: Air-crew Quality & A Cautionary Tale Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 17:51:00 EST Encoding: 102 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 6091 Ah..... it brings a smile to my face to remember the good ol' Campaign for North Africa. Everyone who demands more and better realism in their board game should be required to play this game to it's conclusion or age 65, whichever comes first ... if I'm not mistaken there was a rule requiring additional water supplies for all Italian units to account for their culinary habits.....pasta takes more water to cook than bratwurst or bully beef.... On the subject of air-crew quality I think national mods may not be a bad idea. Some nations started WW II with a pool of experienced combat pilots from Spain ( Germany, Italy), some had a large pool of experienced civilian pilots from either civil aviation or pre-war aviation societies (Germany, Poland, the UK & Commonwealth). Some of the smaller european nations had excellent, albeit small, air forces.(Finland and Greece spring to mind). Czechoslovakia had excellent pilots, but no country! The attitudes of the warring nations to pilot training varied greatly- The US, with geographic security and effectively limitless supplies of aviation fuel was able to institute an excellent pilot training programme. Britain, after a close run on fighter command in 1940 was able to utilize the geographic security of the commonwealth to ensure adequate pilot training as the war progressed. France appears to have had a sensible programme for pilot training, but was only hitting it's stride when France collapsed around the Armee de l'air. On the other hand, Germany appears to have approached the whole enterprise with it's characteristic lack of planning. The RLM was not prepared for a long war, and organizational chaos precluded any systematic approach to continued pilot training as the war expanded. I think it was Jeschennok (may be mis-spelled) who as inspector-der-Jagdflieger asked, in a bemused fashion, what on earth he would do with 1,500 fighters. This was in early 1941. By late '41, he had commited suicide. Pilot training remained relaxed, with breaks for ski-ing holidays, while simultaneously flying hours were cut back due to fuel shortages. I don't know much about the Red air force either prior to or during the war, but I suspect that the dictum "Quantity has a quality all of it's own" prevailed. How do we model this in Europa? I suggest the following- Each Air force can have pilots that are either seasoned or rookies. the proportion varies with each a/f. The USAAF should be all-seasoned at start (Dec '41) and all ARPs are seasoned. (Barring total catastrophe, I don't see the US on the losing end of a war of attrition). In the unlikely event the US player wants to further increase his ARP rate, he may do so(by say 50%), but at the cost of all newly replaced units carrying a +1 modifier on their air to air combat roll and a -1 DRM on any roll on the bombing table. Each turn, a certain proportion of the rookie units would upgrade to seasoned. Simply by surviving one becomes a better aircrew. This represents one end of the quality spectrum. In truth, any allied player who is losing the 1942-3-4 air war is doing something badly, badly wrong. But, if need be the US could have shaved off hours of flying time from it's training programme at the cost of quality. It does not make sense to do so, but it could be done. At the other end of the spectrum.... Uncle Joe's flying smertinki. The Red Air Force starts off bad and only very slowly gets any better. Use the current Guards upgrade system to represent the very gradual development of a cadre of experienced fliers. I would advocate making an Inexperience penalty apply to the Red bomber force as well.. a -1 DRM on each bombing attempt: a favoured Europa whine is that the Red air force of 1941-2 is too powerful. In the Soviet case other bonuses accrue to Guards units in the way of patrol abilities and repair rolls in FITE/SE. Under the CoT rules some of these differences are smoothed out. I would advocate the expenditure of one additional ARP to replace an eliminated Guard unit. The question should be asked: "Can the Soviets instead go for pilot quality in a Grand Europa setting?" I would say no, that the doctrinal elements of Stalinism would preclude generation of an elite before the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War (he'd just have purged 'em) and the same factors militating against rebuilding Tank XX would prevent it during the war. The Luftwaffe should start out all seasoned, and with an all seasoned ARP pool...BUT at a Very low rate... You can either keep a shrinking, yet pristine air force, or bite the bullet and jack up your ARP rate at the cost of a fall off in quality. In addition, the ARP rate should be tied (in GE) to the Reich-wide fuel status. Poles, Czechs....start off seasoned, no matter where they end up French... seasoned, with seasoned ARPs Assorted ruritanian nations.... Varies by country... Spain, Greece and Finland seasoned.... Egypt, Iraq, Iran, .....very rookie Opponent gets a -1 mod in addition to other rookie penalties The Balkans...I'd say mostly rookie. Italy ......Seasoned at start with seasoned ARPs ...from my reading of the situation Italy's problems were with airworthy, let alone combat worthy planes in 1940-41, and with inadequate numbers of planes in 1942-3. They seem to have had an adequate supply of reasonably good pilots with obsolete planes sans radio/radar/spares etc. One last point (whine?) I preferred the old air replacement system, when pilots and planes were tracked seperately. It served as a better basis for following the long term evolution of air forces.. I believe it was done in on the grounds that Air forces grew ahistorically large by not flying..to which I say great! If your opponent doesn't fly, you have air superiority by default. QED. Any more comments on air crews vs wingtips and carburettors, or should we let this topic die a merciful death? Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh Washington D.C. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 00:11:33 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23289; Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:11:32 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA06313 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:10:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA22008 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:10:43 -0400 Message-Id: <199604102210.AA22008@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:10:43 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa Subject: Hartmann Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 18:02:00 EST Encoding: 12 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 384 Last post on Hartmann.I thought all his victories were vs the Red air force, as were most of the astronomical Luftwaffe scorers. He was shot down about seven or so times, so his kill ratio could be looked at as more like 50-1 (352-:-7) I never got to the pilot personality profile bit of Campaign for North Africa, thank god. Life is too short. Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 00:27:39 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23574; Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:27:38 +0200 Received: from mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (grunt.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA06705 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:27:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fox.ksu.ksu.edu (root@fox.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.11]) by mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA15264 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:27:05 -0500 Received: by fox.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12/1.34) id QAA07443; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:21:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:21:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark H Danley To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Spanish Torch Politics In-Reply-To: <960410091425_100626.2267_BHL140-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 3446 On 10 Apr 1996, Alan Philson wrote: > > In the Spanish Torch scenario French Morocco is neutral territory, end of story. > The axis is also assumed to occupy Vichy France > In the axis invasion of Spain scenario the allied player determines the status > of French Morocco at the start of his turn becase he also occupies Vichy > There seems to be a rules conflict here, why does Morroco not undergo a status > check in Spanish Torch perhaps the GURU would like to rule on this one. > I don't know what the designers had in mind, but there may be historical evidence for this contradiction. Several weeks ago there was a quite lengthy exchange about how the Fall of France and the post-armisitice status of the Empire and the Vichy regime might be handled in Europa. I remember a book, by Robert O. Paxton, _Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order_, mentioning that Petain told Hitler in 1940 that if he promised Franco French Morocco (Franco's stated price for entering the war on the Axis side), Petain's government would repudiate the armistice, and re-enter the war from North Africa, on the Allied side. Of course, that's 1940, and the Spanish Torch scenario is 1942, by which time the Vichy regimes situation has changed considerably. But given Vichy plans in late 1940, as well as the historical actions of the Army of Africa in Nov 1942, it seems reasonable that whoever was in charge at Vichy, be it Darlan or Laval, or the local commander in Morrocco, might resist the Germans, or even join the Allied side in the face of a German take-over of the "Free Zone" Certainly, a German invasion of Spain is an entirely different matter than a German deal with Spain to sell out Vichy's African possessions, but if the war spreads to Spain and Spainish Morocco, the Vichy forces there aren't necessarily going to roll over - at least according to my interpretation of the actual historical evidence. In the case of an Allied invasion of Spain that includes considerable American participation, we have a different story. American strategic planners, unlike the British, were quite careful about antagonizing Vichy up to the point of the actual histoical Torch landings (hence all the political machinations prior to Torch, that are, in my opinion quite elegantly - and accurately - represented in the 85 GDW edition of Torch) So if the Allies have decided to invade Franco's Spain, and the Americans are involved significantly in the strategic planning, they probably won't outright violate the "neutrality" of Vichy North Africa. Rather, they would hope that Allied success against the Axis in Spain would convince the majority of the officers of the Army of Africa that the balance in the conflict had finally swung away from the Axis, and there was no use in staying neutral; they could go ahead and "safely" re-enter the war against Germany (incidentally, Paxton in another book, also mentioned on the list a few weeks ago, _Parades and Politics at Vichy_ argues that historically most Vichy officers in North Africa were waiting for such a moment; i.e. they latently remained anti-German, but would sit the fence until the tide of the war had clearly swung against the Axis, when the time came, they'd bring France back into the war.) In an operational level game like Europa, I think this translates into French Morocco being neutral in an Allied invasion of Spain scenario. Mark From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 00:51:27 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23797; Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:51:25 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA07046 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:50:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13313; Thu, 11 Apr 96 10:46:52 NZS Message-Id: <9604102246.AA13313@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:47 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: The Spanish main Status: O Content-Length: 213 Right, Cervantes, on the Spanish cruiser. I'm not too familiar with the Spanish Navy. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 00:56:10 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23856; Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:56:09 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA07157 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:55:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13332; Thu, 11 Apr 96 10:52:02 NZS Message-Id: <9604102252.AA13332@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:52 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Luftwaffe Aces Status: O Content-Length: 587 The funny thing is, I just bought a copy of "Horrido!" about Luftwaffe aces, and I haven't had a chance to read it yet to see what it has to say about guys like Hartmann, Hans-Joachim Marseille, and others. I did look it up for Josef "Pips" Priller, who is known to movie buffs as the guy who strafed the British beaches on June 6, 1944, the Luftwaffe's big moment. He apparently racked up 101 kills, and died at age 46 in Munich, of a heart problem. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 02:37:56 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA24828; Thu, 11 Apr 96 02:37:55 +0200 Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.255.59.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA09010 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 02:37:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com by hplb.hpl.hp.com; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 01:37:24 +0100 Received: by hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA18190; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:33:47 -0700 From: Patrick Tobin Message-Id: <9604110033.AA18190@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> Subject: Re: Erich Hartmann, fighter ace To: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) (David H. Lippman) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 17:33:46 PDT Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <9604102043.AA12838@iac.iac.org.nz>; from "David H. Lippman" at Apr 11, 96 8:45 am Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Status: O Content-Length: 1915 > > On Perry De Havilland's long post, and the various points he makes: > > I was just reading this morning about Erich Hartmann in Martin > Caidin's book on the Messerschmidt 109, and he says that Hartmann was a > beneficiary of Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry. He apparently claimed kills > on days that the RAF reported that no Luftwaffe planes dogfighted with > the Allies. That might explain how he allegedly bagged 352 Allied planes, > while the top American ace, Richard Bong, had only 80. > > Doubtless Hartmann was a major fighter pilot and a massive ace, but > I doubt he racked up as many as 352 kills. Hartmann only fought on the Eastern Front. With the exception of some Mustangs downed over Hungary, all of his victories were Soviet aircraft. I suspect you're thinking of Marseille who was credited with 158 kills 7 over the channel, and 151 in N.Africa. There are discrepancies in a/c types claimed against RAF losses on certain days. Much has been made of this by some authors, but IMO this isn't noteworthy. Claims were often delayed and incorrect dates entered, aircraft misindentification was very common. The current trend in comparing confirmed kills against post war records also reveals that many pilots were credited with nearly twice as many kills as made, in some cases more. In Hartmann's case his kills were confirmed by the Soviets, who charged him with destroying over 300 Soviet a/c, and therefore sabotaging the Soviet national economy. If Caidin is implying that the LW "cooked the books" on Marseille's victory total, I think he is way off base. The Jagdflieger weren't sent home to sell war bonds,after X amount of missions. Any group of well trained pilots that flies multiple missions daily, for a number of years will have higher scores than those that don't. Bong, by the way, had 40 confirmed kills. P.T. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 02:39:34 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA24845; Thu, 11 Apr 96 02:39:33 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA09024 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 02:39:22 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA183192321; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:25:22 GMT Message-Id: <199604110025.AA183192321@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:25:21 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:21:53 UTC 0000) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 00:18:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 6776353 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 488265 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Fractional unit strengths Status: O Content-Length: 600 Reply: Item #7772953 from EUROPA@LYSATOR.LIU.SE@INET#on 96/04/10 at 10:30 > 3. If they NEVER operated historically grouped in a brigade-like > headquarters, then they probably had neither training nor experience to > operate in a unified armored unit, so their 0 defense strength may be best > after all -- that lowly 1-4 unsupported provincial division isn't > overruning a coordinated armored unit, it'spicking off one after another a > bunch of weak units that just happen to be in the same general area. Thanks John, I think suggestion three is probably the correct interpretation. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 02:48:07 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA24909; Thu, 11 Apr 96 02:48:06 +0200 Received: from mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (grunt.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA09162 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 02:47:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fox.ksu.ksu.edu (root@fox.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.11]) by mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA12818; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 19:47:37 -0500 Received: by fox.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12/1.34) id MAA13585; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:06:40 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:06:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark H Danley To: Perry de Havilland Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Yet more Luft-peeves flak In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 721 On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Perry de Havilland wrote: > I agree that the minor airforces should be rated similar > to non-guard Soviet pilots. Iraq, Iran, Egypt come to mind immediately. > Possibly Yugoslavia and Bulgaria as well, but certainly not Greece (the > Royal Hellenic Airforce was surprisingly effective). Whaddya mean "SURPRISING!" (excuse me, I'm the grandson on Greek immigrants). Seriously, Greece in the 20th century _is_ an example of a small, poor nation that did a lot (relatively) militarily with very little to work with. And I agree with your assertion that certain well trained lesser nations DON'T qualify for any pilot quality penalities that might appear in the Europa air system Mark From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 03:36:27 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA25274; Thu, 11 Apr 96 03:36:26 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA09992 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 03:35:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13794; Thu, 11 Apr 96 13:31:29 NZS Message-Id: <9604110131.AA13794@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:32 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Answering Patrick's long post Status: O Content-Length: 7785 There was indeed an Italian "pasta point" rule whereby they needed extra water points to cook their pasta-based rations. The German iron ration in the desert, by the way, was similar to bully beef. They called it "A.K." both for Afrika Korps and Alte Kokke, which is German and Yiddish for a variety of things, "old horse," being the most printable. Pre-war pilots were an interesting bunch. The Poles had a highly-trained air force, as did the Italian. What was going on was that air forces, like today, attracted a highly intelligent and motivated person, with their new technology, and their attendant "knights of the air" glamour. The 1930s were big days for aviation, with all kinds of developments. Passenger flights around the world became a reality, and a quick way to travel vice ocean liners. Flights like the Pan Am China Clipper took on romantic overtones with an undying image of a graceful seaplane flying off into the Honolulu sunset, bound for Shanghai's Bund. At the same time, top aviators like Amelia Earhart, Italo Balbo, Jean Batten, and Charles Lindbergh were making news for their ability to generate the maximum publicity for conquering the maximum mileage. Lindbergh added to his luster with a flight to Mexico (during which he was lost for some time) and unintentionally to his fame when his son was kidnapped. Italo Balbo's bomber crews were a whopping good advertisement for Benito Mussolini when they conquered oceans and displayed pinpoint navigational techniques by flying to distant rendezvous with trans-Atlantic liners. Batten became the first woman to conquer the Tasman, while Earhart's round-the-world effort made her the subject of endless speculation and the butt of endless jokes when she vanished over the Pacific Ocean. Back in America, Jimmy Doolittle was setting speed records in his wierd Gee Bee plane at the Cleveland National Air Races, while Howard Hughes gained worldwide attention with aviation feats of his own and a flamboyant public lifestyle, linked to a variety of starlets. Aviation was exciting. It was the future, and the young hotspurs of Germany, Italy, and Russia, eagerly seeking the military glory offered by their leaders, planned to snatch it in the air as opposed to in the predicted replay of 1914 on the ground. Lesser nations like Czechoslovakia and Poland caught the aviation fever, too, as evidenced by their pilots' deeds in exile during WW2. It's really not surprising that there were so many good air forces in 1940. Hans Jeschonnek, Luftwaffe chief of staff, was an interesting character. Not only was he lax about fighter training, but about fighter production, as was Fatso Goering. During the Battle of Britain, one of Goering's fighter aces, invited to Karinhall for the usual huntin' and fishin', told Der Reichsmarshall that the Reich aircraft industry had delivered only 220 Me 109s in July, half the British output. Soon the Luftwaffe figure would drop to 173. Goering, with mock solicitousness, stretched out his hand. "I must take your pulse to see if you are all right physically...it seems you have taken leave of your senses." At that time, the Me 109 plants at Augsburg often worked a six-hour day. During the Blitz, Jeschonnek argued for area bombing of London's residential areas to cause mass panic to lead to the British suing for peace. Jeschonnek got what he wanted, but there was no panic. Instead the worm was turned, as the Royal Air Force paid Jeschonnek back in spades, incinerating Hamburg in July, 1943. A month later, the RAF carried out a precision raid on Peenemunde that had results that are debated to this day. Historian Martin Middlebrook's meticulous book on the subject argues that it slowed the V-2 programme down six months. Nonetheless, Jeschonnek, embarrassed at the Luftwaffe's failure to protect the Reich and Goering's reputation from the RAF, committed suicide the next day. He was not the only top Luftwaffe officer to take his own life. In World War I, the fun-loving, hard-drinking Ernst Udet had been a top pilot in Manfred Von Richtofen's flying circus. Before WW2, Udet, as Goering's old crony, was a big wheel in Luftwaffe development and design. He supported dive-bombing techniques, tested planes himself, went on missions in Spain to photograph results, and drew hilarious and accurate cartoons and caricatures of himself and his colleagues. But the party animal Udet had numerous weaknesses in his character. He didn't think much of four-engined bombers or other technological developments. He didn't even like closed cockpits. When he test-flew the Me 109, he ridiculed the machine in front of Willy Messerschmidt for having a closed cockpit. Udet sneered that Messerschmidt's new machine was just a fancy glider. Udet favored the rival Heinkel 112, which turned out to be a far inferior product. But Udet was very pleased with the Me 110 twin-engined fighter, which as a day fighter, required fighter escort, a novel concept. When the Battle of Britain turned into a debacle for the Luftwaffe, its design, and its planning, Udet took most of the heat from his colleagues and subordinates. Goering took the heat from the Fuhrer. Udet, drinking heavily, dealt with the criticism by shooting himself. The Luftwaffe ran into training troubles as the war drained on. Training squadrons were called up increasingly. Many were sent to the great Stalingrad airlift, which ended in disaster. Others were yanked up as nightfighters or day fighters to fend off round-the-clock bombing. One factor in the Luftwaffe's weakness was pointed out by Middlebrook in his book on the Hamburg battle...the Luftwaffe had no "crew rotation" policy. After 25 flights, RAF and USAAF bomber crews were re-assigned. Luftwaffe fighter pilots stayed with their squadron until death or disablement. While this created unit cohesion, it did little to relieve stress and fatigue. By late war, not only were pilots short, but critical ground crews, as they were called up to fill out the Luftwaffe field divisions, and then the Volks Grenadier Divisions. Ultimately the pilots themselves were called up. Some were placed into facetiously named "Parachute Divisions," like the 9th Parachute Division, ordered to hold the Kustrin Bridge. With some reason...the Germans had run out of oil. Scores of freshly-produced Me 109s, FW 190s, and He 177s lay scattered around Germany, lacking avgas. The only fuel in abundant supply was the kerosene mix for ME 262 jets. But they required longer airfields than the propeller planes, and were thus easy targets for prowling Allied Mosquitos or A-26 Invaders. Some Luftwaffe jet pilots took off and landed on Autobahns. In April, a corps commander in the 3rd Panzer Army, part of Army Group Vistula on the Oder, called up his boss, Lt. Gen. Hasso von Manteuffel to ask, "I have just received 3,000 Luftwaffe pilots, each with a little Knight's Cross around his neck. What do I do with them?" "That would be the 9th Parachute Division," Manteuffel said. "Doubtless the Fuhrer has a wooden block on his map that says that very thing. We have an army of ghosts." The 9th Parachute Division consisted of pilots and ground crews. Goering promised Vistula's commander, Generaloberst Gotthard Heinrici, that it would fight to the last, being the men who fought at Cassino. When it melted in hours, Heinrici phoned Goering, "You know those paratroopers of yours, those Cassino troops? Well, they have all run away." David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 03:46:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA25319; Thu, 11 Apr 96 03:46:02 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA10123 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 03:45:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13834; Thu, 11 Apr 96 13:41:47 NZS Message-Id: <9604110141.AA13834@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:43 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Greece at war Status: O Content-Length: 1541 The Greeks were remarkably tough. When Mussolini invaded Greece in 1940, the country was run by an unpopular dictator, General Metaxas, who had emulated much of Nazism, down to creating his own Hitler Youth-style paramilitary movement. Yet the Greeks fought the invader with tenacity and ferocity, sending their enemies reeling in defeat into Albania. At one point, Greek mountain troops surrounded whole Italian divisions. But their industrial and financial base was not enough to maintain the pace of their drive north, and the Greek attack stalled. Soon after, the Nazi war machine, which hopelessly outclassed both the Greek and British Commonwealth forces, blasted their way into Athens. Greece, however, fought on. Unarmed or poorly-armed Greek troops battled German paratroopers in Crete. Cretan guerillas harassed the Germans. Partisan warfare went on in Greece and Crete through 1944, exploding into civil war between royalists and Communists. Even so, a Greek mountain brigade served in North Africa and Italy. I once said that it's not good to denigrate any country's military forces. Regardless of the caliber of a nation's weapons, tactics, and leadership, ferocity in battle, the spirit of self-sacrifice and devotion to country, are not attributes restricted solely to great powers. All nations and all peoples have within them the secrets of valour and courage. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 06:21:09 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26382; Thu, 11 Apr 96 06:21:08 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA11921 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:19:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id XAA02562; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:51:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:51:46 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Erich Hartmann, fighter ace Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <9604102043.AA12838@iac.iac.org.nz> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 782 Hartman way well not have had 352; it could be more or less. germans had an average system for verifiying losses compared to most other airforces. Hartmann spent most of the war on th Eastern Front where I find his kill tallys entirely credible. Unfortunately the Russians have not yet released detailed data for their air force so we can't confirm things that way. Reading Christopher Shores's books on Malta, the Balkans, and the phony war shows that both sides over-claimed and under claimed, though the Germans seem to be fairly accurate, the Brits slightly less so. Of course all bets are off if bomber gunners are involved; they were notorious for over claiming, but somethimes for valid reasons. Just how many gunners actually hit that Me 109? Nobody knows. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 07:29:35 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26845; Thu, 11 Apr 96 07:29:34 +0200 Received: from naybob.ghq.com (naybob.ghq.com [204.73.247.161]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA12613 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 07:28:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from jwhite@localhost) by naybob.ghq.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) id AAA19884; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:22:07 -0500 From: Jeff White Message-Id: <199604110522.AAA19884@naybob.ghq.com> Subject: Re: Erich Hartmann, fighter ace To: ptobin@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Patrick Tobin) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:22:07 -0500 (CDT) Cc: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz, europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <9604110033.AA18190@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> from "Patrick Tobin" at Apr 10, 96 05:33:46 pm Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 3086 Patrick Tobin Said: > > > > > On Perry De Havilland's long post, and the various points he makes: > > > > I was just reading this morning about Erich Hartmann in Martin > > Caidin's book on the Messerschmidt 109, and he says that Hartmann was a > > beneficiary of Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry. He apparently claimed kills > > on days that the RAF reported that no Luftwaffe planes dogfighted with > > the Allies. That might explain how he allegedly bagged 352 Allied planes, > > while the top American ace, Richard Bong, had only 80. > > > > Doubtless Hartmann was a major fighter pilot and a massive ace, but > > I doubt he racked up as many as 352 kills. > > Hartmann only fought on the Eastern Front. With the exception of some > Mustangs downed over Hungary, all of his victories were Soviet aircraft. > I suspect you're thinking of Marseille who was credited with 158 kills > 7 over the channel, and 151 in N.Africa. There are discrepancies in a/c > types claimed against RAF losses on certain days. Much has been made of > this by some authors, but IMO this isn't noteworthy. Claims were often > delayed and incorrect dates entered, aircraft misindentification was > very common. The current trend in comparing confirmed kills against post > war records also reveals that many pilots were credited with nearly twice > as many kills as made, in some cases more. In Hartmann's case his > kills were confirmed by the Soviets, who charged him with destroying > over 300 Soviet a/c, and therefore sabotaging the Soviet national economy. > If Caidin is implying that the LW "cooked the books" on Marseille's > victory total, I think he is way off base. The Jagdflieger weren't sent > home to sell war bonds,after X amount of missions. Any group of well > trained pilots that flies multiple missions daily, for a number of years > will have higher scores than those that don't. Bong, by the way, had 40 > confirmed kills. Another off topic story, but somewhat interesting, a friend of my Dad's was a airplane mechanic for the squadron Bong was in. Apparently, Bong was a terrible marksman and scored most of his kills by head on attacks against Jap planes. He counted on the 4 fifties and the cannon to obliterate the enemy plane. Something about his guns were set to converge about 50 yards ahead of his plane. Japanese planes, not being built for ruggedness, tended to blow apart under that sort of firepower. He often returned to base with his plane covered in oil from an enemy plane he blew apart. In fact once he returned with teeth, embeeded in the canopy. The joke was that it was a CONFIRMED kill. Sounds like an urban legend, but truth is stranger than fiction. My Dad's friend also commented on how the pilots were almost insane with competition for the TOP ace position. One would be the new top ace, they'd have a party that night, and the next morning the ex-top ace would be out for blood. -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY jwhite@ghq.com "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 08:23:58 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00384; Thu, 11 Apr 96 08:23:57 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA13267 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 08:23:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA085682964; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:09:24 GMT Message-Id: <199604110609.AA085682964@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Thu, 11 Apr 96 06:09:24 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Thu, 11 Apr 96 06:09:02 UTC 0000) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 06:00:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 4780344 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 139000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Those Fightin' Chetniks Status: O Content-Length: 2500 David Lippman has written here that, "It's very hard to get exact data on any aspect of the Balkans at any time, due to the incredibly complex nature of politics there. However, a good source is Fitzroy MacLean's memoir. He was the British liaison to Tito, and he wrote a book (I think it was Inside Tito's Headquarters, someone else will doubtless correct me) on the subject." Another good source, at least as to the occupation forces, is GERMAN ANTIGUERILLA OPERATIONS IN THE BALKANS (1941-1944), a U. S. Army Center of Military History publication originally printed in 1954 (my copy was acquired at a U. S. Government Printing Office Bookstore in Kansas City MO and is shown as reprinted in 1989). Lots of good OB info for the Germans and their allies, and some details on the partisans. The book is chuckfull of interesting items, like, "In addition to the conflicts between nationalities within the same state and strife between political factions, there was also a determined attempt on the part of the Serb Orthodox adherents of Mihailovitch to destroy the Mohammedan minority in Yugoslavia. The Germans added fuel to the flames of this fire by enlisting numerous Mohammedans in their forces and using them as occupation forces," [NOTE, in SF, 1 x 5-8 Mtn XX 13 Ha (SS) and 1 x 4-8 Mtn XX 23 Kama (SS), SS troops with fezes and regimental Imams!. The former unit, when later stationed in France for training, mutinied in September 1943; the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, then living in Berlin, was called in to calm things down; from Bender, UNIFORMS, ORGANIZATION AND HISTORY OF THE WAFFEN SS, Volume 3]; also, "on the basis of incomplete casualty figures, it can be said with some degree of accuracy that 1 out of 7 soldiers in German uniform, whether German or not, became a casualty by the close of operations." I wonder if anyone in the United States government in Washington ever has read this book (which is an official U. S. government publication)? I highly recommend it (if you can find it) both for its coverage of the topic, WW2 in the Balkans after the surrender of Greece and Yugoslavia, and for an understanding of the events in the "former Yugoslavia" today. For a fictional account of the guerilla war in the Balkans, that I think captures some of its flavor (the shifting alliances and confusing nature of who was on whose side) there is PARTISANS by Alistair MacLean (and his FORCE TEN FROM NAVARONE, the book was OK but the movie was very bad). Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 11:17:32 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02944; Thu, 11 Apr 96 11:17:31 +0200 Received: from colossus.barclays.co.uk (colossus.barclays.co.uk [193.128.3.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA15924 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 11:16:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from bognor.barclays.co.uk by colossus.barclays.co.uk with local SMTP (PP) id <01285-0@colossus.barclays.co.uk>; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:16:19 +0100 Received: from pepsi.gra.barclays.co.uk by bognor.barclays.co.uk with BarclayNet SMTP (PP) id <29087-0@bognor.barclays.co.uk>; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:16:06 +0100 Received: by pepsi (1.37.109.14/16.2) id AA004184010; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:13:30 +0100 From: Stefan Farrelly Message-Id: <9604111013.ZM416@pepsi.gra.barclays.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:13:29 +0100 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 31aug95) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: African Maps Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: O Content-Length: 2418 To those who expressed an interest in the African maps, the latest info is; 1. Winston says hell do em if someone does the maps. May (underlined) cost approx $50 ea. but not necessarily, depends on how many want to buy them, how many maps done at once etc. USUAL PROPDUCTION RULES/COSTS APPLY 2. Arthur Goodwin has started the maps. Reply from him follows; I have a revised Africa Orientale map (32 miles to hex) completed (actually one full map and one half map needed to show northern Sudan and southern Egypt up to where the Europa maps cut off at present). I have all data and source material on hand to produce the Europa standard maps (16 miles to hex) of the same area (total of 4 are required). I've put off working on these as nobody seemed interested. Winston Hamilton is right that it would cost about $50 to get these done. Just the materials to make a set of full-color mockups, i.e. 4 blank hexsheets, various colored pens and markers and etc. comes to about $30. Once the color mock-ups are done they are used to make flat-sheet (not folded) high-quality black and white photocopies (which cost $2 a sheet); I keep the color mockups as they are what is used to make the final production maps. Add the cost of the mailing tube and postage and we're close to $50. I'd be glad to finish the Europa-standard maps, however, and pass them on to you. But... they're not mine to give out, they're GR/D property, under GR/D copyright. I can only pass them on to you if instructed to do so by Winston Hamilton. So... If you want them, talk to Winston. Good Luck. Winston says he will redo Africa Orientale (at 32mph) sometime in the future and someone said the cost for the entire game maybe only $50 but this may well not be done until next century and the cost is pure speculation (ie. this will have at least 1.5 maps in it also). Winston has aokayed things so Ive asked Arthur to supply the maps to Winston; 1. Africa Oriental maps at 16mph/32mph and lower Egypt/Sudan map at 16mph. 2. Once Winston has them he will spec up exact cost depending on how many people actually want what. So far around 6-10 looks likely unless anymore express an interest. Dont get excited on the apparant high cost UNTL Winston lets us know for sure. 3. Once cost established we can then decide who/what/how many to do. Sounds like a nice logical order to me. Let the wagons roll. Stefan Farrelly From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 16:08:30 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA07880; Thu, 11 Apr 96 16:08:29 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA21391 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:46:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.37.22] (gw5-022.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA19716 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:46:29 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:48:54 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: African Maps Status: O Content-Length: 180 >To those who expressed an interest in the African map etc. If you are doing an estimate of the number of interested Grognards, then put me on your list! Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 16:47:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA08493; Thu, 11 Apr 96 16:47:49 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA22716 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 16:46:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id KAA10113 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:46:34 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21384; Thu, 11 Apr 96 10:39:11 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22382; Thu, 11 Apr 96 10:38:08 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604111438.AA22382@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: The ultimate monster game (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:38:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 717 Hi, David Lippman writes on CNA: > I quite forgot that CNA had individual pilot ratings on top of its > other massive rules (the Italian pasta water point, PoW camps, flying > dead camels by air, raids on Rommel, and broken-down trucks). I do remember the Libyan Camel Cavalry batallion, but I don't remember a rule on transporting dead camels. The one special rule that I remember for this unit is that it can be given two water rations at once. > The depressing idea would be 40 or so CNA players playing the game > for a year or so at their club, and fighting the three-year North African > war to a draw. I'd consider myself a victor even if I were on the losing team. Best Wishes, Keith From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 17:30:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA09131; Thu, 11 Apr 96 17:30:01 +0200 Received: from ns.corona.navy.mil (ns.corona.navy.mil [137.67.32.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA23771 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:28:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ccgate.corona.navy.mil (ccgate.corona.navy.mil [137.67.40.4]) by ns.corona.navy.mil (8.7.5/1.4) with SMTP id IAA13113 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 08:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ccMail by ccgate.corona.navy.mil (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 16d25820; Thu, 11 Apr 96 08:30:10 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:04:37 -0700 Message-Id: <16d25820@ccgate.corona.navy.mil> From: renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil (Renaud.Gary) Subject: Re: The Spanish main To: europa@lysator.liu.se Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Status: O Content-Length: 111 "Right, Cervantes, on the Spanish cruiser." I hope so. Can you imagine the HMS Stout or the USS Budweiser? From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 18:48:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10224; Thu, 11 Apr 96 18:48:58 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA25780 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 18:48:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.120.181] (ip-pdx03-53.teleport.com [206.163.120.181]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA02153 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:48:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604111648.JAA02153@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:53:47 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Gr. Europa unit reorgs. Status: O Content-Length: 1823 In compiling National Data Sheet/OB for Germany for my own Grand Europa project, I have divided units up into 'force pools' based on the period in which the unit was in use. I'm attempting for the most part to stay within the limits set by the available counters already in print. I did France relatively quickly and of course Germany is much more complicated. Using Germany as an example, the Pz XX are divided up by period and rules govern their conversions and transformations, such as the 1939/40 overhauls and the expansion programme of 40/41. After that, it get easier, as increase in strength corresponds to either addition of improved AFVs or additional AFVs rather than a reorganization. My instinct is to keep the growth of the Waffen SS as historical as possible. I want to allow players to make many 'Hitler' decisions, but not all. It might be argued that a German player should be able to build a LSSAH13-9-10 SS Pz XX to invade France with, but I would argue that factors that would be too hard to represent in a game-even in abstract form-make this kind of unit highly improbable. Alternatively, I am leaving it to the players whether they turn LSSAH or DR into a Pz XX first- or not at all. In other words, the SS cannot expand faster than historically, but may expand slower or not at all. Similarly, the Luftwaffe field divisions may be ignored completely. Some might argue that Germany must be forced to build these units as Goring's empire building should be off-limits to player interference, but I would argue otherwise- it should be left up to the player. I'm sure I'm not the only player to have discovered that, far from being useless, a 2 or 3 point division can often be a very handy tool. Any thoughts, suggestions, flames? SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 18:49:22 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10234; Thu, 11 Apr 96 18:49:21 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA25776 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 18:48:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.120.181] (ip-pdx03-53.teleport.com [206.163.120.181]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA02059 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604111647.JAA02059@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:53:38 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: building new units Status: O Content-Length: 1480 Can anyone shed any light on how long it took various countries to raise various types of new units? I'm working on my own Grand Europa game. I'm guessing that the "forming/full" system gives a good indication in general of how long it takes for new units to go through the formation process. I presume also that every country must have realistic limitations on how many of what various types of formations can be raised at once, which leads me to think that RPs and new builds should be tied to the same system and that RPs should be used to 'buy' new units in a game incorporating economic factors. For my own game, I want to concentrate on the aspects of economy that drove the war machine and keep the rest of it as abstract as possible. The number of training units in play for Germany seems to be a good guidepost as to limitations on how many RPs can be generated, but: * most countries don't have their training establishment directly represented *I'm not sure how training establishments should be allowed to be expanded (for example, Germany amazingly only had one fighter pilot training school- I want them to be able to expand their establishment for training fighter pilots should they wish to expend appropriate resources/wait an appropriate amount of time, &c.) Do I need to start from scratch or has anyone any light to shed on these questions (without it turning into a theoretical debate) Thanks, SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 19:13:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10569; Thu, 11 Apr 96 19:13:17 +0200 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA26458 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:12:46 +0200 (MET DST) From: Italorican@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA02772; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:12:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:12:15 -0400 Message-Id: <960411131213_189141688@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Erich Hartmann, fighter ace(now Spanish cruisers) Status: O Content-Length: 454 In a message dated 96-04-10 18:23:09 EDT, renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil (Renaud.Gary) writes: > >"...the cruisers Cerveza and Canarias." > ^^^^^^^ > >Definite possiblity of a Freudian slip, there. very true, even for Europa players who are supposedly NOT "beer & pretzels" types (for the non-spanish-speakers "Cerveza" = "beer") >"Cervantes" > > just to round it out: CL Cervera, CL Cervantes, CA Canarias Antonio Lauria From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 19:46:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10923; Thu, 11 Apr 96 19:46:02 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA27224 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:44:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:00:49 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:54:39 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: cloister@dircon.co.uk, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re:Yet more Luft-peeves flak Status: O Content-Length: 1387 On 4/10/96, Perry de Havilland stated, among the excellent points in his post, this: >A rule for *experten* counters might be a nice optional rule >in a air war module. 1) I have the same objection to this that I have to the Rudel counter, that it is inappropriate in an operational-level game to single out individuals, no matter how "effective"; 2) As far as the 'experten' [including Rudel in his field] go, while these pilots were undoubtedly good, recent scholarship has started to call into question the extent of their claimed victories, noting overall 'kill inflation' among all combatants, and natural propaganda uplifting of 'heros' by all sides during wartime as the bases for this questioning. Taking Rudel as an example, we really only have his word that 519 tanks were destroyed by him. In a battlefield environment, with flak flying around [look at the number of times he was shot down!], and flying at speed, with your other crewmember facing backward, and the smoke, dust, etc., etc., with relatively few of these 'victories' being able to be confirmed, it does seem that an accurate count would be a bit difficult. 3) This is also eventually lead to a call for an Audie Murphy counter, etc., etc., blah, blah. If we're going to discuss counters for individuals, it would be FAR more worthwhile to discuss counters to represent corps commanders and above. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 20:08:12 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11186; Thu, 11 Apr 96 20:08:11 +0200 Received: from ns.corona.navy.mil (ns.corona.navy.mil [137.67.32.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA27728 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:06:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ccgate.corona.navy.mil (ccgate.corona.navy.mil [137.67.40.4]) by ns.corona.navy.mil (8.7.5/1.4) with SMTP id LAA14150 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 11:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ccMail by ccgate.corona.navy.mil (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 16d4ad70; Thu, 11 Apr 96 11:09:27 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 11:03:25 -0700 Message-Id: <16d4ad70@ccgate.corona.navy.mil> From: renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil (Renaud.Gary) Subject: GE: Unit (re)building To: europa@lysator.liu.se Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Status: O Content-Length: 5000 "My instinct is to keep the growth of the Waffen SS as historical as possible." I could live with that. "In other words, the SS cannot expand faster than historically, but may expand slower or not at all." Hmm. I think there should be a requirement for SOME growth, as private armies tend to grow in all governments (even in the US recently). Maybe "Hitler" can work to rein in Himmler, but I don't think he can be stopped cold. Even so, if GE ever came out with your proposal, I wouldn't complain. "Similarly, the Luftwaffe field divisions may be ignored completely. " OK. Perhaps you can give the player a choice: 1. Build a bunch of cruddy divisions right now. 2. Add to teh manpower pool which must then go through army training and takes longer, but ends up producing better units. "...which leads me to think that RPs and new builds should be tied to the same system and that RPs should be used to 'buy' new units in a game incorporating economic factors." I started work on a paper on this topic, but events conspired to put it on hold. Maybe I'll work on it some more next month. Anyway, here are some ideas to incorporate. NOTE: these are rather rough and probably need a lot of filing along the edges. ___________________________________________________________________________ You build units the same way you rebuild them, with the common house-rule that you build a Cadre, THEN the full-strength unit. Infantry Replacement Points (IRP) are made by taken Personal Points (PP) (equal to XXX% of the adult population) and sending them through a Training Unit (TU). A TU may train XXX IRPs per RE at any one time. It takes XXX turns to convert a PP into an IRP. Militia-type units may have up to XZX% of their points directly by PPs, in lieu of IRPs. It costs a certain amount of time and ???? points to place a unit from the counter tray into the replacement pool. This represents the officers, infrastructure, and Cadre (of the Cadre). To build a cadre (or a unit that does not have a cadre) requires a TU of the appropirate (Infantry, Mountain, Armor, Engineer, Airborne, etc.) type. A TU can build XXX cadres per RE. The number of turns to make a cadre depends on the unit type. You also have Armor Replacment Points (ARPs) and Artillery Replacment Points (RRPs). They require a much smaller amount of personnel, but require "stuff" to be built by industry. They have to go through a TU. Building a Cadre to full strength just takes dumping the appropriate RPs into the Cadre. ____________________________________________________________________ If you have a bunch of planes shot down, then you can probably cannibalize enough to produce some PPs, which you can either run through the TUs to make IRPs, or use them directly to build 2-6s. "For my own game, I want to concentrate on the aspects of economy that drove the war machine and keep the rest of it as abstract as possible." I use People, Metal, Oil, Cement, and Industry, which produces IRPs, ARPs, RRPs, airplanes, and ships. "The number of training units in play for Germany seems to be a good guidepost as to limitations on how many RPs can be generated, but: * most countries don't have their training establishment directly represented..." Well, the Russians really need to have them added, but since there will be a redesign of FITE/SE, that should be OK. The last I've looked, the Italians and Brits already had SOME training units. Maybe not enough? As for the minor countries, well, most of them won't stand up long enough for it to matter. I suppose Greece and Hungary are exceptions. Since I've heard that some of the Romanians and Bulgarians are "missing" (off watching each other, I suppose), we are going to need some more counters in the Balkans ANYWAY, so we can probably do OK. "*I'm not sure how training establishments should be allowed to be expanded (for example, Germany amazingly only had one fighter pilot training school- I want them to be able to expand their establishment for training fighter pilots should they wish to expend appropriate resources/wait an appropriate amount of time, &c.)" Well, I suppose you could say something like "take 10 air counters off the map to produce a new school." I figure the instructors would be the bottleneck and the big pool of competent fliers would be in combat. If you wish to take any of my suggestions, go right ahead; they're yours. If they are stupid, then ignore them. I'm not proud. A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114 a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1 than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__ W: 909-273-5378 block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--' H: 714-750-9243 `-----''(_/--' `-'\_) DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge I HATE UNIX I CAN'T speak for this administration; I don't lie enough. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 20:22:04 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11300; Thu, 11 Apr 96 20:22:03 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA28197 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:21:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA30424 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:13:13 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:21:01 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Those fightin' Chetniks Status: O Content-Length: 1912 > The Chetniks are very tricky to pin down. Apparently they were led >by a fully-bearded guy named Draza Mikhailovich, and his armies at first >made life tough for the Italian, Ustasi, and Serbian puppet forces >occupying Yugoslavia. There were at least two Chetnik groups: Mikhailovich's "All-Yygoslavia" and a separate group in Macedonia. "Chetnik" was a popular term in Yugoslavia, meaning roughly "freedom fighter" -- a guerrilla or irregular. > ...After the war, Mikhailovich was captured by Tito's forces, and >received the death penalty in short order. While there's little doubt >about Mikhailovich's switching sides, some recent historians have noted >that a number of Chetnik guerillas did their job of hounding and harassng >the Nazis, and did not collaborate, so it is unfair to paint all Chetniks >as pro-Fascist. Not to defend Mikhailovich unduly, but in his terms he did not "switch sides." Mikhailovich and his Chetniks were fighting for the reestablishment of Yugoslavia as an independent monarchy. In their eyes, the communists were as big as threat to a monarchial Yugoslavia as the Germans were. Think of the situation as a three-way war* between the fascists, the communists, and the monarchists, with the monarchists in the weakest position. As one side gets too strong, the monarchists will temporarily cooperate with the other side, all the time trying to stay in the game in the hopes that they can win eventually. One clear indication of this is that Mikhailovich's Chetniks, when the started to cooperated with the Axis, clearly preferred to deal with the Italian, not the Germans -- Italy, although controlled by the Fascist Party, was still a monarchy and thus could be presumed to have some political viewpoints similar to the Yugoslav monarchists. (*Even a three-way war simplifies things greatly. There were numerous ethnic disputes complicating matters, too.) From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 20:22:21 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11306; Thu, 11 Apr 96 20:22:20 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA28206 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:21:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA30429 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:13:28 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:21:16 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Erich Hartmann, fighter ace Status: O Content-Length: 280 >"...the cruisers Cerveza and Canarias." > ^^^^^^^ >Definite possiblity of a Freudian slip, there. The "Beer" cruiser. Love it! Wasn't this cruiser sold to Argentina after the war, where it served as the Chardonnay until sunk by HMS Grog in the Falklands War? From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 21:02:49 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11651; Thu, 11 Apr 96 21:02:48 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA29031 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:01:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA30523 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:53:22 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:01:09 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re:Yet more Luft-peeves flak Status: O Content-Length: 2153 >>A rule for *experten* counters might be a nice optional rule >>in a air war module. > >I have the same objection to this that I have to the Rudel >counter, that it is inappropriate in an operational-level game to >single out individuals, no matter how "effective".... Yeah, and what about "klutzen" counters? In his inglorious career, Captain Klaus Klutz, flying Ju 87s in Stuka Group I/StG 45, is believe to have bombed German positions at least a dozen times, destroying guns, tanks, and trucks with abandon. During the Barbarosa offensive in 1941, the Germans seized a key bridge across the Luga, opening the way to Leningrad, only to see Klutz bomb out the bridge moments later -- giving the Soviets the chance to shore up their defenses. Klutz was as fearsome a pilot as he was a bombadier, and records indicate he heavily damaged or effectively destroyed at least 17 Ju 87s in accidents during take offs or landings -- a better aircraft "kill" record than most German fighter pilots achieved during the course of the war. Klutz's flying career finally came to an end when he single-handedly attacked what he believed was a Soviet army- or front-level field HQ -- it was the HQ of the Luftwaffe 88th Flak Regiment. Although Klutz achieved surprise in his attack, AA units did hit the Ju 87 as it pulled out of its dive. Klutz bailed out but unfortunately did not live to fight another day, as he had mispacked his parachute. OK, Klutz is fictional, but people like him existed on all sides in the war. People fought the war with all levels of ability -- I'm sure a plot of individual ability would resemble a bell curve, with most people clustered around the average ability, and a few people at both extremes: tremendous ability and incrediable ineptness. If you're going to explicitly represent the people at one extreme (tremendous ability), then why not the ones at the other extreme? (If you assume that unit ratings/representing cover the range of abilities of the people in them, then explicitly adding in the best extreme without downrating the other units means you have boost the overall ability of units above historical levels!) From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 21:54:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12128; Thu, 11 Apr 96 21:54:24 +0200 Received: from mail-e2b-service.gnn.com (mail-e2b-service.gnn.com [204.148.102.170]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA00446 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:53:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from www-30-69.gnn.com. (www-30-69.gnn.com [205.188.30.69]) by mail-e2b-service.gnn.com (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA26023 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:52:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199604111952.PAA26023@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> X-Mailer: GNNmessenger 1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:48:26 From: NormPratt@gnn.com (Norman Pratt) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: African Maps Status: O Content-Length: 157 >To those who expressed an interest in the African maps, the latest >info is; > I would be interested in copies of the maps or a remake of the module. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 22:09:55 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12253; Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:09:54 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA00751 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:08:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16010; Fri, 12 Apr 96 08:05:01 NZS Message-Id: <9604112005.AA16010@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:05 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Wierdly named ships Status: O Content-Length: 1872 Actually, some guys in the Phillipines marketed a ballcap in the US Navy style that honors Budweiser beer. Oddly-named ships are common enough in warfare, and WW2 was no exception. There were two warships named Enterprise, one a British light cruiser that was on line at Normandy, the other the famed American aircraft carrier. The Germans created a cruiser named Lutzow, sold it to the Soviet Union, then took the pocket battleship Deutschland and renamed THAT Lutzow, confusing intelligence officers everywhere. In the Pacific, the Japanese had an aircraft carrier named Shoho, but, thanks to a similarity in Kanji characters, American historians and writers periodically and mistakenly call this ship the Ryukaku. The actual Shoho was sunk at Coral Sea. Finally, who can forget the USS Shangri-La, the Essex-class carrier that honored a presidential joke. Sorry this has little to do with Europa, but to make up for that, I do want to commend an earlier post adding various sources on the Yugoslavian partisan war, replete with the histories of the SS Yugoslavian divisions. The Germans had some problems with the Muslim divisions, and Haj Amin al-Husseini, the anti-Semitic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was sent in to mediate some mutinies. The Mufti was a notorious anti-British and anti-Semitic agitator, and he collaborated with Hitler. He was able to put down these mutinies, but Himmler was forced to disband the divisions. After the war, Amin went on to agitate Palestinian Arabs against the Zionists, which heated up another bloody civil war. Chased out of Jerusalem in 1967, he fled to Beirut, and ended his days living in a vast estate that included an atomic bomb shelter. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 22:14:12 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12311; Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:14:11 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA00881 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:13:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16021; Fri, 12 Apr 96 08:10:09 NZS Message-Id: <9604112010.AA16021@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:10 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: LW Field Divisions Status: O Content-Length: 1138 The best use I can see for LW field divisions is that as three-regiment outfits, they make good garrison fodder, thus saving a German player a 7-6 or 5-7-6 for the front. I think a historical brake should exist on the development of the Waffen-SS, reflecting what was going on with Himmler's empire-building. That supreme filing clerk had to play paper games to create SS Totenkopf Division, for example. He couldn't recruit for his divisions directly, but could for concentration camp guards. Apparently there was no shortage of people who wanted to run and guard Dachau and Buchenwald, which is an interesting and sad commentary on the German people. So Himmler created the division from concentration camp guards, then recruited to replace the losses. These alleged soldiers went on to invade France. They also massacred about 100 British soldiers at Le Paradis in France, witnessed by Pvt Donald Pooley of the Royal Norfolks, who survived to bring the killers to justice in 1945. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 22:19:35 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12386; Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:19:34 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA00981 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:19:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16038; Fri, 12 Apr 96 08:15:18 NZS Message-Id: <9604112015.AA16038@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:15 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Klaus Klutz, Ju 87 jockey Status: O Content-Length: 251 I remember Klaus Klutz...didn't he have a pal named Chicken Teriyaki, who returned from seven successful kamikaze missions? David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 22:24:56 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12471; Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:24:56 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA01107 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:24:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16066; Fri, 12 Apr 96 08:20:35 NZS Message-Id: <9604112020.AA16066@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:22 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: CNA, the flying albatross Status: O Content-Length: 275 There was indeed a rule in CNA on transporting camels by air. I think you could move live camels by air, but not dead ones. Scary stuff, neh? David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 22:28:57 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12535; Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:28:56 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA01189 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:28:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id QAA05191; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 16:00:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 16:00:52 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: building new units Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604111647.JAA02059@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 257 Hitler Jugend took about a year to get up to full speed and I think 9 and 10 SS were about the same. The Luftwaffe had more than one fighter pilot school! Don't kid yourself. The Nazis ran an amazingly inefficent war effort, but not one that bad. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 22:35:15 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12590; Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:35:14 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA01288 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:34:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id QAA05209; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 16:06:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 16:06:39 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Gr. Europa unit reorgs. Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604111648.JAA02153@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 747 The force pool idea sounds workable, but I stongly disagree with allowing the player to ignore the LW field divisions. It was political and should not be under the players control! The problem with them is that the manpower that went into them was ratehr large, considering the combat rating. They would cost about 4 or 5 points to build, which is why no rational GE player will ever do that. If that manpower was properly trained and reasonably well led than you have the 4-6-6 divisions in SF which show them after the Army gained authority over them. I'm glad that you're not permitting the SS to grow faster than historical, but they should grow at about the same rate as historical. Political machinations, again, I'm afraid. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 22:40:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12629; Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:40:43 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA01383 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:39:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16118; Fri, 12 Apr 96 08:35:58 NZS Message-Id: <9604112035.AA16118@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:34 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: The African maps Status: O Content-Length: 160 I'd be interested in them myself. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 23:20:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12956; Thu, 11 Apr 96 23:20:40 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA02069 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 23:19:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:45:43 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:49:43 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: ptobin@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com, NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Erich Hartmann, fighter ace Status: O Content-Length: 1271 On 4/10/96, Pat Tobin wrote in: >If Caidin is implying that the LW "cooked the books" on >Marseille's victory total, I think he is way off base. The >Jagdflieger weren't sent home to sell war bonds,after X >amount of missions. What Caidin was saying was that the Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment, either ordering, or with the collusion of, the Luftwaffe, inflated experten scores. While in some other armed forces this may have occurred unintentionally [in the heat of battle, damaged=destroyed was a very common pilot perception error, as was the pressure of competition noted in an earlier post], given the Nazi propensity for exaggerating, distorting, or outright lying about EVERYTHING else, I think it completely unlikely that they didn't do it here [and, it should be noted, the Luftwaffe WAS the most 'nazi' of the three services]. In point of fact, also, the Jagdflieger [as with the other services, notably the U-waffe] did sign autographs, send out photos to fans, appear on post cards and collectible cards, participate in parades, and generally do the whole public relations routine to assist the war effort on the home front. Just because they went back to the 'front' time after time does not mean that they never went back to Germany. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 11 23:48:21 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13123; Thu, 11 Apr 96 23:48:20 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA02603 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 23:47:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 16:00:17 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 18:04:26 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, zaius@teleport.com Subject: Re:Gr. Europa unit reorgs. Status: O Content-Length: 1548 On 4/11/96, Steve P sent in: >In compiling National Data Sheet/OB for Germany for my >own Grand Europa project, --SNIP-- >My instinct is to keep the growth of the Waffen SS as >historical as possible. The reasons for the expansion for the SS lie much more with Himmler than Hitler; Hitler approved the expansions, but Himmler requested and carried them out. In actuality, Hitler was wary of an expanded SS, not wanting to have a reprise of the situation with the SA, which was at least a PERCEIVED threat to the regime. This said, the SS expansions are actually somewhat independent of the actual ground situation, and really more attached to the military/political infighting. Reitlinger's *The SS-Alibi of a Nation 1922-1945*, Stein's *Waffen SS*, or even Williamson's book on the SS all give a pretty good chronology of the growth of the SS. So, unless there is going to be a full-blown set of alternatives for political paths in your GE, the growth of the SS should follow along pretty historical lines. >Similarly, the Luftwaffe field divisions may be ignored >completely. OTOH, if Goring [and the figure of Goring needs to be a presence, immutable and untouchable (by the players) in GE] knew that the Luftwaffe manpower was going to be released to the Army, rather than being allowed to form their own divisions, he probably would have found another way to hold onto them, meaning that they would not be available AT ALL, or only as a thin trickle of RPs. I don't think this should be a player decision without consequences. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 01:14:29 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13933; Fri, 12 Apr 96 01:14:28 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA03878 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:12:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.37.10] (gw5-010.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA14863 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 12 Apr 1996 00:12:07 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 00:14:30 +0000 To: Ray Kanarr From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re:Yet more Luft-peeves flak Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 3784 >On 4/10/96, Perry de Havilland stated, among the excellent points in >his post, this: > >>A rule for *experten* counters might be a nice optional rule >>in a air war module. > >1) I have the same objection to this that I have to the Rudel >counter, that it is inappropriate in an operational-level game to >single out individuals, no matter how "effective"; Basically, I agree (I think you took me too seriously about wanting to simulate when Bob Brahams's unit beat up on Schnaufer's unit when they mistook Braham's slow cruising gaggle of Beaufighters for straggling Lancasters. Oops). Aces were not organised into 'super units' of counter size but were distributed amongst various units: such folk have more bearing on the *average* level of skill, which for the Western nations and the Axis was much of a muchness. However, the reverse was often not true. For example, the RAF often used OTU assets (operational training units) for low risk missions, such as minelaying and 'spoof' raids. Spoof raids were designed to draw nightfighters away from the main attack and the bombers usually did not press them home but rather returned to base after having tricked the Germans into committing assets against the attack. On a few occasions, the OTU attacks actually did bomb targets (usually coastal ones) and as a result, were sometimes intercepted. When this happened, losses were usually higher than normal. That sounds to me like a 'Poor Air Crew' modifier (they are students, after all). I suspect most major nations should have the option of using training assets operationally, but with a penalty if they actually get into an air-to-air fight. >2) As far as the 'experten' [including Rudel in his field] go, while >these pilots were undoubtedly good, recent scholarship has started to >call into question the extent of their claimed victories, noting >overall 'kill inflation' among all combatants, and natural propaganda >uplifting of 'heros' by all sides during wartime as the bases for this >questioning. Once again, I agree. However, note that many German kills were aircraft destroyed on the ground. Whilst this is quite legitimate, it does tend to paint a misleading picture when other airforces did not count such aircraft as 'kills' in the same sense. Most of the Luftwaffe and RAF *nightfighter* aces seem to be fairly well documented and for some reason their figures seem to be less inflated than their daylight counterparts. I am not certain why this is but I suspect the fact that kills tended to be made not in confusing dogfights but rather in more deliberate one-on-one stalking attacks might have had something to do with it. Night air combat in WWII really did have a very different dynamic to daylight actions. Even so, I would agree that few of these figures will EVER be verified with complete certainty. >Taking Rudel as an example, we really only have his word that 519 >tanks were destroyed by him. In a battlefield environment, with flak >flying around [look at the number of times he was shot down!], and >flying at speed, with your other crewmember facing backward, and the >smoke, dust, etc., etc., with relatively few of these 'victories' >being able to be confirmed, it does seem that an accurate count would >be a bit difficult. >3) This is also eventually lead to a call for an Audie Murphy >counter, etc., etc., blah, blah. If we're going to discuss counters >for individuals, it would be FAR more worthwhile to discuss counters >to represent corps commanders and above. Damn, I WAS rather hoping for an Audie Murphy counter... and a Biggles counter as well! :-) P.S. To clarify my earler post when I said I was told that ten or so staff at Sandhurst played CFNA...that was ten or so ON EACH SIDE!!! Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 01:39:40 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14141; Fri, 12 Apr 96 01:39:39 +0200 Received: from travel1.travel-net.com (root@travel1.travel-net.com [204.92.71.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA04237 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:39:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Received: from 204.92.71.2.travel-net.com (trc135.travel-net.com [205.150.57.135]) by travel1.travel-net.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA11640 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:49:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:49:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199604112349.TAA11640@travel1.travel-net.com> X-Sender: bradbury@mail.travel-net.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re:Yet more Luft-peeves flak Status: O Content-Length: 741 On Thursday, April 11th, Ray Kanarr wrote: < Snip > >3) This is also eventually lead to a call for an Audie Murphy >counter, etc., etc., blah, blah. If we're going to discuss counters >for individuals, it would be FAR more worthwhile to discuss counters >to represent corps commanders and above. I agree that there counters for individuals are out of place at Europa's scale. As to corps commander counters etc, I always thought that the game-player was assuming the role of army group / army / corps commander. I mean, don't we all want to play the role of Patton, Zhukov, Manstein etc (and try to do one better ...). If you agree with this, then corps commander counters would not be appropriate. Nigel Bradbury Ottawa, Ontario From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 02:04:57 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14274; Fri, 12 Apr 96 02:04:56 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA04522 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 02:04:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16743; Fri, 12 Apr 96 12:00:43 NZS Message-Id: <9604120000.AA16743@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:03 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Hans Ulrich-Rudel Status: O Content-Length: 1713 He was a brave pilot -- destroyed a lot of tanks and sank a Russian battleship -- with considerable courage -- surviving the loss of his leg to fly again -- but not an admirable fellow. After the war, he became involved with neo-Nazi organizations in Argentina and Germany, and wrote a book originally titled "In Spite of It All," in which he mixed his wartime exploits with ringing defenses of the Nazi credo. It was published in England and America under the title "Stuka Pilot," and some of the more objectionable sections were excised. Biggles is a fictional character. If we want to have counters for British Commonwealth battlefield heroes, here are some: Johnnie Walker Robert Stanford-Tuck Cobber Kain George "Screwball" Beurling Charles Upham (VC and Bar) Howard Kippenberger Johnny Frost Leslie Morehead Eugene Esmonde "Rammer" Roope Philip Vian J.C. Wanklyn Charles Osborn Orde Wingate Bernard Fergusson Sam Beattie Charles Newman Red Ryder Harold Godfrey-Place Peter Keeble Al Deere Guy Gibson Les Knight Tom Derrick Jessie Vasey Leon Goldsworthy Weary Dunlop Henry Harwood William Tennant John Howard Geoffrey Leonard Cheshire Those are the only ones that spring to mind. If anyone has any more, post 'em. Sorry I don't provide any posts on the technical stuff (building replacements, NODLs, stacking, strengths), but as I often say, I'm lost when it comes to the math side of Europa. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 02:08:07 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14285; Fri, 12 Apr 96 02:08:06 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA04546 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 02:07:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.125.104] (ip-pdx22-40.teleport.com [206.163.125.104]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA04668; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604120007.RAA04668@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:13:29 -0700 To: Jason Long From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Gr. Europa unit reorgs. Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 1603 >The force pool idea sounds workable, but I stongly disagree with allowing >the player to ignore the LW field divisions. It was political and should >not be under the players control! I actually intend to give players (which will at least include myself and about 6 others and anyone else who wants to play around with whatever I eventually come up with) a significant degree of control over events which might be described as "political", but I want to stick with events that directly impact strategy and grand strategy, rather than social policy and the like. For this reason, I'm inclined to agree with you that the Luftwaffe field divisions should have to be built-at least initially. I rather like the way that SE handled the question and I'm inclined to leave it at that. >The problem with them is that the manpower that went into them was ratehr >large, considering the combat rating. They would cost about 4 or 5 points >to build, which is why no rational GE player will ever do that. That's a good point- which is why my instinct is to make the Germans build them-then leave it up to them to dismantle them at a certain date. The formation of the LW divisions was part of the Nazi idea of 'checks and balances'. >I'm glad that you're not permitting the SS to grow faster than >historical, but they should grow at about the same rate as historical. >Political machinations, again, I'm afraid. Yes- the growth of the SS was only partly due to the war situation, so I think it should be left to a roughly historical timetable. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 03:17:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14774; Fri, 12 Apr 96 03:17:41 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA05284 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 03:17:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.37.2] (gw5-002.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA18420 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 12 Apr 1996 02:16:50 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 02:19:13 +0000 To: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Biggles Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 206 The evil Lippman wrote: > Biggles is a fictional character. WHAT!?! I suppose next you are going to say there is no Father Christmas (who is, as everyone knows, British). Peevishly Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 03:19:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14793; Fri, 12 Apr 96 03:19:40 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA05323 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 03:19:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.37.2] (gw5-002.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA18487 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 12 Apr 1996 02:19:19 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 02:21:42 +0000 To: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Those fightin' Chetniks Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 3373 John Astell wrote: (snipage) >Not to defend Mikhailovich unduly, but in his terms he did not "switch >sides." Mikhailovich and his Chetniks were fighting for the reestablishment >of Yugoslavia as an independent monarchy. In their eyes, the communists >were as big as threat to a monarchial Yugoslavia as the Germans were. Think >of the situation as a three-way war* between the fascists, the communists, >and the monarchists, with the monarchists in the weakest position. As one >side gets too strong, the monarchists will temporarily cooperate with the >other side, all the time trying to stay in the game in the hopes that they >can win eventually. One clear indication of this is that Mikhailovich's >Chetniks, when the started to cooperated with the Axis, clearly preferred >to deal with the Italian, not the Germans -- Italy, although controlled by >the Fascist Party, was still a monarchy and thus could be presumed to have >some political viewpoints similar to the Yugoslav monarchists. This is all very true. However, it is *very* important to realise that Draza Mikhailovic was first and foremost a **Serbian** nationalist and the Karageorgovic dynasty was (is) a *Serbian* dynasty. For Mikhailovic's Chetniks, Yugoslavia & Greater Serbia were synonymous and this is still the view of these people today. I mention this as I feel it is more important than the Monarchist/ Communist/ Fascist dimension (which is nonetheless true). Similarly, the defining element of Ante Pavelic's Ustasa regime was not that it was fascist (which it was in spades) but that it was a Croat *Nationalist* movement. Only Tito (half Slovene/ half Croat himself) could claim to represent a non-ethnic vision for Yugoslavia (note: I said *claim*) and offer an ideological one instead. Of the loathsome options on offer here, it is not surprising so many Croats joined up with Tito. Post-war official histories with ethnic axes to grind not withstanding, Croats, rather than Serbs, actually made up the single largest element of Tito's partisans, though this is not to belittle the large number of Serbs etc. who did likewise. This Croat aspect of Tito's forces is something often not appreciated when contemporary commentators, who for the most part are utterly ignorant of the underlying historical dynamics, make a direct link between the Croat Ustasa regime of the 1940's and the modern Croat Republic of the 1990's. Franjo Tudjman was himself one of Tito's partisans and it pissed me off no end when certain ignorant British journalists said he was an 'inappropriate' guest when he attended the massive VE Day celebrations in London last year. How many other of the national leaders assembled there had *personally* fought against Nazi Germany? I may not be an uncritical fan of Gospodin Tudjman but give the man his due. >(*Even a three-way war simplifies things greatly. There were numerous >ethnic disputes complicating matters, too.) As stated above, I feel this point is not a *by the way* but rather the central fact! Re. nothing in particular: My, my. Today is a heavy e-mail day! I must say that I continue to be greatly impressed by the quality and intelligence of the posts to this forum. It is a real pleasure to read this stuff and I am continually amazed by the depth of the pool of knowledge amongst all you Europa grognards. Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 03:56:48 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14948; Fri, 12 Apr 96 03:56:47 +0200 Received: from io.org (io.org [198.133.36.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA05777 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 03:55:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from i486 (macdonald.net6b.io.org [204.92.5.57]) by io.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA11638 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:55:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:55:49 -0400 Message-Id: <199604120155.VAA11638@io.org> X-Sender: woloshyn@io.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Larry Woloshyn Subject: Re: Hans Ulrich-Rudel Status: O Content-Length: 752 At 12:03 PM 4/12/96 GMT, you wrote: > ... not an admirable fellow. > After the war, he became involved with neo-Nazi organizations in >Argentina and Germany, and wrote a book originally titled "In Spite of It >All," in which he mixed his wartime exploits with ringing defenses of the >Nazi credo. It was published in England and America under the title >"Stuka Pilot," and some of the more objectionable sections were excised. At the end of 'Stuka Pilot' Rudel trumpets his move to South Africa with specific reference to their racial policies. > George "Screwball" Beurling Surely you mean "Buzz" Beurling, many kills in WW2, died while flying to "The Zionist Entity" in '48 to fly against the Arabs. Larry From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 04:04:48 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14984; Fri, 12 Apr 96 04:04:47 +0200 Received: from io.org (io.org [198.133.36.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA05901 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 04:04:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from i486 (macdonald.net6b.io.org [204.92.5.57]) by io.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA12751 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:04:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:04:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199604120204.WAA12751@io.org> X-Sender: woloshyn@io.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Larry Woloshyn Subject: Re: Those fightin' Chetniks Status: O Content-Length: 1117 At 02:21 AM 4/12/96 +0000, you wrote: >John Astell wrote: >(snipage) >>Not to defend Mikhailovich unduly, but in his terms he did not "switch >This Croat aspect of Tito's forces is something often not appreciated when >contemporary commentators, who for the most part are utterly ignorant of >the underlying historical dynamics, make a direct link between the Croat >Ustasa regime of the 1940's and the modern Croat Republic of the 1990's. >Franjo Tudjman was himself one of Tito's partisans and it pissed me off no >end when certain ignorant British journalists said he was an >'inappropriate' guest when he attended the massive VE Day celebrations in >London last year. How many other of the national leaders assembled there >had *personally* fought against Nazi Germany? I may not be an uncritical >fan of Gospodin Tudjman but give the man his due. Duh, why is the Tudjman government so anxious to appropriate the trappings of the Ustashe. One of Zagreb's main streets was recently renamed after Ante Pavelic. Are you sure Tudjman didn't do his 'anti-Nazi' fighting on the Ustashe side? Larry From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 04:34:57 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15167; Fri, 12 Apr 96 04:34:56 +0200 Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA06420 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 04:34:23 +0200 (MET DST) From: YANAWAY@aol.com Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24183 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:33:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:33:51 -0400 Message-Id: <960411223349_189510685@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Africa Maps Status: O Content-Length: 43 I am interested in Maps of Africa at 16mph From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 04:36:04 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15183; Fri, 12 Apr 96 04:36:03 +0200 Received: from naybob.ghq.com (naybob.ghq.com [204.73.247.161]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA06438 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 04:35:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from jwhite@localhost) by naybob.ghq.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) id VAA22969 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:35:48 -0500 From: Jeff White Message-Id: <199604120235.VAA22969@naybob.ghq.com> Subject: Game Envy To: europa@lysator.liu.se (Europa Mailing List) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:35:48 -0500 (CDT) Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 1411 I've just started playing World in Flames (as a break between Europa games), and I have to notice that it seems that each game envies the other. WiF wants to be Europa and now Europa wants to be WiF. WiF has produced some of the goofiest things you have ever seen. Like a game where the average unit is a Corp, they have added Brigades. Brigades some stronger than a Corp. Like that makes sense. Or the dumbest thing I've ever seen, allowing the Luftwaffe Para-Panzer Div to actually para drop. This confirms my suspicion that WiF is a game. If you add too much chrome, (as WiF seems to have done), the game suffers. I think Europa is a cardboard simulation that can also as a bonus be played as a game. WiF is a game that can also be a simple simulation. Both have the limitations of cardboard and flesh that they will never be perfect, only a computer game can achieve that. For Grand Europa a decision seems to need to be made if GE is going to be a game or a simulation. If it's a game, great, open the flood gates for letting player build and do as they please, much as in WiF. If it's a simulation, it should follow the basic historical path (with deviations). If GE is going to be both a floor wax and desert topping, I think it's doomed to disaster. Just my two cents. -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY jwhite@ghq.com "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 04:42:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15221; Fri, 12 Apr 96 04:42:58 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA06538 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 04:42:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17128; Fri, 12 Apr 96 14:38:43 NZS Message-Id: <9604120238.AA17128@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 14:36 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Screwball Beurling Status: O Content-Length: 814 Yes indeed, Screwball Beurling did die at the helm of a plane he was flying to Israel to help them fight the '48 war. He gained his nickname in Malta for his goofy behaviour, which included tossing a buttered slice of bread on the floor, then swatting as many flies as possible on it, calling them "Goddamn screwballs." I don't know if Rudel made it to South Africa, but he did go to Argentina for a while. I never actually waded through Stuka Pilot, probably because I was never a big fan of him. I think it's unfair that Rudel lived on to be a leading postwar neo-Nazi while Beurling died in an aircrash. I think it would have been better the other way around. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 04:53:54 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15257; Fri, 12 Apr 96 04:53:53 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA06678 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 04:53:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA04485 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:52:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 21:52:52 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: Steve Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Gr. Europa unit reorgs. In-Reply-To: <199604111648.JAA02153@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2551 On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Steve wrote: > In compiling National Data Sheet/OB for Germany for my own Grand Europa > Using Germany as an example, the Pz XX are divided up by period and rules > govern their conversions and transformations, such as the 1939/40 overhauls > and the expansion programme of 40/41. After that, it get easier, as A very tricky business, doing this kind of thing. For example the Germans were able to basicly double their armored force pool by cutting back on the number of AFVs per division. It worked, but was that because they happened to be fighting '41 British & Russians that did not have that `tank thing' worked out yet? Not that anyone other than the Germans did have it figured out. Europa has made the rating of the division sort of flow from '40 thru '42. Could it be that it might have worked better had they retained the tank heavy divisions (for things like NODL busting) in game terms and that the '40 combat factors are too low? It's very hard to tell. The old SPI line was that heavy tank divisions were bad. It took the British a long time to get it right. The Americans reworked their heavy divisions into a more balanced model. However we retained the 1st, 2nd & 3rd as heavy divisions and Europa does not penalize them. If they are less efficient how does that compute in replacements? And it would seem the Russians never got it right. The tank corps were very tank heavy and they are still rated fairly well. The mech corps should be much better as a balanced unit, yet the game system does not give them very much extra. And looking at the SS divisions is tough too. The old truths were that the SS divisions were very bad since they ate up a lot of manpower and weapons, the `armed mobs' as the army called them. Yet many items brought up lately would seem to indicate that the SS units were able to get manpower from the less traditional sources that the army may never have touched. So how does one rate that? Another point. A couple of sources have told of all the Russian `volunteers' that worked their way into the army units on the eastern front. Many behind the line functions were being carried out more and more by these people as the war went on (to a point). These were bodies, but were they on the T.O. & E. as the units went on? In Europa we have Eastern troop units, but nothing like infantry RPs picked up in Russia to reflect this yet. All this makes unit building a fun activity. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 05:03:15 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15303; Fri, 12 Apr 96 05:03:14 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA06793 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:02:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA06211 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for Europa Mailing List ); Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:02:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:02:41 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: Jeff White Cc: Europa Mailing List Subject: Re: Game Envy In-Reply-To: <199604120235.VAA22969@naybob.ghq.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1069 On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Jeff White wrote: > For Grand Europa a decision seems to need to be made if GE is going > to be a game or a simulation. If it's a game, great, open the > flood gates for letting player build and do as they please, much > as in WiF. If it's a simulation, it should follow the basic > historical path (with deviations). If GE is going to be both > a floor wax and desert topping, I think it's doomed to disaster. Interesting thought. But my thoughts are sort of opposite. If GE is to be a good simulation it must allow new variables to be added, so one can see how that would have changed possible endings. One doesn't care so much if this is hard to game. If GE is to be a good game one must take great care NOT to add in variables since that will screw up the flavor and playing of the game. I hope we're not doomed to disaster. The game players hold the cards at the moment, but cries for simulation are often heard. I still like to hope that with all this talent we can get a good balance that works. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 05:42:31 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15497; Fri, 12 Apr 96 05:42:30 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA07279 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:41:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:50:02 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:54:05 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: cloister@dircon.co.uk Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re:Yet more Luft-peeves flak Status: O Content-Length: 792 On 4/11/96, Perry de Havilland sent in: >On a few occasions, the OTU attacks actually did bomb >targets (usually coastal ones) and as a result, were >sometimes intercepted. OTUs participated in the first "1000-plane" raid, also. It was the only way they could scrape together enough planes. I totally agree about being able to 'call up the schools', as long as there are longer-range consequences for doing so beyond a mere negative modifier. When you call up your schools, you're eating your seed corn, both in terms of students and instructors, who both fly. Overall, I think we're much more in agreement than disagreement, its simply a question of separating the wheat from the chaff [another agricultural allusion, and me not even a farmboy!], as it ever is in Europa. Peace, Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 06:00:15 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15621; Fri, 12 Apr 96 06:00:14 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA07451 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:59:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.30] (gw1-030.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA21717 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 12 Apr 1996 04:59:45 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:02:12 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Those fightin' Chetniks Cc: Larry Woloshyn Status: O Content-Length: 3098 Larry Woloshyn wrote: >Duh, why is the Tudjman government so anxious to appropriate the >>trappings of the Ustashe. One of Zagreb's main streets was >recently >renamed after Ante Pavelic. To which I reply: Thank you for you eloquently and politely expressed remarks. As you are obviously already an expert on this subject, I will try an keep my humble reply simple. The internal complexities of the HDZ (which, as you doubtless know, is the majority ruling party in Croatia) are too involved for me to go into in a Europa related forum. Suffice to say, there is a fairly extreme wing whose political epicentre is in Mostar (that is in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as you doubtless know) and a more 'western' wing, whose power base is in Zagreb (I'm sure you know where that is). The more extreme wing has various wild-eyed chaps who are not fascists but rather have a bizarre air-brushed view of history (for *real* fascists, you need to look at the HSP (which, as you doubtless know, stands for 'Croatian Rights Party')) . Tudjman is much more sophisticated than that (not that I would call him particularly sophisticated) but his party is a weird conglomeration of very disparate views. Some of the things he says are to keep the stranger elements happy. I am quite sure he is well aware that Jacenovac was not a holiday camp (doubtless, you know all about Jacenovac) and his idea to make it a site of national reconciliation was not his most inspired idea. That makes him stupid, not a fascist. Also, the notion that the adoption of the Sahovnica (the red-white checkerboard, but doubtless you know that) is adopting the 'trappings' of the Ustasha ignore the fact it has been the principal symbol of Croatian national identity for *centuries*. Ante Pavelic Street? Yeah. There is also one named after J.F.Kennedy, which only goes to show that there are lots of people on the Zagreb City Council with bizarre tastes in politicians. There are places named after the various genocidal mass murderers who ran the USA during the 'ethnic cleansing' of the American Indians, but that does not make the USA a fascist state (though Steve might disagree with me here). The fact is, Croatia is a true (i.e. typically flawed) democratic state with real opposition parties and a free (even if harassed) press. Nothing widely available in the USA comes even CLOSE to the Split based newspaper *Feral Tribune* in terms of anti-government vitriol. It is not a difficult to find 'alternate' paper as found in the west and published by pimply students, but can be purchased on any news-stand in Zagreb or even Mostar. It is in Croatian, but just look at the cartoons to get an idea (like the 'Greatest Shits' section). Check it out on http://www.webworld.org/feral/ This is not the sign of a resurgent fascist state. Also, read the Croatian constitution on http://www.vlada.hr/dokumenti/ustav.htm Not exactly a fascist constitution. >Are you sure Tudjman didn't do his 'anti-Nazi' fighting on the >Ustashe side? Not even his opponent claim that. Schmuck. Complete lack of regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 06:16:37 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15652; Fri, 12 Apr 96 06:16:35 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA07663 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 06:16:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA18882 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Thu, 11 Apr 1996 23:16:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 23:16:06 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: Jason Long Cc: Perry de Havilland , europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Yet more Luft-peeves flak In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1345 On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Jason Long wrote: > The on demand air system required a method to show which planes had > already flown and the back of teh counter had to be used. I'm not > The ARPs a bit to generic for myown tastes, As an abuse A possible addition to the air replacement system: fragile air units. As many have stated it is bad enough when one can replace FW-190s or JU-88s instantaneously. But the ends of that spectrum is that those ARPs can be wooden gliders or jet Meteors just as easily. An abuse in our games, is that players would throw away one's best units most of all. They had the best chance of doing something (longest range, biggest bombs, whatever), but since the ARPs were an amalgam of the whole force there are plenty to replace all the good units first. Like that Lanc with the 18 strat bomb load. Send it anywhere you want the best chance of a hit. If it gets shot down who cares, there's plenty more where that came from. Pulling rebuilt units from a pool would work except the allied air force is usually at full strength (nasty VP losses). So it sould be possible to make special one of a kind air units, or things like jets, fragile. Perhaps three times the cost to rebuild right away, or when rebuilt they don't actually come back for a couple of turns. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 07:19:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16002; Fri, 12 Apr 96 07:19:43 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA08458 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:19:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA029315501; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:05:01 GMT Message-Id: <199604120505.AA029315501@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 12 Apr 96 05:05:01 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Fri, 12 Apr 96 05:04:44 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 04:57:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 3826793 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 147892 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Commonwealth heroes Status: O Content-Length: 599 More British Commonwealth heroes: "Mad" Mike Calvert Vladimir Peniakoff David Stirling Peter Young Keith Mallory John Durnford-Slater John Masters Pierre Clostermann We ought to run a contest, name the unit each served in or commanded, i.e.: 1 x 3-8 Inf X 4 NZ: Charles Upham (VC and Bar); and Howard Kippenberger 1 x 3-5 Para X 1: Johnny Frost 1 x 7-8 Inf XX 9 Aus: Leslie Morehead 1 x Lanc 3HB5 2-18 B 40*: Guy Gibson Les Knight Geoffrey Leonard Cheshire Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 07:19:48 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16007; Fri, 12 Apr 96 07:19:47 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA08459 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:19:12 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA029625508; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:05:08 GMT Message-Id: <199604120505.AA029625508@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 12 Apr 96 05:05:08 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Fri, 12 Apr 96 05:04:50 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 04:59:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 8597005 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 147933 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Gr. Europa Unit reorgs. etc. Status: O Content-Length: 3607 "Similarly, the Luftwaffe field divisions may be ignored completely. Some might argue that Germany must be forced to build these units as Goring's empire building should be off-limits to player interference, but I would argue otherwise- it should be left up to the player. I'm sure I'm not the only player to have discovered that, far from being useless, a 2 or 3 point division can often be a very handy tool." WRONG! The German player is stuck with Goring. Besides, in a revised FiE/SE the first 10 or so Luftwaffen-Felddivision should be 1 x 2-6* Inf XX Grp or 1 x 3-6* Inf XX Grp as they usually had a TO of four infantry battalions, an artillery battalion, a flak battalion and supporting engineer and antitank companies. Later divisions (and those of the first wave that survived) were expanded to two regiments with six battalions and an artillery regiment (like those in SF). DIE DEUTSCHEN LUFTWAFFEN-FELDDIVSIONEN 1941-1945, by Werner Haupt [Yes, John Astell, I know that you can't rely on Haupt. I checked him against Tessin. :)] "That supreme filing clerk had to play paper games to create SS Totenkopf Division, for example. He couldn't recruit for his divisions directly, but could for concentration camp guards. Apparently there was no shortage of people who wanted to run and guard Dachau and Buchenwald, which is an interesting and sad commentary on the German people. So Himmler created the division from concentration camp guards, then recruited to replace the losses." Actually, it was Theodor Eicke, the Totenkopf creator and commander, who was the empire builder often over Himmler's objections. Eicke had amassed so many troops as part of his Totenkopf units that these units, that they served as the foundation for the 1940-1941 expansion of the Waffen SS. From four prewar Totenkopf standarten (one for each concentration camp), some 15 Totenkopf infantry regiments were formed along with a cavalry regiment plus ersatz battlions. The cavalry regiment eventually expanded into the SS Cavalry Division, and the infantry regiments were used to form the SS-Totenkopf Division AND the SS Nord Division AND the 1st and 2nd SS Infantry Brigades. So for Barbarossa: 1 x 9-10 Mot XX Totkpf (SS); 1 x 3-10 Mot XX Nord; 1 x 3-8* Cav X Fgln (SS); 2 x 3-10 Mot X 1, 2 (SS); all came from the Totenkopf units (now absorbed into the Waffen SS). Eicke was killed on the Russian Front in 1943. SS Obersturmfuhrer Fritz Knochlein, the commander of the company that was responsible for the 1940 massacre of the men of 2nd The Norfolk Regiment was executed by hanging after the war for this war crime (thanks mainly to the testimony of Private Pooley and Private O'Callaghan, the two survivors). "I think a historical brake should exist on the development of the Waffen-SS, reflecting what was going on with Himmler's empire-building." True, the Waffen SS didn't really start expanding big time until Himmler starting recruiting (voluntarily or otherwise) anyone who looked, smelled or claimed to be a German or of German ancestry, i.e. "Volksdeutsche" or "Nordic" types. Then he grabbed anybody else, the Army's French and Walloon units, the Cossacks, and assorted Slavic types, like Ukrainians, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc. (which is why the father of the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs actually ended up serving with the SS in WW2). Stein's book (mentioned by another earlier) THE WAFFEN SS HITLER'S ELITE GUARD AT WAR has a list of all 38 Waffen SS divisions and showing whether they were composed largely or partially of Volksdeutsche or foreigners. Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 07:19:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16012; Fri, 12 Apr 96 07:19:49 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA08457 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:19:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA029165498; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:04:58 GMT Message-Id: <199604120504.AA029165498@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 12 Apr 96 05:04:58 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Fri, 12 Apr 96 05:04:41 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 04:58:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 2957937 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 147877 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Captain Klutz Status: O Content-Length: 470 A real Hauptmann (Captain) Klaus Klutz. On 15 Aug 1939, Hauptmann Walter Sigel led I./St.G. 76 (1 x Ju87B) on a practice bombing mission and dived through what he thought were clouds. Only it was ground fog. 13 aircraft crashed killing 26 aircrew. Sigel was court-martialled and acquitted. Cajus Bekker, THE LUFTWAFFE WAR DIARIES. Incidently, Adolf Galland flew an Hs123 ground attack plane with II (Sch.)/LG 2 during the Polish Campaign. Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 07:50:29 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16316; Fri, 12 Apr 96 07:50:27 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA08819 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:49:38 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA058747334; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:35:34 GMT Message-Id: <199604120535.AA058747334@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 12 Apr 96 05:35:34 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Fri, 12 Apr 96 05:35:17 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 05:30:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 8951346 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 148117 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: "Those fighting Chetniks" Status: O Content-Length: 1134 In about 6 AD, Augustus Caesar planned a massive triple invasion of what is now Bohemia to extend the frontier of the Roman Empire to a line between what are now Hamburg, Leipzig, Prague and Vienna. "However, the entire project had to be called off. This was because of a huge and terrible native rebellion throughout massive areas of Dalmatia and Pannonia, the two sections of the province of Illyricum....The suppression of the rebellion was only achieved by an exceedingly arduous series of operations, which lasted three years and seemed to the Romans the worst military crisis they had experienced since the Second Punic War," from THE ARMY OF THE CAESARS, by Michael Grant. "Occupied for centuries by Romans, Turks, Austrians, and Hungarians, the Balkan peoples were forced to adopt the methods of irregular warfare in the struggle against their oppressors. When not resisting foreign invaders, they battled one another or kept alive their fighting traditions in bitter blood feuds," from GERMAN ANTIGUERILLA OPERATIONS IN THE BALKANS (1941-1944). Or as Yogi Berra once said, "Deja vu all over again." Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 10:11:16 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17970; Fri, 12 Apr 96 10:11:15 +0200 Received: from uvaix3e1.comp.UVic.CA (root@uvaix3e1.comp.UVic.CA [142.104.5.103]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA11030 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:10:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from p18-186.dialup.UVic.CA (p18-186.dialup.UVic.CA [142.104.18.186]) by uvaix3e1.comp.UVic.CA (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA34371 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:10:21 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:10:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199604120810.BAA34371@uvaix3e1.comp.UVic.CA> X-Sender: steveh@UVAIX.uvic.ca (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Steve Huhtala Subject: AWW - Vuoksa River Status: O Content-Length: 475 Hello - I have a quick question that came up during "A Winter War" and we can't figure it out. Rule 29.B.2 states that the Vuoksa River remains open water and thus the two lakes downstream also remain unfrozed. Terrain effects are determined using the "open water effects" The TEC says combat is prohibited across open-water lake/sea hexes. Q: Are we correct to assume that the Soviet Player cannot attack across the lake hexes? Thanks, Steve Huhtala steveh@uvic.ca From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 13:29:04 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20621; Fri, 12 Apr 96 13:29:03 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA14811 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:27:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.51] (Lilla_Red_01 [130.237.155.51]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA05834 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:27:27 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:27:27 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: OFF:Re: "Those fighting Chetniks" Status: O Content-Length: 620 >In about 6 AD, Augustus Caesar planned a massive triple invasion >of what is now Bohemia to extend the frontier of the Roman Empire ... >When not resisting foreign invaders, they battled one another or >kept alive their fighting traditions in bitter blood feuds," from >GERMAN ANTIGUERILLA OPERATIONS IN THE BALKANS (1941-1944). >Or as Yogi Berra once said, "Deja vu all over again." Wow! Right up to the end I thought this was a brilliant sarcasm about this thread roaming free from Europa context. Well, I guess it still could be read that way ;-) Back to Europa, please! Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 13:30:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20650; Fri, 12 Apr 96 13:30:58 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA14862 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:30:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.51] (Lilla_Red_01 [130.237.155.51]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA05855 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:30:33 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:30:33 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: SYSTEM: Re: Yet more Luft-peeves flak Status: O Content-Length: 875 > A possible addition to the air replacement system: fragile air >units. As many have stated it is bad enough when one can replace FW-190s >or JU-88s instantaneously. But the ends of that spectrum is that those >ARPs can be wooden gliders or jet Meteors just as easily. > An abuse in our games, is that players would throw away one's best units >most of all. They had the best chance of doing something (longest range, >biggest bombs, whatever), but since the ARPs were an amalgam of the whole >force there are plenty to replace all the good units first. Like that >Lanc with the 18 strat bomb load. Send it anywhere you want the best >chance of a hit. If it gets shot down who cares, there's plenty more where >that came from. Good point, and one simply fixed. Just export the limited replacement system to air units! Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 13:33:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20685; Fri, 12 Apr 96 13:33:18 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA14896 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:33:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.51] (Lilla_Red_01 [130.237.155.51]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA05896 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:33:07 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:33:07 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: OFF: Re: Wierdly named ships Status: O Content-Length: 765 > Oddly-named ships are common enough in warfare, and WW2 was no >exception. There were two warships named Enterprise, one a British light >cruiser that was on line at Normandy, the other the famed American >aircraft carrier. > The Germans created a cruiser named Lutzow, sold it to the Soviet >Union, then took the pocket battleship Deutschland and renamed THAT >Lutzow, confusing intelligence officers everywhere. > Finally, who can forget the USS Shangri-La, the Essex-class carrier >that honored a presidential joke. If you go down to transport ships, you'll find lots of weird names. Like the German supply ship Buenos Aires. I've also heard a rumour that there was a Japanese transport ship named Boston! Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 13:43:46 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20833; Fri, 12 Apr 96 13:43:45 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA15165 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:43:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.51] (Lilla_Red_01 [130.237.155.51]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA06032 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:43:26 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:43:26 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: AWW:Supply Status: O Content-Length: 679 Here's a question to Gary Stagliano (I don't have his address, but I know he lurks around on this list.) The Finns have a supply problem that bothers me: They can't supply their units all the way to Salla (which I'm sure they could historically.) The reason is that the road between Rovaniemi and Salla is interrupted by a lake with a narrow strait. Since this isn't a bridged strait, this ends the road element of the supply line. This really irritates me. The lake ice is completely flat and probably a meter thick, probably a better road than the road itself, so why should it be a supply obstacle? What are your thoughts on this? Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 13:52:27 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA21005; Fri, 12 Apr 96 13:52:26 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA15400 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:52:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.51] (Lilla_Red_01 [130.237.155.51]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA06137 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:52:14 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:52:14 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: SYSTEM: An air oddity Status: O Content-Length: 775 Here's an air oddity that can occur with the latest version of the air rules. Think of a group of C47s (0T2) flying an unescorted transport mission. Now they're patrol attacked by some crappy fighters (and I mean REALLY crappy fighters with an attack value of 1) The fighters patrol attack on the -1 column, roll bad and are aborted. The unarmed C47s have just shot down a couple of fighters! Now you'll have a hard time finding a situation like this. Maybe if you flew over Iraq? The only air unit I can think of that has a real chance of getting into a situation like this is the unarmed Ar234 jet bomber (0JA9). And then, if the situation should occur, you can always ignore the result. But it sure is fun to nit-pick the rules! Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 15:36:52 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA22477; Fri, 12 Apr 96 15:36:51 +0200 Received: from ns.rmc.com (ns.rmc.com [137.25.23.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA17585 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:35:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ns.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA14144; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:24:29 -0400 Received: from internet.rmc.com(137.25.3.24) by ns.rmc.com via smap (V1.3) id sma010512; Fri Apr 12 09:24:10 1996 Received: from lanmail.rmc.com by internet.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA14624; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:34:54 -0400 Received: by LANMAIL.RMC.COM; Fri, 12 Apr 96 9:38:04 EDT Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 9:38:28 EDT Message-Id: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re:SYSTEM: An air oddity Status: O Content-Length: 927 > Think of a group of C47s (0T2) flying an unescorted > transport mission. Now > they're patrol attacked > by some crappy fighters (and I mean REALLY crappy > fighters with an attack value of 1) The fighters patrol > attack on the -1> column, roll bad and are aborted. > The unarmed C47s have just shot down a > couple of fighters! In the particular case you cite, the patrolling crappy fighters sighted the lumbering C47s from above, silhouetted against a low cloud bank. The excited fighter pilots, eager at finally having found an opponent they could deal with on equal terms, dove on their unsuspecting prey only to discover that the cloud bank was actually ground fog. 13 of the crappy fighters were destroyed and their commander was court-martialled (although later acquitted). Sorry, can't remember the exact source of this info. Possibly, "The Iraqi Air Force War Diaries" by Klausi Klutsi Husseinni. Frank From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 16:04:43 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA22939; Fri, 12 Apr 96 16:04:42 +0200 Received: from ns.rmc.com (ns.rmc.com [137.25.23.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA18089 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 16:02:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ns.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA14662; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:44:04 -0400 Received: from internet.rmc.com(137.25.3.24) by ns.rmc.com via smap (V1.3) id sma010716; Fri Apr 12 09:43:49 1996 Received: from lanmail.rmc.com by internet.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA11440; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:53:18 -0400 Received: by LANMAIL.RMC.COM; Fri, 12 Apr 96 9:55:53 EDT Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 9:56:16 EDT Message-Id: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re: Game Envy Content-Length: 957 Regarding the ongoing debate between the "Wide Open" faction and the "Strict Historical Constraints" faction on Grand Europa I think we should realize that: a) given the "Strict Historical Constraint" version, a group of gamers can easily say "let's dump all these limitations - everything goes into a force pool and product what you want. No predetermined alliances - everybody represents a country - use diplomacy how you want. Italy can align with France? Sure." b) given the Open version, a group of gamers (or simulationists, if you prefer) can NOT say, "We think there should be considerable historical restraints put on the players to reflect pre-existing political and ideological factors and before we begin we are all going to carefully construct those constraints and agree on them." Well, I guess you could SAY it, but you wouldn't start playing until you finished a project that would be as big as playing the game itself. Frank From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 16:05:54 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA22981; Fri, 12 Apr 96 16:05:52 +0200 Received: from mailgw.liu.se (mailgw.liu.se [130.236.1.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA18200 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 16:05:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from prague.crossover.com (prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by mailgw.liu.se (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA07237 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 16:09:25 +0200 Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA32189 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:55:47 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:03:35 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Game Envy Content-Length: 926 >I've just started playing World in Flames (as a break between Europa >games), and I have to notice that it seems that each game envies >the other. WiF wants to be Europa and now Europa wants to be WiF.... I've got to admit I've never played World in Flames or even read the rules -- so there may not be undue WiF influence at least in one quarter in Europa. (I HAVE seen WiF being played at game conventions -- it looks like great fun, and I have nothing against the game. When it comes down to it, however, I'd rather design and play my own corps level WW2 game, and I hope to some day.) >For Grand Europa a decision seems to need to be made if GE is going >to be a game or a simulation. If it's a game, great, open the >flood gates for letting player build and do as they please, much >as in WiF. If it's a simulation, it should follow the basic >historical path (with deviations).... My vote goes for simulation. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 16:24:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23331; Fri, 12 Apr 96 16:24:40 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA18705 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 16:24:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.37.45] (gw5-045.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA22739 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:22:52 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:26:11 +0000 To: j.broshot@genie.com From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: OFF: Re: Commonwealth heroes Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Content-Length: 704 My personal favs are: D.C.T. "Pathfinder" Bennett (who made it all finally work) John "Cats Eye" Cunningham (night ace, de Havilland test pilot, gentleman) C.F. Rawnsley (whose "cats eyes" were glued to a radar tube) "Bob" Braham (who hated the nazis with a passion) K. Kuttelwascher (okay, I know he was a Czech not Commonwealth but think he was most a admirable man) Basil Embry (my absolute favourate: not many Group Commanders flew missions (against orders, in fact)) P.C.Pickford (who died at Amiens during Operation Jericho) Lord Lovat (strange guy) Orde Wingate (even stranger guy) Len Cheshire (the strangest and noblest of all of 'em) the list could go on and on... Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 16:37:33 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23539; Fri, 12 Apr 96 16:37:32 +0200 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA18973 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 16:36:10 +0200 (MET DST) From: Italorican@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02295; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:35:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:35:37 -0400 Message-Id: <960412103536_468232224@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: woloshyn@io.org, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Those fightin' Chetniks Content-Length: 563 In a message dated 96-04-11 22:20:31 EDT, woloshyn@io.org (Larry Woloshyn) writes: >. > > Duh, why is the Tudjman government so anxious to appropriate the >trappings of the Ustashe. One of Zagreb's main streets was recently renamed >after Ante Pavelic. A I was about to raise the same point -- one of the elements that exacerbated the Yugoslav mess was precisely the fact that the Croatian state took over the Ustache symbology fully and completely. I also second Perry deHavilland, concerning the range and interest of recent posts. Antonio Lauria From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 17:16:47 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA24145; Fri, 12 Apr 96 17:16:46 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA19964 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:16:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA32379 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:08:06 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:15:55 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Gr. Europa unit reorgs. Content-Length: 2617 >> In compiling National Data Sheet/OB for Germany for my own Grand Europa... >> Using Germany as an example, the Pz XX are divided up by period and rules >> govern their conversions and transformations, such as the 1939/40 overhauls >> and the expansion programme of 40/41. After that, it get easier, as... > > A very tricky business, doing this kind of thing. For example the >Germans were able to basicly double their armored force pool by cutting >back on the number of AFVs per division. It worked, but was that because >they happened to be fighting '41 British & Russians that did not have >that `tank thing' worked out yet? Although I haven't seen many discussions of this in the history books, it seems likely that one of the reasons a 1941 panzer division, with fewer tanks than an earlier pz div, succeeded is that tank quality had gone up significantly -- the Pz Is were gone, and there were more Pz IIIs and IVs in service. > The old SPI line was that heavy tank divisions were bad. It took >the British a long time to get it right. The Americans reworked their >heavy divisions into a more balanced model. However we retained the 1st, >2nd & 3rd as heavy divisions and Europa does not penalize them. If they >are less efficient how does that compute in replacements? It's not just the SPI line, it's in the history books, too, and I find it accurate in this sense: Heavy tank divisions are not outright inefficient on the battlefield. They are efficient offensive formations, although their relative lack of infantry vis-a-vis tanks makes them less suited for defensive purposes (tanks just can't hold ground the way infantry can). This is shown directly in the unit ratings where this is significant -- Soviet tank corps, 1939-40 German pz divs, etc. Where the actual inefficiency comes in is that tank-heavy formations tend to lose tanks faster than tank-balanced formations. (I suspect you can make a case that a commander will subconsciously decide to expend his most plentiful asset on hand in pursuit of his mission.) Since a tank is one of the most expensive pieces of equipment on the battlefield, taking more tank losses than you need to is an inefficient drain on your economy. Although individual E games don't go much into economics, the replacement rates for units contains part of these considerations. For example, which unit would you prefer to replace in FITE/SE: a 1940-style 13-9-10 Pz XX (1x 5-3-10 Pz lll, 1x 4-2-10 Pz lll, 1x 3-10 mot Inf lll) costing 10 arm and 3 inf RPs, or a 12-10 Pz XX (1x 5-3-10 Pz lll, 2x 3-10 mot Inf lll) costing 7 arm and 5 inf RPs? From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 17:17:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA24154; Fri, 12 Apr 96 17:17:01 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA19968 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:16:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA32382 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:08:15 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:16:04 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: "Those fighting Chetniks" Content-Length: 1156 >In about 6 AD, Augustus Caesar planned a massive triple invasion >of what is now Bohemia... the entire project had to be called off... >because of a huge and terrible native rebellion throughout >massive areas of Dalmatia and Pannonia, the two sections of the >province of Illyricum.... Parts of Illyricum also rose in rebellion at least twice in Augustus's reign, too. The Europa connection? Augustus lead the army in Illyricum the first time, but he was an old, somewhat timid man by the time of the second rebellion, and he sent a Roman army under Tiberius to fight in Illyricum. However, Augustus could not refrain from staying in as constant contact with Tiberius as the times allowed, with the result that Augustus kept directing Tiberius to conduct the campaign as Augustus had year ago, rather than as the situation in the field demanded. Sounds like Hitler directing the eastern front? Human nature changes little -- technology does change, however, so whereas horseback communications only allowed Augustus to pester Tiberius, radio communications allowed Hitler to worry over the placement of individual battalions across the entire front. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 19:27:10 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA25927; Fri, 12 Apr 96 19:27:09 +0200 Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.255.59.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA22633 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 19:23:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com by hplb.hpl.hp.com; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 18:23:24 +0100 Received: by hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA22244; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:19:38 -0700 From: Patrick Tobin Message-Id: <9604121719.AA22244@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> Subject: Re: Erich Hartmann, fighter ace To: RayK@smtp4.aw.com (Ray Kanarr) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 10:19:38 PDT Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: ; from "Ray Kanarr" at Apr 11, 96 3:49 pm Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Content-Length: 2761 > > On 4/10/96, Pat Tobin wrote in: > > >If Caidin is implying that the LW "cooked the books" on > >Marseille's victory total, I think he is way off base. The > >Jagdflieger weren't sent home to sell war bonds,after X > >amount of missions. > > What Caidin was saying was that the Ministry of Propaganda and > Enlightenment, either ordering, or with the collusion of, the > Luftwaffe, inflated experten scores. While in some other armed forces > this may have occurred unintentionally [in the heat of battle, > damaged=destroyed was a very common pilot perception error, as was > the pressure of competition noted in an earlier post], given the Nazi > propensity for exaggerating, distorting, or outright lying about > EVERYTHING else, I think it completely unlikely that they didn't do > it here [and, it should be noted, the Luftwaffe WAS the most 'nazi' > of the three services]. Fighters Over the Desert by Shores & Ring has a tally of daily claims against losses. Anyone interested in the N Afican airwar ought to take a look at it. It pretty well puts Caidin's rumors to rest. It contains factual information and original research, which can be a refreshing change from much of which Caidin has written. Fighters over Tunisia is also well worth reading, if a copy can be found. Regarding the Ministry of Propaganda, I'd simply point out that kills were confirmed by the LW in the field and then reported to Berlin. Did the MoP lie and exaggerate? Hell, yes. The repeated "sinking" of HMS Ark Royal springs to mind. But, then again, does Colin Kelly's "sinking" of the Haruna indicate a conspriacy between the Air Corps and Readers Digest? Hmmm. Marseille was certainly elevated to celebrity status in the press but, because of his accomplishments. Otherwise, he's an unlikely poster boy for the Herrenvolk. Disciplnary problem, long haired, lover of Jazz (which the Nazis regarded as decadent), descendant of French Huguenots, with a black batman. > notably the U-waffe] did sign autographs, send out photos to fans, > appear on post cards and collectible cards, participate in parades, > and generally do the whole public relations routine to assist the war > effort on the home front. Just because they went back to the 'front' > time after time does not mean that they never went back to Germany. > > Yes, every German serviceman was granted leave, but the point I was making, is that they weren't limited by a prescribed # of missions, and, that our pilots would have had higher scores if they'd flown a similar number of combat missions. Patrick Participate in parades? Next, you'll be telling me they marched around like geese! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 12 23:52:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27291; Fri, 12 Apr 96 23:52:40 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA26280 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 23:51:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199604122151.XAA26280@lysander.lysator.liu.se> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:51:11 -0400 Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:51:11 -0400 Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-0); Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:51:11 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa Subject: Africa maps and African rations Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 17:24:00 EST Encoding: 16 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 611 I am interested in the Africa maps if it looks as if there will be a long lag time before the "Africa Orientale" game gets a retread from GRD. Other names for the Italian rations issued in the desert ( stamped "AM") included "Alte Mann" and "Arabo Morte". Please, no more Balkan current events or classical history. I sweated through Caesar's Gallic Wars in the original Latin. It was no fun at all. I do not wish to see this turn into an SPQR forum. If we wish to discuss our take on the here and now Balkans, why not reply directly to a post? Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh, Washington D.C. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 00:13:27 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27655; Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:13:26 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA27180 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:12:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA00650 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:04:15 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 18:12:06 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Erich Hartmann, Erich Hartmann Status: O Content-Length: 404 >> notably the U-waffe] did sign autographs, send out photos to fans, >> appear on post cards and collectible cards, participate in parades, >> and generally do the whole public relations routine.... > Participate in parades? Next, you'll be telling me they marched around > like geese! That's right -- probably caused by brain damage due to smoke inhalation (all those torch-lit parades in the 30s) From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 00:37:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27952; Sat, 13 Apr 96 00:37:49 +0200 Received: from server1.inetworld.com ([206.100.204.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA27591 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 00:37:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from server1.inetworld.com ([206.100.204.229]) by server1.inetworld.com (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA199 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:08:54 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4b12.16.19960412121124.29ef7eb6@mailhost.inetworld.com> X-Sender: ctenevada@mailhost.inetworld.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b12 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: ctenevada@inetworld.com (CTE NEVADA INC.) Subject: African Maps Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:08:54 -0700 Status: O Content-Length: 632 Calling Arthur Goodwin and Stefen Farrelly! I Have completed 2 maps covering the northern border of Ethiopia to the Nile Delta along with module rules already developed. (See "Rommell Beyond the Pyramids" in a battlefield report in a TEM a few issues back). The Maps are pretty good if I do say so myself. Rick Gayler should have a reduced copy of the north half somewhere in his desk? Im a little new at this e-mail business so please bear with me... Grant Luetkehans 2140 Arcane Ave. Reno, Nevada 89503 From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 01:59:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28606; Sat, 13 Apr 96 01:59:41 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA29210 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 01:58:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.121.51] (ip-pdx05-51.teleport.com [206.163.121.51]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA23603 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 16:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604122358.QAA23603@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:04:29 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Last of the Independents Status: O Content-Length: 1714 > I hope we're not doomed to disaster. The game players hold the cards >at the moment, but cries for simulation are often heard. I still like to >hope that with all this talent we can get a good balance that works. A good balance is exactly what I'm striving for. Claims that anything less than a replay of historical events (with perhaps differences in which battles are fought over which towns) somehow automatically equates to a 'free-for-all' involving Anglo-German alliances are shallow, knee-jerk responses to legitimate calls for maximum player options. It was also suggested that the most restrictive version be adopted, to make the 'simulationists' happy. Then the clowns could ally France and Italy. Being one of the loopy bastards that person was referring to, I again would like to emphasize the point that giving players control over many grand strategic and political level decisions does not equate with creating a farcical situation. My own project is seeking out that middle ground that would create a believable *version* of WWII. Remember the 'simulation' fans are not a unified camp, either: There are many who say that it was flatly impossible for Germany to win WW2, or even beat Russia. Simulationists are wonderful for denouncing any contrary point of view as 'revisionism'. With all this in mind, I'm determined to blaze my own trails. If GRD comes out with GE and I like it, then I'll buy it. I'm not content to wait for five years of wrangling over "big option/little option". I suspect that neither is Mr. Astell, who seems to be playing GE already (didn't he have a mega-Europa underway?-how is that going?) SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 02:32:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28751; Sat, 13 Apr 96 02:32:02 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA29700 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 02:31:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.121.51] (ip-pdx05-51.teleport.com [206.163.121.51]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA23692; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 16:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604122358.QAA23692@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:04:37 -0700 To: conrad alan b From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Gr. Europa unit reorgs. Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 2675 >> Using Germany as an example, the Pz XX are divided up by period and rules >> govern their conversions and transformations, such as the 1939/40 overhauls >> and the expansion programme of 40/41. After that, it get easier, as > > A very tricky business, doing this kind of thing. That's true- which is why, with my limited time and fiscal resources, I'm trying to keep it as roughly historical as possible. The Germans are forced to reorganize their armoured units in 39/40 and 40/41, but I have a proviso that armour RPs can always be used to rebuild cadres or losses first before being used to upgrade existing units, &c...trying to walk the line between allowing flexibility to players and keeping things workable- the easiest way to create an OB for a game like this is to stick as close to history as is possible, and throw in options whenever possible-instead of approaching it from the notion of total flexibility. I'm against Germans building 13-9-10 Pz XX in 1943, just because they have the armour RPs. My desire for player control over policy options is well known by now, but I am not averse to conceding points to the simulation people when they have them: in terms of OBs and builds, I think it's best to stay close to historical precedent whenever possible- obviously game events in many cases might make that unnecessary or undesirable. Still, most reorganizations were based on decisions that were not predicated on the war situation: The Soviets still broke up their tank divisions in November-December 1939-after they just witnessed close hand German success with massed tanks. This is why I think it's dangerous to say the player 'represents' Hitler, or the Eisenhower or whatever- in my introduction to the rules I'm working on, I simply say the player represents the 'military-industrial elite' as a general class/caste of people as opposed to a specific officer or statesman. > Another point. A couple of sources have told of all the Russian >`volunteers' that worked their way into the army units on the eastern >front. Many behind the line functions were being carried out more and >more by these people as the war went on (to a point). > These were bodies, but were they on the T.O. & E. as the units went >on? In Europa we have Eastern troop units, but nothing like infantry RPs >picked up in Russia to reflect this yet. I want to tie builds of Ost Truppen units to ownership of various eastern territories (e.g.: occupy Ukraine and be able to build Ukrainian auxiliaries for the Wehrmacht.) > All this makes unit building a fun activity. That's the idea! SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 04:11:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA29254; Sat, 13 Apr 96 04:11:24 +0200 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA00904 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 04:10:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from osf1.gmu.edu by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA23722; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 22:10:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 22:07:54 -0500 From: Nicholas Forte Reply-To: nforte@gmu.edu Subject: Re: African Maps To: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <9604111013.ZM416@pepsi.gra.barclays.co.uk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 55 Put me down for a set of maps. Nick Forte Reston, VA From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 04:53:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA29418; Sat, 13 Apr 96 04:53:42 +0200 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA01300 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 04:53:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from osf1.gmu.edu by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA29656; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 22:53:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 22:51:09 -0500 From: Nicholas Forte Reply-To: nforte@gmu.edu Subject: Re: Game Envy To: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2478 On Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:03:35 -0400 jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) wrote: >>For Grand Europa a decision seems to need to be made if GE is going >>to be a game or a simulation. If it's a game, great, open the >>flood gates for letting player build and do as they please, much >>as in WiF. If it's a simulation, it should follow the basic >>historical path (with deviations).... > >My vote goes for simulation. I am also in agreement that Europa should be designed as a simulation, but the question is a simulation of what? Those who advocate Europa strictly following the actual campaign may end up with a game that is actually false to the real conditions of WWII. If Europa is designed to force the actual sequence of the war--i.e. the quick fall of France, the attack on Taranto, the failure of the Axis to invade Malta, Rommel's failure to capture Egypt, the battle of Stalingrad, guaranteed success at Normandy, etc.--then I don't know what would be the point of playing Europa. Guaranteed outcomes isolates the players from the pressures and options that actual commanders had. Guranteed outcomes would also hide the reasons of an actual campaign's success or failure from the players. You also loose the ability to "what if" a campaign such as landing at the Pas de Calais instead of at Normandy. Should each players' moves be listed in the rules so as to prevent any deviation from the historical path? A properly designed simulation should include all of the variables that the actual commanders faced. If both sides play exactly the same strategies as historical, then the outcomes should generally follow the historical course. However, the outcomes shouldn't always be the same as historical in as much as luck has an effect on the battlefield (should the storm that hits at Normandy always destroy one Mulburry harbor, not both or none). But if the players are allowed to exercise some command options, then it should be possible to alter the historical outcome. However, once you allow players to alter the outcomes of any particular campaign, then you must recognize that this will have an impact on the overall campaign and must make the system flexible enough to handle the altered conditions. A "simulation" that forces the historical campaign results is not a simulation! It is just history. It can be considered a simulation only if you believe life is pre-ordained and that the actions of men have no impact. Nick Forte Reston, VA From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 06:51:00 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00225; Sat, 13 Apr 96 06:50:59 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA02393 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 06:50:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA149840175; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 04:36:15 GMT Message-Id: <199604130436.AA149840175@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sat, 13 Apr 96 04:36:15 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Sat, 13 Apr 96 04:36:05 UTC 0000) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 04:42:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 7590496 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 155725 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: more Commonwealth heroes Status: O Content-Length: 921 a few more Commonwealth heroes Wing Commander Willie Tait (commander of 617 Squadron for the attacks on the Tirpitz) Dave McIntosh (navigator with 418 Squadron, RCAF, and author of a fascinating book on what it was like to fly with a hero but not claim to be one yourself, TERROR IN THE STARBOARD SEAT); plus serving with 1 x 10-8 1 (Can): Farley Mowat (author, enviromentalist and sometime "undesirable alien" [refused admittance into the U.S.); his AND NO BIRDS SANG gives an infantryman's eye view of the campaigns in Sicily and southern Italy) Jim Broshot, St. James MO and serving with 1 x 9-6 Airbne XX 6: Richard Todd (noted English actor and perhaps the only man to have invaded Normandy twice; he jumped with the 6th Airborne Division (7th Para Bn) on 6 June 1944 and then, portraying Major John Howard in the movie, "The Longest Day," he landed by glider to take the Orne bridges). Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 06:51:02 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00232; Sat, 13 Apr 96 06:51:01 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA02392 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 06:50:20 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA149700172; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 04:36:12 GMT Message-Id: <199604130436.AA149700172@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sat, 13 Apr 96 04:36:12 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Sat, 13 Apr 96 04:36:01 UTC 0000) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 04:44:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 4310873 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 155694 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Gr. Europa reorganizations Status: O Content-Length: 3272 "That's true- which is why, with my limited time and fiscal resources, I'm trying to keep it as roughly historical as possible. The Germans are forced to reorganize their armoured units in 39/40 and 40/41, but I have a proviso that armour RPs can always be used to rebuild cadres or losses first before being used to upgrade existing units, &c...trying to walk the line between allowing flexibility to players and keeping things workable- the easiest way to create an OB for a game like this is to stick as close to history as is possible, and throw in options whenever possible- instead of approaching it from the notion of total flexibility. I'm against Germans building 13-9-10 Pz XX in 1943, just because they have the armour RPs." Very true. FALL BLAU (the German summer offensive in Russia) started in June 1942. The German Army, having only a finite number of tanks and tank units, was forced strip battalions from panzer divisions elsewhere to reinforce the panzer and motorized divisions of Army Group South for the offensive, thus (in Europa terms from SE) Jul I 42: Army Group North: 1 x 11-10 Pz XX 8 (one pz bn) 1 x 11-10 Pz XX 12 (two pz bns) 2 x 6-10 Mot XX 18, 20 Army Group Center: 1 x 9-10 Pz XX 1 (one pz bn) 1 x 11-10 Pz XX 2 (one pz bn) 1 x 10-10 Pz XX 4 (one pz bn) 1 x 10-10 Pz XX 5 (two pz bns) 1 x 13-10 Pz XX 17 (one pz bn) 1 x 13-10 Pz XX 18 (one pz bn) 1 x 12-10 Pz XX 19 (one pz bn) 1 x 12-10 Pz XX 20 (three pz bns) 4 x 6-10 Mot XX 10, 14, 25, 36 Army Group South: 1 x 16-10 Pz XX 3 (three pz bns) 1 x 16-10 Pz XX 9 (three pz bns) 1 x 16-10 Pz XX 11 (three pz bns) 1 x 16-10 Pz XX 13 (three pz bns) 1 x 16-10 Pz XX 14 (three pz bns) 1 x 16-10 Pz XX 16 (three pz bns) 1 x 12-10 Pz XX 22 (three pz bns) 1 x 12-10 Pz XX 22 (three pz bns) 1 x 12-10 Pz XX 24 (three pz bns) 1 x 11-10 PzG XX 3 (one pz bn) 1 x 10-10 PzG XX 16 (one pz bn) 1 x 10-10 PzG XX 29 (one pz bn) 1 x 11-10 PzG XX 60 (one pz bn) 1 x 10-10 PzG XX GD (two pz/aslt gun bns) For completeness sake: Norway: 25 Panzer XX forming with one pz bn France: 1 x 12-10 Pz XX 6 (rebuilding, two pz bns) 1 x 12-10 Pz XX 7 (rebuilding, two pz bns) 1 x 11-10 Pz XX 10 (rebuilding, two pz bns) Africa: 1 x 9-10 Pz XX 15 (two pz bns) 1 x 9-10 Pz XX 21 (two pz bns) 1 x 8-10 Mot XX 90 SE tracks the 1942 panzer reorganization by providing for the upgrades of the Army Group South panzer and panzergrenadier divisions first. However, SE does not show that these upgrades were at the expense of the divisions of Army Group North and Army Group South. The panzer divisions of these army groups would either have to be reduced to cadre or, in SF terms, given a (-4 PzG) marker. This is based upon a hasty review of Tessin. Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 18:43:31 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04081; Sat, 13 Apr 96 18:43:29 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA12086 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 18:40:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.52] (gw1-052.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA01998 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:40:23 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:42:49 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re:Yet more Luft-peeves flak Status: O Content-Length: 4088 A couple people asked me to repost this one as they wanted to make sense of Ray's reply (original to europa@lysator.liu.se got lost in cyberspace I guess.) Original sent 11/4/96 to & Ray Kanarr. So here it is: -----------------------Copy follows------------------------------ >On 4/10/96, Perry de Havilland stated, among the excellent points in >his post, this: > >>A rule for *experten* counters might be a nice optional rule >>in a air war module. > >1) I have the same objection to this that I have to the Rudel >counter, that it is inappropriate in an operational-level game to >single out individuals, no matter how "effective"; Basically, I agree (I think you took me too seriously about wanting to simulate when Bob Brahams's unit beat up on Schnaufer's unit when they mistook Braham's slow cruising gaggle of Beaufighters for straggling Lancasters. Oops). Aces were not organised into 'super units' of counter size but were distributed amongst various units: such folk have more bearing on the *average* level of skill, which for the Western nations and the Axis was much of a muchness. However, the reverse was often not true. For example, the RAF often used OTU assets (operational training units) for low risk missions, such as minelaying and 'spoof' raids. Spoof raids were designed to draw nightfighters away from the main attack and the bombers usually did not press them home but rather returned to base after having tricked the Germans into committing assets against the attack. On a few occasions, the OTU attacks actually did bomb targets (usually coastal ones) and as a result, were sometimes intercepted. When this happened, losses were usually higher than normal. That sounds to me like a 'Poor Air Crew' modifier (they are students, after all). I suspect most major nations should have the option of using training assets operationally, but with a penalty if they actually get into an air-to-air fight. >2) As far as the 'experten' [including Rudel in his field] go, while >these pilots were undoubtedly good, recent scholarship has started to >call into question the extent of their claimed victories, noting >overall 'kill inflation' among all combatants, and natural propaganda >uplifting of 'heros' by all sides during wartime as the bases for this >questioning. Once again, I agree. However, note that many German kills were aircraft destroyed on the ground. Whilst this is quite legitimate, it does tend to paint a misleading picture when other airforces did not count such aircraft as 'kills' in the same sense. Most of the Luftwaffe and RAF *nightfighter* aces seem to be fairly well documented and for some reason their figures seem to be less inflated than their daylight counterparts. I am not certain why this is but I suspect the fact that kills tended to be made not in confusing dogfights but rather in more deliberate one-on-one stalking attacks might have had something to do with it. Night air combat in WWII really did have a very different dynamic to daylight actions. Even so, I would agree that few of these figures will EVER be verified with complete certainty. >Taking Rudel as an example, we really only have his word that 519 >tanks were destroyed by him. In a battlefield environment, with flak >flying around [look at the number of times he was shot down!], and >flying at speed, with your other crewmember facing backward, and the >smoke, dust, etc., etc., with relatively few of these 'victories' >being able to be confirmed, it does seem that an accurate count would >be a bit difficult. >3) This is also eventually lead to a call for an Audie Murphy >counter, etc., etc., blah, blah. If we're going to discuss counters >for individuals, it would be FAR more worthwhile to discuss counters >to represent corps commanders and above. Damn, I WAS rather hoping for an Audie Murphy counter... and a Biggles counter as well! :-) P.S. To clarify my earler post when I said I was told that ten or so staff at Sandhurst played CFNA...that was ten or so ON EACH SIDE!!! Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 21:08:57 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04853; Sat, 13 Apr 96 21:08:56 +0200 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA14620 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:07:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id PAA14033; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 15:07:13 -0400 Date: 13 Apr 96 15:06:04 EDT From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@CompuServe.COM> To: unknown Subject: Re: Weird ships Message-Id: <960413190603_100626.2267_BHL85-2@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 379 >If you go down to transport ships, you'll find lots of weird names. Like the German supply ship Buenos Aires. I've also heard a rumour that there was a Japanese transport ship named Boston!< Quite right Elias, she was called the Boston Maru, there were also two other Bostons. An RN minesweeper and USN Cruiser. Now if you want humour what about a 'Smely' torpedo boat Alan From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 22:06:47 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05130; Sat, 13 Apr 96 22:06:46 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA15657 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 22:06:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id QAA25591 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 16:06:02 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28872; Sat, 13 Apr 96 15:58:37 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA25723; Sat, 13 Apr 96 15:57:35 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604131957.AA25723@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: SYSTEM: Mountain Artillery To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 15:57:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 459 Hi, Here's another quirky rule for Elias to add to his file. Perhaps Frank will have a good explanation for this one too! Has anyone else ever noticed what terrain mountain artillery units move through most quickly during the winter? Wooded Rough only costs them 2 movement points! Even a road costs 3! How do they ever do it, Frank? Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada Home of the 123.76 Royal Canadian Mountain Artillery Regiment From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 22:42:22 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05295; Sat, 13 Apr 96 22:42:20 +0200 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA16277 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 22:41:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id QAA23484; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 16:41:02 -0400 Date: 13 Apr 96 16:38:38 EDT From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@CompuServe.COM> To: unknown Subject: Luft peeves and France 40 Message-Id: <960413203838_100626.2267_BHL76-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 789 Before the topic of pilot experience and aces and 'experten' runs out of fuel , there have been comments in TEM and in a previous posting about the French Air Force and its pilots. In a recent book by Brian Cull and others (12 days in May) he states that" a considerable number of French fighter pilots had flown in fighter combat in the Great War", I reckon that puts them well into the 40-50 age group, does that make them experienced pilots with the situational awareness and reflexes to qualify them for a plus DRM against the Luftwaffe, or does it make them over the hill and due for a desk job. I think the RAF rules at that time had a cut off age of 38 for active fighter pilots. The breakdown of losses in this book tends to support the second theory. Any comments. Alan Philson From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 13 22:42:23 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05300; Sat, 13 Apr 96 22:42:22 +0200 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA16276 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 22:41:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id QAA23499; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 16:41:04 -0400 Date: 13 Apr 96 16:38:48 EDT From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@CompuServe.COM> To: unknown Subject: More chrome please Message-Id: <960413203847_100626.2267_BHL76-2@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 183 Why is there no rule for calling up the strategic air force to bomb V- weapons units? This was after all the main target for Bomber Command from June to September 1944 Alan Philson From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 00:26:46 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05803; Sun, 14 Apr 96 00:26:45 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA17766 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:25:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA27391 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:25:30 -0500 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:25:30 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: Elias Nordling Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: SF:CAP (Was: Re: Yet more of my $0.02 worth) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1770 On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Elias Nordling wrote: > >Husky scenario) is the fact that the CAP rule allows one to fly > >fighters at maximum range which can then intercept incoming > >missions over a hex which they could not reach if flying the > >regular 1/2 range interception mission. If one has lots of > >fighters, like the Allies, then one can fly lots of CAP. > > Huh? I thought that was the very point of CAP missions! To extend your > interception ranges by having a standing patrol over an area. Of the Yes and no. The problem is one inherent in the system to some extent. With many types of bombers, normal bomb laods fixed by the bomb bays so whether a unit flies a max range mission will only have potential effect on sortie rate. However with fighters a unit flying half range could stay over target a long time, and hence have more planes over the target at any point over a two week turn. At max range the aircraft could only be over the target a short period. This was why the Allies thought Salerno might be chancy. They were at the limit of what they considered useable air range. Game wise the Allies seem to have greater potential to use the air assets. Not only full range, full use CAP. But extended range missions, which seem to me to give them more ability that air units had. However, is it the game that is wrong, or is it that the real commanders were too limited in the way they used their units? One hope we would have is that the game system would let us play out options to see if the real commanders were wrong. But a tech issue like range and useability is a tricky one that the designers must carefully look at to see if, what the rules make legal, was really working that way. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 01:28:51 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06051; Sun, 14 Apr 96 01:28:50 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA18455 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 01:28:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.37.28] (gw5-028.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA21002 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:28:08 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:30:32 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Help request re. Altitude Air Rules Status: O Content-Length: 2203 I am trying to expand my fairly basic ideas on working Altitude into the Europa air system for some house rules (I have received some interesting feedback from other Europa grognards re. my and other earlier posts on the subject). As a result, I would love to tap into the remarkable knowledge & talent pool that this forum represents. What I need is opinions on which aircraft should be put into which altitude optimised class. I am very au fait with British, US & German kites and have reasonable knowledge of Italian, Polish and French aircraft. I am a relative ignoramus regarding Soviet & Romanian aircraft however. I would even be interested in comments re. Japanese aircraft about which my knowlage is also rather patchy. That said, I would value input on **ALL** nationalities as I would like to hear views on this from other perspectives. The High Bands in my tentative system are: Low = < 15,000 ft Medium = 15,000 - 30,000 ft High = 30,000 ft + (plus an optional Very High Band = 42,000 ft +) These Altitude Bands do *NOT* represent service or zoom ceilings, but rather areas of optimal performance (for example the excellent Fw.190A3 could get to 30,000 ft. but it's performance up there was dreadful. Optimal performance was below 15,000 ft, hence 'Low'). What I want to know is your opinions on what band is 'optimal' for a given aircraft type. For example, here are a few of my estimates: Fw.190A2 = Low He.219A = Medium Bf.109E = Medium Spitfire (any mark) F = Medium Spitfire (any mark) HF = High Spitfire (any mark) LF = Low Mosquito NF.2 = Medium Mosquito FB.6 = Low Mosquito NF.19 = Low Mosquito NF.30 = High Any assistance and input would be very much appreciated. I am *only* interested in fighters at the moment (F & HF). I have already sent out five copies but if anyone else wants to see my rough ideas for an altitude house rule, please e-mail me and I will send it to you. I am adding to it as a result of feedback I have already received (Thanks...you know who you are!). It is only a page and a half of tentative musings and is in *Macintosh MS Word 5.1* format, but can be saved as plain text for you benighted chaps with PCs :-) Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 04:12:54 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06934; Sun, 14 Apr 96 04:12:52 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz ([192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA20321 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 04:11:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22342; Sun, 14 Apr 96 14:07:51 NZS Message-Id: <9604140207.AA22342@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 14:09 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: The Boston Maru Status: O Content-Length: 772 There may have been, but the Japanese had a troopship named Argentina Maru. It had been a liner on the Japan-South America run before WW2, as the Japanese were setting up little expatriate colonies all through South America, which gave the Norteamericano yellow press considerable fodder for anti-Japanese rhetoric in the first half of the century. As for the Roman chat: "Be it ever so crumbly, there's no place like Rome. Nero, he was the emperor, and the palace was his home. But he loved to play with matches And for a fire yearned, So he set Rome a-sizzle and he fiddled while it burned." David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 06:28:22 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA07648; Sun, 14 Apr 96 06:28:20 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA21464 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 06:27:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199604140427.GAA21464@lysander.lysator.liu.se> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:27:32 -0400 Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:27:32 -0400 Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-0); Sun, 14 Apr 1996 00:27:32 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa-request@lysator.liu.se, europa Subject: Commonwealth hero? Mais non! Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 17:00:00 EST Encoding: 10 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 360 And here was me thinking Pierre Clostermann was French just 'cos he's from France ( or Belgium, I forget which). Not part of the Commonwealth last time I looked. Alanbrooke, Auchinleck, Montgomery, O'Connor and Dorman-Smith were all born in Ireland, which was technically still part of the Commonwealth. Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh, Washington D.C. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 07:54:31 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA07966; Sun, 14 Apr 96 07:54:30 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA22119 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 07:46:43 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA049759950; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 05:32:30 GMT Message-Id: <199604140532.AA049759950@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sun, 14 Apr 96 05:32:30 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Sun, 14 Apr 96 05:32:16 UTC 0000) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 05:20:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 6340093 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 162251 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Weird ships (Marus etc.) Status: O Content-Length: 496 For the Europa Great War buffs, the Royal Navy had a 12inch gun monitor in WW1 named "Prince Eugene." In WW2, the Italian Navy had a light cruiser, "Eugenio di Savoia," which survived the war and was transferred to Greece More Japanese auxiliary vessel names in WW2: Arizona Maru (transport) Canberra Maru (transport) Ceylon Maru (transport) San Diego Maru (fleet tanker) (from WARSHIPS OF THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE NAVY, 1869-1945, by Hansgeorg Jentschura et al). Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 14:33:31 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA09273; Sun, 14 Apr 96 14:33:30 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA25780 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 14:32:30 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA066951757; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 06:02:37 GMT Message-Id: <199604140602.AA066951757@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sun, 14 Apr 96 06:02:37 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Sun, 14 Apr 96 06:02:22 UTC 0000) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 05:54:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 4887214 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 162343 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Clostermann and another hero Status: O Content-Length: 1039 "Commonwealth hero? Mais non!" Ah, but Flight Lieutenant Pierre Clostermann, DSO, DFC, after service with the Free French "Alsace" Squadron, spent the rest of the war flying for the RAF, first with 602 "City of Glasgow" Squadron on Spitfires and then ending as a leading Tempest V ace with 122 Wing in Europe. He was the highest scoring French ace in WW2 with 33 victories and 5 probables. THE BIG SHOW, by Pierre Clostermann A HISTORY OF FRENCH MILITARY AVIATION AIR ENTHUSIAST NO.48 Actually, my personal favorite is: Captain Rodger Winn RNVR, who, although crippled by polio, began as a civilian employee of the Royal Navy and ended up as the officer in charge of the Admiralty's Submarine Tracking Room which kept tabs on all of the German U-Boats which was one the methods that helped lead to the Allied victory in the Battle of the Atlantic (and who was awarded the CB, OBE and U. S. Legion of Merit). VERY SPECIAL INTELLIGENCE, by Patrick Beesly SEIZING THE ENIGMA, by David Kahn Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 19:31:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11180; Sun, 14 Apr 96 19:31:40 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA00346 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:30:43 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA129652188; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:16:28 GMT Message-Id: <199604141716.AA129652188@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sun, 14 Apr 96 17:16:28 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Sun, 14 Apr 96 17:15:19 UTC 0000) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 17:16:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 3764598 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 550590 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Sino-Japanese Conflict Playtes Status: O Content-Length: 3571 Sino-Japanese Conflict Playtest Nov II 37 Japanese Player Turn After two and one-half months of bloody urban combat, the gallent Chinese defense of Shanghai has been cracked. In a strike to the southern entent of the city, the Japanese Shanghai Expeditionary Force routed the last of the defenders out of the city one street-block at a time. General Matsui, in an effort to gain popular and political support in Japan, declared that it will be only a short time before Nanking, the Nationalist's capital, is in Japanese hands and the KMT has collapsed. In the battle for Shanghai, the Chinese have sacrificed much of their precious Central Army forces. Nearly irreplacable artillery and elite forces performed admirably in what ulitmately became a hopeless endevour. However, they gained valueable time for the remainder of the Chinese nation to organize itself for total war. In an assault coordinated with Shanghai, Japanese forces in Hangchow struck out of the city and secured a corridor all the way to Tai Hu (Lake) cutting off any Chinese southern retreat from Shanghai. Meanwhile, the North China Area Army (NCAA) has had a much more difficult time of things in November. The army, which has struck too deep too quickly is now in disarray. Supplies are poorly positioned and forces are inappropriately located. Shihkiachuang is still holding out, preventing the Japanese from securing hold of the entire province of Hopei. In an effort to gain the city, local commanders elect to assault the city at 2:1 (+1 for engineers) and fail, thus consuming all available attack supply in the area. This is a major setback for the NCAA as they have become bogged down and cannot advance further. Nov II 37 Chinese Player Turn With Shanghai lost, the Chinese forces in the region began a general retreat. They have been forced to retreat along a single avenue between Tai Hu and the Yangtze river since the south side of Tai Hu is cordoned off by Japanese units. In an attempt to prevent the retreat from becoming a rout, Chiang Kai-shek elected to hold his government steadfastly in Nanking for another turn. A strong rear guard has been set up along the Tayun Ho (Grand Canal). In north China, things are fairing much better. Due to the stalled Japanese assault, Chinese provincial forces along with a few Central Army units continue to build up defensive lines to the south of the Japanese. Shihkiachuang remains Chinese controlled, but the city is nearly isolated. Only a thread of low quality peace preservation troops maintains contact withthe city. In addition, the Japanese have learned some humility and not to take guerillas lightly, as the Communists swept down out of Wu-tai Shan (Mountains) catching an undefended air unit and two railroad engineers. The air unit was aborted and the two engineers eliminated. This is a further devistating blow to the Japanese and high ranking generals throughout the area committed hari-kari (as does the Japanese player). In Shantung province, the Japanese have again overextended their forces allowing Chinese marines to catch a lone armored company along a remote road and destroy it. It appears evident that a push southward by the Japanese in the north will have to wait for spring. They must use the winter months to stockpile supplies and resources and re-organize their forces. The failures of the Japanese North China Area Army has given Tokyo pause as to the wisdom of committing further forces to the conflict. However, these failures are offset by success in Central China. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 20:04:22 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11465; Sun, 14 Apr 96 20:04:21 +0200 Received: from travel1.travel-net.com (root@travel1.travel-net.com [204.92.71.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA00963 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:03:32 +0200 (MET DST) From: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Received: from 204.92.71.2.travel-net.com (trc135.travel-net.com [205.150.57.135]) by travel1.travel-net.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA17076; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 14:14:58 -0400 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 14:14:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199604141814.OAA17076@travel1.travel-net.com> X-Sender: bradbury@mail.travel-net.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Haugh, Patrick J." Subject: Re: Commonwealth hero? Mais non! Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 1161 > And here was me thinking Pierre Clostermann was French just 'cos he's >from France ( or Belgium, I forget which). Not part of the Commonwealth last >time I looked. Alanbrooke, Auchinleck, Montgomery, O'Connor and Dorman-Smith >were all born in Ireland, which was technically still part of the >Commonwealth. > >Haya Safari, >Patrick Haugh, >Washington D.C. I believe both Alanbrooke and Monty would be considered Ulsterman (and given the events of the last 100 years, many people would consider that an important distinction) and Ulster still being part of Gt. Britain, then these gentlemen can be considered Commenwealth "heroes". Monty was actually born in London, where his father was serving as vicar of St Mark's, Kennington. Another person to add to this list is John Dill, who was born in County Armagh, and after being replaced as CIGS by Brooke, went on to serve in Washington and is widely seen as having make an important contribution to the Anglo-American partnership through his excellent relationship with Marshall. Dill is buried at Arlington cemetery, an exceptional honour for an non-American. Nigel Bradbury Ottawa, Ontario From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 20:24:56 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11610; Sun, 14 Apr 96 20:24:53 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA01450 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:24:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 14:28:13 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 15:30:37 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: cloister@dircon.co.uk, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Altitude Air Rules Status: O Content-Length: 430 Perry, Jason Long may want to weigh in on this with more authority than I can muster, but from what little I do know, altitude bands of 0-12,000ft. low 12-24,000ft. medium 24-36,000+ft. high might be more representative of optimal OPERATIONAL performance boundaries, rather than optimal TEST performance boundaries. I'd also like a copy of your materials. Thanks for contributing to the growth of Europa! Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 21:16:29 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11991; Sun, 14 Apr 96 21:16:28 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA02406 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 21:15:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 15:19:22 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 16:20:05 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: pardue@hilda.mast.queensu.ca, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: SYSTEM: Mountain Artillery Status: O Content-Length: 334 On 4/13/96, Keith Pardue sent in: >Has anyone else ever noticed what terrain mountain >artillery units move through most quickly during the winter? >Wooded Rough only costs them 2 movement points! Even >a road costs 3! Its those shaggy little pack mules, Keith, the cold, slippery, frozen road hurt their little hooves! ;-) Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 21:38:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12158; Sun, 14 Apr 96 21:38:42 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA02843 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 21:38:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 15:41:57 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 16:44:18 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: o-noreli@jmk.su.se, abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: SF:CAP Status: O Content-Length: 1403 On 4/13/96, Alan Conrad wrote in: >However, is it the game that is wrong, or is it that the real >commanders were too limited in the way they used their >units? One hope we would have is that the game system >would let us play out options to see if the real >commanders were wrong. But a tech issue like range and >useability is a tricky one that the designers must carefully >look at to see if, what the rules make legal, was really >working that way. Perhaps the issue is that certain decisions which players of the simulation can make, can be made with complete CONFIDENCE, whereas the situation in reality was more in doubt. If so, there should be a change in the rules to reflect this, either: 1) An absolute change, so that units are not as effective at max range as they are at shorter ranges, as in [for a relatively extreme example]: a fighter unit loses 1 AF/DF for every hex flown beyond half range when flying CAP; or 2) A relative change, so that there is some POTENTIAL penalty for flying at ranges longer than half range, as in: a fighter unit flying CAP has to roll for abort on landing for every 2 hexes flown beyond half range, to represent the huge additional amount of wear-and-tear incumbent on having sufficient battlefield coverage for CAP at longer ranges, given that more planes have to fly further and more often to maintain a presence over the hex. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 22:08:56 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12341; Sun, 14 Apr 96 22:08:55 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA03403 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:08:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 16:12:02 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:14:22 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: j.broshot@genie.com, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re:Weird ships (Marus etc.) Status: O Content-Length: 473 To add my .0003.5 cents to this topic: I read, a while ago, and only tangentially to what I was researching at the time, that Axis vessels captured and then put into service with the British Merchant Marine were renamed as the Empire ___________ [insert individual ship names here]. If someone can verify or debunk this, I'd appreciate knowing either way, so that I can either shift the info into the deep storage trivia part of my brain, or discard it altogether. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 14 22:31:39 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12473; Sun, 14 Apr 96 22:31:38 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA03801 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:30:48 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA284982992; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:16:32 GMT Message-Id: <199604142016.AA284982992@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sun, 14 Apr 96 20:16:32 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Sun, 14 Apr 96 20:15:42 UTC 0000) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 20:17:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 0275698 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 552540 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: SYSTEM: Mountain Artillery Status: O Content-Length: 655 Reply: Item #1493526 from europa@lysator.liu.se@INET#on 96/04/14 at 16:20 >Has anyone else ever noticed what terrain mountain >artillery units move through most quicklyduring the winter? >Wooded Rough only costs them 2 movement points! Even >a road costs 3! Keith, I've noted this. Since the Japanese have a significant amount of mountain artillery it becomes significant in my China game. I'm trying the following rule in playtest: Mountain artillery moves as artillery except in terrain where a mountain unit would gain a benefit. In such terrain, the mountain artillery uses the "other" column on the TEC (i.e., moves as infantry). -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 02:11:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13734; Mon, 15 Apr 96 02:11:17 +0200 Received: from psyche.the-wire.com (psyche.the-wire.com [198.53.192.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA06857 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 02:09:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mhughes.the-wire.com (mhughes.the-wire.com [205.206.32.167]) by psyche.the-wire.com (8.6.10/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA22108 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:08:11 -0400 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 20:08:11 -0400 Message-Id: <199604150008.UAA22108@psyche.the-wire.com> X-Sender: mhughes@psyche.the-wire.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: mhughes@the-wire.com (Marian Hughes) Subject: Grand Europa Rules Status: O Content-Length: 4261 There has been much discussion about changes needed to the basic game for 'Grand Europa', so I thought I would mention some points and issues we have had to deal with in an actual campaign. For background - we started with April I 1941; it is now Dec I 1941, and panzers are at the outskirts of Alexandria, Haifa and Tunis (Yes - Hitler decided not to invade both Russia and Yugoslavia in 1941!) In this post I will just cover the issue of Replacements and Rebuilds: This is our second stab at Grand Europa - our first, starting in April I 1943 came to an abrupt halt when a rule misread allowed the Allies to cut off half the German panzers in Southern Italy in late 1943! But one of the gripes surfaced then; the rules meant that three Panzer Divisions destroyed at Messina, reappeared the next turn in a town in Central Russia, just in time to attack and destroy Russians that had broken through the line. It became obvious that in Grand Europa, as opposed to a scenario (even one as big as SF), this kind of 'abuse' had to be corrected. It was also clear that the rule we would use should be as broad as possible - lots of nation-specific rules become a real pain when playing Grand Europa. Therefore the following: a. When building from the Replacement Pool, a cadreable division can only be placed on its cadre side. It can be rebuilt to full strength in a following Initial Phase. b. When building from cadre to full strength, one Inf RP can be subtracted from the cost if the unit is in the "Homeland" of the nation involved. Specifics are: British is British Isles and Egypt; Germany includes Bohemia-Moravia and the General Gouvernment. Applying these two rules means that the more obvious abuse of the present system is avoided, and that Players are encouraged to build units in their homeland, without introducing specific and complex rules. The second related issue in Grand Europa relates to the excessive accumulation of RP's and Resource Points. When Germany and Russia are not fighting each other, it is amazing how many RP's etc they have after six months. In our case, the Russian problem was solved by limiting the number and accumulation of these while at peace. The German case was trickier, especially since we wanted to come up with a generic rule, applicable to all countries. In the end, we developed the following tentative suggestions: a. A player may never have, at the end of the Initial Phase, RP's and Resource Points in excess of the number received at the start of the Turn: Except: b. If there are no units left in the Replacement Pool which could be rebuilt with RP's, RP's of that type may accumulate up to twice the number received at the start of the Turn: Example: Germans receive 10 Arm, 18 Inf and 12 Resource Points. At the end of the Phase the player could have a reserve of 10, 18 and 12 Resource Points. Now assume that the only unit left in the Replacement Pool was an Infantry Division. The German could accumulate 20 Arm, 18 Inf and 12 Resource Points. c. In such a situation, that is no units are in the Replacement Pool, and twice the RP's received are left over, then a player may create new units!! The conditions are the following: 1. The unit created costs its full strength RP's plus one-half (rounded up) of those needed to build the cadre. If the unit does not have a cadre, increase the cost by 1/3 rounding up: Example, a 12-10 German Panzer Division would cost an extra 2 Arm and I Inf RP, a 4-3-10 Panzer II 5 Arm RP. 2. The unit created must be identical in combat and movement values to one already in play (no creating 16-10 Panzers when the standard Panzer is an 11-10 or 12-10). 3. The unit is Forming: To become Full: - all combat motorised divisions take 12 months (24 turns) - all non-divisional take 6 months (12 turns) - all others take 9 months (18 turns) I am not sure how all this will work out, however the system is designed to be Europa wide - to be as applicable to Finland or Spain as to Germany or Britain. Hence the deliberate attempt to make the definitions as broad, or bland as possible - no special rules for SS, Australians or whatever. Comments on this would be welcome: Next issue is the dreaded supply interface between Europe and the Med. DAVID HUGHES From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 02:11:21 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13739; Mon, 15 Apr 96 02:11:20 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA06866 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 02:10:23 +0200 (MET DST) From: l.hanna@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA187506167; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:56:07 GMT Message-Id: <199604142356.AA187506167@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sun, 14 Apr 96 23:56:06 UTC 0000 ( from inet00# ; Sun, 14 Apr 96 23:55:57 UTC 0000) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 23:46:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: L.HANNA X-Genie-Qk-Id: 7525782 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 964786 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: unsubsribe Status: O Content-Length: 33 Please un-subscribe me. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 04:21:02 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14457; Mon, 15 Apr 96 04:21:01 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA08221 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 04:19:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-40-1.ots.utexas.edu (slip-40-1.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.112.97]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA06182 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 21:17:48 -0500 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 21:17:48 -0500 Message-Id: <199604150217.VAA06182@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Grand Europa Rules Status: O Content-Length: 5189 Good post, Marian (David?). I'm glad to see you addressing the problem of scaling the system up to "grand" proportions. >a. When building from the Replacement Pool, a cadreable division can only be >placed on its cadre side. It can be rebuilt to full strength in a following >Initial Phase. >b. When building from cadre to full strength, one Inf RP can be subtracted >from the cost if the unit is in the "Homeland" of the nation involved. >Specifics are: British is British Isles and Egypt; Germany includes >Bohemia-Moravia and the General Gouvernment. I would modify this slightly: define theatres per the SF extended OB, and maintain separate replacement pools for each theatre (for units *and* replacement points). a. When units are eliminated under circumstances that provide special replacements, put both unit and special replacement points in the pool for the theatre where they were eliminated. They may be rebuilt in that theatre thereafter. b. Units eliminated in other circumstances go in the homeland replacement pool (and perhaps require a longer period for rebuilding, e.g. the "forming/full" mechanism). c. Units and/or replacement points in a pool may transfer to another pool freely at the end of any initial phase (i.e., *after* any rebuilding is done). Notes: a. This indicates that some remnant remains in the theatre. Not too much bookwork involved, because you already have to decide whether special replacements are generated. b. This won't be entirely correct, as e.g. the "forming/full" mechanism is used in France in the SF OB. c. I say "freely" to reduce the bookwork. The units, to the extent that they exist at all, are sub-RE sized. Assume the supply system moves these and replacement points, unless this leads to further abuses. Keep your restriction that requires building the cadre as an intermediate step, and add my restriction (earlier post) that requires putting units in the pools at the end of the following friendly initial phase (i.e., no same-turn rebuilds). There is still a logical flaw in allowing special replacements recieved from the destruction of a division to go toward building another unit, and then rebuilding the original division in a later turn. Technically, the special replacements should (usually) go to their original unit unless it is cannibalized. [Handling this goes into a layer of detail beyond what is needed to address what you are trying to address, so I'll drop it for now.] >The second related issue in Grand Europa relates to the excessive >accumulation of RP's and Resource Points. When Germany and Russia are not >fighting each other, it is amazing how many RP's etc they have after six >months. This is really an OB problem; a "grand" OB should make distinctions between peacetime and wartime replacement rates (though perhaps Germany needs a third category, "at war but not with the USSR" !). Also notice that not taking RPs now means that you have more and higher-quality men available to call up later on when you do need them; for the longer scenarios replacements should not simply be lost if not taken during an earlier, quieter phase of the war. [I don't have any immediate suggestions for handling this. I suppose there would be per-turn limitations based on what your infrastructure can train and equip within a given time period, as well as long-term limitations based on population and the need to keep society running, particularly agriculture, industry, and those elements of your war effort that are not explicitly represented.] >c. In such a situation, that is no units are in the Replacement Pool, and >twice the RP's received are left over, then a player may create new units!! >The conditions are the following: >1. The unit created costs its full strength RP's plus one-half (rounded up) >of those needed to build the cadre. If the unit does not have a cadre, >increase the cost by 1/3 rounding up: Example, a 12-10 German Panzer >Division would cost an extra 2 Arm and I Inf RP, a 4-3-10 Panzer II 5 Arm RP. >2. The unit created must be identical in combat and movement values to one >already in play (no creating 16-10 Panzers when the standard Panzer is an >11-10 or 12-10). This is reasonable in general, but it is at least possible that some units would have been upgraded sooner if production allowed it. Unfortunately, this gets us into the realm of speculation. >3. The unit is Forming: To become Full: > - all combat motorised divisions take 12 months (24 turns) > - all non-divisional take 6 months (12 turns) > - all others take 9 months (18 turns) Will a C/M necessarily take longer than non-C/M? I suspect larger will take longer than smaller, because I understand that recruits are put through manoeuvres with progressively larger formations. Otherwise, I would think that availability of equipment would be the only difference between C/M and non-C/M. [Also: are you paying all the replacement points up front, before giving the unit "forming" status?] Again, though I am quibbling over details, I think your ideas are good and I'm glad you're sharing them with us. Bring on the grand campaigns! - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 05:35:51 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14753; Mon, 15 Apr 96 05:35:50 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA09129 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 05:35:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA095898450; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 03:20:50 GMT Message-Id: <199604150320.AA095898450@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Mon, 15 Apr 96 03:20:50 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Mon, 15 Apr 96 03:19:22 UTC 0000) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 03:14:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 1582179 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 558241 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Grand Europa Rules Status: O Content-Length: 370 Reply: Item #9708505 from EUROPA@LYSATOR.LIU.SE@INET#on 96/04/14 at 22:21 David Hughes, In your attempts at GE, are you using the standard CRT combat system or something like your article in Flavio's "Combined Arms" Issue #2? BTW, I found your concept of CRT-less combat very interesting and I've promised myself to set aside some time to try it someday. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 06:45:13 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15083; Mon, 15 Apr 96 06:45:12 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA09794 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 06:44:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA28589 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:44:47 -0500 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:44:46 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: Perry de Havilland Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Help request re. Altitude Air Rules In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1738 On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, Perry de Havilland wrote: > I am trying to expand my fairly basic ideas on working Altitude into the > Europa air system for some house rules (I have received some interesting > > The High Bands in my tentative system are: > > Low = < 15,000 ft > Medium = 15,000 - 30,000 ft > High = 30,000 ft + > (plus an optional Very High Band = 42,000 ft +) > I used to know a lot about the WW 2 air war although it has been a few years since I worked with the numbers. I would certainly suggest that you lower your altitudes. The number of aircraft (planes not units) that could actually fly above 35,000 ft was few. Before the strategic war over Germany got going in late '43, very few flew above 28,000 ft. I believe you would be better off with the following bands: Low < 10,000 ft Medium 10,000 - 20,000 ft High > 20,000 ft In all the years of work I had done before, there was not a lot of need to get optimal altitude per aircraft type. It was no so much the optimal altitude for the aircraft as much as the normal altitude that the doctrine of the missions/nations that counted. So we hear a lot about Russian aircraft, best at low altitude, and that they were quite happy to get our P-39s since they were best at low, because that was were they were going to fly them. I do not remember that many aircraft lost performance at lower altitudes. Only that some (like the FW 190) lost a bit higher up. In Europa, until a strategic bombing modual comes, we have little call for much high altitude work. That's one of the reasons that I have not seen the need to go into altitude considerations when many other air system problems are in need of work. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 06:49:55 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15113; Mon, 15 Apr 96 06:49:54 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA09831 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 06:49:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA29177 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:49:21 -0500 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:49:20 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: Marian Hughes Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Grand Europa Rules In-Reply-To: <199604150008.UAA22108@psyche.the-wire.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 689 On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, Marian Hughes wrote: > In this post I will just cover the issue of Replacements and Rebuilds: This > > The second related issue in Grand Europa relates to the excessive > accumulation of RP's and Resource Points. When Germany and Russia are not Excellent suggestions. Particularly since they work within the Europa system. There are points about the excesses that your suggestions do not solve, but any other suggestions to date induce a lot of complex problems as well. Without actually trying them, your points seem to be ones that have NO DRAWBACKS, while they do have positive effects. Lets see if others can add to these ideas. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 06:53:21 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15137; Mon, 15 Apr 96 06:53:20 +0200 Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.255.59.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA09868 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 06:52:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com by hplb.hpl.hp.com; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 05:52:48 +0100 Received: by hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA25784; Sun, 14 Apr 1996 21:49:02 -0700 From: Patrick Tobin Message-Id: <9604150449.AA25784@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> Subject: Re: Commonwealth hero? Mais non! To: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Date: Sun, 14 Apr 96 21:49:02 PDT Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604141814.OAA17076@travel1.travel-net.com>; from "bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com" at Apr 14, 96 2:14 pm Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Status: O Content-Length: 1396 > > > And here was me thinking Pierre Clostermann was French just 'cos he's > >from France ( or Belgium, I forget which). Not part of the Commonwealth last > >time I looked. Alanbrooke, Auchinleck, Montgomery, O'Connor and Dorman-Smith > >were all born in Ireland, which was technically still part of the > >Commonwealth. > > > >Haya Safari, > >Patrick Haugh, > >Washington D.C. > > I believe both Alanbrooke and Monty would be considered Ulsterman (and given > the events of the last 100 years, many people would consider that an > important distinction) and Ulster still being part of Gt. Britain, then Excuse me if I'm being a bit pedantic here, but ... The province of Ulster consists of 9 counties. Six counties are in N.Ireland, which most N.Irishmen of the protestant tradition refer to as Ulster. The other 3 counties of Ulster are in the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland is not in Great Britain. Great Britain consists of England, Scotland, and Wales. N.Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, which consists of Great Britain and N.Ireland. That aside, Alanbrooke and Monty would indeed be considered as Ulstermen, since they were born in N.Ireland (as would anyone born in the the 3 Ulster counties of the RoI. I'm not certain of this, but I thought O'Connor was a New Zealander of Irish descent. Can anyone confirm this? P.T. > From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 07:53:13 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15541; Mon, 15 Apr 96 07:53:11 +0200 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA10575 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 07:52:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA28901; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:52:48 -0400 Message-Id: <9604150552.AA28901@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Fighter Ceilings To: europa@lysator.liu.se (europa mailing list) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 01:52:48 -0400 (EDT) From: "Arius V Kaufmann" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 377 BF109 37,890 FW190 37,400 ME163 39,500 ME262 36,080 P-47 42,000 P-51 42,000 The FW 190 is actually considered a high-altitude fighter, with a top speed of 453 @ 37,000. Arius Kaufmann akaufma2@osf1.gmu.edu What this world needs is a good five-dollar plasma weapon. "Power corrupts. Absolute power's kind of neat." --John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987 From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 09:17:10 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16952; Mon, 15 Apr 96 09:17:08 +0200 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA11618 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:16:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ab26668; 15 Apr 96 7:16 GMT Received: from consecon.demon.co.uk ([158.152.9.235]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa10564; 15 Apr 96 7:30 +0100 Message-Id: <5ZYE5HAI0ecxEw6B@consecon.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 07:30:32 +0100 To: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Cc: "Haugh, Patrick J." , europa@lysator.liu.se From: Reg Danford-Cordingley Subject: Re: Commonwealth hero? Mais non! In-Reply-To: <199604141814.OAA17076@travel1.travel-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.10 Status: O Content-Length: 1503 In message <199604141814.OAA17076@travel1.travel-net.com>, bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com writes snip... >> >>Haya Safari, >>Patrick Haugh, >>Washington D.C. > snip... > >Nigel Bradbury >Ottawa, Ontario > Dear Nigel and Patrick, Patrick is quite right that at that time (until 1948), Ireland (the Irish Free State part or Eire) was part of the Commonwealth. However, since 1922, citizens of the Irish Free State (and its successor the Irish Republic) have had the right of abode and residence in the UK. This includes being able to vote. In fact, recently, there has been talk of Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth; Mary Robinson the President of the Republic visited the Commonwealth Games in Canada in 1994. I should like to point out that the Irish are not really considered 'foreign' by the British, we have a lot in common with them. The English have more in common with the Irish than they do with Americans for instance, culturally and socially. The Irish have been migrating to Britain since the Dark Ages (sometimes violently!) and a large part of the population of mainland Britain have Irish descent. Thousands of citizens of the Irish Republic volunteered to join the Britsih Armed Forces in the Second World War. Their contribution has recently been recognised by a new monument in Dublin. The British Army has regiments that still recruit Irish citizens. So I think that the Irish can be counted as Commonwealth heroes! Yours sincerely... -- Reg Danford-Cordingley, London UK From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 09:41:11 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17383; Mon, 15 Apr 96 09:41:09 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA11981 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:40:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id DAA02298; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 03:13:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 03:13:27 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re:Yet more Luft-peeves flak Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 78 The Luftwaffe didn't award kills for aircraft destroyed on the ground. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 10:25:50 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18154; Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:25:49 +0200 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA12896 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:25:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id EAA22800; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 04:23:19 -0400 Date: 15 Apr 96 04:21:52 EDT From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@CompuServe.COM> To: unknown Subject: Re:Weird ships (Empires) Message-Id: <960415082151_100626.2267_BHL97-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 814 Ray, read the following and file it under trivia As far as I can tell all ships which were operated on behalf of the Ministry of War Transport (MWT) were named Empire--------. This would include axis ships taken as prizes and put into service, i.e. the Empire Trooper was the German Cap Norte a 13000 ton cargo liner, the class also included some ex American flagged ships purchased by Britain, Empire Fulmar was Hawian Shipper. The majority of the Empire series were actually new built and constructed in Britain, USA and Canada. The MWT used existing Canadian yards and built new ones in the USA to produce a standard design of dry cargo ship of 10000tons, the first being Empire Liberty, this design with minor mods formed the basis of the US Ocean class and EC2 "Liberty ships" and Canadian Fort class. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 11:05:47 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18751; Mon, 15 Apr 96 11:05:45 +0200 Received: from colossus.barclays.co.uk (colossus.barclays.co.uk [193.128.3.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA13646 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:05:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from bognor.barclays.co.uk by colossus.barclays.co.uk with local SMTP (PP) id <05430-0@colossus.barclays.co.uk>; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:04:59 +0100 Received: from pepsi.gra.barclays.co.uk by bognor.barclays.co.uk with BarclayNet SMTP (PP) id <05791-0@bognor.barclays.co.uk>; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:04:56 +0100 Received: by pepsi (1.37.109.14/16.2) id AA034518932; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:02:12 +0100 From: Stefan Farrelly Message-Id: <9604151002.ZM3449@pepsi.gra.barclays.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:02:11 +0100 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 31aug95) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Civilisation II Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: O Content-Length: 1063 Has anyone else seen the game Civilisation II yet ? My brother and I have been playing it for a week now and its got a lot of new features which has turned it into more of a boardgame/Europa game than anything ive seen before. It used to be a simple game with the basic units, eventually leading to; tanks, artillery, riflemen, mechanised inf, fighters, bombers, transports, missiles, ZOC, Nukes, etc. Now it has added a stack of new units/features including; Paras. Engineers. Quick Construction. Airbase contruction. Harbours. Air Transport. Alpine troops. Damage. Marines. Partisans. Freight/Trucks. Helicopters. Cruise missiles. They already have historical maps covering Europe/the Pacific etc. just that the scale is far too big, but this could be easlily modified. In fact you can create your own maps with their map editor. I get the sneaky suspicion someone on the design team for this game has played WWII boardgames before. Now if we could only get hold of the source, a few months work and it could be Europa on a PC! Stefan & Andrew Farrelly From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 11:16:40 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18982; Mon, 15 Apr 96 11:16:38 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA13891 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:16:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.25] (Stora_Red_15 [130.237.155.25]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA20819 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:16:11 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:16:12 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: GE/SF: Free or following history. Status: O Content-Length: 1464 There's been a lot of debate on how "free" GE should be. While some argues that most things that could have happened during WW2 should be able to happen in GE, others argue that this makes a game that has little resemblance with WW2 as we know it, and that it leaves the outcome of the game to a few random political rolls. Personally, I would like to be able to play GE both ways. I would be disappointed if the game didn't allow Turkish intervention or Republican spain allied with France, but I would be equally disappointed if this meant that no game ever lead to the historical chain of events (since we, as players have full forward hindsight, there's a lot of things we would never do that were done historically). BUT, this isn't just a GE problem! The same situation applies to SF! Here you have near complete freedom over the deployment of your forces, and where to invde when. I regard this as a strength of the game that makes it different from most other western front games, but this also means that very few games look very much like history. I really miss being able to fight out the invasion of Normandie. I mean the REAL invasion, with all the right units in the right places. I guess what I'm arguing is: 1: A set of historical setups with preplanned invasions as alternative scenarios for SF would be really nice. 2: There really ought to be two ways of playing GE. A free and a historical variant. Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 11:33:58 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA19266; Mon, 15 Apr 96 11:33:57 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA14265 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:33:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.25] (Stora_Red_15 [130.237.155.25]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA21004 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:33:25 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:33:26 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: AO: Errata Status: O Content-Length: 1060 I bought a copy of Africa Oriental=E9 when it first came out, but I haven't really played it. I tried it once or twice, but I had trouble getting used to the scale, and felt bewildered in the weird strategical situation. Now I'm going to give it another try. I've heard that there's quite a lot of errata, however. Since I live in Sweden, ordering it is impractical and very slow. So I was wondering if anybody on this list could help me with it. The best thing would be if it existed electronically (Jason Long (or whoever administrates the GRD homepage), don't just put up errata for the new games please!) and someone sent it to me as an attachment. Or maybe someone in Sweden has the errata and could mail it to me. If not, then could someone write me a summary of the most important changes in the errata. Any changes in maps, OBs or unit ratings would be most important. Minor errors in rules references or wordings can be left out, I know the Europa rules well enough anyway. Thanks in advance for any help! Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 11:35:57 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA19287; Mon, 15 Apr 96 11:35:56 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA14319 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:35:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.25] (Stora_Red_15 [130.237.155.25]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA21048 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:35:37 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:35:38 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: SYSTEM: Luft peeves and France 40 Status: O Content-Length: 1409 >Before the topic of pilot experience and aces and 'experten' runs out of fuel , >there have been comments in TEM and in a previous posting about the French Air >Force and its pilots. >In a recent book by Brian Cull and others (12 days in May) he states that" a >considerable number of French fighter pilots had flown in fighter combat in the >Great War", I reckon that puts them well into the 40-50 age group, does that >make them experienced pilots with the situational awareness and reflexes to >qualify them for a plus DRM against the Luftwaffe, or does it make them >over the >hill and due for a desk job. I think the RAF rules at that time had a cut off >age of 38 for active fighter pilots. The breakdown of losses in this book tends >to support the second theory. Any comments. I've read a discussion on this earlier, either on this list or in TEM. The reasoning goes that the French should have a +1 DRM over the German fighter pilots because of their superior training. The high Luftwaffe losses in the campaign was said to support this. However, a friend of mine has studied the air combat over France and belgium in detail, and found that this evidence does not hold. The high Luftwaffe losses was due to the large amount of unescorted bombing missions flown, not superior French skill. (sorry to send you duplets, Alan. I forgot to change the address) Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 15:13:02 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA22723; Mon, 15 Apr 96 15:13:00 +0200 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA18878 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:11:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id JAA12194; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:10:30 -0400 Date: 15 Apr 96 09:08:22 EDT From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@CompuServe.COM> To: unknown Subject: Production Message-Id: <960415130822_100626.2267_BHL116-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 4979 I have been toying with a production system, the genesis of this came from an article in TEM by Frank Watson and JMAs comments on same. I have attempted to create a system which is simple to use, takes up minimum space and models the problems of managing a war economy. The system is particularly aimed at Britain since that is what I am more familiar with and have information on but it could be adapted to suit any economy as each has is own choke points before the production phase. This explanation is perhaps a bit long winded the actual charts take up about a third of a map area. Political events and considerations follow a seperate chart. The charts I use are graphics which are not possible to recreate here but I will outline the sequence of events. Quarterly Strategic turn at present but I am considering a monthly varaition Shipping Allocation Phase Available NTPs are allocated a cargo of either Iron Fuel or Food, those not allocated are returned to play as normal NTPs. ASW Phase ASW assets are compared to Uboat strength on a crt which is still under development, mine warfare effects are considered at this time as are German surface ops. The result generates losses to NTPs and Uboats. At the moment I am only looking at operations in the North Atlantic but eventually all sea areas will be involved. Strategic Stocks Phase Arriving cargoes are added to 3 pools, Iron,food, and fuel, domestic production of same is added. Comparison of food stocks with requirements is made if the result is negative the national morale factor is reduced, comparison of iron and fuel is made against basic industry with the same results this factor would feed into the British political chart. Strategic Air War German Strategic air assets are assigned and carry out raids, the effects,if any, are applied to the production capacities of the various industries. Achieving a hit result on a Major city hex would reduce the production capacity of each type of Industry, if its also a port it reduces ship building capacity. Production allocation Phase there are 5 types of Industry, these are Basic Industry, Non C/M Industry, C/M Industry, Air Industry, Ship Building. each has its own capacity, in the case of Basic Industry it also has a limited capacity. Each Industry is allocated Iron and Fuel points from the stocks pool up to the capacity of that Industry. Stock pools are adjusted accordingly. Production Basic Industry is allocated first always up to its capacity or else a national morale factor again comes into play. the limited capacity is used to produce increases in capacity for itself and all the other industries and resource points, this limited capacity will increase as the economy moves to a war footing but there will be an overall limit which is workforce related. There are three tracks for Basic Industry, one for RPs two for factories, only a set number of RP and factory counters can be on the track at any one time, each turn it moves along the track if paid for from that turns capacity. Non C/M Industry Produces non c/m units, Infantry divsions,brigades,battalions and nonc/m equipment points, each with its own track, again the payment is incremental except that here there is an input from the training side Inf RPs are allocated up front based on normal replacement rules. Equipment points I envision as being complimentary to Inf and Arm RPs for rebuilding units and possibly for the concept of maintenance C/M Industry As above, in place of equipment points substute Arm Rps Ship Building Produces NTPs,NRPs and LCs, again a track for each, again incremental Air Industry Left till last because thats causing me a lot of grief, building new units is ok, but the upgrades to newer types and RPs are a problem, new units go on a track like everything else and pay the cost like ground units. Iam thinking of upgrade counters for air units which do not pay for personnel and substituting the completed counter for an existing air unit. Air RPs I am inclined to ignore and instead have air training units which produce three types of RP like HB, HF&B,F&A. Force Pool All units which can be produced will be here, new units are added from a modified OB, dead units are placed here too. Decide what is to be built, take the counter from the pool and pay for its appearance on the appropriate track. Maintenance and Logistics Are both on hold while I sort out some of the other details, but a rough idea for maintenance is to track the number of REs in play and pay a cost in non c/m or c/m points. Logistics, another function of basic industry could be to manufacture Attack supply points which are shipped to the appropriate theatre of ops and provide attack supply for x number of units. Thats It. When all this is up and running a guide to achieve historical production is needed, from there its simple to vary and muck about with. Any comments and suggestions are welcome (except rude ones). From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 15:45:40 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23172; Mon, 15 Apr 96 15:45:39 +0200 Received: from mh004.infi.net (mailhost.infi.net [205.219.238.95]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA19591 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:44:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pwcgw.pwc.com by mh004.infi.net with SMTP (Infinet-S-3.3) id JAA23524; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:43:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pwcgw.pwc.com with Microsoft Mail id <31727D6F@pwcgw.pwc.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 96 09:46:39 PDT From: "Boston, Jim" To: "'Europa'" Subject: Re: Grand Europa Rules Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 09:45:00 PDT Message-Id: <31727D6F@pwcgw.pwc.com> Encoding: 38 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 1674 The following is some comments on David Hughes posting of 14 April @ 8:08pm. > for background - we started with April I 1941; it is now Dec I 1941, and panzers are at > the outskirts of Alexandria, Haifa, and Tunis (Yes - Hitler decided not to invade both > Russia and Yugoslavia in 1941!) GE should not let the players make political decisions, we are playing a wargame not a political game. All of the nations must be required to following the path that their national leaders set (as far as we can, based on how the game plays). Germany must be required to attack the USSR in 1941 unless it is still fighting in France. > .... It was also clear that the rule we would use should be as broad as possible - lots > of nation-specific rules become a real pain when playing Grand Europa. Nation-specific rules must be done. Each nation had different goals in the war and GE must be played with these deferences in action, otherwise you might as well play Risk. (on creating new units with excessive accumulated RPs - must see his post on what is excessive) > The unit is forming: to become full: > all combat motorize divisions take 12 months (24 turns) > all non-divisional take 6 months (12 turns) > all others take 9 months (18 turns) The time periods seem to long. Are your time periods based on one nations real build rate? two? or what? It is hard to believe that it took the same amount of time for the USSR, Italy, and Germany to create an infantry division. Nation-specific rules should control how long it would take to create a new division using excessive accumulated RPs, i.e. based on each nations historical record. Jim Boston From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 15:48:47 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23218; Mon, 15 Apr 96 15:48:46 +0200 Received: from motgate2.mot.com (motgate2.mot.com [129.188.136.20]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA19663 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:48:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pobox.mot.com (pobox.mot.com [129.188.137.100]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.7.3/8.6.10/MOT-3.8) with ESMTP id NAA08923 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:47:03 GMT Received: from fwans12 (fwans12.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com [160.2.12.7]) by pobox.mot.com (8.7.3/8.6.10/MOT-3.8) with SMTP id IAA01069 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 08:47:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (fwhre14) by fwans12 (5.67b/FTW-1.65) id AA17430; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 08:44:41 -0500 Received: by fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (8.6.12/FTW-1.65) id IAA00502; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 08:47:28 -0500 From: psmith@hpmail2.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Paul Smith) Message-Id: <199604151347.IAA00502@fwhre14.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com> Subject: Africa maps To: europa@lysator.liu.se (Europa maillist) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 08:47:28 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: psmith@ftw.mot.com *Return-Receipt-To: psmith@ftw.mot.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Status: O Content-Length: 489 No Africa maps at $50 a pop for me. If I get an extra $50 to spend on wargames, I'd rather have it go toward one of the WWI series. -- 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 europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 16:32:13 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23840; Mon, 15 Apr 96 16:32:12 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA20745 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:31:09 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA220687806; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:16:46 GMT Message-Id: <199604151416.AA220687806@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Mon, 15 Apr 96 14:16:46 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Mon, 15 Apr 96 14:15:42 UTC 0000) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 14:22:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 7593959 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 563958 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: GE/SF: Free or following histo Status: O Content-Length: 2583 Reply: Item #2384687 from EUROPA@LYSATOR.LIU.SE@INET#on 96/04/15 at 05:16 I've long argued that GE should come in stages, starting as a historical simulation and developing into a more "free" game. The project is too large to swallow in one gulp. What follows is a letter of mine which appeared in CA#4. The topic of Grand Europa has been prevalent in recent Europa literature. Many highly entertaining articles have been written, proposing various implementations of the game. Of prime debate is the level of control the players will have over the course of events in the game. Are the players to be "straight-jacketed" by history andorders of battle, or do they have the ability to modify the national objectives of the nations they control? Most of the proposals I have read, while often contradictory to each other, within themselves display a high level of thought and introspective reasoning. After I read each proposal, I find myself saying: "yeah, that's the way it's got to be!", at least until I read the next one. But, each proposal has missed one key element that will be integral to our perception of what Grand Europa should be. So far as I can tell, every one is assuming that GE will be a singularity. When the box arrives on our doorstep, all will be said and done. To the contrary, I fully believe in the multiplicity of GE. The day we set up GE for the first time will not be the end, but the beginning. As Europa has evolved, so will GE. Either officially or unofficially, the Europa intelligencia will continue to develop, correct, improve, reorganize, restructure and otherwise expand the game. They will not suddenly lay down their pencils and lie dormant; instead they will flourish more than ever. As such, I believe that GE will have many incarnations. The first will probably be a very rigid, historical version that relies upon years of Europa OB research and game materials as its foundation. Subsequent expansions and modifications will provide players with increasing levels of freedom from history. Economic, political, and social models, will be added as each level is proven out by the gaming enthusiasts. Only by following a natural progression of complexity can GE be properly developed. Initailly it will use history as a crutch, but as it becomes stronger itwill shed that crutch and evolve into a fully developed, integrated model of human social interaction a the national scale. Let's not sell GE short, let's set it on a slow, methodical course to an ultimate lofty goal. And let's have fun all the way! -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 16:32:14 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA23841; Mon, 15 Apr 96 16:32:12 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA20743 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:31:07 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA220747808; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:16:48 GMT Message-Id: <199604151416.AA220747808@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Mon, 15 Apr 96 14:16:48 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Mon, 15 Apr 96 14:15:45 UTC 0000) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 14:22:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 8134054 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 563968 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mscontent-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Subject: GE rules question Status: O Content-Length: 1146 Here's an open question to anybody. I already sent the question go GURU = (Rich Velay): I think that this question is applicable to all Europa games so I address= it to Grand Europa. In general, can a player move a unit a portion of its movement allowance,= then move another unit, and finally return to the first unit and finish its movement? Specifically, I'm thinking of the following case. There are four contiguoushexes (A, B, C, and D) along a rail line. Hex A= is occupied by 2 friendly 5-6 Inf XX=92s. Hexes B and C are each occupied b= y a single unsupported 0-1-5 Const III. Hex D is unoccupied. The first divi= sion overruns the construction unit in hex B spending 4 MP (3 for the 10:1 ove= rrun and 1 to enter the hex). It does not have enough MP to overrun the secon= d construction unit. However, the second division in hex A, moves into hex= B (1 MP) and then overruns the construction unit in hex C (another 4 MP for a = total of 5) and finally moves to hex D. Returning to the first division (which= has two unused MP), the player moves it from hex B to C and then to D thereby rejoining the divisions. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 17:06:29 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA24562; Mon, 15 Apr 96 17:06:28 +0200 Received: from ns.rmc.com (ns.rmc.com [137.25.23.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA21649 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:06:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ns.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA08510; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:54:59 -0400 Received: from internet.rmc.com(137.25.3.24) by ns.rmc.com via smap (V1.3) id sma011470; Mon Apr 15 10:54:44 1996 Received: from lanmail.rmc.com by internet.rmc.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA14474; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:50:24 -0400 Received: by LANMAIL.RMC.COM; Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:48:48 EDT Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 10:49:13 EDT Message-Id: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re: SF:CAP Status: O Content-Length: 1058 For another good example of long range CAP not being completely effective, look at the Dodecanese in '43. Beaufighters and P-38s didn't have enough time over target to matter. Beaufighters flew from Cyprus, P-38s from Gambut, I believe. I haven't checked the hex ranges. On Ray Kanarr's suggestion of penalties per hex over range: Reasonable as simulation but problems for we humans. Consider "Ok What was that range again? 16 no 15. Heck, let's count again. Where was it flying from? Here, no there, or was it here?" There will probably ALWAYS be anomalies in the aircraft ranging system. Strikes me that perhaps full range CAP missions could have a less than 100% chance of intercepting an enemy mission? This would seem to simulate lack of time over the target better than simply a lowered rating. One could argue that this is already inherent in flying CAP to a single hex given in advance, but if you know exactly where the problem is, say Maleme or Salerno or Leros, then you already know exactly where the CAP should go anyway. Frank From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 17:15:38 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA24717; Mon, 15 Apr 96 17:15:37 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA21897 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:15:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA03488 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:06:47 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:14:41 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: SF:CAP (Was: Re: Yet more of my $0.02 worth) Status: O Content-Length: 2715 > However with fighters a unit flying half range could stay over target >a long time, and hence have more planes over the target at any point over >a two week turn. At max range the aircraft could only be over the target >a short period. > This was why the Allies thought Salerno might be chancy. They were >at the limit of what they considered useable air range. Game wise the >Allies seem to have greater potential to use the air assets. Not only >full range, full use CAP. But extended range missions, which seem to me >to give them more ability that air units had.... Might I suggest things aren't as bad as you see them? 1. Typically, Europa takes the one-way range of a fighter with a combat load and divides it by 3.5: one third of the range to get to target, one third to hang over target, one third to return to base, and that .5 to account for various effects (one or more of which ususally occur: time to form up; diversionary flight courses, below-average flying conditions, outright mistakes by the fliers, etc.). Now, 3.5 is a hell of a divisor, and it accounts for a tremendous amount of what you are taking about. 2. Salerno is 12 hexes from the nearest possible airbases in Sicily. Please check the Allied MTO air OBs: at this time, Salerno is out of regular range for many Allied fighters, including all Spitfires then available -- and it's only the Spitfire VIIIs and IXs than can stand up to the Fw 190As at this time. (At extended range, even these Spitfires fall to the Fw 190s.) What can reach Salerno at regular are the few early P-51s and various models of P-38s, P-39s and P-40s -- not bad but not breathtaking. Actually, the situation is even worse for the Allies. Historically, the Germans hung on to the northeast corner of Sicily the longest: the first hex in 12-hex range of Salerno fell to the Allies on Aug I, and the rest fell on Aug II. This is not much time for the Allies to build airfields for the Sep I invasion at Salerno, so only a few of their 12-range fighters can reach Salerno at regular range. This leaves the handful of longer-ranged fighters (P-51s and P-38s) that can reach Salerno at regular range from the Catania area. I emphasize "at regular range" as extended range simply decreases the effectiveness of the fighters. Effectiveness counts, for as far you know as the Allied player, every Fw 190 in the west (plus tons of Me 109s) may be sent to Italy to attack an Allied invasion of the mainland, and there you are without an aircraft able to face the "Butcher Bird" at near-equal terms. So, under historical conditions there are valid reasons in E to be concerned about projecting fighter cover over Salerno, just as in the actual event. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 17:16:01 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA24726; Mon, 15 Apr 96 17:16:00 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA21907 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:15:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA03496 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:07:10 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:15:04 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Last of the Independents Status: O Content-Length: 4628 >Claims that anything less >than a replay of historical events (with perhaps differences in which >battles are fought over which towns) somehow automatically equates to a >'free-for-all' involving Anglo-German alliances are shallow, knee-jerk >responses to legitimate calls for maximum player options.... >Remember the 'simulation' fans are not a unified camp, either: There are >many who say that it was flatly impossible for Germany to win WW2, or even >beat Russia. Simulationists are wonderful for denouncing any contrary >point of view as 'revisionism'.... You can divide simulation into several philosophical phlavors. For want of better terms, they roughly divide into "event" simulation and "process" simulation. Event simulationists in effect take the actual course of events and outcome of events as the ultimate standard by which the game/simulation is measured. Thus, for Barbarossa, you need a siege of Leningrad, a Kiev pocket, the Germans reaching the gates of Moscow before being thrown back, etc., or the game fails as a simulation. Too often, event simulationists will decry a game as simulation failure if the events do not occur -- even if they themselves played the game differently then their historical counterparts did. (I can't tell you the number of times FITE has been criticized for not having a Kiev pocket -- by the vary players who refuse to send a single panzer south from Army Group Center! As you may be aware, the Kiev pocket wasn't created by AG South, but by the panzer corps of AG Center striking south from Smolensk in the summer of 1941. BTW, for those who claim AG Center didn't have the supply reach to get to Moscow in the summer, take a look at the length of the panzer drive south from Smolensk -- it's fully as long as distance to Moscow, it's just going right angles to the city!) More seriously, event simulationists fall into the historical determinism camp -- since an event happened, it is the most probably thing that could have happened. Alas, this is not so -- some widely improbable things could and did occur -- the weight of the German panzer arm bearing down on the one point in the French line least able to stand the assault, the Germans and British deciding on a near-simultaneous invasion of Norway (the Germans got there first), etc. So, if an event was so improbable it had only a 5% chance of occuring, then is the game a failure as a simulation if 95 games out of 100 that famous event does not occur, even if players "played historically"? Process simulationists are less concerned about specific events. Instead, the underlying factors that produced the event are more important. Get these right, and you will have a valid simulation. A German breakthrough across the Meuse may become an improbable event when you let the Allied player deploy his forces as he wishes, but a German victory over France in 1940 may be likely -- Germany had built a better army than France and Britain by 1940, with a much better theory on how to use. As you may suspect by now, I favor process simulation. Simulate the underlying important factors, give players control over those that the historical counterparts had significant control over, and let them go to it. Another camp can be called "hindsight simulation." After all, there's no reason why Germany couldn't have built Panther tanks in 1941 (or snorkel submarines in 1942, or jets in 1943...) -- so a player should have control over things like these and fight the war the way he wants. Alas, this fails to take into account hindsight -- hindsight tells us what didn't work and what could have. A true simulation would have to build in the uncertainty of outcome that surrounded these decisions -- maybe they'll work and maybe not. Pushing for jet fighters in 1943 may yeild you Me 262s early, or maybe engine problems were worse than historical, yeilding no jets in 1943 and no Fw 190s or later-model Me 109s (since your R&D went into jets and not better piston-based aircraft). >With all this in mind, I'm determined to blaze my own trails. If GRD comes >out with GE and I like it, then I'll buy it. I'm not content to wait for >five years of wrangling over "big option/little option". I suspect that >neither is Mr. Astell, who seems to be playing GE already (didn't he have a >mega-Europa underway?-how is that going?) Ah, the post that talked about that was a bit confusing. That's a separate group doing their own home-brew Grand Europa (April 1943 on). The reference to me was that I supplied them with some draft OB material allowing them to start the western front in 4.43 rather than SF's 7.43. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 17:16:30 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA24743; Mon, 15 Apr 96 17:16:28 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA21917 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:15:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA03502 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:07:23 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:15:17 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Gr. Europa reorganizations Status: O Content-Length: 666 >SE tracks the 1942 panzer reorganization by providing for the upgrades >of the Army Group South panzer and panzergrenadier divisions first. >However, SE does not show that these upgrades were at the expense >of the divisions of Army Group North and Army Group South. The >panzer divisions of these army groups would either have to be >reduced to cadre or, in SF terms, given a (-4 PzG) marker. The SF panzer detachment rule was created partly to cover the way the Germans handled their Panther battalions in 1944 and partly to cover the 1942 reorganization for the collector's edition of SE. The rule will be retrofitted to SE when the FITE/SE update goes live. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 17:25:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA24882; Mon, 15 Apr 96 17:25:02 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA22180 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:24:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.121.88] (ip-pdx06-24.teleport.com [206.163.121.88]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA15503 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 08:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604151524.IAA15503@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 08:30:20 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Grand Europa Rules Status: O Content-Length: 1259 >The following is some comments on David Hughes posting of 14 April @ 8:08pm. > >> for background - we started with April I 1941; it is now Dec I 1941, and >panzers are at > the outskirts of Alexandria, Haifa, and Tunis (Yes - Hitler >decided not to invade both > Russia and Yugoslavia in 1941!) > >GE should not let the players make political decisions, we are playing a >wargame not a political game. All of the nations must be required to >following the path that their national leaders set (as far as we can, based >on how the game plays). Germany must be required to attack the USSR in 1941 >unless it is still fighting in France. What a robotic response: "Repeat after me: Grand Europa must follow history precisely. Players must not be allowed..." There may be a basis in practicality to wanting to stick fairly close to historical precedent, but this incredibly inflexible attitude of what appears to be an extremely vocal minority...? On what logic are these assumptions based? Knee-jerk comparisons to 'World in Flames"? That's very much like telling someone protesting a government policy that "well, if you don't like it, you can go move to *Russia!*" Afraid the Hun might win? SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 19:18:15 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26485; Mon, 15 Apr 96 19:18:13 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA24934 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:14:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id MAA04780; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:46:58 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:46:58 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Gr. Europa reorganizations Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604130436.AA149700172@relay1.geis.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 266 In the draft 41-45 East OB given to me by John Astell the Panzer Divs convert/upgrade to 14-10 base, but the ones in AGN/AGC give up panzer battalions to those in AGS, which places a (-2 PzG) marker on them, not a -4. Those are for after Panthers arrive. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 20:02:05 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26923; Mon, 15 Apr 96 20:02:04 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA26113 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:01:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA03940 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:53:25 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:01:20 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: GE/SF: Free or following history. Status: O Content-Length: 475 >...The same situation applies to SF! Here >you have near complete freedom over the deployment of your forces, and >where to invde when. I regard this as a strength of the game that makes it >different from most other western front games, but this also means that >very few games look very much like history. I really miss being able to >fight out the invasion of Normandie. I mean the REAL invasion, with all the >right units in the right places. Play the 1944 scenario! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 20:02:08 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26932; Mon, 15 Apr 96 20:02:06 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA26109 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:01:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA03937 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:53:19 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:01:13 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Commonwealth hero? Mais non! Status: O Content-Length: 5909 >> > Alanbrooke, Auchinleck, Montgomery, O'Connor and Dorman-Smith >> >were all born in Ireland, which was technically still part of the >> >Commonwealth.... >> >> I believe both Alanbrooke and Monty would be considered Ulsterman and >>Ulster still being part of Gt. Britain.... > > The province of Ulster consists of 9 counties. Six counties are in >N.Ireland, which > most N.Irishmen of the protestant tradition refer to as Ulster. The > other 3 counties of Ulster are in the Republic of Ireland. Northern > Ireland is not in Great Britain. Great Britain consists of England, > Scotland, and Wales. N.Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, which > consists of Great Britain and N.Ireland.... All the generals here were born before 1921 -- before the creation of the Irish Free State, a dominion. Before then, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so they were born citizens of the UK and no doubt retained UK citizenship even if their birthplace later broke off. Unless they took personal action such as emigrating to Canada, they could not be citizens of any Commonwealth country (other than the UK itself), as the British Commonwealth was not formed until 1926. The whole business of Commonwealth, Dominion, UK, Britain, etc. is interesting, and complicated enough to cause confusion. Briefly: Great Britain/United Kingdom: 1707 The Act of Union creates the Kingdom of Great Britain, uniting the Kingdom of England (which already ruled over Wales and Ireland) with the Kingdom of Scotland. (Previously, Scotland was a nominally independent country whose monarch was also the monarch of England). 1801 The KoGB becomes the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with colonies and other possessions throughout the world. 1927 The UKoGB&I becomes the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in recognition that southern Ireland has slipped away (see Ireland below). In practice, the UK is mostly known throughout the world as the Kingdom of Great Britain, and "Great Britain" is used in Europa in preference to "United Kingdom" in keeping with typical usage of the time -- as per National Geographic maps of the period. (One of my researchers claims that "Kingdom of Great Britain" may actually have been the official name until after the war, but I haven't been able to verify this.) It is unclear from my reading what the inhabitants of the UKoGB&NI themselves preferred in WW2 -- "Britain/British" (which ignores the Irish) may be most common, "United Kingdom/British" (but not United Kingdomer!) occasionally crops up, as does "England/English" (which supposedly incenses the Scots in particular). Dominion/British Commonwealth: c. 1860-1914: Various parts of the British Empire -- the parts settled by people from Britain -- became self-governing Dominions within the empire: Canada (excluding Newfoundland, which remain a separate colony under Britain), Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. (The Union of South Africa was set up a self-governing state -- whether it techically was a Dominion or not would require a trip to the library to find out). India was reorganized as the Empire of India, with the monarch of the UK as the emperor/empress of India -- it was not a Dominion, however, and remained a possession of the UK. Officially, dominion status did not mean actual independence from Britain. In effect, however, the dominions became independent countries with close ties to Britain -- all went to war with the Central Powers when Britain did so in 1914. 1919 The Dominions signed the Versailles Treaty and enter the League of Nations the same as other independent countries. 1926 The British Commonwealth (the "British" part was dropped in 1949 so that India could join without being reminded too much of its colonial past) was created, containing the UK (and its possessions) together with the dominions, which now included the Irish Free State. The Commonwealth charter explicit recognized that its members were separate and equal entities, with no one member (i.e., Britain), have any official primacy or special rights. The monarch of the UK is also individually the monarch of each other Commonwealth nation (again, I'd have to go to the library to check on South Africa), although this is largely ceremonial. Many wargames use "Commonwealth" as a catch-all term for the non-British Commonwealth national forces (and sometimes, confusingly, for the Indian Army forces). I've never found this to be a particularly useful definition for Europa -- Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada had little in common with one another and typically each coordinated much more closely with Britain that with one another. Ireland 1921 The Irish Free State is created as a Dominion from the 26 mostly Roman Catholic southern counties of Ireland. (The Protestant-majority 6 norther counties remained in the UK.) The agreement creating the IFS grants Britain many rights in the IFS. In practice, anti-British Irish parties run the IFS government and chip away or outright ignore as many of their treay obligations as quick as they can. The IFS in effect becomes a completely independent country, albeit with many economic ties to Britain. 1926 The IFS becomes a member of the British Commonwealth. The next year, Britain amends its name (see GB 1927 above) so that it doesn't imply that rules all of Ireland. 1937 The IFS official declares itself the state of Eire (the Gaelic word from which "Ireland" was devised). (Eire doesn't officially proclaim itself a republic until after the war -- when the Commonwealth is reorganized to let a Republic of India in). 1939-45 Ireland declares neutrality in the war, and in its adherence to neutrality prohibits Britain from exercising its rights in Ireland, thus violating the treaty with Britain. The British government, sensibly, decides not to force the issue. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 20:02:05 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26924; Mon, 15 Apr 96 20:02:04 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA26117 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:01:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA03943 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:53:32 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:01:26 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: GE/SF: Free or following histo Status: O Content-Length: 1023 > ...So far as I can tell, every one is assuming that GE will be a >singularity. >To the contrary, I fully believe in the multiplicity of GE.... The first will >probably be a very rigid, historical version that relies upon years of Europa >OB research and game materials as its foundation. Subsequent expansions and >modifications will provide players with increasing levels of freedom from >history. Economic, political, and social models, will be added as each level >is proven out by the gaming enthusiasts. Only by following a natural >progression of complexity can GE be properly developed.... An acute analysis and very close to my thinking. I'd add that the best way to proceed seems to be a series of Grand Europa scenarios that tie all the pieces to together: first a GE 1943-45 campaign, then a GE 1941-45 campaign, and finally a GE 1939-45 campaign. By the time we reach the 1939-45 campaing, we should be able to roll in strong political/diplomatic system rules (necessary to cover the 1939-41 period). From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 20:02:12 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26939; Mon, 15 Apr 96 20:02:11 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA26120 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:01:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA03946; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:53:39 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:01:35 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se, RichV@icebox.iceonline.com From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: GE rules question Status: O Content-Length: 832 >In general, can a player move a unit a portion of its movement allowance, then >move another unit, and finally return to the first unit and finish its >movement? Not to upstage Rich Velay, but since I've answered this so many times in the past, I'll give it a shot here too: The answer is YES. A unit's movement allowance (however adjusted for map and rule conditions) gives it the number of MPs it can spend in a movement phase. However you do that (within the rules as written) is up to you -- there's no rule telling you to move all of one unit's MA before you can move another, or that if you do move another than the first unit's remaining MA is lost. (In fact, overruns wouldn't work right with such a restriction!) So, you're not violating any rule by doing this, so go ahead and get maximum mileage out of your units! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 20:34:13 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27254; Mon, 15 Apr 96 20:34:12 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA26754 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:33:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id OAA09457 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:31:30 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04830; Mon, 15 Apr 96 14:24:04 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28472; Mon, 15 Apr 96 14:21:20 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604151821.AA28472@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: Re: SYSTEM: Mountain Artillery (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:21:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 2062 Hi, On mountain artillery: > In a message dated 96-04-13 16:24:08 EDT, pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith > Pardue) writes: > > > > > Has anyone else ever noticed what terrain mountain > >artillery units move through most quickly during the winter? > >Wooded Rough only costs them 2 movement points! Even a road > >costs 3! > > > > > > I do not own SF and perhaps the identification chart is different. My FWTBT > unit identification chart classifies "mountain artillery" units as > "artillery"; the accompanykng footnote states that "*other* unit types with > the mountain symbol have mountain capability." Thus, I have always > interpreted this to mean that the "mountain" movement or combat modifiers on > the TEC do not apply to the mountain artillery units, which are subject to > the same TEC restrictions as all other artillery-class units. > Ah, but if you look at mountain artillery on the FWTBT unit identification chart you will find that Note 3 applies to them. Thus, Mtn Art pay 3 movement factors moving on roads in winter and only 2 for wooded rough. I suspect that you thought that "other" had some special game-specific technical meaning here, as it probably does in Advanced Squad Leader. Of course, if this were ASL, then every second letter in "other" would be capitalized in order to distinguish this use of "other" from the other use of "other" which would be signified by gothic letters. I am, of course, convinced by the suggestions that the pack mules have trouble with the ice on the roads and can get better traction in wooded rough. Presumably, both the trees and the rough ground are necessary for this traction, as they spend more movement factors to enter woods or to enter rough. But seriously, designer folk. I am not expert enough on what the mountain artillery are supposed to represent to fix this rule. Should they pay 3 (or more) for wooded rough, or should they move as mountain *infantry* units. John? Gary? (I do like Mark's play test rule) Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 20:58:14 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27493; Mon, 15 Apr 96 20:58:13 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA27280 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:57:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA04104; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:49:31 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:57:26 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se, FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: re: SF:CAP Status: O Content-Length: 2240 >On Ray Kanarr's suggestion of penalties per hex over range: >Reasonable as simulation but problems for we humans. Consider "Ok >What was that range again? 16 no 15. Heck, let's count again. Where >was it flying from? Here, no there, or was it here?" Yes, indeed. One alternative system is to lose the numeric range ratings and go with range indicators on the counters: A: Very Short Ranged (for very short-ranged aircraft, e.g. Ar 68) B: Short Ranged (Me 109E, Spitfire I) C: Short-to-Medium Ranged (early P-51) D: Medium Ranged (many type B) E: Long Ranged F: Very Long Ranged Next, you define aircraft abilities in terms of range bands Range Band RI 1 2 3 etc. A x hexes y hexes z hexes etc. full red-1 red-2 etc. B etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. For each RI, each range band defines the number of hexes the aircraft can fly and the effects on its strength for operating in that band (full, reduced-1, reduced-2,etc.). Possible each range band could have the same number of hexes for all BI (with the shorter-ranged aircraft being prohibited from enter the higher bands) -- this would simply things but I'm guess the bands wouldn't be flexible enough to emcompass all RI. To make the system work, you'd need to mark aircraft operating in bands above #1 with markers. I leave the specific values to be plugged in "as an exercise for the student." I guarantee that such a system can work, but I don't guarentee that it will make a significant impact on play -- and it will be somewhat more complicated to use than the current sustem. Also, you lose a lot of the flavor that comes with seeing specific ranges on all the aircraft. >There will probably ALWAYS be anomalies in the aircraft ranging >system. And everywhere else! There's almost always "edge effects" when you approach the limit of something -- Einsteinian relativity came about because Newtonian physics broke down at the speed of light, and they still haven't reconciled Einsteinian gravity with quantum mechanics! The question often becomes, are the anomalies that occur at the limits small enough to be ignored, or do we have to complicate things by introducing rules and special cases to handle them. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 20:58:17 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27501; Mon, 15 Apr 96 20:58:15 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA27287 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:57:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA04106; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:49:37 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:57:33 -0400 To: Courtenay Footman , europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Gr. Europa reorganizations Status: O Content-Length: 497 >May we please have some details on FITE/SE update? How extensive >will it be (I hope no new counters!) and what the timing will be? >Thank you. We will revise the maps, OBs, and rules; going through everything from top to bottom. Alas, some new counters will be required, although I believe the vast majority of them will remain the same. I hope to start on this project in the autumn of this year. Given my work schedule, I see little chance of producing any material for this before then. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 15 21:16:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27666; Mon, 15 Apr 96 21:16:58 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA27798 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:16:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.79] (gw1-079.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA09676 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:16:24 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:18:51 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Ireland Cc: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Status: O Content-Length: 795 John Astell wrote: (monster snip) >1939-45 Ireland declares neutrality in the war, and in its adherence to >neutrality prohibits Britain from exercising its rights in Ireland, thus >violating the treaty with Britain. The British government, sensibly, >decides not to force the issue. My understanding was that the British elected to give up their treaty right to basing naval forces in Southern Ireland, rather than the Irish refusing to honour them unilaterally (I am assuming you are referring to the question of basing rights that so irritated Winston). It was this legal point that had the war cabinet stop Winston from forcibly re-asserting these right again against Irish wishes more than anything else. Was it 'sensible' to not force the issue? Opinion vary. Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 04:35:12 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00951; Tue, 16 Apr 96 04:35:10 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA05193 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 04:33:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA13135 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:33:02 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:33:01 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: m.royer3@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: GE rules question In-Reply-To: <199604151416.AA220747808@relay1.geis.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 692 On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 m.royer3@genie.com wrote: > Here's an open question to anybody. I already sent the question go GURU (Rich > > In general, can a player move a unit a portion of its movement allowance, then IMO, in RaW this would not be allowed. In general I don't think I would use it as a house rule in any game I would play. But the chances of this particular example coming up would be pretty slim in a game. However the same idea could come up say, move unit A a couple of MPs to block a retreat route for an oncoming overrun; then A moves a little further to block ZoCs for some other overrun or attack. So the idea behind the question is valid. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 04:35:12 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00952; Tue, 16 Apr 96 04:35:10 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA05188 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 04:33:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-13-7.ots.utexas.edu (slip-13-7.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.128.23]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA28056 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:26:11 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:26:11 -0500 Message-Id: <199604160226.VAA28056@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Last of the Independents Status: O Content-Length: 635 John said: > ... As you may >suspect by now, I favor process simulation. Simulate the underlying >important factors, give players control over those that the historical >counterparts had significant control over, and let them go to it. It would be nice to hear your current thoughts on just who those "historical counterparts" are, too, since we've been having a running debate on it for a couple of months now. Your designer's decision on that will have enormous influence on the range of options available to players. - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 04:39:06 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00984; Tue, 16 Apr 96 04:39:05 +0200 Received: from mail.cs.umn.edu (mail.cs.umn.edu [128.101.149.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA05269 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 04:38:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from deci.cs.umn.edu (thornley@deci.cs.umn.edu [128.101.224.10]) by mail.cs.umn.edu (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA20135 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:38:20 -0500 (CDT) From: "David H. Thornley" Received: (thornley@localhost) by deci.cs.umn.edu (8.6.11/8.6.12) id VAA15421 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:38:13 -0500 Message-Id: <199604160238.VAA15421@deci.cs.umn.edu> Subject: Re: Gr. Europa unit reorgs. To: europa@lysator.liu.se (Europa mailing list) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:38:12 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: from "Jason Long" at Apr 11, 96 04:06:39 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 1338 > > The force pool idea sounds workable, but I stongly disagree with allowing > the player to ignore the LW field divisions. It was political and should > not be under the players control! Yup. I side partly with the people who want to keep political decisions out of the Grand Europa purview. The Luftwaffe field divisions and SS units were built for purely political reasons, and were not in general worth the resources spent on them. I think that one criterion for calling something political is whether any sensible player would do it, given the choice. (I'd suggest this as the main criterion, but I doubt anybody on this list would set up the French anything like how Gamelin did it.) A sensible German might well do all the German invasions, for various reasons. He would *not* build three separate armies or declare war on the U.S. If we want GE to have a prayer of looking like WWII, we mandate such things. (So, do we mandate French deployment in 1940, or do we have that campaign look completely different from the historical one?) David H. Thornley, known to the Wise as thornley@cs.umn.edu O- Disclaimer: These are not the opinions of the University of Minnesota, its Regents, faculty, staff, students, or squirrels. Datclaimer: Well, maybe the squirrels. They're pretty smart. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 04:44:26 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01015; Tue, 16 Apr 96 04:44:25 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA05377 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 04:44:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-13-7.ots.utexas.edu (slip-13-7.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.128.23]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA28332 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:38:19 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:38:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199604160238.VAA28332@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Gr. Europa reorganizations Status: O Content-Length: 629 Jason said: >In the draft 41-45 East OB given to me by John Astell the Panzer Divs >convert/upgrade to 14-10 base, but the ones in AGN/AGC give up panzer >battalions to those in AGS, which places a (-2 PzG) marker on them, not a >-4. Those are for after Panthers arrive. Do [-4] counters enter play after a year or two, when Panthers were in production? Do these 14-10 divisions ever upgrade to c. 16-10? (I know you can get a de facto 16-10 by adding a detachment to a 14-10, but do these divisions remain intrinsically weaker than all those 16-10's in the West?) - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 04:46:24 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01028; Tue, 16 Apr 96 04:46:23 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA05406 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 04:46:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28855; Tue, 16 Apr 96 14:42:18 NZS Message-Id: <9604160242.AA28855@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:43 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Colin Kelly, the uh...hero Status: O Content-Length: 3033 >does Colin Kelly's "sinking" of the Haruna indicate a conspiracy between the >Air Corps and Readers Digest? Colin Kelly's actual feat was to maintain a determined attack on a Japanese light cruiser off the coast of the Philippines during the Japanese invasion of Luzon. He reported the ship to be the Japanese battlecruiser Haruna, one of four the Japanese operated. On the way back to Clark Field, Kelly's B-17 was jumped by Japanese fighters, and Kelly stayed at the controls while his crewmen parachuted to safety. Somehow this story became transmogrified by American reporters eagerly seeking any sign of counterattack in the post-Pearl Harbor period into Kelly slamming his B-17 into the decks of Haruna, sending it to the bottom. Kelly was posthumously recommended for the Congressional Medal of Honor (he didn't get it), and US President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote a letter for the record, requesting that Kelly's son, Colin P. Kelly III, be granted appointment to West Point without examination. In 1956, when this letter came up for action, Kelly III declined Roosevelt's munificience, and instead took the exam, and passed. There is a photograph of him chatting with by-now retired Douglas MacArthur. A great to-do was made over Kelly, with many variations on his basic theme (slamming his plane into Haruna's hide), including songs from Tin Pan Alley (which otherwise had a hard war with such ditties as "You're a Sap, Mr. Jap"), and considerable coverage in Francis Trevalyan Miller's adoring 1942 biography of Douglas MacArthur. This tome also told readers that Masaharu Homma had committed suicide when he couldn't conquer the Philippines (fiction) and that MacArthur and FDR saw eye-to-eye (an even greater fiction). In any case, the whole story was irrelevant. Kelly hadn't hit Haruna, or any other ship. Haruna avoided a brush with HMS Prince of Wales during the latter's ill-fated cruise to Kuantan, but saw a great deal of action after that: Midway, Guadalcanal, Philippine Sea, Leyte. She was finally caught and killed by US and Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm torpedo planes and bombers the way much of the Japanese fleet ended the war: trapped at anchor in Hashirajima, due to lack of fuel, and sunk in the harbor. After the war, Haruna's gray corpse, festooned with tree branches and camouflage netting in a vain attempt to ward off TBM Avengers, continued to squat forlornly in the harbor mud. That portion of Japan was run by the Britich Commonwealth Forces, under Australian, British, and New Zealand command, and the Australians entertained bids from local scrap dealers to disassemble the hulk. By 1949 the rusty remains of what had been one of the fastest and most powerful battleships in the Imperial Japanese Navy had been removed from Hashirajima's muddy floor, and both the ship and Kelly were forgotten. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 04:51:45 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01048; Tue, 16 Apr 96 04:51:44 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA05485 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 04:51:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-13-7.ots.utexas.edu (slip-13-7.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.128.23]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA28512 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:46:46 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:46:46 -0500 Message-Id: <199604160246.VAA28512@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Gr. Europa reorganizations Status: O Content-Length: 694 >>May we please have some details on FITE/SE update? How extensive >>will it be (I hope no new counters!) and what the timing will be? >>Thank you. > >We will revise the maps, OBs, and rules; going through everything from top >to bottom. Alas, some new counters will be required, although I believe the >vast majority of them will remain the same. I hope to start on this project >in the autumn of this year. Given my work schedule, I see little chance of >producing any material for this before then. Will counters be replaced if only their symbology has changed in more recent games, e.g. police, border, security, etc. ? - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 05:14:11 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01175; Tue, 16 Apr 96 05:14:10 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA05908 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 05:13:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA20285 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Mon, 15 Apr 1996 22:13:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 22:13:33 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: CAP & Intercept Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2640 Gents, None of the CAP `solutions" yet mentioned is worth trying to plug in. As others have mentioned trying to keep track of who's gone how far, etc. when dealing with 20 air units is too much trouble. For one thing I believe we all will want to keep trying CAP as is to get a better feel for whether it is working as we think it should or it still needs work. One point I would make is - what is the difference between CAP and Intercept? The name Intercept implies that one's units need quick response and hence are only allowed a one half range to do it. However in game terms, those enemy aircraft have been flying to point X for two weeks, perhaps air defense can figure that out and send some planes to bother them even if it is over one half range. So perhaps one fix would be to put CAP & Intercept on the same range footing, one half, two thirds, whatever. But that way we don't have to count hexes or combat points. Similarly the sequence of air missions may still need work. Example: in FitE/SE a big peeve of mine was that the defense had to guess where the attacks were going to come, to lay in DAS. The SF sequencing of missions on demand helps some since by the time the combat phase comes you might be able to tell where the attacks are coming and then DAS. However DAS still must go in before ANY attack GS gets called. I just had the following come up in a game. There were three equal attacking stacks adjacent to two defense stacks. Which of the two hexes was going to be attacked by two stacks while the left out single stacks of defense and attack just sat on their hands for two weeks. I still have to call in a whole two weeks of DAS on those hexes, and the attacker sees my whole two weeks of DAS before he assigns a single aircraft for his two weeks of GS. This needs to be corrected. A possible correction runs along the lines of the way we now run many bombing missions in SF. When bombing airfields and rail lines, at least for the Allies, we run one unit at a time in. The German chooses his response plane by plane. The Allies don't particularly care when the German intercepts, whatever planes are lost will be replaced. We could run an attack as such: attacker announces an attack on hex A, defender may call in one unit for DAS, attacker may call in one unit for GS, etc., until both are satisfied they have they units they want in that attack. Both still know other attacks may yet be announced, and both can see what air assets each still can deploy. Will that work? Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 06:27:02 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01647; Tue, 16 Apr 96 06:27:01 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA06717 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 06:26:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA02368 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:26:24 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:26:22 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Port Capacity Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2436 Gents: A while back we were talking about how bad it was to have infinite supply through a major port. Here's some data to work with. From: The Second World War United Kingdom History Series, The Mediterranean and Middle East, by CJC Molony, Vol VI, Part I: Looking at the spring '44 Allied offensive in Italy: " Sir Brian Robertson [Chief Administrative Officer] summed up some administrative matters. He believed it was JUST possible to maintain a force of 28 divisions, in view of the good performance of the the Naples group of ports . . . sixteen British divisions (or their equivalent) at a daily rate of 620 tons of maintenance stores per division and 12 American and French divisions (or their equivalent) at a daily rate of 730 tons per division." (my emphasis). Plus 12% for reserves + 10,500 tons for Italian civilians. Note supplies for civilians = more than the British OR the Americans were getting. In game terms this would be 84 REs of divisions. The OB (from this volume) lists 7 Amer & Fr divs, and 12 British divs, so some of the non-division REs are already in the 28 division number. But I think we can be safe in doubling the total RE count from all the little units we would expect. So a force of 170 REs is JUST being supplied. Ports listed are: Naples group: Naples, Salerno, Castlellammare & Torre Annunziata avg Mar-Apr '44 - 520,000 tons/month Heel ports: Taranto, Gallipoli, Brindisi, Monopoli, Barletta avg Mar-Apr '44 - 315,000 tons/month (note, Anzio is getting 120,000 tons/month with NO PORT) Torre Annunziata is not on the Europa map, it is just south of Naples; Monopoli is not on Europa map, it is on east coast between Bari & Brindisi. ( Note Bari (major port) is not listed at all?) Brindisi is a Standard Port (30 REs), Gallipoli is in game terms not useful for extended supply since it is not on the rail line. Source did not list the Calabria ports at all. If we were to not worry about Bari, small ports not on the maps, or small ports on the maps not listed in the source, we could decide that a Major Port should be able to supply 60 REs. If so this set of ports should supply 195 REs. That's fairly close to the 170 REs we estimate are there. So perhaps 60 REs for a Major Port, rather than infinite, is a reasonable number to use. Comments? Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 08:45:47 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03072; Tue, 16 Apr 96 08:45:46 +0200 Received: from io.org (io.org [198.133.36.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA08573 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 08:45:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from p133 (dynamic.net3.io.org [199.166.238.91]) by io.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA27051 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:45:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:45:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199604160645.CAA27051@io.org> X-Sender: woloshyn@io.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Larry Woloshyn Subject: Re: Port Capacity Status: O Content-Length: 619 At 11:26 PM 4/15/96 -0500, conrad alan b wrote: > >Gents: > > A while back we were talking about how bad it was to have infinite >supply through a major port. Here's some data to work with. From: The >Second World War United Kingdom History Series, The Mediterranean and >Middle East, by CJC Molony, Vol VI, Part I: [stuff] >division." (my emphasis). Plus 12% for reserves + 10,500 tons for Italian >civilians. Note supplies for civilians = more than the British OR the >Americans were getting. [stuff] >Alan Conrad > Can we starve the civilians? Just asking. Larry From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 09:35:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03906; Tue, 16 Apr 96 09:35:41 +0200 Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA09817 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:35:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from (normvp@phx-az11-22.ix.netcom.com [205.186.66.150]) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA05602 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:31:53 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:31:53 -0700 Message-Id: <199604160731.AAA05602@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com> From: normvp@ix.netcom.com (Norman Pratt) Subject: Re: Port Capacity To: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 676 >At 11:26 PM 4/15/96 -0500, conrad alan b wrote: >> >>Gents: >> >> A while back we were talking about how bad it was to have infinite >>supply through a major port. Here's some data to work with. From: The >>Second World War United Kingdom History Series, The Mediterranean and >>Middle East, by CJC Molony, Vol VI, Part I: > [stuff] >>division." (my emphasis). Plus 12% for reserves + 10,500 tons for Italian >>civilians. Note supplies for civilians = more than the British OR the >>Americans were getting. > [stuff] >>Alan Conrad >> > > Can we starve the civilians? Just asking. > > Larry My vote is starve the civilians. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 09:55:05 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04226; Tue, 16 Apr 96 09:55:03 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA10230 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:54:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id DAA08136; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 03:27:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 03:27:23 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Gr. Europa reorganizations Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604160238.VAA28332@smtp.utexas.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 205 Teh base value for a Panther-equipped Pz XX is 16-10, you can see a couple of different mechanisms in CoT on how they get there, as well as SF. Of course some units are a point weaker or stronger. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 11:30:34 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05631; Tue, 16 Apr 96 11:30:32 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA12290 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:26:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.155] (St.Datasalen_10 [130.237.155.155]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA00590 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:26:20 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:26:22 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: FITE/SE: Update (was: Re: Gr. Europa reorganizations) Status: O Content-Length: 1734 >>>May we please have some details on FITE/SE update? How extensive >>>will it be (I hope no new counters!) and what the timing will be? >>>Thank you. >> >>We will revise the maps, OBs, and rules; going through everything from top >>to bottom. Alas, some new counters will be required, although I believe the >>vast majority of them will remain the same. I hope to start on this project >>in the autumn of this year. Given my work schedule, I see little chance of >>producing any material for this before then. > >Will counters be replaced if only their symbology has changed in more recent >games, e.g. police, border, security, etc. ? I don't understand what this thread is about. Are you talking about the collectors edition FITE/SE or some kind of other reprint I've never heard of? If the former, I certainly hope there will be new counters! As I understand things, Soviet 1941 armour and cavalry is greatly overrated. And there will probably not be a single air counter that has the same rating and designation. And of course, the lettered SEC and POL units will disappear. I'd guess at least 30% of the counters will be new. And what would be the point of not having any new counters anyway? Do you hope to not have to cut out the counters? If that priority is more important to you than having the game done right with all errors fixed, then might I suggest that you play the game with the new maps and rules, and the old counters and OBs. Contrary to the original poster, I hope the update will be as extensive as possible, or else I see no point in buying another FITE/SE. I'm not really worried that it won't be, I just can't understand the standpoints of the original poster. Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 11:34:15 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05693; Tue, 16 Apr 96 11:34:14 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA12469 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:33:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.155] (St.Datasalen_10 [130.237.155.155]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA00664 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:33:39 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:33:41 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: GE/SF: Free or following history. Status: O Content-Length: 934 >>...The same situation applies to SF! Here >>you have near complete freedom over the deployment of your forces, and >>where to invde when. I regard this as a strength of the game that makes it >>different from most other western front games, but this also means that >>very few games look very much like history. I really miss being able to >>fight out the invasion of Normandie. I mean the REAL invasion, with all the >>right units in the right places. > >Play the 1944 scenario! Sorry, that won't help. Since the setups are more or less free, the game starts several turns before the invasion and I'm free to invade with whatever I want, the chance that the gameboard will look like history in JUN I 1944 is minimal. And I can't try to recreate it with anything less than researching and designing a Jun I 1944 historical setup and invasion scenario. A thing that is beyond my competence. Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 16:34:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10716; Tue, 16 Apr 96 16:34:39 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA20601 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:33:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA05967 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:25:27 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:33:23 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: GE/SF: Free or following history. Status: O Content-Length: 1693 >>>...I really miss being able to >>>fight out the invasion of Normandie. I mean the REAL invasion, with all the >>>right units in the right places. >> >>Play the 1944 scenario! (The 1944 ETO scenario, if you don't care about Italy.) > >Sorry, that won't help. Since the setups are more or less free, the game >starts several turns before the invasion and I'm free to invade with >whatever I want, the chance that the gameboard will look like history in >JUN I 1944 is minimal. And I can't try to recreate it with anything less >than researching and designing a Jun I 1944 historical setup and invasion >scenario. A thing that is beyond my competence. If you're really interesting in it, it's not that hard for division level, and just spread out the non-divisional unit proportionally to the division deployments: First, just run the reinforcements for Apr I and May I 44 to get your Jun I 44 forces. Then, go to a good local library and grab a military atlas of the war. Any good one will give you the German divisional deployments in the west for early June 1944. (English-language atlases that do this include Young's Atlas of the Second World War, Esposito's The West Point Atlas of American War (vol. II), or Griess's Atlas for the Second World War, Europe and the Mediterranean volume. If you don't have access to an atlas, maybe someone on the mailing list can send you a photocopy of the appropriate page.) Use the atlas, eyeball the map, and set up the divisions as indicated. Finally, another page in the atlas will show the Allied forces which made the Normandy landings, so you'll have those, too. With perhaps 30-60 minutes of work, you'll have a division-level D-Day game. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 16:34:43 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10726; Tue, 16 Apr 96 16:34:42 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA20595 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:33:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA05960 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:25:15 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:33:12 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Gr. Europa reorganizations Status: O Content-Length: 240 >>>May we please have some details on FITE/SE update?... >> >>We will revise the maps, OBs, and rules.... > >Will counters be replaced if only their symbology has changed in more recent >games, e.g. police, border, security, etc. ? Yes. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 16:34:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10731; Tue, 16 Apr 96 16:34:43 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA20591 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:33:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA05957 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:25:05 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:33:04 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Last of the Independents Status: O Content-Length: 3839 >It would be nice to hear your current thoughts on just who those "historical >counterparts" are, too, since we've been having a running debate on it for a >couple of months now.... I hate to weigh in on everything (well, I don't even have the time to read all posts here in their entirety!), as many useful insights flow out the freewheeling discussions. Still, since you ask, here goes: First of all, no operational or strategic level commercial paper wargame that I know of successfully restricts the player's role to a single level of command. To do this, a clearly defined chain of command would have to exist, with either multiple players at each level, or a single player at one level with incredibly complex rules automating at all other levels (this latter possibility seems so impractical that I will not discuss it further). BUT, this is not a failing of wargames -- the vast majority do not try to simulate the chain of command accurately. First, the game becomes unplayable for the vast majorty of players (wanted: German side for FITE: a half dozen army group commander, a dozen or so army commanders, several dozen corps commanders; now for the Soviets...). Second, play becomes vastly uninteresting at the player level (with multiple players, corps commanders will each have about a dozen units, and they have to obey the orders of their army commanders!). Most wargames blur together several levels of the chain of command, so that a single player can meaningfully and enjoyably plan a campaign and execute it -- wargames concentrate their simulation focus on other factors that are more easily simulated in a game format. With the above in mind, you can view individual Europa games in the following fashion: The player is the supreme military commander for the theater(s) under his control. The high command has given him the mission of acheiving victory in his theater(s) and allows him a wide but not unbounded latitude to achieve that victory. (For example, in FOF, the German high command has given the German player the mission of defeating France and has given him the option of violating the neutrality of Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Switzerland in pursuit of that option -- historically, the Swiss option was not used. However, the high command has not given the player unbounded political latitude -- the German player cannot, for example, launch a surprise attack on Italy on May I 40, in the hopes of smashing through the unsuspecting Italians and perhaps driving into France via the Alps.) FITE/SE plays in many ways as if both the German and Soviet high commands assigned supreme military commanders to conduct the war on that front. Now, this supreme theater commander may or may not have an actual historical counterpart, but that isn't particularly signficant (unless you can prove that a theater which didn't have a supreme military commander running things couldn't possibly have had one -- good luck!). At the Grand Europa level, the menu is more of the same, at least at first. You'll start a GE scenario as the supreme military commander in charge of all the theaters, charged with the mission of winning the war and allowed a very wide latitude of what you can do, within basic historical considerations (e.g., a late war scenario would have Germany and the USSR at war, and thus no chance to form an alliance to take out Britain -- it is absolutely unbelievable that Germany and the USSR could ally in 1943 short of outer space aliens appearing and assaulting both countries -- and perhaps not even then). Now, these historical considerations won't be a straightjacket -- if you as the German player want to pursue a Med. strategy in 1941 (assuming France fell in 1940 but Britain didn't) instead of attacking the USSR, you'll be able to pressure or invade Spain and Turkey, etc. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 16:34:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA10718; Tue, 16 Apr 96 16:34:40 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA20584 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:33:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA05951; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:24:53 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:32:50 -0400 To: "James B. Byrne" , europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Commonwealth hero? Mais non! Status: O Content-Length: 702 >> 1939-45 Ireland declares neutrality in the war, and in its adherence to >> neutrality prohibits Britain from exercising its rights in Ireland, thus >> violating the treaty with Britain. The British government, sensibly, >> decides not to force the issue. > >In fact, the Conservative Government of Neville Chamberlain voluntarily >surrenders RN basing rights along with RAF landing rights in 1937 over the >vocal protests of one W. R. Churchill. The amended treaties of 1937 were >strictly adhered to by both parties dispite strong feelings on both sides >that Erie was morally in a questionable position regardless of its legal >rights. You are, of course, correct. Thanks for the information! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 16 18:59:47 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13400; Tue, 16 Apr 96 18:59:46 +0200 Received: from crash.cts.com (root@crash.cts.com [192.188.72.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA24973 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 18:58:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fhi by crash.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0u9E4l-00007tC; Tue, 16 Apr 96 09:57 PDT Received: from notes.san.fhi.com by fhboot1.san.fhi.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0u9Dul-0000i4C; Tue, 16 Apr 96 09:47 PDT Received: by notes.san.fhi.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA0564; Tue, 16 Apr 96 09:47:11 -0700 Message-Id: <9604161647.AA0564@notes.san.fhi.com> Received: from Forte with "Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP" id D5AD10D5C5CBF0988825630E00584F0F; Tue, 16 Apr 96 09:46:58 To: europa From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 16 Apr 96 9:45:33 PS Subject: WW I: (Misc.) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Status: O Content-Length: 2706 I was accidentally off the list for a few days last week so if someone has already posted on the following topics...sorry. Recently there have been a couple questions about the mechanics of the Great War series. Specifically gas and AEC came up as questions. Also questions on ratings have been brought up as well. Eric Pierce and Arthur Goodwin have forwarded me the draft rulebook for March To Victory and I will try to provide some answers based on this. Gas: Each player will recieve gas engineer units from the OB. To use these in combat, the player must roll on a success table. If you pass the roll, then there is a positive dm and possible column shift applied to combat. During the course of the war, new types of gas are recieved by each side. This allows new rolls and new modifiers. I have not read the rules in depth, but I believe they are geared toward giving initial modifiers for shock value and then as countermeasures are developed the benefits lessen. Tanks (and Armored Cars): They will generate some form of AEC based, again, on a roll on the success table. If they fail, not only is there no AEC, but there could be losses as well. This reflects the reality of emerging tank strategy combined with rather unreliable tanks. By the way, for the record, cavalry charges are resolved first on the success table as well...and woe unto you if you fail your roll with cavalry during WWI. Ratings: Same style as Europa, but different value generation. An active German division will usually be around 16-18-5 in value, while a French active division will be about 8-11-5. Air units will start weak and increase in power during the war. I'm sorry, but I don't know what the values for the Folkker Triplane and Sopwith Camel will be at this time. Additional commentary: This series will have a great deal of detail and chrome to it. The war is not just trenches and artillery. My personal favorite theater is the Middle East...and boy can this one move when the British get their act together in 1916-18. Read up on the Aussie 4th Lighthorse charge at Beersheba in Oct 1917. They charged with drawn...bayonets!!! The Turks had machineguns and artillery, but were so shocked by a horse charge that they shot wild and the Aussies swept over the trenchline. A great movie on this event is "The Lighthorsemen". In this series (especially the 2nd game: Over There) you will see such things as the first parachute units, aircraft carriers (not seaplane), anti ship glider bombs, and anti-tank attack aircraft. Pretty fascinating stuff! It is hoped to have March to Victory out by Origins. That's all Jay Steiger steigerj@notes.san.fhi.com From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 01:05:22 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17206; Wed, 17 Apr 96 01:05:21 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA07297 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 01:03:39 +0200 (MET DST) From: l.hanna@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA128934952; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 22:49:12 GMT Message-Id: <199604162249.AA128934952@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Tue, 16 Apr 96 22:49:12 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Tue, 16 Apr 96 22:47:58 UTC 0000) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 22:41:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: L.HANNA X-Genie-Qk-Id: 7580888 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 591041 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: unsubscribe Status: O Content-Length: 58 Please take my address OFF of your mailing list. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 01:11:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17256; Wed, 17 Apr 96 01:11:16 +0200 Received: from travel1.travel-net.com (root@travel1.travel-net.com [204.92.71.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA07403 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 01:10:57 +0200 (MET DST) From: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Received: from 204.92.71.2.travel-net.com (trc135.travel-net.com [205.150.57.135]) by travel1.travel-net.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA14602 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:23:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:23:07 -0400 Message-Id: <199604162323.TAA14602@travel1.travel-net.com> X-Sender: bradbury@mail.travel-net.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Port Capacity Status: O Content-Length: 1438 I agree with Alan 100% (and have excerpted and commented on some of his points). > Looking at the spring '44 Allied offensive in Italy: " Sir Brian >Robertson [Chief Administrative Officer] summed up some administrative >matters. He believed it was JUST possible to maintain a force of 28 >divisions, in view of the good performance of the the Naples group of >ports . . . I find it interesting the emphasis on the Naples group (i.e. those ports nearest the focal point of Diadem on the main front). Perhaps SF is too generous to the Allies where they are invading territory and unlikely to capture any significant amounts of rolling stock. The 10 RE threshold for rail capacity may be too low, or perhaps there should be some limit on the rail element for high-volume lines. Certainly there is a real world incentive to ship by sea as close as possible to the front to save on rolling stock, trucks and gasoline. > If we were to not worry about Bari, small ports not on the maps, or >small ports on the maps not listed in the source, we could decide that a >Major Port should be able to supply 60 REs. If so this set of ports >should supply 195 REs. That's fairly close to the 170 REs we estimate >are there. > > So perhaps 60 REs for a Major Port, rather than infinite, is a >reasonable number to use. Sixty sounds good to me (and by extenstion, 120 for a great port?). Nigel Bradbury Ottawa, Ontario From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 01:12:14 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17273; Wed, 17 Apr 96 01:12:13 +0200 Received: from travel1.travel-net.com (root@travel1.travel-net.com [204.92.71.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA07450 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 01:12:00 +0200 (MET DST) From: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Received: from 204.92.71.2.travel-net.com (trc135.travel-net.com [205.150.57.135]) by travel1.travel-net.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA14668 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:24:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:24:10 -0400 Message-Id: <199604162324.TAA14668@travel1.travel-net.com> X-Sender: bradbury@mail.travel-net.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Port Capacity Status: O Content-Length: 662 >> >>Gents: >> >> A while back we were talking about how bad it was to have infinite >>supply through a major port. Here's some data to work with. From: The >>Second World War United Kingdom History Series, The Mediterranean and >>Middle East, by CJC Molony, Vol VI, Part I: > [stuff] >>division." (my emphasis). Plus 12% for reserves + 10,500 tons for Italian >>civilians. Note supplies for civilians = more than the British OR the >>Americans were getting. > [stuff] >>Alan Conrad >> > > Can we starve the civilians? Just asking. > > Larry> Only if one is playing the German side? Nigel Bradbury Ottawa, Ontario From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 01:16:20 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17295; Wed, 17 Apr 96 01:16:19 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA07490 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 01:15:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.120.149] (ip-pdx03-21.teleport.com [206.163.120.149]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA10285; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604162315.QAA10285@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:21:47 -0700 To: j.broshot@genie.com From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Panzer reorg's (more) Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 4302 (I've cc'd this to the list, so you'll no doubt get 2 of them) JB, I've tried to take your information into account when devising my 1940/41 reorganization system for the German armoured forces- here's the wording I have so far: 1940/41 Reorganization Mechanism: In order to create more Pz XX, the tank component of each was weakened, leading coincidentally to a better-balanced unit. This reorganization is not optional- the F=FChrer has determined that Germany needs more armoured divisions to accomplish its objectives (whatever these may be). This reorganization must begin in January, 1941. The German player must reorganize as many panzer divisions as possible each turn until all are reorganized. Reorganizations take place within the initial phase. To effect this reorganization, a panzer division must be in a city (any size) and must be able to trace a line of supply to a regular source of supply. Substitute a new type panzer division counter for an old type counter. Strength points remaining are considered armour RPs and added to the armour RP pool for the district the conversion takes place. The pool of armour RPs created may be combined with either infantry RPs (according to the Axis Special RP costs chart) to build completely new panzer divisions. Alternatively, motorized infantry units may be combined with the armour RPs to build new panzer divisions. Stockpiled Arm and Inf RPs may always be utilized to flesh out these reorganized units. Examples: A 13-8-10 Pz XX, an 11-7-10 Pz XX, and a 5-10 Mot XX are in Rouen, France. The 13-8-10 converts to a 11-10 Pz XX, leaving 2 arm RP. The 11-7-10 reorganizes to a 9-10 Pz XX, leaving 2 Arm RPs. The 5-10 is composed of 2 Arm RPs and 3 Inf RPs. With the additional 3 Arm RPs, the Mot XX is converted to a 10-10 Pz XX with the expenditure of an additional Inf RP. Any cadres or eliminated units are always rebuilt to an upgraded strength. This organization will stay in effect for the remainder of the game/war. Unit changes past this point will be based on the introduction of improved AFVs and will be done at the option of the players. 1941-4x: 12-10 Pz XX 11-10 Px XX 10-10 Pz XX 9-10 Pz XX Contrary to fears that giving players choices will lead to a divisional "World In Flames", I think this addresses the underlying realities of the situation: It gives the players some "Hitler" functions, but also presents the player with one of the Fuhrer's "unshakeable convictions"- i.e., the panzer forces *must* be expanded. My philosophy is rooted in the desire to create Grand Europa that works as much as possible within the framework presented by the existing counters. Although I respect those who may be, I am not really interested in pursuing "what-ifs" that require the production of dozens or hundreds of additional counters. All in all, expanding their panzer forces the way they did was a good idea- they needed more to cover the spaces of Russia- but it might also be argued that even if not at war with the USSR, or no attack contemplated before the surrender of Britain, the danger of a Soviet attack always loomed and operations in the Med basin could only be helped by larger numbers of Pz divisions...(someone could always come up with a counter-argument, but for me, it's easier and more desirable to keep the reorganizations as historical as I can.) I can see the British will be a nightmare. The small number of British armoured units makes it desirable to track them as individually as possible. I'm still not certain what to do with France- some additional French counters-especially air units and armoured forces will probably need to be made up for the brief period in between the usefulness of the FoF units (1939-1941) and the SF units (1943-45) - I imagine that some improved Somua tanks would keep the French competitive- allowing them to build higher strength armoured formations. A change of armoured doctrine is also a tricky question-when and under what circumstances would they have decided to copy the Germans- or would they have done as the British and Soviets and continued to have independent tank formations supporting infantry along with their Armoured divisions? This will no doubt lead to further discussion on the list! SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 01:30:26 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17409; Wed, 17 Apr 96 01:30:24 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA07677 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 01:30:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.19] (gw1-019.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA05786 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:30:09 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:32:35 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Altitude Air Rules (long & techish) Cc: conrad alan b Status: O Content-Length: 4556 Alan wrote: (snip) >I would certainly suggest >that you lower your altitudes. The number of aircraft (planes not units) >that could actually fly above 35,000 ft was few. Before the strategic >war over Germany got going in late '43, very few flew above 28,000 ft. >I believe you would be better off with the following bands: > Low < 10,000 ft > Medium 10,000 - 20,000 ft > High > 20,000 ft Fine. So few will fly in the High band before 1943. I am not necessarily against your band suggestion, though, I just need more convincing. Maybe 0-12,000/12-24,000/24,000+ > In all the years of work I had done before, there was not a lot of >need to get optimal altitude per aircraft type. It was no so much the >optimal altitude for the aircraft as much as the normal altitude that the >doctrine of the missions/nations that counted. (snip) > I do not remember that many aircraft lost performance at lower >altitudes. Only that some (like the FW 190) lost a bit higher up. In >Europa, until a strategic bombing modual comes, we have little call >for much high altitude work. That's one of the reasons that I have not >seen the need to go into altitude considerations when many other air >system problems are in need of work. Yes and no. The reason the RAF produced more LF Spits than other variant from early 1943 on was because they mostly encountered the Luftwaffe at lower altitude when escorting ground support missions in North Africa. The RAF was dissatisfied with the Spit V F low altitude performance vs. the Fw.190A and so produced the LF variants to close the gap somewhat: which is to say, the hardware was altered to suit the doctrine. Unlike the USAAF, which was meeting the Luftwaffe in daylight at high altitude over Germany, the RAF was mostly meeting it down low in support Tac Air ops. >I do not remember that many aircraft lost performance at lower altitudes. >Only that some (like the FW 190) lost a bit higher up. In Europa, until a >strategic bombing module comes, we have little call for much high altitude >work. That's one of the reasons that I have not seen the need to go into >altitude considerations when many other air system problems are in need of >work. Yes and no, Alan. Whilst I would agree that for aircraft without high-blown engines the fall of at high altitude was much more marked that the fall off at low altitude for aircraft with low-blown engines (& I have adjusted my tentative house rules accordingly per your suggestion by reducing the down-side low down), here are the performance figures for a moderately loaded de Havilland Mosquito NF.II (figures for max sustainable speed at normal max revs with +9lb. boost) 1,000 ft 305 mph 3,000 ft 315 mph 6,000 ft 325 mph 8,000 ft 337 mph 10,000 ft 370 mph 19,000 ft 365 mph (at above this altitude, the F.S gear kicks in) 20,000 ft 372 mph 22,000 ft 385 mph 25,000 ft 377 mph 30,000 ft 357 mph As you can see, low altitude has a fairly dramatic effect on speed. The middle-band (between 10-25,000) is clearly where this aircraft has very good sustained performance. Low blown engines would have the effect of pumping up the lower altitudes at the expense of the higher ones, such as a Merlin 25 with a low-blower (a Mosquito FB.VI at typical 'fighter-intruder' load would do 362 mph at 6,000 ft. An NF.XIII or later FB.VI with later Merlin 25s with improved low blowers could do 379 mph at 6,000 ft). On the other hand, the high altitude optimised Mosquito NF.30 (with an impressive max speed at 26,000 ft of 424 mph) could only do 355 mph at 6,000 ft. It had high-blown engines and is usually described as the best piston engined nightfighter of WWII. Yet down low, the less imposing NF.XIX and FB.VI were actually better (which is why the NF.XIX was kept in service for 'down-and-dirty' low level intruder work whilst the NF.30 prowled the night sky amongst the bomber streams, picking off German nightfighters who had made it up). In a similar vein, whilst an NF.30 was no sitting duck for a Fw.190A down low (it could still out-run it), forcing such a fight was definitely asking for trouble. Yet woe betide the Fw.190A 'Mosquitojager' nightfighter who, hunting for Mosquito bomber pathfinders, instead encountered a Mosquito NF.30 at 25,000 ft. Altitude really can matter a great deal! Thanks for your reply, I value your input. Due to your and other suggestions, I have already made *many* changes to my tentative house rules. Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 01:40:20 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17489; Wed, 17 Apr 96 01:40:18 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA07809 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 01:40:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.19] (gw1-019.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA06713 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:39:59 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:42:28 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Fighter Ceilings Cc: "Arius V Kaufmann" Status: O Content-Length: 527 Arius wrote: >The FW 190 is actually considered a high-altitude >fighter, with a top speed of 453 @ 37,000. We are not talking about the same Fw. I was referring to the Fw.190-A, which was most certainly not a high altitude fighter: whereas you are talking about certain later flavours of Folke-Wulf (Fw.190-D I assume, I do not have my books to hand) >What this world needs is a good five-dollar plasma weapon. Well...yeah. I'm a great supporter in the right to keep and bear Plasma Weapons! Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 01:45:05 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17520; Wed, 17 Apr 96 01:45:03 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA07867 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 01:44:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-5-7.ots.utexas.edu (slip-5-7.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.204.71]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA16923 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 18:34:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 18:34:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199604162334.SAA16923@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: FITE/SE: Update (was: Re: Gr. Europa reorganizations) Status: O Content-Length: 3543 Elias, It may not be clear, but the first and third paragraphs were by different posters. I posted the third because, like you, I had never heard of this update until I saw the first post and it's replies. (I don't remember who posted the first paragraph. I believe the second was John's reply.) So I only asked about the symbols because of what the two preceding posts had said. Though I was very much against revising the maps and symbols for SF, obsoleting my entire collection in the process, now that it is a done deal I would just as soon have everything else reissued in the same format. Since FE/SE "only" needs new maps, new counters, and revised rules and charts, I don't see much reason not to reissue the entire game! (Actually, for purposes of Europa we can take charts and most of the rules from other games, and most of the FE/SE counters are still suitable, so those who have FE/SE might get by with an upgrade kit. But the demands of marketing the product may require that it be complete, so that potential buyers won't have to shell out for FE/SE even knowing that most of the components are already outdated.) But I *do* hope they bring *all*the*games* up to a common standard before they start a "Special Edition ++" series in yet another format. No more half-complete series, please! I hope they can resist the temptation for innovations that will make the Collectors' Editions obsolete: rules changes are no problem, but an endless spiral of revised maps and counters is undesirable. (After we have some semblance of Europa in our hands, another round of upgrades is fine, maybe even desirable. But *please* provide us with a complete, compatible set sometime before we all die!) - Bobby. >>>>May we please have some details on FITE/SE update? How extensive >>>>will it be (I hope no new counters!) and what the timing will be? >>>>Thank you. >>> >>>We will revise the maps, OBs, and rules; going through everything from top >>>to bottom. Alas, some new counters will be required, although I believe the >>>vast majority of them will remain the same. I hope to start on this project >>>in the autumn of this year. Given my work schedule, I see little chance of >>>producing any material for this before then. >> >>Will counters be replaced if only their symbology has changed in more recent >>games, e.g. police, border, security, etc. ? > >I don't understand what this thread is about. Are you talking about the >collectors edition FITE/SE or some kind of other reprint I've never heard >of? > >If the former, I certainly hope there will be new counters! As I understand >things, Soviet 1941 armour and cavalry is greatly overrated. And there will >probably not be a single air counter that has the same rating and >designation. And of course, the lettered SEC and POL units will disappear. >I'd guess at least 30% of the counters will be new. > >And what would be the point of not having any new counters anyway? Do you >hope to not have to cut out the counters? If that priority is more >important to you than having the game done right with all errors fixed, >then might I suggest that you play the game with the new maps and rules, >and the old counters and OBs. > >Contrary to the original poster, I hope the update will be as extensive as >possible, or else I see no point in buying another FITE/SE. I'm not really >worried that it won't be, I just can't understand the standpoints of the >original poster. > >Mvh Elias Nordling >o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 02:06:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17715; Wed, 17 Apr 96 02:06:41 +0200 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com ([198.81.10.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA08139 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 02:05:19 +0200 (MET DST) From: Italorican@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11324; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:04:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:04:48 -0400 Message-Id: <960416200447_376788709@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: woloshyn@io.org, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Port Capacity Status: O Content-Length: 1202 In a message dated 96-04-16 03:06:39 EDT, woloshyn@io.org (Larry Woloshyn) writes: > >At 11:26 PM 4/15/96 -0500, conrad alan b wrote: >> >>Gents: >> >> A while back we were talking about how bad it was to have infinite >>supply through a major port. Here's some data to work with. From: The >>Second World War United Kingdom History Series, The Mediterranean and >>Middle East, by CJC Molony, Vol VI, Part I: > [stuff] >>division." (my emphasis). Plus 12% for reserves + 10,500 tons for Italian >>civilians. Note supplies for civilians = more than the British OR the >>Americans were getting. > [stuff] >>Alan Conrad >> > > Can we starve the civilians? Just asking. > > Larry > > > not unless you want to factor the political repercussions into the game....e.g., anti-Allied Italian partisan action, perhaps; heavily increased requirements for security forces (remember that in general the Italians were supplying security forces in the zones taken by the Allies 1943-44, not the Allies). And perhaps the Badoglio goverment, as supine as it was at the time, would be looking for other alternatives than co-belligerancy with the Allies Antonio Lauria From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 02:20:53 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17833; Wed, 17 Apr 96 02:20:52 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA08424 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 02:20:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-5-7.ots.utexas.edu (slip-5-7.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.204.71]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA17538 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:11:44 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:11:44 -0500 Message-Id: <199604170011.TAA17538@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Panzer reorg's (more) Status: O Content-Length: 1579 Steve, Good post. >... This reorganization is not optional- the F=FChrer has determined that >Germany needs more armoured divisions to accomplish its objectives >(whatever these may be). It probably won't effect the surface form of your rule, but I understand that the reorganization was driven (only in part?) by the lessons of the French campaign, namely that the armored division needed more infantry to fulfill its intended role. That dash to the sea left some *very* long flanks to be covered, and the French counterattacks along the base of the penetration threatened serious consequences if successful. >1941-4x: >12-10 Pz XX >11-10 Px XX >10-10 Pz XX >9-10 Pz XX Are you matching unit ID, so that e.g. 2nd XX becomes 2nd XX again, with whatever strength the counters happen to provide? >My philosophy is rooted in the desire to create Grand Europa that works as >much as possible within the framework presented by the existing counters. >Although I respect those who may be, I am not really interested in pursuing >"what-ifs" that require the production of dozens or hundreds of additional >counters. I agree wholeheartedly. The more extended what-ifs should come as optional modules after a basic Europa is complete. (But some basic what-ifs may be unavoidable.) Also: Are you doing anything to represent the process that formed the Afrika divisions, or just simplifying things by tracking the strength points? (Notice that a 9-10 in the USSR breaks down differently than a 9-10 in the desert.) - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 03:37:06 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18301; Wed, 17 Apr 96 03:37:05 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA14437 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 03:36:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07736 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:28:13 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:36:11 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: WW I: (Misc.) Status: O Content-Length: 593 >Ratings: >Same style as Europa, but different value generation. An active German >division will usually be around 16-18-5 in value, while a French active >division will be about 8-11-5. Air units will start weak and increase in >power >during the war. I'm sorry, but I don't know what the values for the Folkker >Triplane and Sopwith Camel will be at this time. As I understand it, the ground unit combat ratings are triple those of Europa (otherwise too many units come out at 0, 1, or 2). Thus, divide by 3 to see their E rating: a 5-6-5 active German div, a 3-4-5 active French div. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 03:44:11 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18338; Wed, 17 Apr 96 03:44:10 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA14607 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 03:43:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id VAA15005; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:17:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:17:20 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Panzer reorg's (more) Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604162315.QAA10285@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 70 That looks like a good wording on handling the panzer re-orgs. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 03:48:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18357; Wed, 17 Apr 96 03:48:24 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA14696 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 03:48:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id VAA15021; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:21:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:21:30 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Altitude Air Rules (long & techish) Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 211 I still think that dividing the air bands in increments of 10,000 feet works best. The Mossie data quoted by you even supports this as there's a steep drop-off in speed between 25,000 and 30,000 feet. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 03:49:38 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18363; Wed, 17 Apr 96 03:49:37 +0200 Received: from zap.io.org (root@zap.io.org [198.133.36.81]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA14712 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 03:49:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from woloshyn@localhost) by zap.io.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00410; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:47:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:47:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Larry Woloshyn To: Italorican@aol.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Port Capacity In-Reply-To: <960416200447_376788709@emout04.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1198 On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 Italorican@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 96-04-16 03:06:39 EDT, woloshyn@io.org (Larry Woloshyn) > writes: > >At 11:26 PM 4/15/96 -0500, conrad alan b wrote: > >>Gents: > >> A while back we were talking about how bad it was to have infinite > >>supply through a major port. Here's some data to work with. From: The > > Can we starve the civilians? Just asking. > > Larry > not unless you want to factor the political repercussions into the > game....e.g., anti-Allied Italian partisan action, perhaps; heavily > increased requirements for security forces (remember that in general the > Italians were supplying security forces in the zones taken by the Allies > 1943-44, not the Allies). And perhaps the Badoglio goverment, as supine as > it was at the time, would be looking for other alternatives than > co-belligerancy with the Allies > > Antonio Lauria I assume that once the second wave is ashore the allies will have to start shipping some goodies for the local brass (whiskey, ciggies, nylons, Frank Sinatra records). Of course this line of thought leads to the whole messy question of local politics as Antonio points out. Larry From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 03:51:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18374; Wed, 17 Apr 96 03:51:18 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA14752 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 03:51:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id VAA15044; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:24:28 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:24:27 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: FITE/SE: Update (was: Re: Gr. Europa reorganizations) To: "Bobby D. Bryant" Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604162334.SAA16923@smtp.utexas.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 302 Personally I don't envision any major updates to any Collector's edition game until we get to GE which I regard, in one seense the chance to fix everything we know know is wrong. The first GE module should be packed with lots of revised OBs with whatever counters called for in the new OBs. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 03:54:08 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18391; Wed, 17 Apr 96 03:54:07 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA14791 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 03:53:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07758 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:45:43 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:53:39 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Hungry Italians and Cold Frenchmen Status: O Content-Length: 1112 >>>....Note supplies for civilians = more than the British OR the >>>Americans were getting. >> Can we starve the civilians? Just asking. >not unless you want to factor the political repercussions into the >game.... Well, maybe you can't starve the Italians, nor can you even let Parisians get cold! An interesting item I came across when working on SF is that the Allied high command wanted delay the liberation of Paris as long as possible! Seems they were concerned about the amount of shipping that would have to be tied up supplying Paris with coal (for heating -- autumn and winter were approaching), since it was unlikely sufficient French coalfields could be captured and put back into production soon enough to meet Paris's needs. Of course, units in the field, particularly French ones, raced to liberate Paris, so the Allies had to dirty up their merchants ships with coal after all. It makes you wonder how long the Allied Hi-C would have let the Germans hold onto Paris -- no doubt one of the great war books wasn't written because the Allies took the city too soon: Is Paris Freezing? From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 05:06:08 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18837; Wed, 17 Apr 96 05:06:07 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz ([192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA20707 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 05:03:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02295; Wed, 17 Apr 96 15:00:01 NZS Message-Id: <9604170300.AA02295@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:58 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Feeding civilians Status: O Content-Length: 3822 Funny as this talk of starving civilians may sound, it was a major problem for the Allied command during the war. One of the reasons Dwight D. Eisenhower was reluctant to liberate Paris was the vast civil affairs commitment he faced, in maintaining order in the French capital and feeding the city's population. His hand was forced by Henri Tanguy (Col. Rol), who led a Communist-backed revolt against the Nazi occupiers. That move in turn forced Charles De Gaulle to send his loyalists into the fray, and, without orders or support from Ike, send the 2nd French Armored Division's tanks, under General Jacques LeClerc, north into Paris. The revolt forced the hand of another general officer, Generalmajor Dietrich Von Choltitz, Nazi commander of Gross Paris. Choltitz had been specifically ordered to destroy Paris in case of Allied attack or revolt, but the German disliked having to make major decisions, and was afraid of the consequences of burning the great city. He sent a message to the Allies through the Swedish consul-general, Raoul Nordling (and his brother, Rolf), that if the Allies marched on Paris, he would, after a short fight to preserve his soldier's honor, surrender the city intact. Nordling took that message to Patton and Bradley, who confirmed the order sending in 2nd Armored, and adding the US 4th Infantry Division, veterans of Utah Beach, into the assault as well. The battle for Paris was brief but bloody, as Choltitz's strongpoints did their job of slowing down LeClerc's M-4 Shermans. But LeClerc's tanks were superior to most of the German tanks (captured Third Republic R-39s), and Choltitz simply waited for the attackers at his table in the Hotel Meurice. Choltitz's captor was Lt. Henri Karcher, who had been told by his pro-Vichy father, a Paris resident and former general, that Henri would make a terrible officer. After Karcher took Choltitz into custody, he phoned his father. "I present you my respects," Karcher said to his father. "Today I have captured a German general, his flag, and his staff." History does not record the father's answer. It does record that Eisenhower had to siphon off trucks, fuel, and food to feed the hungry Parisians -- many were reduced to micro-farming to survive thin German rations -- such that fuel and trucks were lacking when Patton and Montgomery's tanks finally hit the German border in September. Another major food commitment to civilians came from the Allies in The Netherlands in late Spring, 1945, when the 1st Canadian Army sliced through Arnhem and finally sprinted into Ostfriesland, cutting off "Fortress Holland," led by the sinister and cynical -- British Nuremberg prosecutors called him "the gentle Judas" -- Reichskomissar Artur Seyss-Inquart. The sinuous Seyss-Inquart, looking to preserve his own scalp, agreed to allow Allied food drops to the starving Dutch, and Lancaster bombers, pulled off raids on now-flattened Berlin, dropped loads of fresh fruit and bully beef on Dutch heaths and pastureland. When Germany finally collapsed, Seyss-Inquart and his top military man, General Johannes Blaskowitz, turned up to surrender to the 1st Canadian Army. Blaskowitz committed suicide in captivity. Seyss-Inquart survived to stand trial at Nuremberg, but his bestial record in Czechoslovakia and The Netherlands sent the limping Austrian lawyer to the hangman's noose. Maybe SF should require the Allies to supply Paris, perhaps with resource points. Source material includes Is Paris Burning? by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre as well as Nuremberg: A Personal Memoir by Airey Neave. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 05:10:00 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18870; Wed, 17 Apr 96 05:09:59 +0200 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA20797 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 05:09:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id XAA04833; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:09:13 -0400 Date: 16 Apr 96 23:07:53 EDT From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@CompuServe.COM> To: Europa LIst Subject: Re: Port Capacity Message-Id: <960417030752_74133.1765_BHR56-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 2122 Alan Conrad lists some port capacities: > Naples group: Naples, Salerno, Castlellammare & Torre Annunziata > avg Mar-Apr '44 - 520,000 tons/month > Heel ports: Taranto, Gallipoli, Brindisi, Monopoli, Barletta > avg Mar-Apr '44 - 315,000 tons/month > (note, Anzio is getting 120,000 tons/month with NO PORT) I have some notes from the same volume, plus several others, but don't have the books onhand. Bari is rated somewhere as 6000 tons/day. Taranto was used almost exclusively as a naval base. And the figure I saw (maybe for a different time period in '44) was only 2800 tons/day for the civilians (maybe they were being starved after all). I also noted a figure of 32,180/day needed in March '44 for 22 divs plus the air forces. I'll get the specific references in the next week or so, if anyone is interested. Anyway, in game terms: Leaving Anzio aside (supplied over the beach), and disregarding Taranto and the toe (the latter is probably where the civilians were getting their imports), if according to pre-SF Europa a port nandling supply to otherwise isolated units provides supply for 4 REs per RE of capacity (including what we would consider an average amount of combat supply), consider the ratings of the following ports on rail lines in Italy: Major: Naples, Bari (2 x 12 REs capacity x 4 = 96) Standard: Brindisi (6 REs cap x 4 = 24) Minor: Salerno, Molfetta, Barletta (3 x 3 REs cap x 4 = 36) That's supply for 156 REs, not counting anything off-rail, or from Taranto or the toe. I count 155 REs in Italy (excluding Anzio) in April '44. > we could decide that a Major Port should be able to supply 60 REs. If so this set > of ports should supply 195 REs. That's fairly close to the 170 REs we estimate > are there. > So perhaps 60 REs for a Major Port, rather than infinite, is a > reasonable number to use. If you want a simple supply rule, abstracting from combat supply, from the diversion of capacity for disembarking troops, naval, air force and civilian needs, etc., it looks to me like 48 REs (4 per RE of capacity) for a major port is still the best rule of thumb. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 06:22:53 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA19256; Wed, 17 Apr 96 06:22:52 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA21548 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:22:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.124.215] (ip-pdx20-23.teleport.com [206.163.124.215]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA00459 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:22:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604170422.VAA00459@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:28:09 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Map problems? Status: O Content-Length: 670 I'd love to see the new East Front maps out as soon as possible, so I can play out the existing game with the new maps-which I love a lot more than the boring old ones with generic terrain and cities. Another map point- why does GRD have such a tough time with getting their maps to fit right? I tried putting the FtF maps together with the SF and BF maps and they just don't work at all. Everytime Europa tries a skewed hex map (diaganol-like the Near East maps) they just will not mesh properly with the others. Anywhere I can buy some big hex sheets the right size and just draw up my own Russia maps? SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 06:22:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA19263; Wed, 17 Apr 96 06:22:58 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA21553 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:22:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.124.215] (ip-pdx20-23.teleport.com [206.163.124.215]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA00500; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604170422.VAA00500@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:28:14 -0700 To: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: GE/SF: Free or following history. Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 534 >>Play the 1944 scenario! > >Sorry, that won't help. Since the setups are more or less free, the game >starts several turns before the invasion and I'm free to invade with >whatever I want, the chance that the gameboard will look like history in >JUN I 1944 is minimal. ... There's just so much info out on D-Day. Someone should design a D-Day scenario starting on I June 44 turn and let it run until Paris fell-I would imagine something like this will show up in TEM. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 06:33:58 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA19323; Wed, 17 Apr 96 06:33:57 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA21710 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:33:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA17096 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:33:28 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:33:27 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Port Cap II Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1817 Boy that stirred up some posts! Further info: from West Point Atlas of American Wars; 12-15-44 ETO supplies were Antwerp 16,600 tons/day LeHarve 5,400 Rouen 5,200 Cherbourg 6,700 Grandville 1,100 (just south of Cherbourg) Marseilles 18,000 Now if the Med data from yesterday's post is valid this would be enough to support about 66 division equivalents or 200 REs. At the moment I don't have an OB for what was in France at that date. But a resent SF game I do have data for. As of Jan I '45 we had 72 XXs (216 REs) plus 232 non-division REs in France, total 448 REs. Not that the Allied had neglected Italy. There were 41 XXs + 147 REs for a total of 270 REs down there also. Just using the ports that were indicated as being used by the Allies, and if we use 60 RE cap for a major, and 90 RE cap for a great port we would have only 315 REs of supply. A quick count of other port capacity available in game terms is about 440 REs. First, I think that SF lets players get to liberal with unit movement. In that SF game, everything and the kitchen sink was shipped to the front. So I do not presume that historically there were 400+ REs in France. And I'm sure there were not 270 REs in Italy. Even so if GE used the larger port limitations as presented there is still plenty of capacity to support the forces possible. But the Allies will have to grab them, which they usually would since they are Victory Points. But they will have to fix them also. Secondly, however the actual tonnage figures given would be way short of what's needed to support what was there. I'm sure there was more than 200 REs in France by that date. So more thought and work is needed. Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 06:49:17 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA19423; Wed, 17 Apr 96 06:49:16 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA21895 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 06:49:02 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA249655675; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 04:34:36 GMT Message-Id: <199604170434.AA249655675@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Wed, 17 Apr 96 04:34:35 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Wed, 17 Apr 96 04:34:24 UTC 0000) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 04:28:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 4237162 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 184564 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Grand Europa reorganizations Status: O Content-Length: 2459 Thanks to all for the notes on my posting on the 1942 Panzer Division reorganizations. I will digest them and respond. To complete the list: in SE/FiE the 27th Panzer Division appears as a Sep I 42 addition to the German replacement pool, 1 x 14-10 Pz XX 27. In reality the 27th came about by splitting the 22nd Panzer Division and adding a few army troops, thus: Oct I 42 convert 1 x 12-10 Pz XX 27, 1 x 5-3-8 Art III 677, 1 x 1-10 mot AT II 560 to: 2 x 6-8* Pz Cadre (14-10) 22, 27 (from the 22nd Panzer XX then with three panzer battalions, one panzer battalion, two panzergrenadier battalions were split off and combined with an army panzerjager battalion, an artillery regimental headquarters with one army artillery battalion to form "Kampfgruppe Micalek," the nucleus of the 27th Panzer Division). Neither division ever again reached full strength and were used up in the Stalingrad relief attempts, both were disbanded (in Europa terms, Feb I 43, remove 2 x 14-10 Pz XX 22, 27 from the replacement pool) and their remnants merged into other divisions. See Tessin, Volume 4; and DIE 22.PANZER-DIVISION, 25.PANZER- DIVISION, 27.PANZER-DIVISION UND DIE 233.RESERVE-PANZER-DIVISION, by Rolf Stoves (in English, a good title for this book would be: "Obscure Panzer Divisions of the German Army in WW2." Another German East Front reorganization. In FiE/SE, the Germans may begin reorganizing their infantry divisions as 1 x 5-7-6 Inf XX in Jul I 43. I assume that this representst the "Division neuer Art" with three regiments of two battalions each plus modified supporting troops. In reality this smaller organization began earlier in 1942. I have been using Tessin to prepare annotated German orders of battle for FiE/SE and SF. Of the 20 infantry divisions in the Army Group North OB as of Jun II 41, at least 11 were reduced to six (instead of nine) infantry battalions by the end of 1942 (this reorganization often included combining the reconnaissance unit and the anti-tank unit into a "Schnelle- Abteilung). Query: should Germans be prevented from rebuilding 8-6 and 7-6 infantry divisions after, say, Jul I 42, and can only (with some exceptions) rebuild cadres and divisions in the replacement pool as 5-7-6s? Query: how does this play in Grand Europa? Can the German player(s) be allowed to forgo the infamous Luftwaffe field divisions in order to keep his Army infantry divisions at their 1941 strength and TO levels? Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 17:01:46 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28925; Wed, 17 Apr 96 17:01:44 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA06822 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:09:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA08466 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:00:43 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:08:41 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Grand Europa reorganizations Status: O Content-Length: 504 Jmae Broshot wrote: >In reality the 27th came about by splitting the 22nd Panzer >Division and adding a few army troops, thus: >Oct I 42 >convert 1 x 12-10 Pz XX 27, 1 x 5-3-8 Art III 677, >1 x 1-10 mot AT II 560 to: 2 x 6-8* Pz Cadre (14-10) 22, 27 Note that you go from 18 attack strength to 12, which makes little sense in game terms. Perhaps a better way to handle the 27th is just to detach a panzer battalion from it, stack it with the 677th Art and 560th AT, and call the stack the 27th Pz! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 17:01:46 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28927; Wed, 17 Apr 96 17:01:44 +0200 Received: from mailgw.liu.se (mailgw.liu.se [130.236.1.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA07800 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:49:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ics.kth.se (server-mac.incosys.kth.se [130.237.44.195]) by mailgw.liu.se (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA16169 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:53:56 +0200 Received: from 130.237.44.150 by ics.kth.se with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.0); Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:49:31 +0200 Message-Id: <3175050B.9E1@ics.kth.se> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:49:47 +0200 From: Lars Johansson Reply-To: larsj@ics.kth.se Organization: KTH, Royal Institute of Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Test: Ignore me!! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 22 See, I told you...... From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 17:35:56 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA29540; Wed, 17 Apr 96 17:35:55 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA08908 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:34:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:05:08 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:05:52 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: j.broshot@genie.com, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re:Grand Europa reorganizations Status: O Content-Length: 1415 On 4/17/96, Jim Broshot asked: >Query: should Germans be prevented from rebuilding 8-6 and 7-6 infantry divisions after, say, Jul I 42, and can only (with some exceptions) rebuild cadres and divisions in the replacement pool as 5-7-6s? >Query: how does this play in Grand Europa? >Can the German player(s) be allowed to forgo the infamous Luftwaffe field divisions in order to keep his Army infantry divisions at their 1941 strength and TO levels? 1. The Germans kept certain 'premier' divisions at full strangth as long as possible, given the constraints. The general infantry reorganizations came about as a result [partially] of these manpower constraints. Why shouldn't the players be allowed to decide which are their own premier divisions and keep them at stronger levels, if they have the RPs? 2. The effects would be, IMO, that there could be a different complexion to some force levels, at some times. In the overall context of GE, though, I can't see that it really matters. If the forces are in one place, they can't be somewhere else. 3. As noted in earlier posts, the creation of the LW field divs were primarily a political, not military decision. Without a comprehensive political subsystem, including provision for the negation of Goring's influence, the CREATION of the LW divs should be out of the hands of the players. As far as the disbanding of same, that's probably another story. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 18:20:08 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00337; Wed, 17 Apr 96 18:20:07 +0200 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA10028 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:18:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: Italorican@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08550; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:17:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:17:31 -0400 Message-Id: <960417121730_274149411@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: woloshyn@io.org Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Port Capacity Status: O Content-Length: 453 In a message dated 96-04-16 21:50:50 EDT, woloshyn@io.org (Larry Woloshyn) writes: >a > > I assume that once the second wave is ashore the allies will have >to start shipping some goodies for the local brass (whiskey, ciggies, >nylons, Frank Sinatra records). Of course this line of thought leads to >the whole messy question of local politics as Antonio points out. > > Hell, the U.S. shipped in Mafiosi, to help them run Siciily and even Naples From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 18:20:09 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00336; Wed, 17 Apr 96 18:20:07 +0200 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com ([198.81.10.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA10025 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:18:00 +0200 (MET DST) From: Italorican@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19930; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:17:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:17:22 -0400 Message-Id: <960417121720_274149305@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: jastell@crossover.com, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Hungry Italians and Cold Frenchmen Status: O Content-Length: 188 Nice post, John. Underlying this semi-levity is another indication of the way political factors are intervowen into europa at almost every level of decision and design. Antonio Lauria From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 18:27:23 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00445; Wed, 17 Apr 96 18:27:22 +0200 Received: from crash.cts.com (root@crash.cts.com [192.188.72.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA10260 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:26:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fhi by crash.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0u9a3v-00023OC; Wed, 17 Apr 96 09:26 PDT Received: from notes.san.fhi.com by fhboot1.san.fhi.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0u9ZmO-0000mpC; Wed, 17 Apr 96 09:08 PDT Received: by notes.san.fhi.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA0734; Wed, 17 Apr 96 09:08:13 -0700 Message-Id: <9604171608.AA0734@notes.san.fhi.com> Received: from Forte with "Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP" id D80133E7BAA8FF348825630F00566F84; Wed, 17 Apr 96 09:08:11 To: europa From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 17 Apr 96 9:03:09 PS Subject: WWI Units Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Status: O Content-Length: 502 Thanks John for clarification that units in the Great War system will generally be numerically rated at 3X their comparitive Europa strength to avoid excessive (and boring) use of 0 and 1 value units. This makes sense to me and will make a nicer looking and more interesting product. Per Eric Pierce, Winston is hoping for an Origins release for March to Victory and (maybe) The Damned Die Hard (Philippines '41) as well! Of course, all dates subject to change without notice... Jay Steiger From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 18:33:28 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00540; Wed, 17 Apr 96 18:33:27 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA10375 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:31:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.51] (gw1-051.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA20944 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:31:24 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:33:54 +0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Fighter Ceilings Cc: "Arius V Kaufmann" Status: O Content-Length: 1607 Arius wrote: >The FW 190 is actually considered a high-altitude fighter, with a top >speed of 453 @ 37,000. At which I seemed surprised and suggested he might mean some flavour of Fw.190D. He then wrote: >I'm referring to the FW 190 A-8. The A-5 only got to 34,400. Note >that these are max *Flying* ceilings, not effective dogfighting ceilings. >If the FW tried so much as a turn, it'd lose some 100-odd mph off its speed >at that altitude. I have very detailed altitude/performance stats for the Fw.190A-3 (the Boscombe Down tests in 1943) but only have rather more generalised ones pulled from various books for the Fw.190A-8. Nevertheless, the speed/altitude figures you give are considerably faster than the ones I have of the A-8 and, if correct, are almost certainly figures for emergency revs with over-boost injection (what was referred to as a '3 minute value'), which are somewhat less useful for judging overall performance (which is why I did not post the max boost figures for the Mosquito NF.II in my long and techish post the other night: they are misleading). I would be very grateful if Arius (or any one else) would either send me detailed alt/performance stats for the Fw.190A-8, or failing that, point me at a good source to find them: please save me a trip to the PRO in Kew! The stats I post are usually pulled off performance graphs which plot speed & rate of climb at a given weight against altitude. >What this world needs is a good five-dollar plasma weapon. But failing that, I will settle for my SIG-226 & a nice clean copy of 'Descent' ;-) Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 18:52:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00757; Wed, 17 Apr 96 18:52:24 +0200 Received: from ns.corona.navy.mil (ns.corona.navy.mil [137.67.32.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA10891 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:51:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ccgate.corona.navy.mil (ccgate.corona.navy.mil [137.67.40.4]) by ns.corona.navy.mil (8.7.5/1.4) with SMTP id JAA01115 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ccMail by ccgate.corona.navy.mil (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 175220c0; Wed, 17 Apr 96 09:53:32 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:48:34 -0700 Message-Id: <175220c0@ccgate.corona.navy.mil> From: renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil (Renaud.Gary) Subject: GE reorganizations To: europa@lysator.liu.se Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Status: O Content-Length: 2526 Ray, "Why shouldn't the players be allowed to decide which are their own premier divisions and keep them at stronger levels, " Why not? Conversely, why not allow them to go ahead and start converting them to the 6+ btn formation early? Or for that matter, why not allow them to "unconvert" units if they are REALLY flush with RPs? The counters are already there, the rules are pretty simple. The real-life situation was they did it to conserve manpower (RPs). I suppose we can have a rule that says "if you have more than XXX cadres on the map and no RPs for them, you can start converting." I'd much rather see the rules say that you can do it at any time. Since the early war Germans need their infantry to attack (at least through early Barbarossa), I can't see too many players doing this until the first winter. "In the overall context of GE, though, I can't see that it really matters. " This was a decision based on military criteria, so I can't see why the players would NOT be allowed to make it. "...the CREATION of the LW divs should be out of the hands of the players. As far as the disbanding of same, that's probably another story." If the GE rules came out with this, I would have no problems at all. OTOP, I still think there might be a way to allow for the LW units without forcing the players. Was the ONLY justification for the LW ground forces Goring's reluctance to lose power? (That's not rhetorical; I really don't know.) Maybe the LW formed the units more quickly than the army could have trained them and formed them into units? Maybe if you need some extra units RIGHT NOW you can get the LW divisions, rather than waiting for them to go through the Army training facilities. Maybe the training divisions had their hands full already? *I* certainly don't know, but maybe there's a plausible reason why this would happen. I don't have anywhere near the Europa experience (<10 years) or research abilities of y'all, but I can come up with dumb ideas with the best of them. A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114 a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1 than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__ W: 909-273-5378 block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--' H: 714-750-9243 `-----''(_/--' `-'\_) DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge UNIX is the Eunuch's OS I CAN'T speak for this administration; I don't lie enough. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 20:40:38 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02188; Wed, 17 Apr 96 20:40:37 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA23706 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 20:39:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA09168 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 13:30:43 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:38:47 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: GE reorganizations (5-7-6 Inf XX) Status: O Content-Length: 2434 >"Why shouldn't the players be allowed to decide which are their own >premier divisions and keep them at stronger levels, " > >Why not? Conversely, why not allow them to go ahead and start >converting them to the 6+ btn formation early? Or for that matter, why >not allow them to "unconvert" units if they are REALLY flush with RPs... There's been a lot of discussion about the mid-war German inf div reorganizations, so here's why it works the way it does in SE: The 5-7-6 Inf XX does not just represent a 6 inf battalion divisional organization, which depleted 9 inf btl divs began adopting in the USSR in 1941-42. Such a division at 6 inf btls would likely rate out as 6-6 and 5-6 in 1941-42, not 5-7-6. (This partly ignores the great amounts of captured Soviet weapons,from MGs to artillery, that the German divs usually and secretly kept on hand -- despite High Command orders to the contrary. You could argue that these weapons boost the defense a bit, so that 6-7-6 and 5-6-6 might be justified. Since the divs tried to keep these weapons "off the books" -- else somebody from the rear would show up to take them away -- it is extremely hard to determine from the records how significant these weapons were to the units in the east.) The 5-7-6 div has two signficant differences from a 9 inf btl div operating at 6 btls: 1) The divisional recon btl was converted into a "fusilier" btl. This new type of btl retained retained some recon elements and recon functions, but the fusiliers were intended for use as a back-up inf btl, and they were indeed used that way. Thus, the 5-7-6 div has the equivalent of almost 7 inf btls, and not just 6. (There were precursors to the fusilier btl in 1942, but the development of the fsl btl and the standardization of its missions was a significant development.) 2) By 1943, German weapons tended to be better than those of 1941, and the Germans handed them out to their inf divs in greater quantities than before. Thus, the Germans were substituting firepower for manpower on a massive scale -- by 1944 a full strength div has more firepower (with fewer men) than a US div. Before 1943, the Germans would be hard pressed to do this subsitution of firepower for manpower on a widespread basis, as it seems German industry wasn't geared up enough for weapons production on this scale. Thus, with these factors in mind, SE allowed 5-7-6 inf div reorgs in 1943 but not before then. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 21:30:22 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02657; Wed, 17 Apr 96 21:30:21 +0200 Received: from mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (grunt.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA24520 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 21:30:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nbc.ksu.ksu.edu (danley@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.5]) by mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA06956 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:29:59 -0500 Received: by nbc.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12/1.34) id OAA06115; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:29:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:29:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark H Danley To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: WW I: (?politics?) In-Reply-To: <9604161647.AA0564@notes.san.fhi.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1539 DARE I broach this subject? All this preliminary information on the coming WWI series interests me, but oh boy are those designers in for some fun. We sure get into some lively debates about Europa political rules, and that gets me thinking. If you think modeling WWII politics in an operational level game system like Europa is tricky to say the least, you ain't seen nothin' till you've seen WWI politics, ESPECIALLY the Balkans... (all the complexity isn't just in pre-war machinations either - the outbreak of hostilities put Greece and Rumania for example in very difficult positions in 1914) But never fear, it can be done, with a little ingenuity. On this list we all rant an rave about our ideas for Europa politics from time to time, and the raving seems to modulate between fears that politics will become a distraction from the game's (operational military) focus and fears that GE will be straightjacketed and inaccurate when it comes to politics. But there IS reason for optimism. Look at our track record with Europa politics: When Torch came out, I don't recall a whole lot of complaints about the political rules, and there we were dealing with a campaign wherein political activity of CONSIDERABLE complexity impinged on military operations. And Europa dealt with it, simulated it, and got a decent operational level wargame. I look forward to GE and the WWI system politics - if nothing else, just too see how they deal with it. (and believe me, I'll likely be yapping about it.) Mark From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 21:31:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02663; Wed, 17 Apr 96 21:31:18 +0200 Received: from ns.corona.navy.mil (ns.corona.navy.mil [137.67.32.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA24547 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 21:31:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ccgate.corona.navy.mil (ccgate.corona.navy.mil [137.67.40.4]) by ns.corona.navy.mil (8.7.5/1.4) with SMTP id MAA02011 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ccMail by ccgate.corona.navy.mil (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 17547aa0; Wed, 17 Apr 96 12:34:02 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:20:03 -0700 Message-Id: <17547aa0@ccgate.corona.navy.mil> From: renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil (Renaud.Gary) Subject: Re[2]: GE reorganizations To: europa@lysator.liu.se Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Status: O Content-Length: 3134 "Of course, if you want really stupid rules, how about the UK Air ministry turning away 7000 trained pilots in the autumn of 1939 and sending them to the army or back to their civilian occupations. How about using 4000 a/c to train a total of 2500 pilots per year (1939-1941)? How about running your training establishment at 70% of capacity all through the Battle of Britian? How about maintaining the bomb crew training program all through the summer of 1940 without increasing the fighter pilot quota? What about refusing to permit four engined a/c to be diverted to Coastal Command because it would dilute the bommber offensive (1940 - 1941). I wonder who wrote the rules for that game?" That's a good point. I take it the UK player is going to have to be just as stupid as his historical counterpart? I seem to recall that the RAF also had a policy of only using trained pilots all the way up the hierarchy, so you had pilots doing staff work and commanding AA guns. Now, stupidity by stupidity: 1. Pilots->infantry. I'm guessing there was a shortage in the Army and they needed bodies quickly? Off the top of my head, I'd say that you'd be stuck with this historical decision. 2. Too many planes for the pilots. I can't see any reason for the player not to be allowed to take those planes and use them in the front line. 3. Training during BoB. I would have to say "tough." Up until June 1940, did anyone really expect Britain to stand alone against Germany? Up until that point, it would be very logical to conduct the percentage the way they did. Players, of course, KNOW that France will fall and can adjust things accordingly. I don't know, but I suspect that a straightjacket might be necessary here. With 20-20 hindsight, I would probably not have any strategic bombing AT ALL until 1943. I think Winnie would insist on SOME method of hitting at the Germans, no matter how weak and inefficient. Starting in July 1940, when the Brits realize the desperate situation they are in, well, it's really too late, then. If you start training a fighter pilot in July, when's the earliest he can actually fight and not be dogmeat? Probably well AFTER the battle has been decided. 4. Strategic Bombing vs. ASW. I suspect this is a political decisions, like the LW field divisions and "no Marines in Europe." It's also a question of whether the issue will even arise in GE, at least for a while. The gist seems to be that the first GE will just hook the games together, while later add-ons will deal with strategic and grand strategic stuff. Of course, I'm not the one designing the games... A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114 a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1 than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__ W: 909-273-5378 block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--' H: 714-750-9243 `-----''(_/--' `-'\_) DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge UNIX is the Eunuch's OS I CAN'T speak for this administration; I don't lie enough. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 22:14:45 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03117; Wed, 17 Apr 96 22:14:44 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA26011 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:13:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA11431 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:12:56 -0400 Message-Id: <199604172012.AA11431@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:12:56 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa Subject: Luftwaffe Field Divisions Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 16:04:00 EST Encoding: 79 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 3858 In any game of "Grand Europa" that ever gets off the ground there will need to be some sort of carrot and stick mechanisms for encouraging the German player to engage in the very bizzare manpower allocation practices of the Third Reich. The level of overstaffing of the Luftwaffe at all levels represents a real drain on the most technically adept portion of the limited German force pool. This might be represented by having a certain # of infantry RPs "locked up" in the Luftwaffe RP pool. I do not have the exact numbers to hand, but a figure of 80(!) inf RPs seems about right. These RPs are above the minimum # necessary to keep the aircraft serviced.(As an aside, perhaps we could formulate rules for manpower requirements for the europa scale air unit: perhaps 1 RP per 10 a/c counters). The german player must continue to feed this enormous labour pool, which is surplus to requirements. Perhaps 1inf RP (minimum) per month. The only units he can form from the surplus are : 1) LW Pos AA 2) Luftwaffe Field XX and inf/MG IIIs. Any number of these trashy units can be formed per turn, up to the limit of available Inf RPs. They go to full strength after perhaps 12 turns. 3) Para-Inf and Para XX. These units must be formed sequentially, in numerical order, using the same limitations on forming new Para IIIs as are already in place for replacing other airborne units. It should take at least 16 turns to go to full strength, and there should be a limit on the # that can be forminig at any one time. 4) Inf RP for the HG Panzer and Panzergrenadier XXs, and the combat mot AA IIIs. 5) There are no inherent LW Arm RPs or Arty RPs. So, as Axis player in a game of GE one will have dozens of potentially available inf RPs that are desperately needed by the Ostheer. BUT the army are a clique of "reactionary prussians" and Goering is Vice Furher, and will not let go of his "National Socialist" groundcrews. Solution: you can settle for immediate gratification and build piles of junk, as happened historically. Or you can bide your time and build up an elite light infantry force with limited airdrop capability. Both strategies are viable, historically and in game terms. In the pile of junk option, a division is a division; go garrison Norway and Greece and free up more OKH combat-worthy units for the East. This was the original proposal. Only in desperation did OKW send these paper divisions into action against the Soviets. In the tiny but perfectly formed Para-inf option, Goering has a pristine, elite force capable of serving as OKL's ground counterbalance to the OKW, OKH, SS and SA. This force also has tremendous strategic mobility, at least until air superiority is permanently lost to the allies. Goring does have to beg, bully or cajole OKW for his Art RPs and Arm RPs, thus allowing for some horse-trading as to what is built. This option would probably work best in the multi-player per side team effort setting. Any one player directing all aspects of the Nazi war effort is inherently unrealistic, anyway. If the LW runs out of manpower to build new units, it can hand over Luftwaffe Field XX in the replacement pool to OKH, as well as existing Field XX. For each such unit, it gains 0.5 inf RP. This represents the filching of the AA assets by the LW prior to handover. To those who complain that this is a "free" source of RPs, I would point out that the Army should be able to improve the combat-worthiness of these units with competent training, even without overhauling their TO&E. If the LW runs out of gas, more Inf RPs could be added to the pool as the # of operational a/c shrinks. Any comments? Someone else may have proposals for the even more stygian netherworld of the SS/SA/SD/HJ. Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh, Washington D.C. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 17 23:10:26 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03763; Wed, 17 Apr 96 23:10:25 +0200 Received: from naybob.ghq.com (naybob.ghq.com [204.73.247.161]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA27236 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 23:09:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from jwhite@localhost) by naybob.ghq.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) id QAA00782; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:09:11 -0500 From: Jeff White Message-Id: <199604172109.QAA00782@naybob.ghq.com> Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Field Divisions To: pjh3@mhg.edu (Haugh, Patrick J.) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:09:11 -0500 (CDT) Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604172012.AA11431@medlantic.mhg.edu> from "Haugh, Patrick J." at Apr 17, 96 04:04:00 pm Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 1859 Haugh, Patrick J. Said: > > > In any game of "Grand Europa" that ever gets off the ground there will > need to be some sort of carrot and stick mechanisms for encouraging the > German player to engage in the very bizzare manpower allocation practices of > the Third Reich. The level of overstaffing of the Luftwaffe at all levels > represents a real drain on the most technically adept portion of the limited > German force pool. This might be represented by having a certain # of > infantry RPs "locked up" in the Luftwaffe RP pool. I do not have the > exact numbers to hand, but a figure of 80(!) inf RPs seems about right. These > RPs are above the minimum # necessary to keep the aircraft serviced.(As an > aside, perhaps we could formulate rules for manpower requirements for the > europa scale air unit: perhaps 1 RP per 10 a/c counters). The german player > must continue to feed this enormous labour pool, which is surplus to > requirements. Perhaps 1inf RP (minimum) per month. The only units he can form > from the surplus are : > You're forgetting the easiest way to solve this problem. Since you're going to have a bunch of players on each side, you have on the German side, a Himmer, Hitler, Goering, and maybe a few other minor players. Each one of them gets "personal" VP's for getting the biggest empire within the empire. That way you could let normal meglomaniac players have their cake and eat it too. It might actually produce some really historical results.... ;) When you think about it, most grognards behave much like the some of the Nazi cronies. Mania for minutia, empire building, paranoia, rules lawyering, obsession with OB's, crazy plans, etc. Just a thought.... ;) -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY jwhite@ghq.com "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 00:10:35 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04495; Thu, 18 Apr 96 00:10:34 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA03791 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:09:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:32:51 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:34:30 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, pjh3@mhg.edu Subject: Re:Luftwaffe Field Divisions Status: O Content-Length: 166 Excellent post on dealing with LW manpower pool, Patrick! GE should also attempt to deal with OT/RAD/general bureaucracy overstaffing personnel issues as well. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 00:31:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04717; Thu, 18 Apr 96 00:31:40 +0200 Received: from crash.cts.com (root@crash.cts.com [192.188.72.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA04199 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:31:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fhi by crash.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0u9fkq-0002BmC; Wed, 17 Apr 96 15:31 PDT Received: from notes.san.fhi.com by fhboot1.san.fhi.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0u9fgE-0000nOC; Wed, 17 Apr 96 15:26 PDT Received: by notes.san.fhi.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA0788; Wed, 17 Apr 96 15:26:17 -0700 Message-Id: <9604172226.AA0788@notes.san.fhi.com> Received: from Forte with "Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP" id ED4D3DE82E6BDF4F8825630F0078A70B; Wed, 17 Apr 96 15:26:16 To: europa From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 17 Apr 96 15:26:07 PS Subject: Re: WW I: (?politics?) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Status: O Content-Length: 1559 Regarding Mark's commentary on WWI politics. Oh boy oh boy...you are not kidding when it comes to wartime politicking. No only do you have conflicting national interests, but on the Entente side, there is no, repeat, NO joint command until 1918. This is not WW II with SACEUR, this is Haig and Joffre getting together and discussing in general terms who wanted who to attack and when. Dicey stuff at best. There are also colonial rivalries and territorial payoffs to consider as well. There are plans for WWI linking rules under the possible names of End of an Age or End of an Era. These will (theoretically) allow play from 1912 (1st Balkan War) to 1923 (End of Russian Civil War) in Europe and the Middle East, with holding boxes for off map colonies. Pretty cool stuff, but it's still a long way off. By the way, here are some more GW tidbits for all fans out there. During cold weather, non Zepplin air units are 1/2'd in combat, Zepplins function normally. During warm weather, Zepplins are 1/2'd, but everyone else is normal. Reasons? It's awfully drafty in those old open cockpits...wind chill would begin to seriously impair pilot performance after a while. It's also much harder in warm air to get lift generated for Zepplins and other LTA craft. It's a physics thing, but its' true. Also 2 CRT's, one for standard combat, one for position (ie trench) combat. The major difference, no retreats for positional combat...more exchanges instead. Such is the bloody reality of static war. Jay Steiger San Diego, CA From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 00:44:29 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04817; Thu, 18 Apr 96 00:44:28 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA04504 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:44:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-61-15.ots.utexas.edu (slip-61-15.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.253.15]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA09397 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:37:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:37:57 -0500 Message-Id: <199604172237.RAA09397@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: GE reorganizations (5-7-6 Inf XX) Status: O Content-Length: 1006 John said: >2) By 1943, German weapons tended to be better than those of 1941, and the >Germans handed them out to their inf divs in greater quantities than >before. Thus, the Germans were substituting firepower for manpower on a >massive scale -- by 1944 a full strength div has more firepower (with fewer >men) than a US div. Before 1943, the Germans would be hard pressed to do >this subsitution of firepower for manpower on a widespread basis, as it >seems German industry wasn't geared up enough for weapons production on >this scale. I hear this expression a lot ("firepower for manpower"), but no-one is ever more specific. Somewhere I picked up the notion that it involves an early type of assault rifle. Is it mostly individual weapons, or does it include substantial improvements in the supporting arms? Can anyone provide a modest amount of detail? - Bobby. Also: Does the "42" in the famous MG-42 refer to the year it went into production? From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 00:54:11 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04876; Thu, 18 Apr 96 00:54:10 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA04802 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:53:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.124.67] (ip-pdx18-03.teleport.com [206.163.124.67]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA14781; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604172253.PAA14781@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 15:59:50 -0700 To: j.broshot@genie.com From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Grand Europa reorganizations Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 1176 >Abteilung). Query: should Germans be prevented from rebuilding >8-6 and 7-6 infantry divisions after, say, Jul I 42, and can >only (with some exceptions) rebuild cadres and divisions in >the replacement pool as 5-7-6s? Query: how does this play in >Grand Europa? I would argue not- if the Germans are doing well, they will want large, strong infantry units to spearhead attacks, &c... The reason for the 5-7-6/4-6-6 inf XX was, as I understand it, the need to cover more frontage on the defense with the same amount of men. I don't see why this need be mandatory, especially if the situation is singificantly different. If the German player is on the defensive, he will *want* those 5-7-6 XX as soon as he can start making them! So I don't see any need to force it. Can the German player(s) be allowed to forgo the >infamous Luftwaffe field divisions in order to keep his Army >infantry divisions at their 1941 strength and TO levels? In the project I'm working on, the Germans have to build them initially and then after a certain point can disband them. In any case, they will not be required to replace them. "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 01:06:52 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05011; Thu, 18 Apr 96 01:06:51 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA05033 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:06:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.124.67] (ip-pdx18-03.teleport.com [206.163.124.67]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA22070; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604172306.QAA22070@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:12:25 -0700 To: renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil (Renaud.Gary) From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Dummheiten Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 397 We should start collecting instances of gross stupidity, venality and corruption on the part various leaders of WW2 nations- then introduce them as random events. Just joking- I know from experience that players will produce enough of their own crass actions to make "Bomber" Harris, Goring, and General Fredendall look like wise men. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 01:12:20 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05075; Thu, 18 Apr 96 01:12:06 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA05113 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:11:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.124.67] (ip-pdx18-03.teleport.com [206.163.124.67]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA24664; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604172311.QAA24664@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:17:26 -0700 To: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Panzer reorg's (more) Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 3544 >Are you matching unit ID, so that e.g. 2nd XX becomes 2nd XX again, with >whatever strength the counters happen to provide? I'm still up in the air about that. In order to get the thing working, I think that only certain specific units (Hermann Goring, SS units, FHH, &c... will have to go through their various mutations using their own specific counters. I wanted to create the possibility that the Germans (for instance) might create one more armoured XX than historically. Simply using an extra Pz XX counter of the appropriate strength, ignoring the designator would solve the problem. I personally really love the personality of the units in Europa (even when playing the Soviets), so in playing my own GE game, I would most likely keep the Pz XXs using their own specific counters. When dealing with infantry divisions, though-forget it. I think that it's just up to whoever plays it- if the identities of the various British tank divisions are just fluff to someone (shock and horror!) then they can ignore it, but just as easily a player can track a favourite divisions through its career. I have the capability (graphic arts background and some good computer equipment) to create my own Panzer division counters anyway, so if I want to have a Maus battalion (5-3-6?) then I can just make one. >>My philosophy is rooted in the desire to create Grand Europa that works as >>much as possible within the framework presented by the existing counters. >>Although I respect those who may be, I am not really interested in pursuing >>"what-ifs" that require the production of dozens or hundreds of additional >>counters. > >I agree wholeheartedly. The more extended what-ifs should come as optional >modules after a basic Europa is complete. (But some basic what-ifs may be >unavoidable.) Someone had a really outstanding post a couple days ago about this- they just unleashed saying that people shouldn't continue to get so worked up thinking that some box called "Grand Europa" will appear on the shelf and that it might not be what you always wanted...the modular approach to the what ifs seems very popular! >Also: Are you doing anything to represent the process that formed the Afrika >divisions, or just simplifying things by tracking the strength points? >(Notice that a 9-10 in the USSR breaks down differently than a 9-10 in the >desert.) That's a good question. I want to create the framework within which the 21st Pz can be formed from the same units and in the same general way...even if it ends up on the edge of Kazakhstan instead of the Nile delta. My knowledge about some of these kinds of units is insufficiently precise, so I'm starting with an overview and then honing in on specifics like the elite units such as 90th Afrika or LSSAH (and if someone wants to tell me the top 4 or 5 SS units were not elite, then we can argue about that some other time...) At least good sources abound. I did France fairly quickly, then Belgium and the Netherlands. I am dreading Britain, but at least they didn't have the sheer mass of different divisions to deal with. I can be more specific. On Britain- some problems are bound to crop up: "What if..." The British are not kicked off the continent-what effect would a 2 year campaign in France and then Iberia have on the development of British armoured doctrine? any at all? It appears that the British didn't make any drastic doctrinal changes- they still had tank heavy divisions on 6 June 44 and beyond. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 01:24:20 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05168; Thu, 18 Apr 96 01:24:05 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA05398 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:23:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-37-9.ots.utexas.edu (slip-37-9.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.112.57]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA10072 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:11:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:11:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199604172311.SAA10072@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Field Divisions Status: O Content-Length: 2275 Patrick said: >2) Luftwaffe Field XX and inf/MG IIIs. Any number of these trashy units can >be formed per turn, up to the limit of available Inf RPs. They go to full >strength after perhaps 12 turns. > >3) Para-Inf and Para XX. These units must be formed sequentially, in >numerical order, using the same limitations on forming new Para IIIs as are >already in place for replacing other airborne units. It should take at least >16 turns to go to full strength, and there should be a limit on the # that >can be forminig at any one time. > >4) Inf RP for the HG Panzer and Panzergrenadier XXs, and the combat mot AA >IIIs. You don't have to twist my arm to make me rebuild *any* of these! (And when I have time to play SF I might become a convert to buying position AA out of the pool as well.) The mot AA IIs/IIIs are one of the best-valued RP purchases the game allows for. Compare buying a 1-10 or 2-10 motorized infantry unit out of the pool instead: same cost, except one RP must be armored rather than infantry, and you don't get the AA *and* AT capabilities that come with the LW unit. I have to restrain the temptation to clear *all* these out of the pool before replacing/rebuilding the badly needed Heer divisions! The parachute infantry XXs are also nice; even the "crummy" 5-7-8 is a better purchase than a 5-7-6 Heer infantry XX. The tougher ones are second only to the C/M XXs in their ability to counterattack or hold a key point in the line, and their 8-point movement rating increases their turn-by-turn flexibility by a lot. So long as the Axis player is able to maintain the strongest C/M fromations at full strength, the HG units are as good an RP value as any. Finally, the lowly 2-6 LW infantry divisions are the cheapest possible investment of RPs for the many necessary 3-RE garrisons. Buy one of these instead of a 3-5 security XX and you can spend that extra RP on the infantry that's doing the work at the front -- or on a LW AA II. (And the LW XX can run away faster than the Sec XX when that time comes, as it always does!) So long as we pay RPs for combat factors rather than for actual commitment of resources, it won't take any special rules to keep LW units in play. - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 01:28:51 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05231; Thu, 18 Apr 96 01:28:35 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA05440 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:28:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-30-9.ots.utexas.edu (slip-30-9.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.111.121]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA10286 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:23:38 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:23:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199604172323.SAA10286@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Grand Europa reorganizations Status: O Content-Length: 1022 >>Abteilung). Query: should Germans be prevented from rebuilding >>8-6 and 7-6 infantry divisions after, say, Jul I 42, and can >>only (with some exceptions) rebuild cadres and divisions in >>the replacement pool as 5-7-6s? Query: how does this play in >>Grand Europa? > >I would argue not- if the Germans are doing well, they will want large, >strong infantry units to spearhead attacks, &c... Of course, 9-bn XXs with late war firepower would probably turn out with ratings more nearly like the late-war parachute-infantry XXs rather than as 7-6/8-6s. Now for a question in the other direction: when the German player finds himself unable to maintain all those tough late-war C/M XXs, should he be allowed to downgrade them back to (say) 12-10s to show that they never get close to TOE strength? I know they were often built up to full strength for an offensive, and then ground down to a cadre (or worse), but didn't they usually hover somewhere in between? - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 05:09:10 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06349; Thu, 18 Apr 96 05:09:09 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA04313 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 05:07:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id WAA05157; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:40:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:40:18 -35900 From: Jason Long Sender: Jason Long Reply-To: Jason Long Subject: Re: Grand Europa reorganizations Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604170434.AA249655675@relay1.geis.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 430 Jim, Good info on the reorganization of 22nd and 27th Panzer Divs. I'd known that 27th was created from parts of 22nd, but hadn't realized the number of troops involved. Your idea of converting the 22nd into a pair cadres is interesting though I question the use of a 5-3-8 artillery unit since those were mostly equipped with 210mm or 170mm guns, not the 105mm and 150mm guns of a division-level artillery regiment. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 06:07:02 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06597; Thu, 18 Apr 96 06:07:01 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA04991 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 06:06:45 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA146029533; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 03:52:13 GMT Message-Id: <199604180352.AA146029533@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Thu, 18 Apr 96 03:52:13 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Thu, 18 Apr 96 03:49:15 UTC 0000) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 03:55:00 UTC 0000 To: zaius@teleport.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 4858312 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 615776 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Map problems? Status: O Content-Length: 519 Reply: Item #2444598 from ZAIUS@TELEPORT.COM@INET#on 96/04/17 at 00:28 > Anywhere I can buy some big hex sheets the right size and just draw up my > own Russia maps? In the past, I've gotten blank hex sheets from Avalon-Hill. They have a size are almost exactly the same as a standard Europa map (exact hex size and about one or two hexes too wide I think). This is what I used to draw my China maps on. I haven't bought the sheets for a couple of years though, so I don't know if they still stock them. -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 06:49:29 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06854; Thu, 18 Apr 96 06:49:28 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA10393 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 06:48:56 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA201552064; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 04:34:24 GMT Message-Id: <199604180434.AA201552064@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Thu, 18 Apr 96 04:34:24 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Thu, 18 Apr 96 04:34:03 UTC 0000) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 04:18:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 2660636 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 193379 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Another US hero from 1941 Status: O Content-Length: 406 Another American hero from the Philippines passed away last week. VAdm John D. Bulkeley, USN (Ret.), who did win the Medal of Honor as a PT boat commander in 1941-1942 serving in the Philippines. And he was fictionalized by Hollywood in the movie "They Were Expendable," as "Brickley." For Europa relevance, he later commanded the PT boat screen off Omaha Beach and at Cherbourg. Jim Broshot St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 06:49:36 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06859; Thu, 18 Apr 96 06:49:35 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA10386 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 06:48:54 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA201512062; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 04:34:22 GMT Message-Id: <199604180434.AA201512062@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Thu, 18 Apr 96 04:34:22 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Thu, 18 Apr 96 04:34:01 UTC 0000) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 04:42:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 1833843 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 193368 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Gr.Europa reorgs (27th Pz XX) Status: O Content-Length: 2159 As to my suggestions about the 27th Panzer Division, John Astell wrote: "Note that you go from 18 attack strength to 12, which makes little sense in game terms. Perhaps a better way to handle the 27th is just to detach a panzer battalion from it, stack it with the 677th Art and 560th AT, and call the stack the 27th Pz!" The bifurcation of a perfectly good panzer division into two weak panzer kampgruppen makes little sense but it really happened. One of things I like about Europa is that the player must deal with the idiocies of his nation's leaders (i.e., the much maligned Luftwaffe field divisions), and cannot form his own fantasy ideal of an army (like my son gets to do in Warhammer 40K). Jason Long wrote: "Good info on the reorganization of 22nd and 27th Panzer Divs. I'd known that 27th was created from parts of 22nd, but hadn't realized the number of troops involved. Your idea of converting the 22nd into a pair cadres is interesting though I question the use of a 5-3-8 artillery unit since those were mostly equipped with 210mm or 170mm guns, not the 105mm and 150mm guns of a division-level artillery regiment." Thanks Jason! In the case of the 27th Panzer Division, the army artillery battalion that was attached was II./Artillery-Regiment 51 with two batteries of 15cm howitzers and one battery of 10cm cannons. This gave the 27th two artillery battalions. After the disbandment of the division this unit resurfaced but as a light field artillery battalion in Italy. However, both the 677th Artillery Regimental HDQ and the 560th AT Bn both permanently disappeared from the German Army rolls after being used to form the 27th Panzer Division. The division also received an engineer battalion formed from Pionier-Bataillon 260, which was an army engineer unit assigned to 2nd Army (a 1 x 1-8 Eng II or 1 x 1-10 mot Eng II in Europa terms). I believe that one can assume that both the 22nd and 27th Panzer Divisions would have been brought to full strength if the disaster at Stalingrad had not occurred. This would give, in Europa terms, 2 x 14-10 Pz XX which could be available for upgrading later in the war. Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 09:28:33 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01800; Thu, 18 Apr 96 09:28:31 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA12619 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:28:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.57] (Lilla_Red_07 [130.237.155.57]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id JAA20150 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:27:54 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:27:55 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: WWI Units Status: O Content-Length: 394 >Per Eric Pierce, Winston is hoping for an Origins release for March to >Victory >and (maybe) The Damned Die Hard (Philippines '41) as well! Of course, all >dates subject to change without notice... And of course, nothing from GRD has ever been out on time ;-) Not that I mind. I can always use some time to play the other games and generate money. Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 09:35:02 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01947; Thu, 18 Apr 96 09:35:01 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA13041 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:34:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.120.43] (ip-pdx01-43.teleport.com [206.163.120.43]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA19379 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604180734.AAA19379@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:40:30 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: GE reorganizations & weapons Status: O Content-Length: 927 >I hear this expression a lot ("firepower for manpower"), but no-one is ever >more specific. Somewhere I picked up the notion that it involves an early >type of assault rifle. Is it mostly individual weapons, or does it include >substantial improvements in the supporting arms? Can anyone provide a modest >amount of detail? The outstanding MG-42, more and better mortars (5cm, 8cm, and copies of the Russian 12cm) more semi-automatic rifles (the Gew41 prob.- assault rifles didn't show up in significant numbers until 44 and later) Also, LATW weapons became plentiful. Artillery included large numbers of cheap and very potent rocket launchers. The way the soldiers were using these weapons probably had a lot to do with it also. I'm sure by the time I get this posted, there will be 5 or 6 better explanations and a few disputations, but this is my .02 centavos. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 09:37:34 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01975; Thu, 18 Apr 96 09:37:32 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA13868 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:37:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.57] (Lilla_Red_07 [130.237.155.57]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id JAA20258 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:36:56 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:36:56 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: WANTED: Errata for Africa =?iso-8859-1?Q?Oriental=E9?= Status: O Content-Length: 1738 I didn't get any response on this the first time I sent it. Is there REALLY no one out there that can help me, with all this talk of new maps for AO? I'd like to add that I can receive the errata by fax too, just mail me, and we'll arrange things. Or mail me and tell me which GRD address I should e-mail to to get the errata. I could always try and do it the old snail-mail way, by sending a SASE. But that is a real pain with foreign mail. As a matter of fact, I actually DID order the AO errata by snail-mail (with a self addressed envelope and international response coupons) once. It was several years ago. It still hasn't shown up. I consider it MIA. I bought a copy of Africa Oriental=E9 when it first came out, but I haven't really played it. I tried it once or twice, but I had trouble getting used to the scale, and felt bewildered in the weird strategical situation. Now I'm going to give it another try. I've heard that there's quite a lot of errata, however. Since I live in Sweden, ordering it is impractical and very slow. So I was wondering if anybody on this list could help me with it. The best thing would be if it existed electronically (Jason Long (or whoever administrates the GRD homepage), don't just put up errata for the new games please!) and someone sent it to me as an attachment. Or maybe someone in Sweden has the errata and could mail it to me. If not, then could someone write me a summary of the most important changes in the errata. Any changes in maps, OBs or unit ratings would be most important. Minor errors in rules references or wordings can be left out, I know the Europa rules well enough anyway. Thanks in advance for any help! Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 14:46:34 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06531; Thu, 18 Apr 96 14:46:32 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA03697 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:45:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA13639 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 07:36:44 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:44:44 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Grand Europa reorganizations Status: O Content-Length: 1203 >Now for a question in the other direction: when the German player finds >himself unable to maintain all those tough late-war C/M XXs, should he be >allowed to downgrade them back to (say) 12-10s to show that they never get >close to TOE strength? I know they were often built up to full strength for >an offensive, and then ground down to a cadre (or worse), but didn't they >usually hover somewhere in between? If you have a panzer corps with one division at full strength and one at cadre strength, there's seems to be little difference than have two divisions at intermediate strength -- no big deal. BTW, the "Panzer Division 45" organization the Germans came up with in 1945 does pare back the strength of the panzers, somewhat like you suggested above. Europa ignores this, as what the High Command had on paper concerning the organization of units in the spring of 1945 had little relationship to what the units in the field were like. Finally, the Pz Div 45 organization effectively turned a panzer corps into a strongish division-like unit rather than a real multi-divisional unit -- and you can already get this effect by stacking two or three c/m cadres and calling that a panzer corps! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 15:56:27 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA07636; Thu, 18 Apr 96 15:56:26 +0200 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA05311 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:55:35 +0200 (MET DST) From: Italorican@aol.com Received: by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28426; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:55:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:55:01 -0400 Message-Id: <960418095500_516682729@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: jastell@crossover.com, europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: SF TFs Status: O Content-Length: 365 In designing the assault on Crete scenario, Frank Watson mentioned that he did not know the rules or formulas used to estabish the strengths of TFs in the SF-type (SF, FTWBT) games. What exacly to they represent in terms of the ship type, gunnery, defensive etc strengths on the individual ship counters? Useful for designing one's own scenarios. Antonio Lauria From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 16:01:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA07743; Thu, 18 Apr 96 16:01:43 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA05441 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 16:01:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA13753 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:53:05 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:01:06 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: GE reorganizations (5-7-6 Inf XX) Status: O Content-Length: 1834 >I hear this expression a lot ("firepower for manpower"), but no-one is ever >more specific. Somewhere I picked up the notion that it involves an early >type of assault rifle. Is it mostly individual weapons, or does it include >substantial improvements in the supporting arms? Can anyone provide a modest >amount of detail? A MODEST amount of detail (since much more would require several trips to the library and many hours of work) is: "Continuous improvement" isn't something the Japanese or Hewlett Packard invented in the 1970s -- gradual improvements to existing items (whether they be physical like machines or intellectual like ideas) is a basic human activity, and the Germans were doing this (as well as everyone else) during the war to their war material. The late-war assault rifle was only a very minor part of this, although the addition of the mid-war "Machine Pistols" (SMGs), MP 38 and MP 40, helped a lot: "...to reduce the total strength of the division to 12,769 [formerly almost 17,200 when at full strength], the Germans mainly cut supply and administrative elements, not combat power. Though they reduced the rifle company...they increased the proportion of automatic weapons.... The increase in automatic weapons gave the German infantry division superior firepower over its American rival despite its having about 1,200 fewer combat infantrymen." (RussellF. Weigley, Eisenhower's Lieutenants) At all levels, the Germans were improving their weapons in a wide variety of factors during the war, such as reliability, lower weight, bigger calibers, higher rates of fire, better ammunition, etc. Not only were automatic weapons reaching the troops in greater numbers, but so were improved machineguns, antitank weapons, mortars, vehicles, etc., as well as new powerful weapons such as anti-tank rockets. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 16:01:56 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA07754; Thu, 18 Apr 96 16:01:55 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA05454 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 16:01:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA13761 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:53:28 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:01:27 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Grand Europa reorganizations Status: O Content-Length: 1203 >Now for a question in the other direction: when the German player finds >himself unable to maintain all those tough late-war C/M XXs, should he be >allowed to downgrade them back to (say) 12-10s to show that they never get >close to TOE strength? I know they were often built up to full strength for >an offensive, and then ground down to a cadre (or worse), but didn't they >usually hover somewhere in between? If you have a panzer corps with one division at full strength and one at cadre strength, there's seems to be little difference than have two divisions at intermediate strength -- no big deal. BTW, the "Panzer Division 45" organization the Germans came up with in 1945 does pare back the strength of the panzers, somewhat like you suggested above. Europa ignores this, as what the High Command had on paper concerning the organization of units in the spring of 1945 had little relationship to what the units in the field were like. Finally, the Pz Div 45 organization effectively turned a panzer corps into a strongish division-like unit rather than a real multi-divisional unit -- and you can already get this effect by stacking two or three c/m cadres and calling that a panzer corps! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 18 21:35:20 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12799; Thu, 18 Apr 96 21:35:19 +0200 Received: from homer19.u.washington.edu (attila@homer19.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.3]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA29183 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:32:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost by homer19.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.04/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA62774; Thu, 18 Apr 96 12:32:18 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:32:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "J. Nelson" To: Jay Steiger/Forte Cc: europa Subject: Re: WW I: (?politics?) In-Reply-To: <9604172226.AA0788@notes.san.fhi.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1659 Hi Jay! The GRD WW I series of games sounds grand! I look forward to purchasing them when they eventually surface. Please fill us in whenever possible with more details about the games. I, for one, am very curious about them. How is the naval stuff handled? TFs like in SF? How are U-Boats handled? Are there any rules to prevent an ahistorically speedy rollover of Turkey? < given that situations such as that encountered in the Dardenelles in 1915 are very hard to recreate in a game > I'm not necessarily talking about " idiot rules " as much as costs built into the system to prevent the players from being too rational. It seems like one of the great characteristics of WW I was the number of irrational decisions made at high levels of command on all sides. If you give game players the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and total operational/ strategic freedom, it seems then that situations/ dilemmas which ocurred historically will never be encountered in the game because no gamer in his right mind will make the same choices that the historical counterparts made. My hope is that there would be some kind of cost/ benefit built into the game for expeditions far from ( i.e., the Dardenelles ). The benefit would obviously be to knock Turkey out of the war early. The cost would be reduced shipping available for other projects, and/ or some kind of catastrophic loss rule which would require the expedition to be abandoned if a certain casualty threshold is met. OTOH, maybe players should just be required to be drunk while playing. ( Over the top, Ladsh! - W.C. Fields voice ) Just a thought. -John Nelson From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 00:22:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14609; Fri, 19 Apr 96 00:22:17 +0200 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA17586 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:21:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id SAA14003; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 18:20:34 -0400 Date: 18 Apr 96 18:18:44 EDT From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@CompuServe.COM> To: unknown Subject: stupidity Message-Id: <960418221844_100626.2267_BHL79-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 4707 >>"Of course, if you want really stupid rules, how about the UK Air ministry turning away 7000 trained pilots in the autumn of 1939 and sending them to the army or back to their civilian occupations. How about using 4000 a/c to train a total of 2500 pilots per year (1939-1941)? How about running your training establishment at 70% of capacity all through the Battle of Britian? How about maintaining the bomb crew training program all through the summer of 1940 without increasing the fighter pilot quota? What about refusing to permit four engined a/c to be diverted to Coastal Command because it would dilute the bommber offensive (1940 - 1941). I wonder who wrote the rules for that game?"<< >>That's a good point. I take it the UK player is going to have to be just as stupid as his historical counterpart? I seem to recall that the RAF also had a policy of only using trained pilots all the way up the hierarchy, so you had pilots doing staff work and commanding AA guns.<< snip >> Too many planes for the pilots. I can't see any reason for the player not to be allowed to take those planes and use them in the front line. << snip >> Training during BoB. I would have to say "tough." Up until June 1940, did anyone really expect Britain to stand alone against Germany?<< snip >> With 20-20 hindsight, I would probably not have any strategic bombing AT ALL until 1943. I think Winnie would insist on SOME method of hitting at the Germans, no matter how weak and inefficient.<< Extract of conversation in the war room (circa 1940-41) Present are Winston Churchill, Air Chief Marshal Portal and Admiral Pound Winston:" whats this about 7000 pilots, who are they, who trained them. ACM Portal:" I dont know I'll ask gary where he came by this. Winston: " Gary says you have 4000 training aircraft and pilots in the heirarchy and comanding AA guns cant we use them in the front line? ACM Portal:" Eh well most of them are Tiger Moths and Oxfords but maybe you have hit on a good idea here, we could send them up to fight the Luftwaffe they would be so surprised they would die laughing ( under his breath " the mans stupid"). As for the heirarchy, true most of us are pilots Winston but we got promoted to these jobs because we are pilots after all we have the experience to run a modern airforce, who were you thinking of replacing us with. Winston:" I dont know I'll ask gary. What about these AA guns? ACM Portal:" I dont know where Gary got that one from but the Army owns the AA guns and soldiers man them." Winston:" Ive heard that you're not training enough fighter pilots." ACM Portal:" Well we could do with more but there is a war on you know, fighter production is just keeping pace with losses, if we divert more fighters to the OTUs we cant keep up the front line strength, take your pick." Winston :" What about stopping training bomber crews would that help? ACM Portal :" Well most of them are air gunners,navigators, engineers etc but we have already taken some pilots from the bombers and converted them to fighters, but remember we need the bomber crews in case the Germans decide to invade." Winston: "Lets see now, Yep I've got it, the army can go and fight the Germans in France, Oh damn I forgot they left all their equipment in France already. Well we could send the fleet up the Rhine and... Admiral Pound: "nah thats stupid the fleet is busy fighting to keep the sea lanes open". Winston:"Wait a minute dont we have some bombers, great idea we can send them to bomb Berlin after all they are bombing us. ACM Portal:"But Winston, Gary says it will be weak and inefficient shouldnt we wait until 1943. Winston: " Dont be stupid, if we dont bomb now how will we learn what the right way to do it is, if we start now maybe we can invent navigation aids and blind bombing radar if we sit on our bums doing nothing we might as well surrender, besides which the people need to know we can strike back, and the rest of the world will know that although we lost the first battle we havnt lost the war, the occupied countries will know when they hear the engines of our aircraft that there is hope. By the way Portal, Gary asks if you can send all those four engined bombers over to Coastal Command" ACM Portal: " jeez Winston I've only got a few and they are still suffering from teething troubles besides which I dont have any suitable bombs or shallow setting depth charge fuses and our asv radar is still a bit dodgy, how about I bomb the yards where they make the damn U-boats instead and maybe those battlecruisers at Brest, will that do " Admiral Pound: " thats OK by me. Winston :" Time for tea or brandy and cigars" Alan Philson From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 00:22:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14611; Fri, 19 Apr 96 00:22:18 +0200 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA17557 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:21:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id SAA14021; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 18:20:39 -0400 Date: 18 Apr 96 18:19:00 EDT From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@CompuServe.COM> To: unknown Subject: crass stupidity Message-Id: <960418221900_100626.2267_BHL79-2@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 320 Steve wrote: >> I know from experience that players will produce enough of their own crass actions to make "Bomber" Harris, Goring, and General Fredendall look like wise men.<< Please explain why Bomber Harris was stupid. Perhaps your grasp of history is superior to mine. I await your informed answer. Alan Philson From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 01:46:09 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15454; Fri, 19 Apr 96 01:46:08 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz ([192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA25391 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 01:45:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08378; Fri, 19 Apr 96 11:41:42 NZS Message-Id: <9604182341.AA08378@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 11:40 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Bert Harris Status: O Content-Length: 2223 The press called him "Bomber," his pilots called him "Bert," but he signed his mail Sir Arthur Harris. In person he was a bluff man, determined to win publicity for Bomber Command, but the son of a Rhodesian farmer was filled with an ironwilled determination to avenge the destruction of London and Coventry. When Luftwaffe bombers savaged the City of London on Dec. 29, 1940, wrecking six Wren churches, a cool Harris looked out at the plumes of yellow fire, and said of the German attack, "Well, they are sowing the wind." He made Nazi Germany reap that whirlwind with massive assaults on the Ruhr, Hamburg, Berlin, Nuremberg, and ultimately, Dresden. Sometimes he succeeded...the raids on Hamburg tore out the guts of the city and its industry, and frightened Goebbels. Viewing the ruins, Albert Speer remarked that six such more attacks would force Germany to sue for peace. Sometimes Harris failed, losing more than a quarter of his bombers over Nuremberg, or utterly destroying Dresden, a city full of refugees. The world's greatest slaveholder, Alfried Krupp, knew Harris's name... Harris's bombers savaged Krupp's massive Essen factories nightly. By 1945, the Ruhr's factories were twisted ruins, offering superb defensive cover for last-ditch German paratroopers, but little else to aid Army Group B's defenses. When it was all over, Harris had retained the loyalty of his bomber crews who had heroically battled nightfighters and flak to deliver their bombs, such that they would demand and receive a statue in his honor, and the endless hatred of Germans whose families had been killed and homes destroyed by those same bombers. For his controversial role in the war, Harris never received a peerage, wihle Tedder, Dowding and Portal all did. But he outlasted all of them, dying in 1980 at his home in the unlikely-named Goring-on-Thames in London, unrepentant to the end. Whatever he was, and I'm not going to enter into judgment of the man until I have more books at hand (and they're at home), he was certainly not stupid. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 02:37:38 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15830; Fri, 19 Apr 96 02:37:37 +0200 Received: from travel1.travel-net.com (root@travel1.travel-net.com [204.92.71.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA26065 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 02:37:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Received: from 204.92.71.2.travel-net.com (trc135.travel-net.com [205.150.57.135]) by travel1.travel-net.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA02616 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 20:49:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 20:49:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199604190049.UAA02616@travel1.travel-net.com> X-Sender: bradbury@mail.travel-net.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: crass stupidity Status: O Content-Length: 3598 >Date: 18 Apr 96 18:19:00 EDT >From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@CompuServe.COM> >To: unknown >Subject: crass stupidity > >Steve wrote: >>> I know from experience that players will produce enough of >their own crass actions to make "Bomber" Harris, Goring, and General >Fredendall look like wise men.<< > >Please explain why Bomber Harris was stupid. Perhaps your grasp of history is >superior to mine. I await your informed answer. > >Alan Philson > At the risk of getting flamed, I'll add my $0.02 to this discussion. There is no doubt that Harris was a man who stuck to his principle that strategic bombing could win the war. As Alanbrooke noted in his diary entry of May 15, 1944 (the day of the St Paul's school meeting in London to review the plans for D-Day) "Bert Harris told us how well he might have won the war if it had not been for the handicap imposed by the existence of the two other Services." I believe the question is not how intelligent was Arthur Harris, but rather how much did the policies that he advocated with such single-minded dedication assist the Allies in winning the war. Gwynne Dyer, the Canadian historian summarized the point as follows. If the RAF had been able to produce a firestorm such as occurred in Hamburg and Dresden, the war would have been over in 6 months. But they couldn't (lack of technology, not lack of trying). The average single British bomber sortie with a 7 man crew produced a result of less than 3 dead Germans, and, after 14 missions, the crew itself would be dead or prisoners. German industrial military production continued to rise until late 1944. I believe it to be a very debatable point as to whether the results of the British strategic bombing campaign were commensurate with the resources expended. I think the results indicate that the American policy of concentrating on bottleneck industries such as ballbearings had as much effect, and at less damage to civilians (these days we have that wonderful euphemism "collateral damage"). Harris seemed unwilling to try the American approach, but rather stuck relentlessly to his area bombing policy. As early as August 1943 he wrote to Portal to say that it was his firm belief that they were on the verge of a final showdown in the bombing war and that given average weather and concentration on the main job, Germany would be finished by the end of 1943. I believe Harris can be also be criticized for his failures to be a "team-player" and support the policies established Roosevelt, Churchill and the Combined Chiefs of Staff. His committment to POINTBLANK was questionable and later in the war Portal acknowledged that he was unable to get Harris to confirm to Air Staff policy. By that point Harris may have felt that neither Churchill nor Portal would have the will-power to sack him (or at least they were not prepared to take the heat that surely would have followed) (Monty was in a somewhat comparable position) (in this regard, I admire Truman's resolve in dismissing MacArthur and taking all the crap that followed). One can argue that Churchill and the others got their "revenge" (if that is the appropriate word) after the war through Harris' conspicuous absence from the honours that were accorded to people such as Brooke, Portal, Cunningham, Alexander and Montgomery. Until the atomic bomb was developed, the theory that strategic bombing could bring a country to its knees could not be demonstrated in practice. Total air superiority can only go so far (Okinawa - 1945, Bosnia - 1995). Nigel Bradbury Ottawa, Ontario From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 03:06:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16010; Fri, 19 Apr 96 03:06:58 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA26368 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 03:06:27 +0200 (MET DST) From: m.royer3@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA159055112; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:51:52 GMT Message-Id: <199604190051.AA159055112@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 19 Apr 96 00:51:52 UTC 0000 ( from inet# ; Fri, 19 Apr 96 00:49:50 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 00:40:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: M.ROYER3 X-Genie-Qk-Id: 7514328 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 631950 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Sino-Japanese Playtest Status: O Content-Length: 2006 Sino-Japanese Conflict Playtest Japanese Dec I 37 Player Turn With frost weather holding in Central China, Japanese forces pushed out of Shanghai mauling low quality Chinese units which were left as a rear guard in the wake of the Chinese retreat. The thrust linked up Japanese forces of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force with units occupying the Hangchow region. The main elements of the Japanese Army in Central China are now facing Chinese defenders across Tayun Ho (Grand Canal). In Inner Mongolia and the far north of China winter weather has taken hold. With the general offensive stalled, the Japanese concentrated on garnering supplies and reorganizing their forces for a planned early spring offensive. Since the winter is short in much of China, a sustained offensive might be feasable as early as March. In an immediate sense, Japanese forces have completely surrounded the holdout city of Shihkiachung, making its capture imminent. Occupation of this city will complete the conquest of Hopei province. In Inner Mongolia, elements of the Kwantung Army inched up the remote Peiping-Suiyuan Railway towards Chinese positions near the rail terminous. However, lacking even general supply, the Japanese were unable to mount an attack against the Chinese forces. Chinese Dec I 37 Player Turn In a relatively nondescript turn, the Chinese continued to build up their defensive lines along the Tayun Ho in Central China and the Hwang Ho (Yellow River) in North China. The winter weather in the north hampered guerilla activity and little was accomplished in the way of sabotage. However, the Communist 115th division is again on the move leaving the Huai-pei base; its intentions remain unknown. Soviet VVS SB-2 pilots managed to score a hit on a Japanese airbase aborting the Ki-3 bomber unit stationed there. At this point the Chinese Air Force is completely destroyed. The only air units in play on the Chinese side are two Soviet "volunteer" units (an SB-2 and an I-152). -Mark R. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 04:19:38 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16524; Fri, 19 Apr 96 04:19:37 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA27369 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 04:19:01 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA252949466; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 02:04:26 GMT Message-Id: <199604190204.AA252949466@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 19 Apr 96 02:04:26 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Fri, 19 Apr 96 02:04:06 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 02:00:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 1244667 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 201012 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Gr.Europa reorgs (UK Arm XX) Status: O Content-Length: 2786 Very good posts on the complexities of the reorganization of the German Army in Grand Europa. ZAIUS@TELEPORT.COM (Steve) wrote earlier in the week: "I can see the British will be a nightmare. The small number of British armoured units makes it desirable to track them as individually as possible." Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil wrote later: "I take it the UK player is going to have to be just as stupid as his historical counterpart?" The complexities and idiocies of British reorganization in Grand Europa are probably worse than that of the Germans. David Hughes (under his email alias of M.Hughes) is better qualified to comment on this than I am (or Alan Philson). I would dearly like to track all of the British reorganizations but the Europa fathers have decided no. Example, why are the commando units of the Americans (the Rangers) and the Germans (the Brandenburgers etc.) given battalion counters while the British Commandos are given only brigade counters? Despite being the country that "invented" (so to speak) the tank, the United Kingdom pretty much ignored it during the prewar years, which meant that the British Army had but two incomplete armored divisions in Sep 1939, and not enough modern tanks to equip them After the debacle in France the British went crazy (so to speak) and formed (counting the original two) no less than 14 armored divisions: 1st Armored XX (the original "Mobile Division") 2nd Armored XX 6th Armored XX 7th Armored XX (the original "Mobile Division-Egypt") 8th Armored XX 9th Armored XX 10th Armored XX (originallly "1st Cavalry Division") 11th Armored XX 42nd Armored XX (an converted Territorial Army inf div) 79th Armored XX Guards Armored XX (these are included as a significant number of British Army units were incorporated in them) 31st Indian Armored XX 32nd Indian Armored XX 43rd Indian Armored XX Needless to say there were not enought tanks, trained personnel and cannon fodder go around. Of these divisions only 8 saw combat: 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, Guards, 79. Of these divisions (including those that saw combat) 8 were disbanded before the end of the war: 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 42, 32 Ind Arm 43 Ind Arm. Since two of the divisions were converted from the equivalent of two veteran infantry divisions, this meant that fewer infantry personnel were available. This does not even begin to take into account the "Army Tank Brigades" that were formed (or that were hived off from the armored divisions when the powers that be realized that an armored division with two brigades and six armored battalions was TOO big to control in action, something the Germans learned after France 1940). Jim Broshot, St. James MO (So many good posts here recently, I wish I had time to digest and respond to them all). From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 04:19:47 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16534; Fri, 19 Apr 96 04:19:46 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA27374 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 04:19:30 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA254049495; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 02:04:55 GMT Message-Id: <199604190204.AA254049495@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 19 Apr 96 02:04:55 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Fri, 19 Apr 96 02:04:20 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 02:02:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se, zaius@teleport.com X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 9076348 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 201101 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: 21st Panzer XX organizations Status: O Content-Length: 4452 On April 17th ZAIUS@TELEPORT.COM (Steve) wrote: ">Also: Are you doing anything to represent the process that formed the Afrika divisions, or just simplifying things by tracking the strength points? (Notice that a 9-10 in the USSR breaks down differently than a 9-10 in the desert.)< That's a good question. I want to create the framework within which the 21st Pz can be formed from the same units and in the same general way...even if it ends up on the edge of Kazakhstan instead of the Nile delta. My knowledge about some of these kinds of units is insufficiently precise, so I'm starting with an overview and then honing in on specifics like the elite units such as 90th Afrika..." Here (extracted from Tessin) is the 5th Light/21st Panzer Division organizational "history" (I apologize for using the German terms, I find them easier [?] to use)(Caveat: this is in pretty much minute detail and would have to be adapted into Europa terms): 5. leichte Division (Wehrkreis III) units: division-stab (formed 15 Jan 1941 from Stab 3. Panzer-Brigade) Panzer-Regiment 5 [I. 1, 2, 4; II. 5, 6, 8; 70 Panzer II, 80 Panzer III and Panzer IV] (attached from 3.Panzer-Division, 12 Feb 1941) Infanterie-Regiment Stab zbV 200 (formed 27 Jan 1941 in WKIII) Maschinen-Gewehr-Bataillon 2 [four companies, plus 6.(Pi.)/ from 2./Pz.Pi.Abt 33 and 5.(Pi.) from 2./Pz.Pi.Abt 39] Maschinen-Gewehr-Bataillon 8 [seven companies: 1.-3. MG-Schtz, 4. schw, 5. Krad-MG; 6. Pi., 7. Pz.Jg.] Aufklarungs-Abteilung (mot.) 3 [1.(Pz.Spah), 2.(Kradschtz), 3.(schw.), 4.(Bttr)] (attached from 3.Panzer-Division, 15 Jan 1941) I./Artillerie-Regiment 75 [4.-6. Batterie, twelve guns] (attached from 3.Panzer-Division) Panzer-Jager-Abteilung 39 (attached from 3.Panzer-Division, January 1941) Panzer-Jager-Abteilung 605 Fla-Bataillon 606 Pionier-Bataillon zbV 200 (formed 6 Mar 1941 as headquarters for 5.leichte Division) history: formed 18 Feb 1941 in WKII as blocking unit for Libya from elements of 3.Panzer-Division reorganized and redesignated 21.Panzer-Division, 1 Aug 1941 21. Panzer-Division 1 Aug 1941: formed in Africa by reorganization and redesignation of 5. Leichte-Division with: Panzer-Regiment 5 (I., II.) Schutzen-Regiment 104 (I., II.) Kradschutzen-Bataillon 15 Aufklarungs-Abteilung (mot.) 3 Panzerjager-Abteilung (mot.) 39 Artillerie-Regiment (mot.) 155 (I., II., III.) Pionier-Bataillon 200 Feldersatz-Bataillon 200 Panzer-Regiment 5 (I. 1-4, II. 5-8, reinforced to eight companies 15 Sep 1941) Schutzen-Regiment 104 Panzergrenadier-Regiment 104 (5 Jul 1942) I. 1-4, II. 5-8, III. 9-12, 13 (sIG), 14 (Pi.) 17 Jan 1942: original I./ captured at Halfaya Pass 17 Apr 1942: Maschinen-Gewehr-Bataillon (mot.) 8 redesignated I./ 17 Apr 1942: Kradschutzen-Bataillon 15 redesignated III./ 4 Dec 1942: 13. (sIG)/ redesignated 13. (sIG)/Panzergrenadier-Regiment 200 4 Dec 1942: sIG Kompanie (mot.S) 708 redesignated 13. (sIG)/ Artillerie-Regiment (mot.) 155 Panzer-Artillerie-Regiment 155 (formed 5 Jun 1941 in WK IV as corps artillerie for DAK with I. 1-3, from schw. Artillerie-Abteilung (mot.) 864 II. 4-6, from I./Artillerie-Regiment (mot.) 75 III. 7-9, from schw. Artillerie-Abteilung (mot.) 911 10. (from time to time) then attached to 21. Panzer-Division from 1 Aug 1941) Panzer-Pionier-Bataillon 200 (formed 1 Aug 1941 from Pionier-Bataillon zbV 200 as Stab, 6./MG-Bataillon 8 and 5./MG-Bataillon 2; exchanged 26 Feb 1943 for Pionier-Battalion 220 with 164. leichte Afrika-Division) reorganized 26 Feb 1943 with Panzer-Regiment 5 ( I./ from I./ and II./; II./ from Panzer-Abteilung 190, 90. leichte Afrika-Division) Panzergrenadier-Regiment 104 (I., II.; III./ disbanded) Panzergrenadier-Regiment 47 (I., II.) Panzer-Aufklarungs-Abteilung 580 (90. leichte Afrika-Division; redesignated Panzer-Aufklarungs-Abteilung 21, 29 Apr 1943) Panzerjager-Abteilung 39 Panzer-Artillerie-Regiment 155 (I., II., III.) Pionier-Abteilung 220 If anyone is interested I also have the same treatment available for the 15th Panzer Division and 90th Light Africa Division. Note that, while the 21st (and the 15th) had a unique organization (two panzer battalions, three panzergrenadier battalions), at the end in 1943, the Germans were attempting to reorganize them along more conventional lines (two panzer battalions, four panzer grenadier battalions). Jim Broshot St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 05:36:54 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16936; Fri, 19 Apr 96 05:36:53 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA28386 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 05:36:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA25446 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for unknown ); Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:35:51 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:35:50 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: Alan Philson <100626.2267@compuserve.com> Cc: unknown Subject: Re: crass stupidity In-Reply-To: <960418221900_100626.2267_BHL79-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 4297 On 18 Apr 1996, Alan Philson wrote: > Steve wrote: > >> I know from experience that players will produce enough of > their own crass actions to make "Bomber" Harris, Goring, and General > Fredendall look like wise men.<< > > Please explain why Bomber Harris was stupid. Perhaps your grasp of history is > superior to mine. I await your informed answer. > > Alan Philson > Others have said most of what needs saying but I'd like to add a little. Stupid was probably a bad word. No one rises that high in rank while being stupid. Himmler was not stupid, he made a lot of really bad decisions, all the time, but he was not stupid. However if someone did call Himmler stupid I would understand the context and not disagree. So I would take the same stance with Harris. For one thing, as I understand it, he got his nickname Butcher Harris from his aircrew. And not from the way he was killing German civilians either. Secondly, others have pointed out many of the bad mistakes Harris made. I would add these. His dogged determination could be admirable, but it also could be pig headedness. He claimed that if he could destroy Berlin he could win the war. Bomber Command bombed Berlin from Dec to March '43 - '44 very heavily. They spent their whole force, i.e. the planes lost = size of Bomber Command at the beginning of the Berlin air campaign. Sure they did a lot of damage, but they had relativly little effect on the war. We have had a series of posts lately on how much German manpower was wasted in the Luftwaffe. A case could surely be made that Bomber Command wasted a greater percentage of the smaller British manpower available, for less results. And what could have been the real bad decision? Some have said, I don't quite agree, that the only place England could lose the war was the submarine war. In '41-'42 things did look kind of bleak. As you pointed out, Bomber Command went factory and sub pen hunting. Coastal Command could have really used those planes. In '41-'42 those bombers were ineffective trying to stop production. But those planes could have been the factor that tipped the balance for rather than against Britain. We know NOW, that was a truth. Then of course it was just one political/military faction arguing against another. Churchill sided with the bombers since dropping bombs on people seemed so much more effective that patrolling open water. We know this now. It is worth considering for GE. This was a bad Allied decision. One post brought up Spear's "six more raids would lose the war" quote. It is known now that it was not possible to get that kind of result anywhere else at that time. It is an interesting military/political failure that a leader can seldom hold off on a potentially winning policy until he has enough assests to actually pull it off. Hamburg was not decisive, since the British did not have the Tech/forces to do it elsewhere. What if they had held off to '44? And actually built up Bomber Command instead of always wasting it away in useless attacks. Perhaps then they could have had that `knockout blow'. Of couse holding that much power, doing little, for a long time, to try a theory that MAY NOT be the right one, is one few leaders can pull off. I believe it is Martin Middlebrook who has a book called Nurnberg. About the greatest air loss mission in the war. He pointed out many of Harris' failures. Harris' theory was `more planes - more bombs', we'll win the war. But that didn't work. Night work was just nearly useless. In an earlier raid on Nurnberg, it turned out the city did not even realize a raid was on. The German counter measures got the British lost and they were doing agricultural bombing. One thing we could thank Harris for. Since we did win the war, nothing he did was fatal (except to all the aircrew and civilians). But he did prove that his version of strategic bombing COULD NOT win the war. It is worth having that proved, if only for game designers like us. The verdict on the American version of strategic bombing is still out. IMO it could not win the war, but there are still a few arguable points about it. Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 06:21:27 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17187; Fri, 19 Apr 96 06:21:25 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA28813 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:20:04 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA102376728; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 04:05:28 GMT Message-Id: <199604190405.AA102376728@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 19 Apr 96 04:05:28 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Fri, 19 Apr 96 04:05:08 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 03:56:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 3479240 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 202047 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: an American hero Status: O Content-Length: 364 I would just like to honor the memory of Linus O. Chadwick, late United States Army Air Force, who passed away April 16, 1995. He served as flight engineer and top turret gunner on B-24s in the MTO and flew on the famous Ploesti raid (Hex 3B/2826); and later was County Clerk in the rural Missouri county where I was prosecuting attorney. Jim Broshot St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 06:22:56 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17212; Fri, 19 Apr 96 06:22:55 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA28891 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:21:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.125.74] (ip-pdx22-10.teleport.com [206.163.125.74]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA25341 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604190421.VAA25341@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:27:45 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: details...details... Status: O Content-Length: 1654 I'd like to raise some points/questions. In compiling unit build pools for a German national data sheet, I have come across a number of things I either can't figure out or have arguments with: *The Jagdtiger seems too wimpy: The 653rd PzJgr Abt rates a 3-6 II only? I am assuming that it is the small number of vehicles and not the potency of the weapon! It wasn't the most sprightly AFV, but that 128mm gun could wipe out anything on the battlefield at immense ranges- anecdotes abound... People like to disparage the Tiger and variants, but the concept was valid- the Germans didn't have enough of them to make much of a difference. *The various other Panzerjeager abteilung seem somewhat generically rated, the 2-8 II seems to include both the Rhino and Elefant. *What sort of equipment difference is there between a 1-10 Mot AT II and a 1-2-10 Mot AT II? They appear in the same time frame... *I am guessing that, as illustrated above, the equipment is relative and changes over time without any player effort (a 1-10 AT II in 1939 is equipped with 37mm ATG, while the same unit in 1943 would have 5cm, or 75mm...?) *I'm sticking many units within specific time frames (a 2-8 Assault Gun II can't be built until the vehicles were available-hence my earlier questions) I am thinking of allowing a German to build units like, say the 1-8 1st High Mt II *at any time*. They don't require any advanced equipment and their appearance is really tied to need-if the Germans in 1940 are fighting a protracted campaign in north Norway, they might want something like this...just an example... SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 06:40:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17313; Fri, 19 Apr 96 06:40:17 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz ([192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA29017 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:37:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09148; Fri, 19 Apr 96 16:33:42 NZS Message-Id: <9604190433.AA09148@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 16:32 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Martin Middlebrook Status: O Content-Length: 2174 He did write a book on Nuremberg (The Nuremberg Raid) which gives great and fascinating detail on the failure of that attack. It seems to have been mostly ferocious German tactics and defense. Middlebrook's other works include The Peenemunde Raid, The Berlin Raids, The Battle of Hamburg, Battleship (with Patrick Mahoney), The First Day on the Somme, The Schweinfurt-Regensburg Raids, The Bomber Command War Diaries, Convoy, The Battle of Arnhem, and The Kaiser's Battle. Middlebrook was a farmer who went on a tour of the Somme battlefields in 1970. He was so fascinated with what he saw, he wrote a book about the first day, which dissects the disaster in detail. The book was a masterpiece, and he went on to write more after that. His scholarship and attention to detail is nothing short of meticulous. In Convoy, on the HX-129-SC122 battle, he gave the ultimate fates of every ship and U-Boat involved. Battleship analyzes the Japanese torpedo hits on Prince of Wales that left it dead in the water so quickly. First Day on the Somme provides tables of pay for British troops. In between this data are endless reminiscences of various participants, such that his air battle books are able to track down individual engagements. I cannot recommend him too highly. I agree that Bomber Harris was not stupid. He was, however, cold-blooded. Only a hard man could inflict the kind of destruction he did upon both aircrews and cities. World War II featured a lot of hard men of that type, who could coolly inflict savagery. One of the sides of the SS was that a number of its members were highly intelligent men, who worked very hard to devise means of mass destruction...men like Joseph Buhler, the Reich's chief legal draftsman, for example, or Alfried Krupp, the steel baron who became the greatest slaveholder in history. Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, gave chilling testimony at Nuremberg on how he could intellectualize and rationalize the task of murdering millions of people. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 06:40:20 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17319; Fri, 19 Apr 96 06:40:19 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA29034 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:38:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.125.74] (ip-pdx22-10.teleport.com [206.163.125.74]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA03291 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604190438.VAA03291@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:44:14 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: "Bubba" Harris Status: O Content-Length: 404 I know from experience that players will produce enough of >their own crass actions to make "Bomber" Harris, Goring, and General >Fredendall look like wise men.<< > >Please explain why Bomber Harris was stupid. Perhaps your grasp of history is >superior to mine. I await your informed answer. I think others have made my point adequately. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 07:13:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17532; Fri, 19 Apr 96 07:13:18 +0200 Received: from io.org (io.org [198.133.36.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA29327 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 07:10:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from i486 (macdonald.net6b.io.org [204.92.5.57]) by io.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA29065 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 01:10:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 01:10:39 -0400 Message-Id: <199604190510.BAA29065@io.org> X-Sender: woloshyn@io.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Larry Woloshyn Subject: 'Bomber' Harris Status: O Content-Length: 566 We don't have to speculate about how effective strategic bombing was, whether day or night. German production went up every year until factories were overrun by ground forces. Harris and the entire allied leadership knew they were not able to hit specific targets and agreed that by bombing residential areas they would affect worker morale, lowering production and possibly leading to the downfall of the Hitler regime (Saddam Hussein, call your office). If Harris had been on the losing side he would have been hung as a war criminal. Larry From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 07:22:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA17581; Fri, 19 Apr 96 07:22:24 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA29416 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 07:21:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id AAA10889; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:51:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:51:12 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: SF TFs To: Italorican@aol.com Cc: jastell@crossover.com, europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <960418095500_516682729@emout18.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 454 So far as I know the technique used is to take the gunnery strengths of the individual ship counters and divide them by the following formula. Halve the Primary strength, quarter the secondary and sixteenth the secondary ratings and add everything up. Round as per normal, shake a few imes and you have a TF counter. This doesn't quite match the TFs in SF, because they cover many different ships, but it will put you within a point or two. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 09:45:29 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA19149; Fri, 19 Apr 96 09:45:28 +0200 Received: from icebox.iceonline.com (richv@icebox.iceonline.com [204.191.208.20]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA01588 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:42:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from richv@localhost) by icebox.iceonline.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id BAA16605 for EUROPA@LYSATOR.LIU.SE; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 01:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604190810.BAA16605@icebox.iceonline.com> Sender: richv@icebox.iceonline.com From: Rich Velay To: EUROPA@lysator.liu.se Subject: GURU:SE Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 01:10:34 PST Status: O Content-Length: 2490 Hi Everyone: moving into Rick Gayler's stomping grounds, I tackle some FitE/SE questions... 1. Scorched Earth Rule 28C2 states that Soviet units may make amphibious landings. I can't find any mention about the ability of other national forces to land on enemy owned beaches. Can German units (besides the marine commando) perform amphibious landings? Do they follow the same rules (28C2)? RCV: No other Axis units, other than the Marine Commando, can make amphibious landings. 2. Scorched Earth Rule 29D2 states that units may move and attack across frozen lake hexsides, but I don't see any indication of what terrain type applies. Should such movement and combat have any terrain hexside modifiers applied? RCV: No additional terrain modifirers for the frozen lake; just use the normal terrain mods from the hex being attacked. (As a "House rule", feel free to use the mods from the GE TEC included with SF and FWTBT; ie +3 Mot/Art, +2 Non-Mot, +1 Ski; Attacker (ex Art) quartered.) 3. I think I understand this, I just wanted clarification. Scorched Earth Rule 14A2 states that if the special abilities of combat engineers are used then half of the losses must be incurred by those engineers. Does the rule REALLY mean 1/2? If only 1/5 (or 1/7 as the case may be) of the attackers are engineers, then it is probable that ALL the engineers will get killed. Should this be 1/5 of losses should be incurred by engineers? If not, I am almost discouraged from using combat engineers to attack cities with NKVD units in them. RCV: This "really" means one half. Often all of the Engineer units will be lost in an Exchange. You should be discouraged about the losses possible! :) Remember, to get the mod, the Pioneers are in the fore front of the attack and will probably take the majority of any losses. 4. Rule 34B1 states that Axis can only replace 1 combat or assault engineer per month. Do specialized armor units like flampanzers, and sturmpanzers fall in this same category (14C)? RCV: There is no limit imposed within the FitE/SE RAW. If you wish, as a "House" rule, use the limitations from SF, ie No more than one specialized Armor RE may be replaced per month. Now, if I've fouled up, the Guru Emeritus will come knockin'... late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 10:48:23 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA20047; Fri, 19 Apr 96 10:48:21 +0200 Received: from icebox.iceonline.com (richv@icebox.iceonline.com [204.191.208.20]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA02692 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:45:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from richv@localhost) by icebox.iceonline.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id CAA21103 for EUROPA@LYSATOR.LIU.SE; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 02:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604190913.CAA21103@icebox.iceonline.com> Sender: richv@icebox.iceonline.com From: Rich Velay To: EUROPA@lysator.liu.se Subject: GURU:CoT Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 02:13:00 PST Status: O Content-Length: 3427 Hi Everybody: Got some CoT scenario questions from Japan! No doubt Jason Long will take a reaction roll here if I have gotten anything wrong! :) >>I and my friends are Europa gamers in JAPAN! We often play >>Europa game at weekend. So we will play "Clash of Titans" >>(Europa 43/44) in next two or three weekends. But we have >>many question about this scenario. Please answer our these >>question. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q1:Are Soviet Mech corps' AECA full? RCV: Yes (ie they are better than Tank Corps, having a better defense factor and Full AEC/ATEC Q2:Are SE rule 34F4 and F5 use? RCV: 34F4; Yes, the Soviet Player may convert four x 3-6 Rifle XX to 4-6 Rifle XX per turn. 34F5: Yes, for non-Guards to Guards upgrades, use this rule as per normally. (Note: Recall that CoT modifies the regular SE rules, so you use normal SE rules *unless* they have been modified /replaced by a new CoT rule. If there is no new rule for a situation, use the FitE/SE rule...) Q3:Which Sevastopol's port capacity, minor,standard or major port? RCV: Treat Sevastapol (and Krondstadt) as Standard ports. Q4:(Rule 14B3) Has Soviet rocket artillery division which moves in its movement phase its attack strength halved for any overruns that phase and for combat in the following combat phase? RCV: Since CoT rule 14B3 specifies "Field Artillery" divisions, and not simply Artillery divisions, I will have to say that Soviet Rocket Artillery Divisions are not restricted by this rule. So, no, Sov Rocket Artilley divisions are not halved under the circumstances you mention. Q5:(Rule 3B2 and 34F) Is Soviet Allied force? Are Arctic Ocean, Black Sea and Baltic Sea danger zones for Axis, if Soviet is Allied force? RCV: The Soviets are an Allied Force but Danger Zones are handled as per SE rule 28B5 only, ie there are no Axis DZ's in the Baltic Sea, Black Sea or Arctic Ocean. Q6:Don't SE rule 28B5(Baltic Restriction) use? RCV: Per above, only it *is* used, for sea areas covered by the FitE/SE maps. Q7:(Rule 34A) In order for a player to use a river flotillas on river, must he own all hexes on both side of the river? RCV: No, hex ownership does not affect Flotilla movement any more than it affects ground unit movement. Q8:Which terrain efects on FITE map Swamp is same with Swamp or Wooded Swamp on the map of "Winter War" and "Fist to Fight"? RCV: Use the SF TEC, as stated in the Components section of the CoT rules. For this scenario, it is probably simplest to treat all Swamp hexes on the FitE/SE maps being used as Wooded-Swamps. (This leaves the Leningrad Swamps as -2 DRM hexes and most of the Pripyet Marshes are Wooded-Swamp anyway, so I think this is the best way to handle things.) Q9:Finally Simple Question. (Rule 13) Must all units employed in a overrun be stacked together at start of movement or exploitation phase? RCV: NO! Any unit with the required number of MPs may participate, regardless of where it started the phase. If units *did* have to begin a phase stacked together to overrun, the rules would say so. (This is a general GE rule, not just specific to this scenario...) late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 16:42:22 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA25658; Fri, 19 Apr 96 16:42:04 +0200 Received: from light.lightlink.com (cpf@light.lightlink.com [205.232.34.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA04044 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 16:41:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lightlink.com (cpf@localhost) by light.lightlink.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16171; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:41:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:41:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Courtenay Footman To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: crass stupidity In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1298 On 18 Apr 1996, Alan Philson wrote: > > One thing we could thank Harris for. Since we did win the war, > nothing he did was fatal (except to all the aircrew and civilians). But > he did prove that his version of strategic bombing COULD NOT win the > war. It is worth having that proved, if only for game designers like us. > The verdict on the American version of strategic bombing is still out. > IMO it could not win the war, but there are still a few arguable points > about it. It is very doubtful that the US bombing could have won the war. However, it did score a major victory (unlike the British bombing, which cost the British more than it cost the Germans): it destroyed the Luftwaffe. Not by damaging the factories, but by forcing it to come up and fight the Mustangs and Thunderbolts. It also scored one other major success, crippling the German fuel supply. It is very possible that D-Day would not have succeeded, and it certainly would have been far more difficult, without the first, and the second helped every other theater of the war. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Courtenay Footman I have again gotten back on the net, and cpf@lightlink.com again I will never get anything done. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 16:42:22 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA25657; Fri, 19 Apr 96 16:42:04 +0200 Received: from icebox.iceonline.com (richv@icebox.iceonline.com [204.191.208.20]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA04012 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 16:40:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from richv@localhost) by icebox.iceonline.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA14264 for EUROPA@LYSATOR.LIU.SE; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604191508.IAA14264@icebox.iceonline.com> Sender: richv@icebox.iceonline.com From: Rich Velay To: EUROPA@lysator.liu.se Subject: GURU Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:08:02 PST Status: O Content-Length: 1918 Hi everybody: as there are some new people on the net, I thought I would repeat my introduction and instructions for Rules Court via electronic mail. As many of you know, I have been lucky enough to have been made the new Europa Answer Man, taking over for Rick Gayler, who is taking a well deserved rest. While Rules Court will be appearing as usual in the magazine, I am also available here for rules questions. For those of us who are e-mail capable, this is by far the quickest and best way to access me. When sending posts to me in my capacity as jr poohbah, AKA the Guru, please use the following on the subject line -> Subject:GURU:(name of game). This will help me to sort out my posts and get to the questions first before all of the other intersting stuff... :) So as not to be a too faceless electronic Q&A man, a little about myself... I'm a 36 year old Practical Nurse living in Vancouver, BC, Canada. I've been gaming over twenty years and was fortunate to have gotten the second copy of DNO sold in Victoria, my home town. I have been a Europa addict ever since, also about twenty years now. I have had a couple of articles published in the Europa Magazine and spent a lot of time flooding poor Rick with SF rules questions. Actually, that's how I got this position; I wore out Rick with my twenty page letters and here I am, on the receiving end! :) I'm pretty much a RAW player, more interested in the history than the gaming; I don't think I have ever played a Europa game competetively, if that means caring who "won or lost". I like abstracted air and naval systems and love chrome rules, though not whole systems changes. With all the warts, I still think Europa is the best game system around and marvel at the support it receives after twenty odd years. late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 17:02:40 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26128; Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:02:38 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA04598 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:02:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA16611 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:53:47 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 11:01:54 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: crass stupidity Status: O Content-Length: 1565 > We have had a series of posts lately on how much German manpower was >wasted in the Luftwaffe. A case could surely be made that Bomber Command >wasted a greater percentage of the smaller British manpower available, >for less results. As horrible as that was, probably the more tragic effect of the strategic bomber campaign was the diversion of resources in Britain (and the US, too). 4-engined heavy bombers were expensive to produce and very expensive to operate (requiring a huge ground establishment dedicated to arming, fuelling, maintaining, and repairing them). Given the results they got, there realized a poor return on investment (to borrow a business term). Had the manpower and resources been diverted to almost any other part of the war effort (more tactical aircraft, more tanks, more ships and landing craft, more divisions), the Allies would have likely won the war sooner than when they did, thus forestalling perhaps millions of deaths. It is fortunate that the US and Britain were the world's two richest nations, and thus could afford the luxury of experimenting with strategic bombing on a vast scale and still be able to field the forces that won the war on the ground. Hindsight, as always, is wonderful, just too late to be useful when things are happening. I see almost no way that Britain or the US would NOT have tried strategic bombing. To an island nation and an "island continent," the prospect of winning the war without having to risk the lives of millions of infantrymen "in the trenches again" was almost irresistable. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 17:02:43 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26133; Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:02:42 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA04607 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:02:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA16620 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:54:10 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 11:02:13 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: details...details... Status: O Content-Length: 1192 >*The Jagdtiger seems too wimpy: The 653rd PzJgr Abt rates a 3-6 II only? I >am assuming that it is the small number of vehicles and not the potency of >the weapon! That is correct -- there were so few Jagdtigers out there. >*What sort of equipment difference is there between a 1-10 Mot AT II and a >1-2-10 Mot AT II? They appear in the same time frame... Antitank and Tank Destroyers: 1-10: towed and early SP AT guns. 1-2-10: Nashorns. 2-1-10 Hetzers. 2-8: Elefants. 3-6: Jagdtigers (underequipped) 3-8: Jaddpanthers >*I am guessing that, as illustrated above, the equipment is relative and >changes over time without any player effort (a 1-10 AT II in 1939 is >equipped with 37mm ATG, while the same unit in 1943 would have 5cm, or >75mm...?) Yes, Europa assumes all sides are incrementally upgrading their equipment throughout the war, so that a 1-10 AT ll vs a 2-1-10 Tk ll in 1940 could be a 37mm vs. a Pz II/III, or in 1944 could be a 75mm vs. a late-war Pz IV, etc. Thus, most evolutionary equipment changes are not shown (otherwise we'd probably need triple the number of counters in E!) but revolutionary equipment changes are (e.g., the appearance of the Panther tank). From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 17:24:02 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26456; Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:24:01 +0200 Received: from nucleus.com (root@nucleus.com [199.45.65.129]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA05056 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:23:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from johansen.nucleus.com (net49.nucleus.com [199.45.65.49]) by nucleus.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA00703 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:28:59 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:28:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199604191528.JAA00703@nucleus.com> X-Sender: johansen@nucleus.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: johansen@nucleus.com (Gordon Johansen) Status: O Content-Length: 2506 There has been quite a bit of discussion lately on the air rules so I thought I'd mention some of the changes we have made for our one-week Eruopa rules. When air units are aborted, they are replaced on map with a genaric "Aborted Air" marker at the airbase they would land at. The air unit itself is placed in a aborted air unit holding box (similar) to a garrison box on the particular MDs/Werkries's box. If the "Aborted Air" marker is bombed or overrun, a random unit out of the MDs holding box is eliminated. When the aborted air unit is repaired, it replaced any of the "Aborted Air" markers in the appropriate MD. This seems to solve the problem of not being able to bomb or overrun aborted units who should actually be the most vulnerable. One other thing we do is use and "Extended Air Mission" marker to mark air units that have flown harrassment or interdiction missions. This makes it much easier to keep track of what units are able to be made operative in the initial phase. After you flip all your air units from inoperative status, you then remove all the extended air markers but leave those units inoperative. This has led to some other variations as well. It has slways bothered me that the great majority of "Return" results have no significant effect on the majority of fighters involved. What we have done is say that a return result on any air unit means that the air unit has a "Extneded Air Mission" marker placed on it. This does not hurt the air unit but it does mean that you are not able to use it as fast. It seems to work well so far. The discussion on CAP and how effective it is has also proven interesting. I have been debating whether the extended air mission concept could work for it as well. If each CAP mission had an "Extended Air Mission" marker placed on it so the unit could not be used as quickly, would this be too great an impact on the game? The other option would be to say that CAP could only fly at 2/3 range. Comments? Gord P.S. My apologies if this seems a little late in the discussion. I had some problems sending it to the list. **************************************************************************** ********* Gordon Johansen The Sentry Box Canada's Largest Adventure Gaming Store (Over 13,000 sq. ft.) 1835-10th Ave. S.W., Calgary, Alberta T3C-0K2 Ph: (403)245-2121 Fax: (403)245-2272 E-mail: johansen@nucleus.com www.nucleus.com/sentrybx **************************************************************************** ********* From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 17:33:52 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA26605; Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:33:51 +0200 Received: from ns.corona.navy.mil (ns.corona.navy.mil [137.67.32.12]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA05320 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:33:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ccgate.corona.navy.mil (ccgate.corona.navy.mil [137.67.40.4]) by ns.corona.navy.mil (8.7.5/1.4) with SMTP id IAA03377 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ccMail by ccgate.corona.navy.mil (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 177b2fc0; Fri, 19 Apr 96 08:36:28 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:31:06 -0700 Message-Id: <177b2fc0@ccgate.corona.navy.mil> From: renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil (Renaud.Gary) Subject: Bombing strategy To: europa@lysator.liu.se Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Status: O Content-Length: 1391 Courtenay: "Not by damaging the factories, but by forcing it to come up and fight the Mustangs and Thunderbolts. " Would it have been better for the LW to just sit on the ground, let the factories get bombed (to the extent they did), and conserve their resources until D-Day? I'm not being a smart-ass; I'm seriously asking this question. The bombing obviously did SOME damage, but not enough to stop (or slow down much) German production. Once the bombers were escorted, most missions got through and dropped their bombs (I know not where...). Maybe they should have abandoned the sky to the flak and saved their strength? This already happens in FITE where the VVS generally doesn't try to contest LW missions that are escorted, at least in '41. You know its hopeless for LaGGs to go against ME-109s without numbers, so you let the mission go through, as it would probably get through anyway. A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114 a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1 than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__ W: 909-273-5378 block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--' H: 714-750-9243 `-----''(_/--' `-'\_) DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge UNIX is the Eunuch's OS I CAN'T speak for this administration; I don't lie enough. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 19:25:56 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27865; Fri, 19 Apr 96 19:25:54 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA16053 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:24:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.123.5] (ip-pdx13-05.teleport.com [206.163.123.5]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA18025; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604191724.KAA18025@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:30:24 -0700 To: renaud.gary@corona.navy.mil (Renaud.Gary) From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Bombing strategy Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 495 >Would it have been better for the LW to just sit on the ground, let the >factories get bombed (to the extent they did), and conserve their resources >until D-Day? I'm not being a smart-ass; I'm seriously asking this >question. The German leadership were under political pressure to respond to enemy bombing, just as the RAF could not afford to allow the Germans to pulverise London in 1940. (remember Goering's "call me Mayer") SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 19:27:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27872; Fri, 19 Apr 96 19:27:43 +0200 Received: from crash.cts.com (root@crash.cts.com [192.188.72.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA16709 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:26:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fhi by crash.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0uAJxH-0000cvC; Fri, 19 Apr 96 10:26 PDT Received: from notes.san.fhi.com by fhboot1.san.fhi.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0uAJbd-0000nRC; Fri, 19 Apr 96 10:04 PDT Received: by notes.san.fhi.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA1118; Fri, 19 Apr 96 10:03:34 -0700 Message-Id: <9604191703.AA1118@notes.san.fhi.com> Received: from Forte with "Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP" id 6B8D1A21DD0AA24D88256311005B7D51; Fri, 19 Apr 96 10:03:14 To: europa From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 19 Apr 96 10:02:03 PS Subject: The Long Bomb Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Status: O Content-Length: 2298 I have read the "Harris" and "Bombing" postings with interest today and I'll add an interesting lecture commentary from one of my graduate classes here at SDSU. My modern euro history professor, Dr. Hoidal stated that the disruptive effects of the allied bombing campaign were far more acute in regards to the destruction of workers housing and services than the industries themselves. The industrial complexes were tough anyway, and could be rapidly rebuilt, but the houses, shops, parks, and cafes for the workers were not so easily replaced. This destruction of lifestyle was far more damaging to production than hits on the factories themselves, as the psychological stress of losing ones home and neighborhood tends to be a disincentive to marching gleefully off to work anyway. Also, in regards to Speer's "6 more" comments. Read "The Hitler Options" by Kenneth Macksey. This book is a collection of (generally) plausible alternative history for WWII in Europe (small references to Japan). One chapter deals with a plan called Operation Armageddon whereby the Dresden/Hamburg raids are adopted as a plan to hammer Germany to her knees regardless of civilian losses. After several citybusting raids, Hitler is assassinated by Speer and Germany surrenders in 1944. I'm not entirely sure wether it would have worked, and the moral questions are extremely disturbing to me, however, it makes for interesting reading. Final 2cents... I'm not sure that the post war USAF felt that strat bombing was a failure. LeMay and others seemed to cling to the idea that in a future war, the airforce would win the war by pounding hell out of the enemy until his society fell apart. I am tentatively working on a thesis about Operation Downfall, the plans to invade Japan in 1945-46. LeMay argued repeatedly that invasion was not needed, as the B-29's would compel the Japanese to surrender. This is a subject of great controversy and debate. My *opinion* (underline that word) is that bombing and blockades alone wouldn't have forced a surrender. Without the atomic bomb, invasion would have proved necessary. Also, in September the Soviets were secretly planning to invade Hokkaido and this would have forced MacArthurs hand as well. Jay Steiger San Diego, CA From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 20:14:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28313; Fri, 19 Apr 96 20:14:24 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA19254 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:13:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id OAA19902 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:12:59 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22819; Fri, 19 Apr 96 14:05:30 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06734; Fri, 19 Apr 96 14:04:23 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604191804.AA06734@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: Re: Bombing strategy (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:04:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 1749 Hi All, > >Would it have been better for the LW to just sit on the ground, let the > >factories get bombed (to the extent they did), and conserve their resources > >until D-Day? I'm not being a smart-ass; I'm seriously asking this > >question. > > The German leadership were under political pressure to respond to enemy > bombing, just as the RAF could not afford to allow the Germans to pulverise > London in 1940. (remember Goering's "call me Mayer") Any gouvernment must respond to the bombing of its civilians, even if only to let its civilians know that something is being done to protect them. Thus, in Second Front the British MUST boost their fighter garrisons in response to V1 attacks. I hope that there will be some similar rule in Grand Europa. A modern example of this dynamic is the following. During the Gulf War, as we all know, Iraq fired alot of SCUDs at Israel, which prompted the US to send Patriot missles to defend the country. There is evidence (contested by Raytheon (sp.?)) that more civilians were killed by fragments of exploding or misfired Patriot missles, than would have been killed by allowing the SCUDs to fall where they might. Furthermore, this seems to have been known to the Israeli gouvernment at the time! But, this is a decision that the gouvernment does not regret. It would have been politically impossible for the gouvernment not to appear to be protecting its people. The only alternative was to enter the war, which might have caused an even greater human disaster than the war turned out to be. Semi-sources: There was a paper in International Security a few years ago on the topic. Also, see the recent Frontline documentry on the war. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 20:31:32 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28498; Fri, 19 Apr 96 20:31:30 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA20242 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:30:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id OAA21725 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:30:26 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22900; Fri, 19 Apr 96 14:22:57 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06784; Fri, 19 Apr 96 14:21:59 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604191821.AA06784@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: strategic bombing To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:21:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 332 Hi, Weinberg argues that the strategic boming campaign against Germany forced the dispersal of the German aircraft industry, making it much less efficient. Furthermore, many of Germany's wonder-weapon projects, such as the V2, were substantially set back by Allied bombing. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 22:09:11 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA29551; Fri, 19 Apr 96 22:09:09 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA02885 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:06:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 16:12:14 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:12:04 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, Jay_Steiger/Forte.FORTE@notes.san.fhi.com Subject: Re: The Long Bomb Status: O Content-Length: 1784 On 4/19/96, Jay Steiger wrote from San Diego: >My modern euro history professor, Dr. Hoidal stated that --snip-- >This destruction of lifestyle was far more damaging to >production than hits on the factories themselves, as the >psychological stress of losing ones home and >neighborhood tends to be a disincentive to marching >gleefully off to work anyway. And yet, despite this, German production [except in the case of synthetic oil, where refineries that could not be dispersed were bombed] continued to increase through the end of 1944, after some of the most intense bombing had already occurred. Dr. Hoidal's viewpoint is one of those popular among strategic bombing advocates, and also used to prop up their position, when it started to become clear that the "we can bomb the factories into the stone age" philosophy was not working. It's certainly one point of view, but it is not borne out by the evidence. >I'm not sure that the post war USAF felt that strat bombing >was a failure. LeMay and others seemed to cling to the >idea that in a future war, the airforce would win the war by >pounding hell out of the enemy until his society fell apart. A philosophy culminating with the total misuse of strat air assets in Vietnam. Part of the mental makeup of strategic air proponents in all nations seems to have been that if the philosophy isn't working, it's because we're not throwing enough money [read: new equipment, new bombs, more equipment, more bombs] at the problem, not because of some fundamental flaw in the philosophy. But hey, from five miles up, you can't see dead people and smashed buildings anyhow, so why worry about it, it's just puffs of smoke on the ground and a job well done, and home to dinner/breakfast . Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 23:13:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00268; Fri, 19 Apr 96 23:13:41 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA03950 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:12:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA12811 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:12:25 -0400 Message-Id: <199604192112.AA12811@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:12:25 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa-request@lysator.liu.se, europa Subject: Bombing strategy Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:03:00 EST Encoding: 77 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 4155 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ REPLY FROM: Haugh, Patrick J. Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:31:06 -0700 Message-Id: <177b2fc0@ccgate.corona.navy.mil> From: renaud.gary%corona.navy.mil@internet.mhg.edu (Renaud.Gary) Subject: Bombing strategy To: europa%lysator.liu.se@internet.mhg.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Courtenay: The recent postings on the fate of the LW day fighters sparked some thoughts: >Would it have been better for the LW to just sit on the ground, let the >factories get bombed (to the extent they did), and conserve their resources >until D-Day? > Maybe they should have abandoned the sky to the flak and saved their >strength? Ther were two problems facing the LW in 1944 when going up against escorted USAAF raids. The technical problem was that of specialization: fighters rigged as bomber-killers were at a distinct disadvantage in dog fights. The second was the fat man in charge of the LW. Goering, apparently after being ranted at at length by Hitler, demanded of the Reich Air Defence the following: 1) Attack the bombers; ignore the fighters 2) Engage the enemy over the Reich "To boost civilian morale" In Galland's opinion the safest job in Europe was as an esort fighter in the USAAF! The situation was partially remedied by creating specialized fighter units (Using pressurized Me 109Gs) to take on the P-51s and Thuds, but there were never enough of these. The refusal of the OKL to countenance taking on the bomber streams over the Low countries meant that the escorts didn't have to jettison their external fuel tanks, further boosting escort range. Adolf Galland wanted to do exactly what you outlined: Build up a strategic fighter reserve and then nail the 8th Air force with hundreds of fighters. (The "Big Blow"). He figured that the loss of >300 heavy bombers in a short period of time would force a temporary halt to deep air operations, as occured after Schweinfurt. His precious reserve was instead eventually wasted in the pointless operation Bodenplatte. It is a debatable point, but a fascinating what if... By mid 1944, Bomber command was losing the night war over the Reich... If the Luftwaffe had gained temporary respite for its fuel and transport lines by day, then the end of the war might have been significantly prolonged. Bomber Harris was an advocate of indicriminate aerial bombardment, for both logistic reasons and personal conviction. 1940-41 RAF night-flying aicraft could barely hit a city half the time, let alone an industrial area. The idea of hitting an individual factory at night was laughable. Daylight bombing in british bombers would have resulted in the immediate loss of bomber command in action, due to the abscence of any long range escorts. Ergo, area bombardment at night. Harris was also convinced, like most bombers, that the other sides civilians were not as resolute and morale would collapse with enough bombing. He was wrong, with the weapons that he had at hand. In my opinion, the bomber command offensive probably consumed more British war industry resources, materiel and human talent than it destroyed German war-making ability. The Bomber Command crews were undoubtedly very brave men, but their contribution to winning the war was marginal. (As a final insult, they did not get a campaign medal at the war's conclusion.) The 8th AF probably got it right after a couple of false starts, and the collapse of the German transport net under their bombardment probably did hasten the overall collapse of the Reich. This will be very difficult to model in Europa, unless you accept the theses that: with enough bombing, civilian morale will collapse. There are choke-point industries that can be represented in the module, with the 8th AF player not knowing how much of an effect his targeting is having. (similar to the radar station counters in TFH) From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 23:33:35 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00567; Fri, 19 Apr 96 23:33:34 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA04393 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:32:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA13112 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:32:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199604192132.AA13112@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:32:44 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa-request@lysator.liu.se, europa Subject: Dummheiten Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:28:00 EST Encoding: 28 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 863 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ REPLY FROM: Haugh, Patrick J. Subject: Dummheiten >We should start collecting instances of gross stupidity, venality and >corruption on the part various leaders of WW2 nations- then introduce them >as random events. Winston Chuchill's grand plan- brigade/division sized landings (with lots of commandos) absolutely everywhere except Western Europe. There was a recent post concerning a plan of his to land about 6,000 troops, with lots of commandos of course, to take Bordeaux in a daring coup de main in 1944. The alpha test version of this bright idea was called Dieppe. I sometimes think the chief function of the CIGS was to talk Winnie out of invading places no one else had ever heard of. I exagggerate, but only a bit. Haya Safari, Patrick. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 23:43:06 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00643; Fri, 19 Apr 96 23:43:05 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA04583 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:42:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA13292 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:42:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199604192142.AA13292@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:42:45 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa-request@lysator.liu.se, europa Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Field Divisions Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:34:00 EST Encoding: 66 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 2575 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ REPLY FROM: Haugh, Patrick J. Return-Path: Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:11:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199604172311.SAA10072@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa%lysator.liu.se@internet.mhg.edu From: bdbryant%mail.utexas.edu@internet.mhg.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Field Divisions More about the fat man's army..... >The mot AA IIs/IIIs are one of the best-valued RP purchases the game allows >for. Compare buying a 1-10 or 2-10 motorized infantry unit out of the pool >instead: same cost, except one RP must be armored rather than infantry, and >you don't get the AA *and* AT capabilities that come with the LW unit. This is a Europa-glitch: The 2-10 c/m AA should cost 0.5ART, 0.5 ARM, 1 INF RPs to replace. At the moment, ahistorical play is favoured. A Flak regiment needs at least as much equipment as a mot inf III. Notice, by the way, that I favour German Art RPs. >The parachute infantry XXs are also nice; even the "crummy" 5-7-8 is a >better purchase than a 5-7-6 Heer infantry XX. The tougher ones are second >only to the C/M XXs in their ability to counterattack or hold a key point in >the line, and their 8-point movement rating increases their turn-by-turn >flexibility by a lot. I like 'em too: the downside is the long lead time during which the RPs are tied up. >So long as the Axis player is able to maintain the strongest C/M fromations >at full strength, the HG units are as good an RP value as any. No argument there. >Finally, the lowly 2-6 LW infantry divisions are the cheapest possible >investment of RPs for the many necessary 3-RE garrisons. Buy one of these >instead of a 3-5 security XX and you can spend that extra RP on the infantry >that's doing the work at the front -- or on a LW AA II. (And the LW XX can >run away faster than the Sec XX when that time comes, as it always does!) This is a hitch. Console yourself with the thought that each LW "pool" inf RP is in fact probably 1.5-2 RPs worth of manpower. >So long as we pay RPs for combat factors rather than for actual commitment >of resources, it won't take any special rules to keep LW units in play. It may not, but my way is more fun in the multi-player a side setting. Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 23:44:43 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00654; Fri, 19 Apr 96 23:44:42 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA04628 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:44:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA18034 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 16:36:15 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:44:20 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: The Long Bomb Status: O Content-Length: 1370 >My modern euro history professor, Dr. Hoidal stated that the disruptive >effects of the allied bombing campaign were far more acute in regards to the >destruction of workers housing and services than the industries themselves.. >[due to] the psychological stress of losing ones home and neighborhood.... A good point. This was somewhat counterbalanced, however, by the bombing giving the people an acute reminder to hate the enemy and keep on fighting. Probably both effects were valid: productivity dropped while the determination to stay in the war and beat the enemy was maintained. >Also, in regards to Speer's "6 more" comments.... Speer, I believe, greatly dramatizes the times Germany was on the brink of losing the war immediately -- it made good reading and helped showed what a genius he was for putting things right. >I'm not sure that the post war USAF felt that strat bombing was a failure.... The USAAF and post war USAF were mostly run by people whose whole careers were based on the premise that strate bombing works and can win wars all by itself. They're hardly objective, and for decades after the war, USAF historians maintained that one of the reasons Germany lost the war is that the LW failed to develop an effective strategic bomber force -- as if Germany could afford to build thousands of 4-eng. bombers or even fuel them if it did! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 19 23:44:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00659; Fri, 19 Apr 96 23:44:43 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA04624 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:44:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA18031 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 16:35:58 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:44:04 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Bombing strategy Status: O Content-Length: 3979 A Post: >It is very doubtful that the US bombing could have won the war. However, >it did score a major victory... it destroyed the Luftwaffe. >Not by damaging the factories, but by forcing it to come up and fight >the Mustangs and Thunderbolts.... A Question: >Would it have been better for the LW to just sit on the ground, let the >factories get bombed (to the extent they did), and conserve their resources >until D-Day? I'm not being a smart-ass; I'm seriously asking this >question. A Reply: >The German leadership were under political pressure to respond to enemy >bombing, just as the RAF could not afford to allow the Germans to pulverize >London in 1940. (remember Goering's "call me Mayer") More Blathering: 1. At least by mid 1994, it's an exaggeration to say that the US strat bombing campaign destroyed the LW. The appearance of long-range fighters escorting the day bombers in early 1944 presented the Germans with a problem they simply could not solve within available resources. The upshot wasn't that the LW was completely shot out of the skies as much as the defense of Germany: a) caused single engine fighters to be diverted from other theaters to Germany, and b) slowed the GROWTH of the LW fighter forces through attrition over Germany. For example: Operational Single Engine Fighters in the LW: 1 Jan 43 1240 1 Jan 44 1535 1 Apr 44 1675 1 Jul 44 1520 1 Oct 44 1974 20 Nov 44 3200 31 Jan 45 2275 (The Rise and Fall of German Air Force, Tantum & Hoffschmidt, eds, 1969) The long-range fighters shocked the Germans considerably and caused them to take emergency measures to boost the output of fighter aircraft and pilots. Hence the rise in late 1944, with the high water mark on 20 Nov. For a variety of reasons, pilot quality fell off, so the 3200 wasn't as impressive as it seems. For D-Day, the two significant points are that most of the German western front fighters had been diverted to defend Germany, and that the Americans and British had built a huge tactical airforce capable of gaining air supremacy over their front -- they would have likely had air superiority from the outset and air supremacy soon thereafter even if every single engine fighter in the LW was in the west on D-Day. 2. Had the LW fighters not contested the day bombers, the damage the day bombers would have done would have been greater. The Germans could not take the chance that the extra damage would have been decisive, although hindsight now suggests it may not have been. Few rational people (and not many irrational ones, either) would advocate not attacking the American strat air with the most effective anti-bomber weapons available (the fighters). People who implemented such a policy would have been mildly embarrassed, to put it mildly, had the bombers then decisively smashed German industry a few weeks later. 3. By the way, it's not just civilian morale that demanded the fighters defend Germany -- it's basic human nature. The armed forces' morale would have slumped, too, as it would be impossible to hide the fact that the fly boys were ordered to abandon the homeland's skies. Picture this: you're an Fw 190 fighter pilot sitting around in France awaiting the invasion. You know that no one's stopping the Americans from dropping bombs on your friends and family -- why? "Because it would be futile; the American fighters are too strong. You'd just get yourself shot down, and, besides, the Fuehrer believes we won't suffer that much more damage than what we're taking now. Instead, we need you to attack the Americans when they invade!" Now, isn't that going to make you fight like a devil when D-Day happens! It's not even just the armed forces' morale -- it's the high command's too. Not defending Germany with the fighters is an outright admission that the war is lost. Among other things, this would speed up the officers' plot to assassinate Hitler and get out of the war immensely. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 01:17:27 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01289; Sat, 20 Apr 96 01:17:26 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA06014 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:16:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.68] (gw1-068.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA28255 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Sat, 20 Apr 1996 00:16:31 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 00:18:55 +0100 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re.various Strategic Bombing Posts (longish) Status: O Content-Length: 7886 Alan Conrad wrote: >Hamburg was not decisive, since the British did not have the >Tech/forces >to do it elsewhere. >What if they had held off to '44? The forces? I (partly) agree. The tech? Depend what you mean. As Alan Philson correctly noted, it took YEARS of combat testing & development to produce the effective force Bomber Command became by late 1944. The fact is, using G-H, Oboe, MRCP and H2S, Bomber Command eventually achieved accuracy by night equal to or better than eye-ball bombing by day by the USAAF. Of course, it is a valid point that perhaps by the time the RAF could actually achieve this, the war was already pretty much in the bag for the Allies. Nevertheless, to dismiss the effectiveness of Bomber Command by the late war does not square with the facts (& I am quite prepared to put together quotes and attributions to support that view). >And actually built up Bomber Command instead of always wasting >it away in >useless attacks. Perhaps then they could have had >that `knockout blow'. >Of couse holding that much power, doing >little, for a long time, to try a >theory that MAY NOT be the >right one, is one few leaders can pull off Nor *would* it have been right. Advanced techniques come from brave trials and bloody errors. >I believe it is Martin Middlebrook who has a book called >Nurnberg. And an excellent book it is. >About the greatest air loss mission in the war. He pointed out >many of >Harris' failures. Harris' theory was `more planes - more >bombs', we'll >win the war. But that didn't work. Night work was >just nearly useless. I am also quite critical of Harris (though probably for rather different reasons than most of the Europa posters I have read so far). >In an earlier raid on Nurnberg, it turned out the city did not >even >realize a raid was on. The German counter measures got the >British lost >and they were doing agricultural bombing. On the question of anti-bomber counter-measures, this is a very complex and a very interesting one. The British 'Starfish' decoy programme was quite effective against the German attacks against British cities by night in 1941/42 (particularly when combined with the HIGHLY effective jamming campaign against German radio nav aids). Similarly, the German decoy programme was very effective during 1942 (remarks about agricultural bombing are about right!) and somewhat effective in 1943. However, the advent of effective radio navigation aids (such as Gee & Loran, to name but two) and even more importantly, the advent of the Pathfinder Force (No.8 Group), steadily eroded the decoy programme's effectiveness. From late 1943, the initiative was very much with the British (introduction of a series on new marking techniques: marker bombs (eventually degraded with improved decoy fires), sky-markers (called 'Christmas Trees' by the Germans: never degraded) & multi-colour marker bombs (never effectively degraded)). Also, although Gee was eventually jammed to the point it was unusable except over the Netherlands, Belgium and France, systems like H2S where never effectively jammed by the Germans (the only serious attempt was with a system called 'Postklystron', which was deployed at the synthetic oil facility in Leuna... it did not work, however, as by the time it was ready, the RAF was using H2S Mark.III which used a different centimetric band that the Germans were unable to jam. Oh, and whereas many early attacks were indeed fiascos, I assure you by late 1943 when the RAF attacked a German city, it knew it was being attacked! >One thing we could thank Harris for. Since we did win the war, >nothing he >did was fatal (except to all the aircrew and >civilians). But he did prove >that his version of strategic >bombing COULD NOT win the war. It is worth >having that proved, >if only for game designers like us. The verdict on >the American >version of strategic bombing is still out. IMO it could not >win >the war, but there are still a few arguable points about it. I disagree that American OR British strategic bombing was an unequivocal failure. Could it have won the war alone? No. Did German production continue to rise during it? Yes, but that proves nothing (well, I suppose it proves Strat Bombing could not have won the war, but that is also my position as well). More importantly, how much was the *rate* of increase of German production reduced by the bombing. I have tried to measure this for years without achieving results I am comfortable with. Strangely though, my views on this subject were not born from my study of damage to German industry but of German damage of the British aircraft industry: did German attacks on the British aero industry prevent the enormous growth of the RAF. Clearly not: but it DID have a measurable effect in 1940/1941. As an aside, some years ago I actually did a 'Europa oriented' analysis of the effect of actual German air attacks against UK aero-industrial /aero-component targets (raid by raid: 1940-1942) and if I can find it (big if), I will summarise it and post it. Ray wrote: >But hey, from five miles up, you can't see dead people and >smashed >buildings anyhow, so why worry about it, it's just puffs >of smoke on the >ground and a job well done, and home to >dinner/breakfast intended>. I have spoken with many folk who flew and/or planned the attacks we are discussing. They had *ALL* seen the effects of bombing on civilian areas up close in the UK and were well aware what they were doing... and for that very reason, they simply did not care. Horrible? Perhaps, but that is what war does to even decent people. Nature of the beast, my friend. Courtenay Footman wrote: >It is very doubtful that the US bombing could have won the war. >However, >it did score a major victory (unlike the British >bombing, which cost the >British more than it cost the Germans): >it destroyed the Luftwaffe. Not >by damaging the factories, but >by forcing it to come up and fight the >Mustangs and >Thunderbolts. Too simplistic an analysis, Courtney. It is true that the RAF did not destroy the German nightfighter force in the same direct manner as the USAAF did so decisively to the Luftwaffe's day fighter force. What the RAF DID do was take a very large, well equipped and expertly flown German nightfighter force and gradually reduce it to impotence with electronic warfare. For a superb book on the rise and fall of the German nightfighter force, I would suggest you read *History of the German Nightfighter Force* by Gebhard Aders, Crecy Books, 1992. There are many, many books on the subject, but this is the most accessible. >It (the USAAF) also scored one other major success, crippling >the German >fuel supply. Not to detract for the USAAF but about 35-40% of the P.O.L. facilities were actually destroyed by the RAF Keith Pardue wrote: >Weinberg argues that the strategic boming campaign against >Germany forced >the dispersal of the German aircraft industry, >making it much less >efficient. Furthermore, many of Germany's >wonder-weapon projects, such as >the V2, were substantially set >back by Allied bombing. Indeed. Read Middlebrook's typically excellent book on the Peenemund raid for an example of an attack that most certainly hurt the German war effort in a very real sense. As for the effects of industrial dispersal, my study of the UK aero industry bears this out. Patrick Haugh wrote: >In my opinion, the bomber command offensive probably consumed >more >British war industry resources, materiel and human talent >than it >destroyed German war-making ability. The Bomber Command >crews were >undoubtedly very brave men, but their contribution to >winning the war was >marginal. Well, simply put, I do not agree. Marginal? I guess it boils down to how big the margin was. I suspect I think it was larger than you do. Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 01:24:55 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01361; Sat, 20 Apr 96 01:24:53 +0200 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA06107 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:24:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id TAA20050; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:24:08 -0400 Date: 19 Apr 96 19:22:30 EDT From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@CompuServe.COM> To: unknown Subject: Harris Message-Id: <960419232230_100626.2267_BHL85-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 542 Steve >>I think others have made my point adequately.<< No I dont think so, Others have raised questions on the effectivness of strategic bombing, no one has said Harris was stupid, if commanding a strategic bombing force equates to stupidity then people like Bubba Eaker,Bubba Spaatz and Bubba Doolittle by your definition are equally stupid. I think you made an ill considered comment which I find insulting to the memory of a man who did his duty. End of debate. Our personal contacts outside this list will now cease. Alan Philson From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 01:26:05 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01378; Sat, 20 Apr 96 01:26:04 +0200 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA06138 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:25:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id TAA13266; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:25:02 -0400 Date: 19 Apr 96 19:23:04 EDT From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@CompuServe.COM> To: unknown Subject: Newtons Law Message-Id: <960419232303_100626.2267_BHL85-2@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 733 " To each action there is an equal and opposite reaction" Isaac Newton no one in their condemnation of the effects of strategic bombing mentioned the obvious effects, millions of Germans tied up in AA tasks, vastly increased production of AA guns, concentration of aircraft production on fighters to defend the Reich, concentration of fighters within germany for the same purpose, In the SF OB there are more fighters in the Strat air OB than any other theatre. To say that the war will finish earlier without the effects of strategic bombing or that the resources could be used better elsewhere is meaningless without taking these factors into account. To what use would Germany put these resources? Alan Philson Alan Philson From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 02:25:35 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01690; Sat, 20 Apr 96 02:25:34 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA06865 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 02:25:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.120.131] (ip-pdx03-03.teleport.com [206.163.120.131]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA02452 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604200024.RAA02452@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:31:05 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Speer-genius in his own mind Status: O Content-Length: 599 >Speer, I believe, greatly dramatizes the times Germany was on the brink of >losing the war immediately -- it made good reading and helped showed what a >genius he was for putting things right. Albert Speer spared no effort to ingratiate himself with his captors to save his own skin- he used slave labor knowingly, he most likely knew exactly what Himmler was up to in the east-yet he is lauded for fessing up? He should have been hanged before a pathological idiot like Ribbentrop-who at least had the excuse of being a venal turd. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 02:26:38 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01701; Sat, 20 Apr 96 02:26:37 +0200 Received: from crash.cts.com (root@crash.cts.com [192.188.72.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA06890 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 02:26:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fhi by crash.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0uAQVL-0000kSC; Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:26 PDT Received: from notes.san.fhi.com by fhboot1.san.fhi.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0uAQ68-0000sUC; Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:00 PDT Received: by notes.san.fhi.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA1213; Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:00:06 -0700 Message-Id: <9604200000.AA1213@notes.san.fhi.com> Received: from Forte with "Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP" id D6A8D24E05E28B6A88256311008259ED; Fri, 19 Apr 96 17:00:04 To: europa , Jay Steiger/Forte From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 19 Apr 96 16:59:31 PS Subject: Getting Bombed Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Status: O Content-Length: 1576 As a rebuttal to my earlier posting: >>This destruction of lifestyle was far more damaging to >>production than hits on the factories themselves, as the >>psychological stress of losing ones home and >>neighborhood tends to be a disincentive to marching >>gleefully off to work anyway. Ray said: >Dr. Hoidal's viewpoint is one of those popular among strategic >bombing advocates, and also used to prop up their position, when it >started to become clear that the "we can bomb the factories into the >stone age" philosophy was not working. It's certainly one point of >view, but it is not borne out by the evidence. Actually, to be fair, Professor Hoidal is quite critical of the massive damage and loss incurred by the bombing campaigns. His main point was actually to refute the strat bombing claim that they "destroyed" the industry of Germany by systematic precision bombing. Yeah right. The bombs often missed their targets, and cities were also deliberately targeted sometimes. The effect of these two factors was to damage civilian housing and services. This in turn was more responsible for any production impairment than actual strikes on the factories themselves. Ray's point about not seeing the bodies from 5 miles up is very true. LeMay was far more hawkish about use of force against civilians than was Eisenhower, or MacArthur, or Nimitz. Sherman was right in that "War is all hell", but it doesn't mean that you should forget that those bombs aren't just blowing up buildings, they kill people too. My opinion... Jay Steiger From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 02:34:09 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01776; Sat, 20 Apr 96 02:34:08 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA06999 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 02:33:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.120.131] (ip-pdx03-03.teleport.com [206.163.120.131]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA07056 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604200033.RAA07056@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:40:03 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Flaming Harris Status: O Content-Length: 1070 >No I dont think so, Others have raised questions on the effectivness of >strategic bombing, no one has said Harris was stupid, if commanding a strategic >bombing force equates to stupidity then people like Bubba Eaker,Bubba Spaatz >and Bubba Doolittle by your definition are equally stupid. I think you made an >ill considered comment which I find insulting to the memory of a man who did >his >duty. End of debate. Our personal contacts outside this list will now cease. > >Alan Philson I thought others might be interested in Mr. Philson's idea of a 'debate': "I'm right, therefore you'd best stop talking." Well, Harris will burn in hell, if there is one, right alongside Hitler, for murdering many thousands of civilians-for no military reason at all. Pity the poor Wren Cathedrals-they must be worth more than the Pyramids. I can gladly admit to being wrong about some fact, but the pretense of Allied moral rectitude in all things is rather more than I can bear without feeling the need to vomit. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 02:41:52 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01850; Sat, 20 Apr 96 02:41:51 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA07077 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 02:41:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.120.131] (ip-pdx03-03.teleport.com [206.163.120.131]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA09967 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604200041.RAA09967@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 17:47:44 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Let's all be friends-an aside Status: O Content-Length: 244 I think that we can probably all agree that strategic bombing, its effects, its leaders and its influence on strategic thought are *still controversial* after 50+ years. Nicht war? SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 04:44:45 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02421; Sat, 20 Apr 96 04:44:44 +0200 Received: from smtp4.aw.com (smtp4.aw.com [192.207.117.64]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA08358 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 04:44:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from East-Message_Server by smtp4.aw.com with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 22:45:39 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:49:09 -0400 From: Ray Kanarr To: europa@lysator.liu.se, zaius@teleport.com Subject: Re: Speer-genius in his own mind Status: O Content-Length: 1841 On 4/19/96, Steve states: >Albert Speer spared no effort to ingratiate himself with his >captors to save his own skin --snip-- >He should have been hanged before a pathological idiot >like Ribbentrop The whole Nuremberg process is very interesting, especially when viewed from the perspective of 50 years distance. The bankers, industrialists, and basically the capitalists who put Uncle Adolf in the driver's seat, supported him throughout his reign, and profited extensively from his hegemony [generally at the expense of others, including slave laborers of various types, and through the material goods/property/factories, etc. expropriated by the regime] ended up getting "off" with a comparative slap on the wrist [by the early 1950's, generally less than 5 years after their incarceration, which for many ended up being on the level of Hitler's vacation stay at Landsberg, they're almost literally being shovelled out of the door of Spandau and other prisons, and in most cases right back into positions of power in Gemany, with ALL their wealth, including their ill-gotten gains, reinstated. The same lenient treatment [overall] held true for a number of German general officers who were implicated in atrocities on all fronts, but were able to overcome this, sometimes with the direct intervention of their opposite numbers from the Allied side. Talk about 'old-boys' networks! Speer actually had a harder time of it than most of these capitalists and generals [since "we" needed the capitalists and generals, even unrepentant Nazi capitalists and generals, in order to fight evil, godless Communism], serving his full 20-year sentence. Should Speer have taken the drop? Most likely. But so should a LOT of others, including scum like Klaus Barbie, who the US CIC was happy to recruit, even when they knew his record. Ray From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 06:20:39 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02747; Sat, 20 Apr 96 06:20:37 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA14361 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 06:20:12 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA217883132; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 04:05:32 GMT Message-Id: <199604200405.AA217883132@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sat, 20 Apr 96 04:05:32 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Sat, 20 Apr 96 04:05:15 UTC 0000) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 96 03:54:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 3608910 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 210126 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Allied "strategic" bombing Status: O Content-Length: 1794 I think that we can conclude that the debate on the Allied strategic bombing policies in WW2 will go on long after all of us have gone to the replacement pool. A recent interesting book on the U. S. policy of "pinpoint" (?) bombing, focusing on the development of the Norden bombsight. AMERICA'S PURSUIT OF PRECISION BOMBING, 1910-1945, by Stephan L. McFarland. The author points out that the Americans developed the finest pin-point strategic bomber of the war (the B-29) and the most accurate bombsight (the Norden), but found neither worked as designed against Japan, and thus adopted the British theory of area bombing, i.e., the fire raids against Tokyo and other Japanese cities. I also recall that John Tarrant in a book about the RAF in WW2, cTHE RIGHT OF THE LINE, noted that one of the reasons that the British infantry did not fight as well in WW1 as in WW2 (if such a thing can be quantified) was because all of the best people were taken by the RAF (and as a side note on Air Force armies, don't forget the number of people that were tied up in R.A.F. Regiment, which Churchill constantly harped on in his memoirs). I will have to go look for the book I found some years ago in the local college library on the German rail system and what happened to it once the Allies decided to really bomb it. I do recall that Speer discovered that German industrialists were hoarding raw materials for after the war, which is one way he came was able to actually increase German war production late in the war. Lastly (and our British friends will have to help on this), I seem to remember reading somewhere that a statute of Harris was recently dedicated in Great Britain in the face of some protests (?). Thus pointing out that this debate will continue to rage on. Jim Broshot St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 06:20:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02752; Sat, 20 Apr 96 06:20:40 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA14362 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 06:20:13 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA217923133; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 04:05:33 GMT Message-Id: <199604200405.AA217923133@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sat, 20 Apr 96 04:05:33 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Sat, 20 Apr 96 04:05:20 UTC 0000) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 96 03:52:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 6102666 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 210152 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: 15 Pz XX and 90 lt Af xx OBs Status: O Content-Length: 4611 In response to those who requested this here are the organizations and reorganizations of the 15th Panzer and 90th Light Africa Divisions in North Africa (from Tessin, checked against other info): 15. Panzer-Divison units: Panzer-Regiment 8 [I. 1-3; II. 4-6; from 1 Sep 1941: I. 1-4; II. 5-8] 15. Schutzen-Brigade Schutzen-Regiment 104 [I. 1-5; II. 6-10; 11 (sIG] Schutzen-Regiment 115 [I. 1-5; II. 6-10; 11 (sIG] Kradschutzen-Bataillon 15 Aufklarungs-Abteilung (mot.) 33 Panzer-Jager-Abteilung 33 Artillerie-Regiment (mot.) 33 [I. 1-3; II. 4-6; III.(s) 7-9] Panzer-Pionier-Battaillon 33 reorganized 1 Sep 1941: Panzer-Regiment 8 [I. 1-4; II. 5-8] Schutzen-Regiment 115 [I. 1-4; II. 5-8; III. 9-12; 13 (sIG; 30 Oct 1942: 13. (sIG)/ redesignated 13. (sIG)/Panzergrenadier-Regiment 155 30 Oct 1942: sIG Kompanie (Sfl.) 707 redesignated 13. (sIG)/ Aufklarungs-Abteilung (mot.) 33 Panzer-Jager-Abteilung 33 Artillerie-Regiment (mot.) 33 Panzer-Pionier-Bataillon 33 Maschinen-Gewehr-Bataillon 2 (attached 1 Sep 1941; redesignated III./Schutzen-Regiment 115, 1 Apr 1942) reorganized 25 Feb 1943: Panzer-Regiment 8 [I. 1-4; II. 5-8; III] (III./Panzer-Regiment 8 formed from Panzer-Abteilung 504) Panzergrenadier-Regiment 115 [I. 1-4; II. 5-8; III. 9-12; IV. 13-16] (IV./Panzergrenadier-Regiment 115 formed from III./Grenadier-Regiment 47) Panzer-Aufklarungs-Abteilung 15 (planned redesignation effective 29 Apr 1943, not carried out) 90. leichte Afrika-Division 26 Jun 1941: Division-Kommando zbV Afrika formed 26 Nov 1941: 90. leichte Afrika-Division formed in Africa with: Schutzen-Regiment 155 (Stab formed 7 Jun 1941 in WK IX; 21 Sep 1941 formed in Africa with: I. 1-4 (then 1-4), from III./Infanterie-Regiment 241; II. 6-9 (then 5-8), from III./Infanterie-Regiment 258; III. 11-14 (then 9-12), from III./Infanterie-Regiment 268) verst. Afrika-Regiment 361 (formed 15 Jun 1941 with I. 1-4; II. 5-8; Fla-Kompanie (formed 23 Jul 1941 from 1./Fla-Bataillon 613); Afrika-Artillerie-Abteilung 361 (formed 1 Jun 1941) (1-3)) gem. Aufklarungs-Kompanie 580 Pionier-Bataillon 900 1 Apr 1942: reorganized as 90. leichte Infanterie-Division with leichtes Infanterie-Regiment 155 Panzergrenadier-Regiment 200 (26 Jul 1942) (reorganized 1 Apr 1942 with: I. 1-4; II. 5-8; 9 (sIG), from 13 (sIG)/Schutzen-Regiment 115 leichtes Infanterie-Regiment 200, then Infanterie-Regiment (mot.) 200 (1 Apr 1942), then Schutzen-Regiment 200, then Panzergrenadier-Regiment 200 (25 Jul 1942) (formed 27 Jan 1941 as Regimentsstab zbV 200; reorganized 1 Apr 1942 as leichtes Infanterie-Regiment 200 with: I. 1-4, from III./Infanterie-Regiment 347* II. 5-8, from III./Schutzen-Regiment 155 9. (sIG), from 13. (sIG)/Schutzen-Regiment 104 leichtes-Infanterie-Regiment 361, then Schutzen-Regiment 361 (22 Jul 1942), then Panzergrenadier-Regiment 361 (27 Jul 1942) (with I. 1-4; II. 5-8; 11 (sIG), formed 28 Jun 1942) Panzer-Abteilung 190 (formed 4 Sep 1942 with four companies) Aufklarungs-Abteilung (mot.) 580 Panzer-Jager-Abteilung 190 (formed 1 Aug 1942 in Wehrkreis III with two companies) Artillerie-Regiment (mot.) 190 (formed 1 Aug 1942 with: I. 1-3, from Artillerie-Abteilung 361; II. 4-6, two lFH batteries, one 10cm Kanonen batterie; III. 7-9, from II./Artillerie-Regiment 22, 26 Feb 1943) Pionier-Bataillon 900 originally formed 8 Jan 1940 from Landwehr-Infanterie-Regiment 183 as part of 197. Infanterie Division (7. Welle) detached to Deutsches Afrika Korps, 7 Jul 1941 attached to "Kdt. ruckw. Armeegebiet Tripolis, 16 Jul 1941 attached to Division-Kommando zbV Afrika, 30 Aug 1941 attached to 90. leichte Afrika-Division, 28 Nov 1941 redesignated I./leichtes Infanterie-Regiment (mot.) 200, 1 Apr 1942 NOTE: the 15th Panzer XX was formed late in 1940 by the conversion of the 33rd Infantry XX, a Welle 1 regular division; four infantry battalions were detached from Welle 12 infantry divisions (those numbered 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 106, 110, 111, 112 and 113): III/241. III/255, III/258 and III/269 and III/347 (which came from a Welle 7 division) and sent to Africa and ultimately merged into units there. I, too, own a copy of SPI's "Campaign for North Africa," and have always been fascinated with the minutia of the TOs of the various armies that fought there. Comments and criticisms welcomed (sorry about the German terms, sometimes it is very difficult to come with precise English equivalents). Jim Broshot St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 06:36:16 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02828; Sat, 20 Apr 96 06:36:14 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA14463 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 06:36:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-48-3.ots.utexas.edu (slip-48-3.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.113.51]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id XAA25546 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:31:14 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:31:14 -0500 Message-Id: <199604200431.XAA25546@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Field Divisions Status: O Content-Length: 1564 Patrick said: > This is a Europa-glitch: The 2-10 c/m AA should cost 0.5ART, 0.5 ARM, 1 >INF RPs to replace. At the moment, ahistorical play is favoured. A Flak >regiment needs at least as much equipment as a mot inf III. Notice, by the >way, that I favour German Art RPs. I'm curious about that last comment. I usually grudgingly buy an artillery unit once per month against the fear that I will run out, but I'm extremely reluctant to buy the nice expensive ones in an extended campaign. So I usually buy a 2-3-8 or the like. Can you elaborate on the extent to which you favor artillery, and why? (No sarcasm expressed or implied; I'm hoping to learn something here.) And another me/him exchange: >>So long as we pay RPs for combat factors rather than for actual commitment >>of resources, it won't take any special rules to keep LW units in play. > >It may not, but my way is more fun in the multi-player a side setting. Yes, I would like to see some expansion in the details too, but I can't really decide how much is appropriate to the level of detail of the rest of the game (and there are certainly some major abstractions in other areas of the game). My wilder hallucinations include separate RPs for personnel, tanks, trucks, and weapons, perhaps basing them on REs rather than CFs, with separate grades of quality/firepower in each category. (But then I'm probably the only E-player that enjoys the initial phase more than the air phase. Clearly, I was born to be a staff officer.) - Bobby. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 08:03:57 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03190; Sat, 20 Apr 96 08:03:56 +0200 Received: from naybob.ghq.com (naybob.ghq.com [204.73.247.161]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA15528 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 08:03:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from jwhite@localhost) by naybob.ghq.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) id BAA10819; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:03:15 -0500 From: Jeff White Message-Id: <199604200603.BAA10819@naybob.ghq.com> Subject: Re: The Long Bomb To: RayK@smtp4.aw.com (Ray Kanarr) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:03:14 -0500 (CDT) Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se, Jay_Steiger/Forte.FORTE@notes.san.fhi.com In-Reply-To: from "Ray Kanarr" at Apr 19, 96 05:12:04 pm Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 3691 Ray Kanarr Said: > > On 4/19/96, Jay Steiger wrote from San Diego: > > >My modern euro history professor, Dr. Hoidal stated that > > --snip-- > > >This destruction of lifestyle was far more damaging to > >production than hits on the factories themselves, as the > >psychological stress of losing ones home and > >neighborhood tends to be a disincentive to marching > >gleefully off to work anyway. > > And yet, despite this, German production [except in the case of > synthetic oil, where refineries that could not be dispersed were > bombed] continued to increase through the end of 1944, after some of > the most intense bombing had already occurred. Interesting bit from MHQ's last issue on the strategic bombing campaign.... An 88mm flak weapon took 16,000 shells to bring down a single aircraft, even when attacking a concentrated stream. They pointed out that there were 2,132 flak batteries operational in 1943. Sucking up ammunition at a prodigious rate to little effect. That's a lot of guns and shells.... > > Dr. Hoidal's viewpoint is one of those popular among strategic > bombing advocates, and also used to prop up their position, when it > started to become clear that the "we can bomb the factories into the > stone age" philosophy was not working. It's certainly one point of > view, but it is not borne out by the evidence. > > >I'm not sure that the post war USAF felt that strat bombing > >was a failure. LeMay and others seemed to cling to the > >idea that in a future war, the airforce would win the war by > >pounding hell out of the enemy until his society fell apart. > > A philosophy culminating with the total misuse of strat air assets in > Vietnam. Part of the mental makeup of strategic air proponents in all > nations seems to have been that if the philosophy isn't working, it's > because we're not throwing enough money [read: new equipment, new > bombs, more equipment, more bombs] at the problem, not because of > some fundamental flaw in the philosophy. Another MHQ article on LeMay and his bombing campaign in Japan had some startling numbers. By November of 1945, LeMay would have had under his command 2,500 B-29 bombers, with 5,000 more on order, 3,700 B-17 bombers based in Okinawa from the Eighth AAF, 5,000 B-24's, and Lancaster VII bombers from Britan. Giving LeMay more than 15,000 heavy bombers. Able to drop over 500,000 tons of bombs each month. He had been averaging about 35,000 tons monthly between May 1, 1945 and August 15, 1945. A force that size would give LeMay the ability to incinerate Japan entirely. While strategic bombing against Germany may not have been effective as it might have been, it was pretty devastating to the Japanese. > > But hey, from five miles up, you can't see dead people and smashed > buildings anyhow, so why worry about it, it's just puffs of smoke on > the ground and a job well done, and home to dinner/breakfast intended>. When they were fire bombing Japan, the aircrews could smell that unmistakable smell of burning flesh. I'm sure they knew what was going on. In a single air raid on Tokyo, LeMay incinerated 83,793 people; 40,918 injured; sixteen square miles were obliterated; 267,171 building destroyed; and 1 million Japanese homeless. One fifth of Tokyo's industrial sector and two-thirds of its commercial center no longer existed. The fires burned for four days. Temperatures reached 1,800 degrees. B-29's returned with their undercarriages seared. Sounds pretty effective to me, and that was just 334 planes. -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY jwhite@ghq.com "The enemy has chosen war to cure their ills. Let them have their fill." -Sherman From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 12:28:06 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04119; Sat, 20 Apr 96 12:28:05 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA18557 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 12:26:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.12] (gw1-012.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA23035 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:26:24 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:28:52 +0100 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Allied "strategic" bombing Cc: j.broshot@genie.com Status: O Content-Length: 2697 >I think that we can conclude that the debate on the Allied >strategic bombing policies in WW2 will go on long after all >of us have gone to the replacement pool. LOL :-) >I also recall that John Tarrant in a book about the RAF in WW2, >cTHE RIGHT OF THE LINE, noted that one of the reasons that the >British infantry did not fight as well in WW1 as in WW2 (if such >a thing can be quantified) was because all of the best people were >taken by the RAF (and as a side note on Air Force armies, don't >forget the number of people that were tied up in R.A.F. Regiment, >which Churchill constantly harped on in his memoirs). The author of 'The Right of the Line' is John Terraine. It is an interesting book, but Terraine is ,er, not without his critics. When he is discussing tactical air power and describing some of the more inane aspects of some of the command relationships, he is at his best. His critique of the development of British (and Allied) air-support doctrine and his analysis of early war RAF Army Co-operation policy (i.e. none) is right on the money. However, he has some very odd ideas when it comes to Bomber Command and I think maybe the book occasionally strays out of his area of core competence. For example, though well researched, he makes a few factual errors re. the technical nitty-gritty of the night bombing campaign. Also, he does not even mention No.100 Group (Bomber Support) by name and rather airily dismisses this Groups support functions as insignificant. Yet read *any* of the many excellent German books on the subject of the night air war and the activities of No.100 Group always looms large. Re. his point about the failings of the British Army, I think he makes some valid remarks, but I also think he over-states them. His critique of Monty at Caen is devastating. However, Terraine becomes intemperate and wilfully one sided in some of his account of British Army ops. Much the same criticism could be made about the US Army's unwillingness to countenance significant operations without massive use of air power. I am not so sure this was such a bad policy: the air was where the Western Allies had their largest comparative advantage, so why not flog the hell out of it? Of course, his thesis is a bit more sophisticated than that, but I am sure you see my point. He greatly overstates an essentially valid thesis. >Lastly (and our British friends will have to help on this), I seem >to remember reading somewhere that a statute of Harris was recently >dedicated in Great Britain in the face of some protests (?). Yes indeed. >Thus pointing out that this debate will continue to rage on. So it would seem Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 12:39:54 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04155; Sat, 20 Apr 96 12:39:53 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA18990 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 12:39:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.12] (gw1-012.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA24164 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:39:14 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:41:41 +0100 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: UK Armoured Divs (or not) Cc: j.broshot@genie.com Status: O Content-Length: 1009 Jim wrote: >I would dearly like to track all of the British reorganizations but >the Europa fathers have decided no. Example, why are the commando >units of the Americans (the Rangers) and the Germans (the >Brandenburgers etc.) given battalion counters while the British >Commandos are given only brigade counters? Amen! (snip) >and formed (counting the original two) no less than 14 armored >divisions: (snip) > 79th Armored XX (snip) >Of these divisions only 8 saw combat: > 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, Guards, 79. Whilst you are technically correct, actually the 79th Armoured 'Div' was not really a division in the sense we all use the term in Europa. *Hobart's Funnies* are correctly shown as sub-divisional assets as they are support units (armoured assalt engineers): and very effective they were! P.S. I still have not been able to find that information re. improvised armoured vehicles c.1940, but I am still looking: no, it was not a figment of my imagination! :-) Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 20 20:03:36 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06256; Sat, 20 Apr 96 20:03:35 +0200 Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA02649 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 20:02:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from van0112.TVS.NET ([204.191.197.22]) by haven.uniserve.com with SMTP id <30981-13777>; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:04:43 -0800 X-Sender: davehum@popserver.uniserve.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Dave Humphreys Subject: Re: FITE/SE: Update (was: Re: Gr. Europa reorganizations) Message-Id: <96Apr20.110443pdt.30981-13777+1578@haven.uniserve.com> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:04:41 -0800 Status: O Content-Length: 980 At 11:26 04/16/96 +0200, Elias Nordling wrote: I certainly hope there will be new counters! As I understand >things, Soviet 1941 armour and cavalry is greatly overrated. And there will >probably not be a single air counter that has the same rating and >designation. And of course, the lettered SEC and POL units will disappear. >I'd guess at least 30% of the counters will be new. > >And what would be the point of not having any new counters anyway? Do you >hope to not have to cut out the counters? If that priority is more >important to you than having the game done right with all errors fixed, >then might I suggest that you play the game with the new maps and rules, >and the old counters and OBs. > >Contrary to the original poster, I hope the update will be as extensive as >possible, or else I see no point in buying another FITE/SE. I agree. I was quite intrigued by Charles Sharp's re-ratings of thje Soviet motorized forces in Pabnthers And Pikes a few years ago. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 21 00:30:53 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA07468; Sun, 21 Apr 96 00:30:52 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA00933 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 00:29:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA10636 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:29:15 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:29:15 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: "John M. Astell" Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: details...details... In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1249 On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, John M. Astell wrote: > > Antitank and Tank Destroyers: > > 1-10: towed and early SP AT guns. > 1-2-10: Nashorns. > 2-1-10 Hetzers. > 2-8: Elefants. > 3-6: Jagdtigers (underequipped) > 3-8: Jaddpanthers > > I have a question/concern when looking at the above numbers. I do not have OBs for the above units, and I am not concerned with the number of vehicles per unit or the tech aspects of each vehicle. I'm sure John and others have scoped that out well. But I would assume that each unit is just a number of AFVs with a minimum of support, i.e. infantry to go along. If I were rating a unit such as the above 3-6 Jagdtiger I would agree with a high defense factor, since they had the ability to bag a lot of enemy who might attack. But can such a unit attack with an equal ability? A few high silhouette AFVs, with poor external vision would make for easy targets to enemy AT guns under cover. And with light (if any) support infantry would not this unit on the attack be vulnerable to enemy infantry? Particularly late in the war with all the infantry AT weapons around. Could the above Hetzer unit actually attack TWICE as well as it defends? Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 21 04:49:17 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA08775; Sun, 21 Apr 96 04:49:16 +0200 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA25980 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 04:48:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from osf1.gmu.edu by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA21157; Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:48:37 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 22:47:07 -0500 From: Nicholas Forte Reply-To: nforte@gmu.edu Subject: Re: SYSTEM: Luft peeves and France 40 To: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2725 On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:35:38 +0200 o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) wrote: >I've read a discussion on this earlier, either on this list or in TEM. The >reasoning goes that the French should have a +1 DRM over the German fighter >pilots because of their superior training. The high Luftwaffe losses in the >campaign was said to support this. > >However, a friend of mine has studied the air combat over France and >belgium in detail, and found that this evidence does not hold. The high >Luftwaffe losses was due to the large amount of unescorted bombing missions >flown, not superior French skill. While it is true the French shot down a huge number of bombers, they were also successful against the German fighters. The most spectacular Armee de l'Air victory showing the high training of the French airforce occured on 6 November 1939, when 9 Curtiss H.75A-1 of GC II/5 engaged 27 Me 109D of JGr 102 (led by Hpt Hannes Gentzen, the Luftwaffe's top scorer in the Polish campaign). The French shot down 8 Messerschmitts, against a loss of a single Curtiss. The following table of air-to-air combat losses during the Battle of France (10 May - 24 June 1940) shows that, despite having inferior equipment and fewer numbers, the Armee de l'Air was able to shoot down almost as many German fighters as it lost. Germans: French: Me 109 162 Morane 406 99 Me 110 56 Bloch 152 67 Curtiss H.75 54 D.520 31 Potez 631 5 Caudron 714 8 Bloch 151 2 Total Fighters: 218 266 Do 17 90 Breguet 691/693 25 Do 215 12 LeO.451 27 He 111 124 Glenn Martin 167F 8 Ju 86 4 Douglas DB.7 10 Ju 87 42 Potez 633 2 Ju 88 13 Farman 222/2-224 1 Hs 123 4 Total Bombers: 289 73 Hs 126 80 Potez 63-11 52 Potez 637 3 Mureaux 115/117 4 Bloch 174 2 Total Recce/Obs: 80 61 Total combat losses: 587 400 From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 21 04:51:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA08782; Sun, 21 Apr 96 04:51:24 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA26018 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 04:50:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.37.23] (gw5-037.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA24522 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Sun, 21 Apr 1996 02:05:23 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 02:07:50 +0100 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: SF Order of Battle Question (& Maps) Status: O Content-Length: 2022 In SF, what can anyone tell me about the British 1-5 Static Brigade designated 'Vis' that appears Aug I '44? I have been to the Croatian Island of Vis (and am about to again in late July) and I am very curious about the history of this unit (I assume it is some sort of composite garrison unit of various assets). Incidentally, re. the map: on Vis, the tiny port of Vis is most certainly a 'natural harbour'. Also, there is a second small (and utterly EXQUISITE) port called Komiza (with the z pronounced zh). I also have a bit of a problem with how a few of the Adriatic Islands are shown. I understand that there are certain distortions we just have to live with (the price of admission to a hexagonal world), but if you can show Dugi Otok, Kornat should also appear (should be in hex 26: 1313). Please do not think me pedantic as I *REALLY* like the new Europa maps, but whilst on this subject: The River Kupa in Croatia (then Yugoslavia) should be shown running south of Sisak to at least as far as Karlovac (the 'c' is pronounced 'ts')... yeah, yeah, I know, we are only talking five hex-sides here. I went along a sizeable section of this river with a Croatian Colonel a couple years ago and it was a viable military obstacle as far as I could see. At the time I visited this river, it formed the front line with Serbian Krajina: that fact alone is a useful indication that the river has measurable defensive value. Although not extremely wide, it was steeply banked and was only fordable by vehicles in one part I saw (heavily mined at the time!). Also, it might well have changed since the 1940's, but hex 26: 0408 certainly does not seem to warrant swamp status these days. I cannot for the life of me figure out the impassable escarpment near Karlovac. I cannot speak re. the southern parts (visiting that bit would have been rather unhealthy), but the part along 0510/0511 did not seem all that extreme to me (maybe mountain hex-sides at most and that is stretching it). Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 21 16:35:30 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11822; Sun, 21 Apr 96 16:35:28 +0200 Received: from emout19.mail.aol.com (emout19.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.45]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA14245 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 16:34:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: YANAWAY@aol.com Received: by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03427 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 10:33:33 -0400 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 10:33:33 -0400 Message-Id: <960421103333_277269263@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Strategic Bombing Status: O Content-Length: 1875 I am an infantryman so my views on the subject of strategic bombing are colored by my fround level sight picture. However, it has been my opinion that over the course of recorded history strategic bombing has never delivered what it has promised. The only cases I can point to where strategic bombing resulted in the surrender of forces were on the Italian islands of Lampedusa and Pantelleria and, of course, the island of Japan with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In all cases islands, and in all cases vast overkill in the bombing. Other factors including the total blocades of those islands played as much a part in their surrender as the bombing itself The second part to my objection to strategic bombing campaigns answers the argument that the campaigns tied up large numbers of men and resources in defense. AAA, fighters, command and control, etc. It also tied up large numbers of allied resources in bombers, escorts, bombs, command and control. and drove the pace of alied operations in many cases in the pacific. Where McArthur wanted to take Japan from its closest allied theater in Australia the Navy from the Central Pacific island hopping away. The Air Force eventually forced the taking of a series of minor islands around the big islands off either of the two other services routes to accomodate the strategic bombing campaign. The last part of my objection arises from the moral arena. I fight soldiers not women or children. In this era of modern total war it is not easy to distinguish the soldier from the guerilla or the factory worker producing the means to kill you or the farm worker providing the rations feeding your enemy. It may be that my moral position is insupportable. But I will sleep better at night knowing that my target is a soldier out to kill me not a family cought up in the machinations of a dictator. M. Yanaway From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 21 19:20:39 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12687; Sun, 21 Apr 96 19:20:38 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA27545 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 19:18:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id NAA13344 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 13:18:12 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01320; Sun, 21 Apr 96 13:10:41 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00362; Sun, 21 Apr 96 13:09:42 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604211709.AA00362@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: Strategic Bombing (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 13:09:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 849 Hi All, > I am an infantryman so my views on the subject of strategic bombing are > colored by my fround level sight picture. However, it has been my opinion > that over the course of recorded history strategic bombing has never > delivered what it has promised. The only cases I can point to where > strategic bombing resulted in the surrender of forces were on the Italian > islands of Lampedusa and Pantelleria and, of course, the island of Japan with > the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Two more semi-examples: Denmark surrendered to Germany in the face of the threat of the bombing of Copenhagen. The Netherlands surrendered following the bombing of Rotterdam. Of course, in both these cases the German army made the imminent defeat of these countries a foregone conclusion.... Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 21 19:50:37 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA12888; Sun, 21 Apr 96 19:50:36 +0200 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA28005 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 19:48:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa06331; 21 Apr 96 18:47 +0100 Received: from consecon.demon.co.uk ([158.152.9.235]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa26475; 21 Apr 96 18:44 +0100 Message-Id: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 18:43:13 +0100 To: j.broshot@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Reg Danford-Cordingley Subject: Re: Gr.Europa reorgs (UK Arm XX) In-Reply-To: <199604190204.AA252949466@relay1.geis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.10 Status: O Content-Length: 2320 In message <199604190204.AA252949466@relay1.geis.com>, j.broshot@genie.com writes >Very good posts on the complexities of the reorganization of the >German Army in Grand Europa. snip! If I could add my 'twopennoth' to Mr Broshots interesting post, the British produced even more Armoured Divisions if you include the Commonwealth as well, most of which did not see action, viz... Canada. 4 & 5 Canadian Armoured XX (4th converted from 4 Canadian Inf XX) South Africa 1 SA Armoured XX (converted from the veteran 1 SA Infantry XX and then disbanded in SA in mid-43). 6 SA Armoured XX - volunteer unit, served in Italy. Australia 1 Aus Armoured XX (AIF unit intended for Egypt, never got there and disbanded in 1944). 2 & 3 Armoured XX (CMF units converted from Motor Divisions, formerly Cavalry, which never served outside Australia). Only a single Australian Armoured Brigade (the 4th) saw action (in New Guinea) out of 4 Armoured Brigades (1,2,4,6) and one Army Tank Brigade (3). If you count Poland (not a Commonwealth country, but under British operational control) then 1 Polish Armoured XX. with another in the pipeline... So that adds up to another eight Armoured Divisions in addition to the British and Indian Divisions, therefore... UK - 11 (1,2,6,7,8,9,10,11,42,79, Guards) Ind - 04 (31,32,43,44) Can - 02 (4,5) Aus - 03 (1,2,3) SA - 02 (1,6) Pol - 01 (1) -- 23! This figure compares with the number of Armoured Divisions produced by the US. It wasn't until the late war that the British got it together in terms of the efficient use of Armoured units, until then British had been dragging behind in terms of equipment and doctrine. Eventually, however the British got it right and produced effective Armoured units. In terms of equipment, the British tankers often had to make do with unreliable and under-gunned tanks, but as the German historian Wolf Heckmann says in his "Rommel's War in Africa", the British war-time tank experience led to the Centurian which was just too late to be in action in 1945, which was the best tank in the world in the years post-war. Additionally, the British did produce a modified version of the Sherman with a 17 pounder gun called the Firefly which was a big improvement on the original. Cheers, Reg DC -- Reg Danford-Cordingley, London UK From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 21 20:19:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13092; Sun, 21 Apr 96 20:19:58 +0200 Received: from r05n01.cac.psu.edu (r05n01-fddi.cac.psu.edu [146.186.157.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA28556 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:17:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [128.118.114.24] (che024.che.psu.edu [128.118.114.24]) by r05n01.cac.psu.edu (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA63670 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:17:31 -0400 X-Nupop-Charset: English Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 11:50:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Friedrich G. Helfferich" Sender: fxh1@psu.edu Message-Id: <42625.fxh1@email.psu.edu> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: bell toll - civil war Status: O Content-Length: 768 Hello there: I've been spending quite some time with FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS, Civil War scenarios, am reviewing the game for F&M, would like to hear from anyone who also has experience with it. I like the game, especially its high demands on good planning because of the short overland supply lines (especially with the optional bad-weather rule) and the scarcity of attack supply. My main problems have been with highly unrealistic results of the naval system that still needs quite a bit of tuning. Also, will GD/R ever learn to put like or related things into the same place rather than scattering them all over different rules, lists, and tables? Anyone who'd like to play the Civil War by mail or email? Let me know. Fred Helfferich with From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 21 20:28:55 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13167; Sun, 21 Apr 96 20:28:53 +0200 Received: from ix.ix.netcom.com (ix.ix.netcom.com [199.182.120.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA28769 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:27:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from chi-il13-05.ix.netcom.com by ix.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id LAA10216; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 11:26:50 -0700 Message-Id: <317A9A3A.745F@CCCIS.COM> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 13:27:38 -0700 From: Peter Morris Organization: CCC Information Services Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: The Long Bomb References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O Content-Length: 470 Ray Kanarr wrote:. > And yet, despite this, German production [except in the case of > synthetic oil, where refineries that could not be dispersed were > bombed] continued to increase through the end of 1944, after some of > the most intense bombing had already occurred. > > Ray, this stat is misleading. The German war effort did not get cranked up until Speer took over. How much *more* materiel and tanks would have been produced without the bombing effort? From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 21 20:32:32 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13203; Sun, 21 Apr 96 20:32:31 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA28892 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:31:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA21745 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 13:22:50 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 14:30:55 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Terminology (was 15 Pz XX and 90 lt Af xx OBs) Status: O Content-Length: 12586 >....sorry about the German terms, >sometimes it is very difficult to come with precise English >equivalents). Having had to wade through these terms for decades, maybe I can help: TYPICAL UNIT SIZES Note: The following are Europa operational level or higher. Tactical unit sizes (companies and below) are not included. Oberbefelshaber (abbr. Ob. or OB, e.g.,. Ob. West): "Theater," the highest field HQ, controlled all troops in a major geographic area. Usually (but not always) controlled two or more army groups. Sometimes an army group HQ was simultaneously an Ob. Heeresgruppe: Army Group. Armeegruppe: Army "Grouping." By mid/late war, these were usually two, sometimes three, adjacent armies (usually but not always one German army and one Axis-allied army), with one of the army HQs (always German) temporarily placed in command over the others. An army grouping was always subordinate to the local army group (Heeresgruppe). Before late 1943, the term Armeegruppe had a less defined meaning, and could an army-sized grouping (Panzergruppe 2 was reinforced in Aug. 1941 and was called Armeegruppe Guderian) or even a corps-sized unit (e.g., Armeegruppe Felber). Armee: Army. Armee Abteilung: Army "Detachment." Usually large than a single corps but smaller than a full army. Sometimes formed by grouping some corps in an army together (Armee Abteilung Narwa consisted of the corps of 18th Army along the Narva River north of Lake Peipus, while the corps south of Lake Peipus reported directly to 18th Army). Sometimes formed in emergencies, when the Soviets broke the line and a corps HQ in the area became the controlling HQ for all forces sent to stem the tide (e.g., Armee Abteilung Hollidt). Korps: Corps. Korps Abteilung: Corps "Detachment." On the eastern front, the Germans took to grouping sets of three burnt-out divisions (each about regimental strength) in a formation equivalent to a division. It was called a Korps Abteilung because the Germans for a while had hopes of rebuilding the divisions. As the war in the east ground on without respite, the Germans realized all these divisions would never be rebuilt, so they redesignated each Korps Abteilung as a division, using a divisional number from one of its components. Division: Division. Oberfeldkommando: "High Field Command," equivalent roughly to a division in importance, used for security purposes in occupied territory. Brigade: Brigade. Kommandeure: Command. The most common type was the Arko, Artillerie Kommandeure, used to control artillery assets. Kommando: Command. Regiment: Regiment. Sonderverband: "Special Unit." At Europa scale, most SV are regimental sized units that originated from units other than traditional regiment HQs. Feldkommando: "Field Command," equivalent roughly to a regiment in importance, used for security purposes in occupied territory. Abschnitt: Regiment; used for border troops. "Abschnitt" was a deceptive term originating from the time the Versailles Treaty was in force, to hide the fact that Germany had combat-capable borders troops in addition to the Versailles-legal army units. There was also an Abschnittkommando HQ, which supposedly could operate like a division but in practice was mainly administrative. Ausbildungs: Training. Bataillon: Battalion. Abteilung: This is somewhat tricky, as a German-English dictionary will mostly tell you it means "detachment," which of course could mean a whole range of unit sizes. The vast majority of the time, however, Abteilung means Battalion, precisely. The major exceptions were the Armee Abteilung and Korps Abteilung, discussed above. Unterabschnitt: Battalion; used for border troops. See Abscnitt. Staeb: "HQ" or Staff. Used to designate HQs that did not have organic subunits. An Infanterie Regiment was an infantry regiment containing infantry battalions. An Infanterie Regiment Staeb was an inf rgt HQ to which infantry assets could be attached but which itself did not have organize subunits. COMBAT UNIT TYPES Notes: 1. Many of the terms were combined together to further elaborate unit types, e.g.,. Festungs (Fortress) and Infanterie (Infantry) as Festungsinfanterie (Fortress Infantry). By no means all of these combinations are listed. 2. Unit types that could function as combat units in emergencies are included, even if they typically did not function that way. Artillerie: Artillery. Aufklaerung: Reconnaissance. Bau, Baupionier: Construction Engineer. Bewaehrungs: Punitive (literally "Rehabilitation"). Used as punishment unit for soldiers guilty of serious violations of German military law. If a soldier served well in such a unit and survived, he could be rehabilitated back to a regular unit, hence the units' names. bodenstaendige (or "bo): Static. Used as an adjective (and hence not capitalized) to indicate certain units were static and not field-mobile. Brueckenbau: Bridge Construction Engineers. Eisenbahn: Railroad. Used in conjunction with other unit types. Ersatz: Replacement. Fallschirm: Parachute. Feld-: Field-. Used occasionally to designate certain rear-area units when they were deployed in the combat zone (although usually as rear-area security and not in the front line). For example, a Feldausbildungs (Field Training) unit was an Ausbildungs unit sent to the field forces. Festungs: Fortress. Fla (Fliegerabwher): (light) Antiaircraft. Flak (Fliegerabwherkanone): Antiaircraft. Completely, Antiaircraft Gun. Originally, the Fla was mostly AA MGs, while the Flak was the larger-caliber guns. Freiwilligen: Volunteer. Used by the Waffen-SS to denote units composed of foreign volunteers. For a time, it was applied to non-German but Germanic volunteers (e.g., Norwegians, Danes, etc.), later it was applied to denote non-Germanic units (Ukrainians, etc.). Fuesilier: Fusilier, Infantry, or "Heavy" Infantry, an infantry formation with some recon abilities that replaced an infantry division's recon battalion in mid-war (when the Germans reduced the number of standard inf btls in their divisions from 9 to 6). For the WW2 origin of the term, see Grenadier. Granatwerfer: Mortar. Gebirgs: Mountain. Grenadier: In 1942, the Germans needed to reinforce their field forces in someway. Since they didn't have the men or equipment to send out in quantity, they decided to reinforce the morale of their field forces, by resurrecting traditional military terms and thereby recalling Germany's glorious military past. The most significant resurrection was "Grenadier," a traditional term for a type of infantryman. Other resurrected infantry terms were Fusilier and Musketier. Grenz: Border. Grenzwacht: Border. Literally, "border watch," signified a separate branch of the border troops from the "Grenz" above. Hochgebirgs: High Mountain. Specialist mountain units. Infanterie: Infantry. Jaeger: Light Infantry. Originated in 1942 (see Grenadier) to boost the morale of light infantry units. -jaeger: -infantry. Used in conjunction with other unit types, it indicated the infantry component of that general type. Fallschirmjaeger: Parachute Infantry; Gebirgsjaeger: Mountain Infantry; Skijaeger: Ski Infantry; etc. Jagd-Kommando: Guerrilla-Commando. In theory, a commando outfit that, when the enemy overran an occupied area, would remain behind enemy lines and carry out sabotage and other guerrilla actions. The JKs did not operate as such and were taken over by the SS and used as combat troops in the front line in 1944-45. Kavallerie: Cavalry. Kosaken: Cossack. Usually, but not always, was a cavalry unit. Formed, of course, from Russian Cossacks fighting for Germany. Kradschuetzen: Motorcycle. Kriegesgefangen: Prisoner of War. The Germans used, or at least attempted to use, some POW construction units. Kuesten: Coastal. Landesschutzen: in effect, second-rate infantry. Some were used as occupation/security troops in occupied areas; others were mobilized as home defense units as enemy forces entered Germany. Landwehr: in effect, second-rate infantry. Mostly gone by the time war broke out. leicthe: Light. When used with another unit type (as an adjective and thus not capitalized in German), it meant a light version of the unit type. Mostly used for the early-war light infantry divisions. Leichte: Light, or Light Armored, or Light Panzer. When used by itself (as a noun and thus capitalized), it meant a motorized/armored formation. In 1939, Light Divisions similar to Panzer Divisions but with fewer tanks. In 1941, the 5th Light Division had as many tanks as a Pz Div but only half the infantry (it later was redesignated a pz div). Luftlande: Air Landing. Marine: Naval. For ground units, used with other unit types, such as Marine-Infanterie, Marine-Schuetzen: Naval Infantry. German naval inf units were not elite ground troops like the US or British Marines, but were sailors and other naval personnel rendered unneeded in the German Navy by fortunes of war by late 1944. Maschinengewehr: Machinegun. Musketier: the same as "Panzergrenadier," i.e., "Armored Infantry." Used rarely; for the WW2 origin of the term, see Grenadier. Nebel: units containing Rocket Artillery. See Nebelwerfer. Nebelwerfer: Rocket Artillery. "Nebelwerfer" was originally a term for a chemical warfare mortar. The Nebel units were used for the rocket artillery when these weapons appeared, and for a while (1941 particularly) a Nebel unit could either be a 10-cm chemical mortar unit or a rocket artillery unit. Osttruppen: Eastern Troops. Pak: Antitank. Short for Panzerabwehrkanone, Antitank Gun. Mostly used at the tactical level. Panzer: Armored (but "panzer" is assimilated into English when referring to German armor). When used in combination with other unit types, it signifies that unit was at least motorized and equipped to operate with the panzer arm. Panzerabwehr: Antitank. Panzergrenadier: "Armored Infantry" (but "panzergrendier" is assimilated into wargamer English). Panzergrenadier units were not necessarily armored: most used trucks (some had bicycles!), as German industry was incapable of producing sufficient halftracks for all units. Panzerjaeger: Antitank. Literally, "tank hunter," a term to boost the morale of AT units (of all types) in 1942. "Tank Hunter" is used in Europa to signify self-propelled, armored AT guns only. Panzerjagd: Antitank. Literally, "tank hunter." Panzerzerstoerer: Antitank. Literally, "tank destroyer." As you might guess, by late war the Germans had to destroy a lot of enemy tanks to keep from losing; hence the many different types of antitank units. Pionier: (Combat) Engineer. Radfahr: Bicycle. Only a unit explicitly raised as (recon) bicycle troops was designated "Radfahr," although other formations could and did use bicycles. Reiter: Cavalry. Reserve: Reserve. A training/replacement unit that could handle security duties and combat duties in emergencies. Schnelle: "Fast" or Mobile. "Schnellentruppen" usually meant motorized troops, although a "Schnelle Brigade" (two raised) were bicycle troops. schwere, Schwere: Heavy. Sicherung: Security. Ski: Ski. Stellungs: "Position." Roughly the same as Static although with some implication of (field) fortifications, usually used in conjunction with other unit types. Strassenbau: Road Engineer. Sturm: Assault. Used with other unit types, supposedly meant a skilled, offensive formation. Sometimes used for morale purposes rather than to reflect actual assault ability. Sturmartillerie: Assault Gun. Literally, "Assault Artillery," the early-war term for the assault guns. (The assault guns were part of the artillery branch, and not panzer troops. Interestingly, the artillery branch had a better direct-fire theory (and training) of how shoot at tanks, and thus the assault guns could score hits faster on enemy tanks than could German tankers!) Sturmgeschutz: Assault Gun. Not all assault guns were in Assault Gun units, as this weapon was so useful it was used as parts (or completely) in various antitank units and as replacements for tanks in panzer units. Volksgrenadier: "People's Infantry." See Grenadier. "Volks-" was a morale term used to encourage the idea that the war was an inevitable "people's war" of the German people against their enemies, and not a war caused by the Nazis (and therefore ending once the Nazis got dumped). Harkens back to the Napoleonic Wars. Wach: Watch, or Guard Infantry. Watch units were often motorized, so that they could move quickly in urban areas for security reasons. Werfer: a unit containing Rocket Artillery. See Nebelwerfer. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 21 21:02:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13371; Sun, 21 Apr 96 21:02:23 +0200 Received: from r05n01.cac.psu.edu (r05n01-fddi.cac.psu.edu [146.186.157.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA29425 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 21:00:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [128.118.114.24] (che024.che.psu.edu [128.118.114.24]) by r05n01.cac.psu.edu (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA65688 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:00:12 -0400 X-Nupop-Charset: English Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 12:32:51 -0600 (CST) From: "Friedrich G. Helfferich" Sender: fxh1@psu.edu Message-Id: <45173.fxh1@email.psu.edu> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: "strategic" bombing Status: O Content-Length: 1020 I'm a bit disturbed by some of this debate. In my mind, more important than to what extent strategic bombing is or was effective is the difference between bombing of targets of military value, a legitimate objective in war, and the intentional targeting of the civilian population with means of mass destruction, a crime. True, "collateral damage" to civilians cannot always be avoided, is regrettable, and hard to excuse if caused by negligence. But to target civilians en masse intentionally is something else again, regardless of who does it and for what presumably noble aim. In fact, it is on par with ethnic cleansing and gas chambers. And it is at its worst when used without any justifyable "strategic" need, as at Dresden. I shudder at the thought of a Butcher Harris with atomic bombs in his arsenal (anyone remember Dr. Strangelove?). As members of the human race we should be ashamed of the likes of him as much as of all our favorite villains from Chingis Khan to Stalin and Hitler. Fred Helfferich From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 21 22:28:04 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13955; Sun, 21 Apr 96 22:28:03 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA10813 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:25:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id QAA22033 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 16:25:16 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01641; Sun, 21 Apr 96 16:17:45 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00891; Sun, 21 Apr 96 16:16:47 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604212016.AA00891@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: "strategic" bombing (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 16:16:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 3034 Hi All, Friedrich writes: > I'm a bit disturbed by some of this debate. In my mind, more important > than to what extent strategic bombing is or was effective is the difference > between bombing of targets of military value, a legitimate objective in war, > and the intentional targeting of the civilian population with means of mass > destruction, a crime. You are, I think, correct that this is the more important question in general. But, don't forget that this is a mailing list whose primary purpose is discussion of Europa, an operational level simulation of the Second World War in Europe. The main question that has to be addressed to design such a game, is what effect the strategic bombing campaign had on the war, and not the ethical issues involved in strategic bombing. I am not saying this to cause an end to the discussion of the ethical questions involved. The quetions involved do not have easy answers and are rarely faced squarely. > True, "collateral damage" to civilians cannot always be > avoided, is regrettable, and hard to excuse if caused by negligence. But to > target civilians en masse intentionally is something else again, regardless > of who does it and for what presumably noble aim. I would say that the defeat of Nazi Germany was a decidedly noble aim. Although Germany suffered greatly in the war, my sympathy for the German civilians under the bombers is highly qualified. > In fact, it is on par with > ethnic cleansing and gas chambers. That I disagree with most profoundly. Ethnic cleansing and gas chambers are another thing altogether. Indeed, they are two of the reasons that my sympathy for German civilians during the War is highly qualified. If for those two reasons alone, Nazi Germany needed to be defeated as rapidly as possible. Thus, I believe, the discussion of the effectiveness and the discussion of the ethics of the bombing campaign are essentially linked. > And it is at its worst when used without > any justifyable "strategic" need, as at Dresden. I shudder at the thought > of a Butcher Harris with atomic bombs in his arsenal (anyone remember Dr. > Strangelove?). As members of the human race we should be ashamed of the > likes of him as much as of all our favorite villains from Chingis Khan to > Stalin and Hitler. > > Fred Helfferich > I hope that noone will take what I have written above as an unqualified endorsement of the way in which the Allied air offensives against Germany and Japan was carried out. Frankly, these offensives do make me shudder. But, A) Let's recognize that the ethical issues are not straightforward. B) Let's not judge each other too harshly for our views on this subject, as the answers are not obvious. C) If someone's post on this subject, or any other subject, moves you to venom, please send the venom personally and not through the list. Venom doesn't help the discussion and your differences are probably more easily resolved outside of a public forum. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sun Apr 21 22:39:45 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14051; Sun, 21 Apr 96 22:39:44 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA11651 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:38:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA21910 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:29:57 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 16:38:03 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: The Long Bomb Status: O Content-Length: 2193 >> And yet, despite this, German production [except in the case of >> synthetic oil, where refineries that could not be dispersed were >> bombed] continued to increase through the end of 1944, after some of >> the most intense bombing had already occurred. > >this stat is misleading. The German war effort did not get cranked up >until Speer took over. How much *more* materiel and tanks would have >been produced without the bombing effort? Germany would have produced more in 1943 and 1944 had the strategic bombing campaign not occurred, although how much more is speculative. For the effects of strategic bombing on Germany, see the US Strategic Bombing Survey. An abstract or summary of the SBS was also published, and a good library might have this even if it doesn't have the SBS itself. German industrial output rises until the summer or autumn of 1944 (depending on industry), and then begins to decline drastically. Strategic bombing played a major part in the decline, although perhaps not as large as what the SBS tries to imply it did. Other factors, some very hard to quantify, are also present (lower productivity and quality due to extensive use of slave labor, lack of materials, the need to support the ground war preventing the Germans from devoting sufficient resources to bomber defenses, etc). By March 1945 German output was feeble in many industries. One of the interesting items about strategic bombing is that the US effort in one sense didn't really get underway until mid 1944 -- if you look at USAAF long-range bomber deployments to Europe, a sizeable fraction of the strat bomber units didn't start operating until after D-Day! The question wasn't whether the strat bombing was effective -- it was. Instead, the question was whether strat bombing was COST effective or even TIMELY. The fact was, strat bombing became effective only after Germany had already decisively lost the war on the ground (pick your date here: 1 July 44 is as good as any -- AG Center destoryed in the east and the Allies unassailably ashore in the west), and there are strong doubts that the Allies got anywhere near the proper return for their vast investment in strat bombing. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 00:53:14 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14795; Mon, 22 Apr 96 00:53:13 +0200 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA13608 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 00:50:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa26722; 21 Apr 96 23:49 +0100 Received: from consecon.demon.co.uk ([158.152.9.235]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01280; 21 Apr 96 23:48 +0100 Message-Id: <20rXbHAL7nexEwYL@consecon.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 19:30:35 +0100 To: j.broshot@genie.com Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Reg Danford-Cordingley Subject: Re: Allied "strategic" bombing In-Reply-To: <199604200405.AA217883132@relay1.geis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.10 Status: O Content-Length: 1889 In message <199604200405.AA217883132@relay1.geis.com>, j.broshot@genie.com writes snip... >Lastly (and our British friends will have to help on this), I seem >to remember reading somewhere that a statute of Harris was recently >dedicated in Great Britain in the face of some protests (?). Thus >pointing out that this debate will continue to rage on. >Jim Broshot St. James MO The Status of Sir Arthur Harris is outside the "RAF Church" St Clement Danes in the Strand in central London (just opposite the Australian High Commission), I think there is a statue of Dowding opposite. Inside St Clement Danes lists the names of 1900 American airmen killed while based in Britain. The church, a Wren rebuilding, was bombed during the War and was restored in the 1950s with donations from the RAF and other Air Forces, which was the time that it became the RAF Church. There has been a church on the site since around 900 AD, apparently, it was the Church of those Danes who lived in London and who had married Anglo-Saxon women and thus were allowed to stay when King Alfred of Wessex evicted the Danes from London. There are 750 Welsh Slate badges of different RAF Squadrons and units in the Floor. However, 273 Squadron has never been included because its badge featured an ancient Hindu symbol, the Swastika! It fought in the far East and played a major role in Burma. There is a now a campaign in Parliament for the Squadron to be recognised, but the MOD bureaucrats are refusing to budge... Finally, William Webb-Ellis, the boy who invented Rugby while picking the ball playing Soccer (for you Americans) at Rugby School (in Rugby!) was Rector of the Church 1843-1855! No, I have never been in the Church as it is locked in the evenings when I go past it! London has so many beautiful churches, even the ones that were bombed. Cheers, RDC -- Reg Danford-Cordingley, London UK From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 01:40:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15025; Mon, 22 Apr 96 01:40:43 +0200 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA14210 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:39:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa09628; 21 Apr 96 23:38 GMT Received: from consecon.demon.co.uk ([158.152.9.235]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa08876; 22 Apr 96 0:32 +0100 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 00:25:58 +0100 To: "John M. Astell" Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Reg Danford-Cordingley Subject: Re: Terminology (was 15 Pz XX and 90 lt Af xx OBs) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.10 Status: O Content-Length: 2391 In message , "John M. Astell" writes > >Armeegruppe: Army "Grouping." By mid/late war, these were usually two, >sometimes three, adjacent armies (usually but not always one German army >and one Axis-allied army), with one of the army HQs (always German) >temporarily placed in command over the others. An army grouping was always >subordinate to the local army group (Heeresgruppe). Before late 1943, the >term Armeegruppe had a less defined meaning, and could an army-sized >grouping (Panzergruppe 2 was reinforced in Aug. 1941 and was called >Armeegruppe Guderian) or even a corps-sized unit (e.g., Armeegruppe >Felber). > snip... Dear John, I would like to make a very small point with regard to your exhaustive run-down of German military terminology which was very interesting. With regard to the Armeegruppe definition, you make the point that the controlling Army was always German. It was German in every case but one (possibly two). The exception was Armeegruppe Dumitrescu formed in March 1944 in which (theoretically) the 6th German Army was under the control of Dumitrescu's 3rd Rumanian Army. At the same time Armeegruppe Wohler was formed out of Wohler's 8th German Army and 4th Rumanian Army. The Germans had wanted both Armeegruppen to be under German command, but the Rumanians insisted that they be in command. As the war had now arrived on Rumanian soil, a compromise was agreed. This is taken from p157-158 of "Third Axis, Fourth Ally" by Mark Axworthy, published in 1995 by Arms and Armour Press. Tessin Vol I notes that Armeegruppe Dumitrescu lasted from April to July 1944 and consisted of the above two Armies. Tessin always lists the controlling Army first. It is possible that Armeegruppe Ligurien which existed from Nov-44 to Feb-45 is another example. It consisted of Armee Ligurien and 14 German Army. According to Mehner's "Die Geheimentagesberichte der Deutschen Wehrmachtfuhrung in Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945" Vol 12 published by Biblio Verlag; Armee Ligurien was commanded by Marshall Graziani (of Operation Compass fame) although his senior staff officers were German. I haven't yet worked out what date this command reference refers to. Vol 12 covers 01-Jan-45 to the end of the war. I do hope that this is of interest. Cheers, Reg DC -- Reg Danford-Cordingley, London UK From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 02:49:36 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15417; Mon, 22 Apr 96 02:49:35 +0200 Received: from psyche.the-wire.com (psyche.the-wire.com [198.53.192.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA14995 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 02:47:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mhughes.the-wire.com (mhughes.the-wire.com [205.206.32.167]) by psyche.the-wire.com (8.6.10/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA07443 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:46:55 -0400 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 20:46:55 -0400 Message-Id: <199604220046.UAA07443@psyche.the-wire.com> X-Sender: mhughes@psyche.the-wire.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: mhughes@the-wire.com (Marian Hughes) Subject: Strategic Bombing Status: O Content-Length: 2921 Much has been said about Bomber Harris and Strategic Bombing; I have held back from commenting until the theme seems to have started working itself to death. I hope no one is offended by my remarks, since I make them as an ex European, now Canadian. The problem is that North Americans, among whom I now count myself, are fortunate in being able to make a distinction between 'good' and 'bad' war - between civilian and military targets. The rest of the world lacks that opportunity, and has difficulty in accepting it as a rational attitude in the 20th Century. To illustrate, can anyone seriously think that German bombers, V1's etc would not or even should not have been launched against targets like downtown New York Detroit or Philadelphia? Of course they would have, and in a war should have - all three were targets whose destruction would have had a far greater military impact than hitting Fort Bragg, Newport News or any other 'military' target. I was myself a year old when our house was flattened by a German bomb - my first memory is of oil tankers blazing in the Bristol Channel. Nothing unusual for children of my generation (unless it made me a board gamer!). However, I also remember talking after the war with parents and friends - there was no particular ill-feeling against Germans for bombing - the entire population thought of itself as part of the war effort; it was part of War as it really is in the 20th Century. The only anger was against the random violence of the V 1's, and the deliberate attack on the small, poorly defended historic cities - the so called Baedecker raids. Harris and his confreres were not stupid in terms of their intent - only misled by service pride and lack of imagination. Mistakes that mattered were tactical - overloading bombers (it has been pointed out that a Lanc with 10,000 lb instead of 14,000 lb, and with engines at full boost was faster than any German night fighter other than the He 219!); ignoring alternative delivery methods, such as Mosquitos; lack of imagination in targeting. Nor can one assign greater or lesser 'guilt' to one nation, service or group - 'civilians' suffered at the hands of Americans and British as well as Germans and Russians. Perhaps the secret is to at least accept, if one does not agree, with the motives of those who made the decisions which led to these tragedies. This issue reached a head three years ago in Canada when a TV programme implied that Strategic Bombing was immoral. Outraged veterans took it to the Supreme Court of Canada. The wise justices of the Court refused to Rule, but made two comments that are relevent to these postings: - do not attempt to define War in terms of Civil Morality and Justice. - remember that no one person has the right to define for all what is Just and Good as opposed to Unjust and Bad. Hoping this offends no one. David Hughes mhughes@the-wire.com Marian or David Hughes From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 02:54:06 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15442; Mon, 22 Apr 96 02:54:05 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA15054 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 02:52:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16076; Mon, 22 Apr 96 12:48:48 NZS Message-Id: <9604220048.AA16076@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 12:51 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: The ever-tough Vis Brigade Status: O Content-Length: 1113 The Vis Brigade was formed to provide a bodyguard for Josef Tito after Nazi commandos nearly caught him in 1944. The British evacuated Tito to Vis island and deployed infantrymen there to prevent further attacks. After three days off, I come back to my computer and see a lot of extremely nasty and angry slanging matches about strategic bombing in World War II, with personal sniping and gratuitous slaps against Christopher Wren churches, and calling high-ranking Allied officers "Bubba." I would like to point out for the record that historians with Ph.D.s and piles of published books on the subject cannot agree on the value, morality, and efficiency of strategic bombing in 50 years of academic debate. As they outrank us on the educational scale, I think it's pretty clear that by arguing the pros and cons of this in such an angry and nasty manner is neither productive nor useful nor decent behavior. I am disgusted and appalled by the spectacle. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 03:26:11 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15609; Mon, 22 Apr 96 03:26:10 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA15375 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 03:24:35 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA200275364; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:09:24 GMT Message-Id: <199604220109.AA200275364@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Mon, 22 Apr 96 01:09:20 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Mon, 22 Apr 96 01:06:45 UTC 0000) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 00:55:00 UTC 0000 To: cloister@dircon.co.uk, europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 4419275 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 220065 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Vis Brigade Status: O Content-Length: 1019 >From Joslen ORDERS OF BATTLE, Volume II, page 457: Vis Brigade 16 Aug 1944 Headquarters formed on the Island of Vis by redesignation of Headquarters, 20th Beach Group, the Forward Base under Headquarters Land Forces Adriatic. The Brigade was responsible for the defence of the Island and for operations against the Germans in support of the Jugoslav Partisans. It had under command RA, RE, Sigs, Inf, Adm Units and Sqns of the RAF Regiment from Army Troops in Italy 10 Nov 1944 redesignated Adriatic Brigade 8 Apr 1945 Brigade Headquarters disbanded I have an old "Bantam War Book" paperback that is an anecdotal history of the British forces that operated on Vis and on the Adriatic coast: COMMANDO FORCE 133 (UK title: ISLAND OF TERRIBLE FRIENDS), by Bill Strutton. If I understand a note in this book, the British built an airbase there and operated fighters from it. Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 04:45:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA16242; Mon, 22 Apr 96 04:45:24 +0200 Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA16107 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 04:43:04 +0200 (MET DST) From: YANAWAY@aol.com Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18623 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:42:32 -0400 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:42:32 -0400 Message-Id: <960421224231_519060652@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Strategic Bombing Status: O Content-Length: 2084 The advocates of strategic bombing remain. During the Gulf war where our national objectives as set out by President Bush in August 1990 did not include the unconditional surrender of Iraq we conducted a strategic bombing campaign. Col Warden of the USAF forced into the ATO (Air Tasking Order) attacks against Iraqi power plants, factories, communications networks, and many other targets that were connected to the military defeat we sought in the desert around Kuwait. They did not win the ground campaign. An Iraqi Republican Guard Tank Bn Commander related that after 30 days of bombing his battalion had lost five of thirty odd tanks after five minutes with the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment he was down to zero. The vision of Iraqi infantry surrendering to Unmanned Arial Vehicals (UAVs) is vaunted by the air force (Who fail to mention that the Army owned the UAVs). Yet the Strategic bombing campaign did not target those infantrymen. It did target their supplies and communitions. Yet it could have isolated them just as well with harrasment bombing in Europa terms and left the United States with a clear moral victory to match the brilliant operational victory. I do not argue that strategic bombing is completely ineffective or plays no role. I do argue that I would avoid it if possible. Clauswitz argued that total war taken to it's extreme involved targeting the total enemy society. In his day this was an impossiblity and the hegelian dialectic he used for his arguments found support in the impossibility of the extreme total war. The advent of the Nuclear bomb negated his argument at least so far as nuclear war was concerned. That may be why war as politics by other means has never included a mutual exchange of nukes. There is no room to bargain, compromise, or fail. War and politics so far have been limited. Strategic Bombing has no limits. Therefore I feel it has no rational place in the conduct of war or politics. The CoT models the strategic air war well to my mind. In Grand Europa I'd like the option to explore the war without it. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 10:39:52 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA19935; Mon, 22 Apr 96 10:39:50 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA21070 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:38:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.52] (Lilla_Red_02 [130.237.155.52]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA16821 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:38:41 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:38:42 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Strategic bombing - some figures I found Status: O Content-Length: 2246 I thought I'd add some figures to the debate, instead of opinions ;-) In the FYI section in the S&T issue containing the Africa Oriental=E9 game, = I found the following statement: "The American strategic bombing campaign against Germany in WW2 cost approximately $43,000,000,000." It doesn't say so, but I assume it's in the money value of the time. Anyway, it's a lot ;-) I also have an old flight-sim called "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe". As a flight-sim, it's not particulary good (at least not anymore), but it contains an excellent historical background file. It's nearly 300 screens long and contains a detailed history of the strategic bombing campaign, along with profiles of the different aircraft and interviews with historians and old pilots (among them Adolf Galland). This file states that about 160 000 British and American crewmen were lost in the bombing campaign (50% each). The number of German aircrews lost is unknown, but approximately 305 000 civilians were killed. Also, I think I read, but I couldn't find it, that the Germans lost about as many fighters as the Allies lost bombers. Considering the fact that a bomber contains a lot more people than a fighter, and that the German planes were shot down over friendly territory, the German pilot losses were probably much smaller than the Allied Aircrew losses. At least until the long range fighters came along. But then, free ranging long range fighters proved as effective as escort, so they could probably have done their job even without a strategic bombing campaign. Anyway, I find these figures very telling. From a strict casuality standpoint, one trained crewman for two civilians is a lousy deal, moral aspects aside (and most of the strategic bombing campaign WAS directed at civilians). And it seems unlikely that the bombing would have cost the Germans as much as it cost the Americans. Of course, USA could AFFORD it much more than Germany (Britain definitely could not). The qestion wether there were more effective ways of using these resources will always remain unresolved, since we don't have alternate histories to compare. But we could always try to create simulated alternative histories, wargames;-) Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 16:24:55 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA25746; Mon, 22 Apr 96 16:24:54 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA29624 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:23:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA24274; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 09:15:21 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:23:29 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Terminology (was 15 Pz XX and 90 lt Af xx OBs) Cc: Reg Danford-Cordingley Status: O Content-Length: 860 Reg Danforth-Cordingley wrote: >>Armeegruppe: Army "Grouping." By mid/late war, these were usually two, >>sometimes three, adjacent armies (usually but not always one German army >>and one Axis-allied army), with one of the army HQs (always German) >>temporarily placed in command over the others.... >With regard to the Armeegruppe definition, you make the point that the >controlling Army was always German. It was German in every case but one >(possibly two)....Armeegruppe Dumitrescu.... Armeegruppe Wohler.... >The Germans had wanted both Armeegruppen to be under German command, but >the Rumanians insisted that they be in command. As the war had now >arrived on Rumanian soil, a compromise was agreed. I had forgotten about this; you are quite correct. "(always German)" should read "(usually German)" in the definition. Thanks for the correction. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 18:50:07 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28124; Mon, 22 Apr 96 18:50:05 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA03699 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 18:48:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.120.218] (ip-pdx04-26.teleport.com [206.163.120.218]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA21193; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 08:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604221552.IAA21193@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 08:59:02 -0700 To: mhughes@the-wire.com (Marian Hughes) From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Strategic Bombing Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 440 >Harris and his confreres were not stupid in terms of their intent - only >misled by service pride and lack of imagination. That was the point I originally intended to make which provoked Allen P to outrage. Anyway, it was an aside, since what I was talking about what how in GE, players will make their own errors and that 'idiot rules' be kept to a minimum for that reason. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 19:30:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28496; Mon, 22 Apr 96 19:30:43 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA08404 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:29:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id NAA06956 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:29:04 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04802; Mon, 22 Apr 96 13:21:32 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02090; Mon, 22 Apr 96 13:20:34 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604221720.AA02090@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: Strategic Bombing (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:20:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 6263 Hi, More of my opinion on this most sensitive of topics. Today, I respond to David Hughes, who writes: > I hope no one is offended by my remarks, since I make them as an ex > European, now Canadian. Not offended at all, but I will take issue with them. For the record (as this may affect how some will interpret my remarks) I am an expatriate American in Canada, intending to return to the United States in a year or so. >The problem is that North Americans, among whom I > now count myself, are fortunate in being able to make a distinction between > 'good' and 'bad' war - between civilian and military targets. Well, I won't speak for Canadians, but Americans have at least a dim historical memory of the American Civil War, in which a great many civilian targets were destroyed because of their strategic value. This is still a very sensitive issue in parts of the American South. > The rest of > the world lacks that opportunity, and has difficulty in accepting it as a > rational attitude in the 20th Century. To illustrate, can anyone seriously > think that German bombers, V1's etc would not or even should not have been > launched against targets like downtown New York Detroit or Philadelphia? Of > course they would have, and in a war should have - all three were targets > whose destruction would have had a far greater military impact than hitting > Fort Bragg, Newport News or any other 'military' target. You use the word "should" in strictly a military-utiliarian sense; "What should I do in this wargame?" But, in an ethical sense, I think that the case is pretty good that German bombers and V1s should not attack downtown New York, nor even downtown London. Would they? Of course. I asserted in my last post that the strategic and ethical questions surrounding strategic bombing are not independent. But, they are not the same either. > Harris and his confreres were not stupid in terms of their intent - only > misled by service pride and lack of imagination. I have not been convinced by the discussion so far that Harris was particularly stupid, nor particularly smart. It's worth pointing out that when Steve (?) said that Harris was stupid, that he really meant that Harris was immoral, which is what most of the acrimony seems to be about. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) > Nor > can one assign greater or lesser 'guilt' to one nation, service or group - > 'civilians' suffered at the hands of Americans and British as well as > Germans and Russians. Perhaps the secret is to at least accept, if one does > not agree, with the motives of those who made the decisions which led to > these tragedies. I disagree with this statement very strongly. I by no means accept the motives that lead to German sponsored tragedies. Their motives were quite abominable. > This issue reached a head three years ago in Canada when a TV programme > implied that Strategic Bombing was immoral. Outraged veterans took it to the > Supreme Court of Canada. The wise justices of the Court refused to Rule, but > made two comments that are relevent to these postings: > - do not attempt to define War in terms of Civil Morality and Justice. > - remember that no one person has the right to define for all what is Just > and Good as opposed to Unjust and Bad. > Hoping this offends no one. > David Hughes > mhughes@the-wire.com > Marian or David Hughes I don't remember the justices making these comments, but I do remember one observing that the documuentary was not very good. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "defining" War in terms of Civil Morality and Justice, but I do think that it is very important to try to understand ethics in war, and it doesn't do to let ourselves off too easily. We can profit greatly by looking at out wartime actions squarely, trying to understand our motives and the costs. Veterans can help us a great deal in this regard. But, the notion that questioning the morality of the Allied bombing campaign is tantamount to defamation of the veterans makes serious discussion very difficult in the US, in Canada, probably in Britain, and has caused some trouble on this list as well. Analagously, many Americans, including veterans, feel that American involvement in the Vietnam War was immoral; but this is usually not taken as defamation of veterans! I fear that some might be bothered by what I write below. But, I have reread it before posting it and I hope that you will be only bothered, and not offended. As a final note, speaking as an American on the American way of war (although my remarks may also apply to Canadians and British), the United States has relied on massive airpower ever since the Second World War. We (broadly speaking) believe that if we intentionally bomb only targets of military significance, then we cannot be faulted for the killing of civilians. It seems to me that before the Second World War, most Americans would have deplored the bombing of urban areas. But, the US did it very well during the Second World War and the American view of the correct use of airpower changed forever. Our views were stregthened by the more recent belief that the USAF can carry out precision bombing, destroying only what it means to. This was strongly reinforced during the Gulf War, during which we saw the Air Force's best shots of the day each night. But, we mostly didn't see smart bombs gone wild taking down Iraqi apartment buildings. Finally, what we consider to be targets of military significance includes many targets which are necessary to maintain civilian life. Power stations, bridges, dams, anything that moves on a road.... The US has directly and indirectly inflicted massive civilian casualties on its enemies since WWII by targeting sites of military significance. I have not argued that the Allies in WWII or that the US in any specific war since should have followed a different bombing strategy on solely ethical grounds. (I might argue this, but I haven't and don't intend to.) But, I do think that we should be sensitive to the human costs of this way of war and to the ethical issues involved. Like Dave, I hope not to offend anyone. I hope that this post has been useful. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 19:46:52 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28692; Mon, 22 Apr 96 19:46:51 +0200 Received: from rosebud.turing.toronto.edu (root@rosebud.turing.toronto.edu [128.100.1.192]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA10418 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:45:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kiriel ([192.41.201.60]) by turing.toronto.edu with SMTP id <5413>; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:44:52 -0400 Received: by kiriel.hsa.on.ca id <22904>; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:43:03 -0400 From: Tom West To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Modelling Bombing of Civilians in Europa Message-Id: <96Apr22.134303edt.22904@kiriel.hsa.on.ca> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:42:55 -0400 Status: O Content-Length: 2264 Given that there's just no way to decide whether there was any real chance of doing significant damage to the German civilian morale, we are left in a bind as how to model the campaign in Europa. Previous games used victory points for terror bombing, but this, of course, makes no sense in the larger picture. We could mandate required attacks, but obviously that's not particularly desirable and such rules are always prone to rules weaseling. If you want to give players a significant reason for trying such a campaign, without forcing them to do so, you need to make some rules that somehow make the option appealing (in game terms) without making a decisive ruling as to its effectiveness (which one can't do without offending everyone). Might I suggest something from TFH. As with the original radar stations, the Allied player should never know how close they are to breaking German morale. The Germans pick a card at the beginning of the game that represents just how many bombing factors are required before "something drastic happens". (Obviously there have to be rules to limit the number of hits on a single city over a period of time, etc.) The allied player can go on bombing cities (and never knowing whether devoting just a few more resource will make all the difference in the world) or give up on the campaign entirely. Of course, ideally the German player shouldn't know what the card is either, but that makes it kind of hard to check :-). If the range of values for the number of bombing factors required is large enough, then it's guaranteed that everbody's estimate will at least be included, if not likely :-). Now this may already have been suggested, but it seems a reasonable way of modelling the options that the real life "players" may have faced. Besides, it might be a good idea to switch to a more game related topic before people start using strategic e-mail bombing themselves. Tom West ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom West | E-mail: west@hsa.on.ca Technical Support Manager | Phone : (416) 978-8363 Holt Software Associates Inc. | Fax : (416) 978-1509 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 19:54:13 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28760; Mon, 22 Apr 96 19:54:13 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA10588 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:53:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id NAA10074 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:52:47 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04856; Mon, 22 Apr 96 13:45:16 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02124; Mon, 22 Apr 96 13:44:17 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604221744.AA02124@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: bell toll - civil war (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:44:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 2007 Hi, Fred writes: > Hello there: > > I've been spending quite some time with FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS, Civil War > scenarios, am reviewing the game for F&M, would like to hear from anyone who > also has experience with it. I'm looking forward to starting a game of the SCW campaign game at the end of the month. My only experience with it so far is a careful reading of the rules! > I like the game, especially its high demands on good planning because of the > short overland supply lines (especially with the optional bad-weather rule) > and the scarcity of attack supply. I like this to. It looks like a really neat game. But, I don't think that the bad-weather rule is optional. (There is an advanced rule by which some types of terrain are harder to trace supply through.) > My main problems have been with highly > unrealistic results of the naval system that still needs quite a bit of > tuning. What sorts of things happened? I'm really curious about how the naval system is going to play out. (It's certainly better than the old Their Finest Hour system, even if less detailed.) There is one item of Second Front errata which presumably also applies to FWTBT: Cargo groups have a combat zone in their own hex. Was this the source of your troubles? > Also, will GD/R ever learn to put like or related things into the > same place rather than scattering them all over different rules, lists, and > tables? That would be nice. I think that the rules were really written for Europa gamers and not for new players, which is unfortunate. There are some irrelevant rules left in, including references to units which never appear in SCW, and some rules left out, like rolling for scatter for supplies. I have a long, long, long list of questions deposited with Rick the Guru at the moment. > Anyone who'd like to play the Civil War by mail or email? Let me know. Alas, I really can't do that. I hope that you find a player. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 21:19:24 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA29491; Mon, 22 Apr 96 21:19:23 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA12677 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 21:12:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id PAA19734 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:12:35 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA05092; Mon, 22 Apr 96 15:05:03 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02391; Mon, 22 Apr 96 15:04:05 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604221904.AA02391@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: Modelling Bombing of Civilians in Europa (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:04:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Status: O Content-Length: 1529 Hi All, Tom West brings us back to Europa: > Given that there's just no way to decide whether there was any > real chance of doing significant damage to the German civilian morale, > we are left in a bind as how to model the campaign in Europa. Previous > games used victory points for terror bombing, but this, of course, > makes no sense in the larger picture. We could mandate required attacks, > but obviously that's not particularly desirable and such rules are always > prone to rules weaseling. Second Front has what seems to be a workable rule on V1 attacks which might be simply extended to a rule on terror bombing. Every two hits costs a resource point. Every four hits costs an infantry replacement point. An attack, whether successful or not, causes an increase in fighter garrison. > > If you want to give players a significant reason for trying such a > campaign, without forcing them to do so, you need to make some rules > that somehow make the option appealing (in game terms) without making > a decisive ruling as to its effectiveness (which one can't do without > offending everyone). It doesn't seem to me that its effectiveness is what causes offense. Whether or not it was morally acceptable to do at all is the sensitive question; one which Europa need not try to answer. > Besides, it might be a good idea to switch to a more game related > topic before people start using strategic e-mail bombing themselves. > Thanks! Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 22:23:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00184; Mon, 22 Apr 96 22:23:18 +0200 Received: from hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca (hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca [205.206.207.101]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA19525 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:21:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dns.harte-lyne.ca ([205.206.207.24]) by hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id QAA06506; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:23:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by dns.harte-lyne.ca with Microsoft Mail id <01BB3130.F3098820@dns.harte-lyne.ca>; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:21:38 -0400 Message-Id: <01BB3130.F3098820@dns.harte-lyne.ca> From: James Christopher Byrne To: "europa@lysator.liu.se" , "'Tom West'" Subject: RE: Modelling Bombing of Civilians in Europa Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:21:36 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Status: O Content-Length: 1354 ---------- From: Tom West[SMTP:west@hsa.on.ca] Sent: April 22, 1996 13:42 To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Modelling Bombing of Civilians in Europa =20 Might I suggest something from TFH. As with the original radar stations, the Allied player should never know how close they are to breaking German morale. The Germans pick a card at the beginning of the game that represents just how many bombing factors are required before "something drastic happens". .... ( Of course, ideally the German player = shouldn't know what the card is either, but that makes it kind of hard = to check :-). This is an excellent idea, and could be expanded to handle other = situations where the players are 'altering history' based on their = foreknowledge of the probable outcome of the real events and the = tendency of game rules to follow those outcomes rather predictably. Things like the strategic air war (is it oil, ball bearings, civilian = morale or the Luftwaffe?), the U-boot campaign (earlier snorts, German = ECW, code breaking on both sides), German and Allied production (earlier = German ramp up, full industrial mobilisation), technical advances, = neutral country reactions to game events, can all be assigned random = chits, cards or whatever to keep the other player in the dark as to what = will work, and what won't. Regards, Jim From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Mon Apr 22 22:29:23 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00245; Mon, 22 Apr 96 22:29:22 +0200 Received: from mailgw.liu.se (mailgw.liu.se [130.236.1.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA19666 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:28:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dub-img-7.compuserve.com (dub-img-7.compuserve.com [198.4.9.8]) by mailgw.liu.se (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA07305 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:32:07 +0200 Received: by dub-img-7.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id QAA17751; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:21:11 -0400 Date: 22 Apr 96 16:19:54 EDT From: Alan Philson <100626.2267@CompuServe.COM> To: unknown Subject: Harris's last post Message-Id: <960422201954_100626.2267_BHL6-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 1811 Ok I started this argument by objecting to pointless name calling which serves no purpose and drags this list down to the status of a bar brawl. I apologise to everyone for my own angry post which served no purpose other than to inflame an already heated topic. I would urge everyone to consider their choice of words when describing personalities lest this sort of thing happen again. Since then others have converted it into the wider issue of the effectivness of the bombing campaign and the moral issues of bombing civilians. As has already been said these subjects can be debated till the cows come home and a consenus will never be reached. The name of Harris will always be associated with the bombing of civilians, that is an inescapable historical fact. Wether or not he deserves the vitriol aimed at him in the postings on this list depends on your point of view. However you should note that in relation to area bombing Harris played no part in the formulation of the policy and did not command Bomber Command at the time when the directive to implement it was issued. These policies were formulated by Sir Charles Portal and the Staff of the Air Ministry with the enthusiastic support of Churchill, Harris, when he took command became the instrument by which these policies were carried out. As a subordinate it was not his place to question the policy merely to carry it out, now you will say Ha we hung Germans for obeying orders, that also is true and another minefield which has no place in this list. It is sufficient to say that if you choose to apportion blame there are others who should be deemed more culpable. Hopefully this will end the debate on Harris. I seek no responses to anything I have said in connection with the above. Lets get back to the real stuff. Alan Philson From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 00:44:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01235; Tue, 23 Apr 96 00:44:24 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz (iac.iac.org.nz [192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA28562 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:40:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18661; Tue, 23 Apr 96 10:37:00 NZS Message-Id: <9604222237.AA18661@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:39 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: On apologies Status: O Content-Length: 643 Dear Mr. Philson: Your apology would have been more effective and appropriate had you cut it off before the paragraph that begins: "The name of Harris will..." All you did after that was re-ignite the debate, particularly by going off into a discussion of the subject of obedience to orders, which can go off into debates on the definition of "lawful" orders and war crimes trials, and set off yet another wave of the very disgusting behavior which you both apologized for...and helped create. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 02:32:24 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02045; Tue, 23 Apr 96 02:32:23 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA00197 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 02:30:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA25758 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:21:57 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 20:30:06 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Harris's last post Status: O Content-Length: 991 >The name of Harris will always be associated with the bombing of >civilians.... However you >should note that in relation to area bombing Harris played no part in the >formulation of the policy....policies were formulated by Sir >Charles Portal and the Staff of the Air Ministry with the enthusiastic support >of Churchill, Harris, when he took command became the instrument by which >these >policies were carried out.... I have heard that Churchill did not believe that the bombing campaign would be effective but supported it anyway because it was the only way in 1940-41 to show the British populace that Britain was taking the offensive against Germany. In effect, Churchill supported what was little more than terrorism (random bombing of civilians for political purposes). Was the decision ethical? No. Was it the right decision for the time? Very likely, and this illuminates why so many groups and countries will resort to terrorism when it becomes doing that or doing nothing. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 04:23:07 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02569; Tue, 23 Apr 96 04:23:06 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA02478 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:21:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA20849 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Mon, 22 Apr 1996 21:21:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 21:21:01 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: Keith Pardue Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Modelling Bombing of Civilians in Europa (fwd) In-Reply-To: <9604221904.AA02391@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1255 On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Keith Pardue wrote: > Tom West brings us back to Europa: > > Given that there's just no way to decide whether there was any > > real chance of doing significant damage to the German civilian morale, > > Second Front has what seems to be a workable rule on V1 > attacks which might be simply extended to a rule on terror bombing. > Every two hits costs a resource point. Every four hits costs an > infantry replacement point. An attack, whether successful or not, > causes an increase in fighter garrison. > The SF rules are workable, but I would have preferred an extra point. The British having to do the above is fine, but a cost of some small number of Victory Points in addition would have been a good addition. Knocking out the V weapons was an integral part of the British war strategy. Bombing them before France was invaded, and taking the ground the sites were on as soon as possible was also high on their list of things to do. If in a game a player decided for any reason not to take the Channel Ports area, a VP cost (if the Germans were raining V weapons on London) would be appropriate to offset whatever advantage he was trying for by deciding not to take these areas. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 04:29:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02624; Tue, 23 Apr 96 04:29:17 +0200 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (abcclibr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA04879 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:27:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu id AA22119 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for "europa@lysator.liu.se" ); Mon, 22 Apr 1996 21:27:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 21:27:36 -0500 From: conrad alan b To: James Christopher Byrne Cc: "europa@lysator.liu.se" , "'Tom West'" Subject: RE: Modelling Bombing of Civilians in Europa In-Reply-To: <01BB3130.F3098820@dns.harte-lyne.ca> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1189 On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, James Christopher Byrne wrote: > From: Tom West[SMTP:west@hsa.on.ca] > > Might I suggest something from TFH. As with the original radar > stations, the Allied player should never know how close they are to > breaking German morale. The Germans pick a card at the beginning of the > game that represents just how many bombing factors are required before > "something drastic happens". .... ( Of course, ideally the German player > shouldn't know what the card is either, but that makes it kind of hard > to check :-). > > This is an excellent idea, and could be expanded to handle other > situations where the players are 'altering history' based on their > foreknowledge of the probable outcome of the real events and the > tendency of game rules to follow those outcomes rather predictably. > Yes, I agree this idea has merit, and can be expanded to other uses. It is just the old DNO rule of how Finland would fight. One must be careful however. The ends of the possibilities ( the 2 of Clubs or Ace of Spades) must not be too outlandish. One does not want the outcome of an entire game being decided by some card draws. Alan Conrad From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 05:29:16 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02940; Tue, 23 Apr 96 05:29:15 +0200 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA07843 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 05:26:38 +0200 (MET DST) From: YANAWAY@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00556 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:26:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:26:06 -0400 Message-Id: <960422232604_380771642@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Modelling Strategic Bombing Status: O Content-Length: 738 The ideas to date on the modelling of strategic bombing are excellent. However, I think that we are taking the wrong approach. As i said in my first post no one surrenders as a result of strategic bombing. And as many more perceptive persons than myself have noted the reasons for Britain's campaign lay more in the need to maintain the moral of the brittish populace than to degrade the moral of the Germans. Perhaps all countries should have a 'moral' which requires support int he face of battlefield disasters. Too many disasters and they surrender or turn sides like the Italians are modelled in SF. An Italian Strategic Bombing campaign against the Brittish late in 43 would reduce the chance of the Italians switching sides. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 06:21:05 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03134; Tue, 23 Apr 96 06:21:04 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA08519 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 06:19:54 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA043842300; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 04:05:00 GMT Message-Id: <199604230405.AA043842300@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Tue, 23 Apr 96 04:05:00 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Tue, 23 Apr 96 04:04:34 UTC 0000) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 04:13:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 5542347 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 229867 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Luftwaffe Felddivisionen Status: O Content-Length: 1688 Patrick J. Haugh posted on April 19, 1996, the following: ">Finally, the lowly 2-6 LW infantry divisions are the cheapest possible >investment of RPs for the many necessary 3-RE garrisons. Buy one of these >instead of a 3-5 security XX and you can spend that extra RP on the infantry >that's doing the work at the front -- or on a LW AA II. (And the LW XX can >run away faster than the Sec XX when that time comes, as it always does!) This is a hitch. Console yourself with the thought that each LW "pool" inf RP is in fact probably 1.5-2 RPs worth of manpower." Based Tessin and a little book by Werner Haupt, DIE DEUTSCHEN LUFTWAFFE FELDDIVISIONEN 1941-1945, I would conclude that those 1 x 2-5 Inf XX (LW) and 1 x 3-5 Inf XX (LW) should be, in SF terms, 1 x 2-5* Inf XX Grp (LW) and 1 x 3-5* Inf XX Grp (LW). The first ten or so divisions were really reinforced regiments or brigades with four rifle battalions, an artillery battalion, a flak battalion, and AT, engineer, bicycle and signal companies. The later ones and the ones of the first batch that survived, had a T/O of two regiments each with three battalions, an artillery regiment with four battalions (including the flak battalion), a fusilier battalion, and an AT battalion (these would be the ones that appear in the Jul I 43 starting forces in SF). When the divisions were taken into the Army in Nov 1943, the flak battalion was detached and stayed with the Luftwaffe. For Europa chrome, give each Luftwaffe Feld-Division (so long as it is part of the Luftwaffe), an AA factor of 1 or 2 and maybe rate it as 1/4 ATEC (?). The flak battalion was a motorized battalion of three batteries of 88s. Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 09:23:12 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04952; Tue, 23 Apr 96 09:23:11 +0200 Received: from mailgate.ericsson.se (mailgate.ericsson.se [130.100.2.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA13742 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:20:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lmera (lmera.lmera.ericsson.se [147.214.60.16]) by mailgate.ericsson.se (8.6.11/1.0) with SMTP id JAA20924 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:20:09 +0200 Received: from y0107 by lmera (5.x/LME-DOM-2.2.3) id AA02081; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:18:52 +0200 Received: by y0107 (4.1/client-1.5) id AA27257; Tue, 23 Apr 96 09:18:48 +0200 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 09:18:48 +0200 Message-Id: <9604230718.AA27257@y0107> From: Johan Herber Z/XU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <199604230405.AA043842300@relay1.geis.com> (j.broshot@genie.com) Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Felddivisionen Status: O Content-Length: 625 > From: j.broshot@genie.com > When the divisions were taken into the Army in Nov 1943, the > flak battalion was detached and stayed with the Luftwaffe. For > Europa chrome, give each Luftwaffe Feld-Division (so long as it > is part of the Luftwaffe), an AA factor of 1 or 2 and maybe rate it as > 1/4 ATEC (?). The flak battalion was a motorized battalion of > three batteries of 88s. If I remember correctly, all LW divisions have one point of AA already in Europa (inluding the Feld-divisions). I guess the 88s won't count for ATEC in the same way as integral AT battalions of other divisions don't count. /Johan From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 09:58:55 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05630; Tue, 23 Apr 96 09:58:54 +0200 Received: from colossus.barclays.co.uk (colossus.barclays.co.uk [193.128.3.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA17158 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:57:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from bognor.barclays.co.uk by colossus.barclays.co.uk with local SMTP (PP) id <09006-0@colossus.barclays.co.uk>; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:56:53 +0100 Received: from pepsi.gra.barclays.co.uk by bognor.barclays.co.uk with BarclayNet SMTP (PP) id <26507-0@bognor.barclays.co.uk>; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:56:49 +0100 Received: by pepsi (1.37.109.14/16.2) id AA130276043; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:54:03 +0100 From: Stefan Farrelly Message-Id: <9604230854.ZM13025@pepsi.gra.barclays.co.uk> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:54:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: Johan Herber Z/XU "Re: Luftwaffe Felddivisionen" (Apr 23, 9:18am) References: <9604230718.AA27257@y0107> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 31aug95) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Felddivisionen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: O Content-Length: 922 > From: j.broshot@genie.com > When the divisions were taken into the Army in Nov 1943, the > flak battalion was detached and stayed with the Luftwaffe. For > Europa chrome, give each Luftwaffe Feld-Division (so long as it > is part of the Luftwaffe), an AA factor of 1 or 2 and maybe rate it as > 1/4 ATEC (?). The flak battalion was a motorized battalion of > three batteries of 88s. If this is true, and as Johan said they already have 1 point AA being Luftwaffe divisions but their integral batallion is motorized then shouldnt we be able to break off from the divisions a 1-10 (or 0-1-10) Mot AA II (flak=1) and remove the AA point from the division ? If the Luftwaffe divisions are used for garrisons, which they are ideally suited, then the 1 point mot AA would be rather more well utilised in the front somewhere. Question: How many batteries of 88's in a 1-10 Mot AA II (flak=2) ?? >3 ? Stefan Farrelly From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 09:59:14 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05635; Tue, 23 Apr 96 09:59:13 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA17180 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:58:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.14] (Stora_Red_04 [130.237.155.14]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id JAA26231 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:58:04 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:58:04 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: Modelling Strategic Bombing Status: O Content-Length: 1060 >The ideas to date on the modelling of strategic bombing are excellent. > However, I think that we are taking the wrong approach. As i said in my >first post no one surrenders as a result of strategic bombing. And as many >more perceptive persons than myself have noted the reasons for Britain's >campaign lay more in the need to maintain the moral of the brittish populace >than to degrade the moral of the Germans. Perhaps all countries should have >a 'moral' which requires support int he face of battlefield disasters. Too >many disasters and they surrender or turn sides like the Italians are >modelled in SF. An Italian Strategic Bombing campaign against the Brittish >late in 43 would reduce the chance of the Italians switching sides. Italian strategic bombing of Britain? Now THAT'S something for the twilight zone! :-) On the other hand, what if the Allies had done a real strategic bombing campaign on the Italians? Would that have decreased or increased the Italian will to resist? Not easy to know. Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 11:55:00 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA07442; Tue, 23 Apr 96 11:54:59 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA19673 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:52:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.14] (Stora_Red_04 [130.237.155.14]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA27285 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:52:09 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:52:11 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: RE: Modelling Bombing of Civilians in Europa Status: O Content-Length: 1099 > Yes, I agree this idea has merit, and can be expanded to other >uses. It is just the old DNO rule of how Finland would fight. > One must be careful however. The ends of the possibilities ( the 2 >of Clubs or Ace of Spades) must not be too outlandish. One does not want >the outcome of an entire game being decided by some card draws. No, and this probably means another thing: GE will, by neccessity, have a large amount of "players choice" rules. To take the example above, it probably should be up to the players to decide wether the morale should be a specific or random value, and if a random value, within what ranges. Since no one knows the "true" values anyway, it's more a matter of player satisfaction and balance than anything else. (I did it again! Sorry for the duplets Alan. It's SO easy to forget to change the address when replying.) Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se Address:Yrkesvagen 13 2tr 122 31 Stockholm tel: 08-648 09 62 Sweden From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 18:54:45 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA13327; Tue, 23 Apr 96 18:54:43 +0200 Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.255.59.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA08909 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:50:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com by hplb.hpl.hp.com; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 17:49:56 +0100 Received: by hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA15060; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:46:00 -0700 From: Patrick Tobin Message-Id: <9604231646.AA15060@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> Subject: Re: SYSTEM: Luft peeves and France 40 To: nforte@gmu.edu Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 9:46:00 PDT Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: ; from "Nicholas Forte" at Apr 20, 96 10:47 pm Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Status: O Content-Length: 4236 > > On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:35:38 +0200 o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) wrote: > > >I've read a discussion on this earlier, either on this list or in TEM. The > >reasoning goes that the French should have a +1 DRM over the German fighter > >pilots because of their superior training. The high Luftwaffe losses in the > >campaign was said to support this. > > > >However, a friend of mine has studied the air combat over France and > >belgium in detail, and found that this evidence does not hold. The high > >Luftwaffe losses was due to the large amount of unescorted bombing missions > >flown, not superior French skill. > > While it is true the French shot down a huge number of bombers, they were also > successful against the German fighters. The most spectacular Armee de l'Air > victory showing the high training of the French airforce occured on 6 November > 1939, when 9 Curtiss H.75A-1 of GC II/5 engaged 27 Me 109D of JGr 102 (led by > Hpt Hannes Gentzen, the Luftwaffe's top scorer in the Polish campaign). The > French shot down 8 Messerschmitts, against a loss of a single Curtiss. > > The following table of air-to-air combat losses during the Battle of France (10 > May - 24 June 1940) shows that, despite having inferior equipment and fewer > numbers, the Armee de l'Air was able to shoot down almost as many German > fighters as it lost. > > > Germans: French: > Me 109 162 Morane 406 99 > Me 110 56 Bloch 152 67 > Curtiss H.75 54 > D.520 31 > Potez 631 5 > Caudron 714 8 > Bloch 151 2 > Total Fighters: 218 266 > > > Do 17 90 Breguet 691/693 25 > Do 215 12 LeO.451 27 > He 111 124 Glenn Martin 167F 8 > Ju 86 4 Douglas DB.7 10 > Ju 87 42 Potez 633 2 > Ju 88 13 Farman 222/2-224 1 > Hs 123 4 > Total Bombers: 289 73 > > > Hs 126 80 Potez 63-11 52 > Potez 637 3 > Mureaux 115/117 4 > Bloch 174 2 > Total Recce/Obs: 80 61 > > Total combat losses: 587 400 > > I won't dispute that the Armee de l'Air was well trained. The example you've given, however, was (just as you've indicated) the most spectacular victory they achieved, and indicates the superiority of the Hawk 75A over the Bf109D, as much as anything else. The other encounters with the LW were far less spectacular, and don't indicate that a DRM is in order. On Sept 30, 1940 56, and 152 squadrons RAF intercepted a group of Bf110s flying escort. The British lost 1 Spit and 5 Hurricanes (plus numerous damaged) for 1 Bf110 damaged. Does this encounter indicate the inferiority of RAF Fighter Command? I think not. More likely a bad die roll. When you're hot, you're hot, when you're not, you're not. Also, regarding the German losses above, were they all lost in aerial combat with the French? The Brits made a substantial fighter commitment to the defense of France. They often get overlooked when the French start tallying up LW losses, and German losses in Norway frequently end up in the final figures. Assuming France doesn't fall as quickly, what about the new pilots joining the ranks of the expanded Armee de l'Air? How would their quality be ranked? I'd just leave things as they are with regard to the French, and yank the DRM for the Italians ( They were fine pilots, but ineffective COMBAT pilots.) P.T. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 19:54:07 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA14089; Tue, 23 Apr 96 19:54:06 +0200 Received: from r05n01.cac.psu.edu (r05n01-fddi.cac.psu.edu [146.186.157.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA16185 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 19:50:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [128.118.114.24] (che024.che.psu.edu [128.118.114.24]) by r05n01.cac.psu.edu (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA20530 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 17:49:50 GMT X-Nupop-Charset: English Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:22:19 -0600 (CST) From: "Friedrich G. Helfferich" Sender: fxh1@psu.edu Message-Id: <40941.fxh1@email.psu.edu> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: "strategic" bombing Status: O Content-Length: 1606 Hello there: Sorry to see that some participants in the debate seem to feel offended by my remarks. Apology is offered where needed. No offense was intended, and I don't feel offended by anyone stating an opinion contrary to mine on this or other issues. I spoke out of concern for our future in the face of the terrible weapons of mass destruction that our technology has given us in this century. What good international laws, agreements, the Geneva Convention, if it's quite OK to disregard them when the chips are down? If we adopt an "all is fair in love and war" attitude, the next major conflict is apt to make our planet uninhabitable, and small consolation if one side's butcher then can say "we won." I've had my say. From now on I'll just listen. But allow me to sign off on a more positive note: Warfare by the rules IS possible in our time. Hardly anyone will deny that Africa and Italy were bitterly contested campaigns, but they were fought by both sides with admirable fairness and decency (one can almost say with sportsmanship) and with occasional acts of compassion that went well beyond what the Geneva Convention called for. I was fortunate to witness some of these, and that memory has helped to keep alive my sometimes sorely tested belief in human decency. A footnote: The story that the organizers of the British 8th Army soccer championships in early 1945 tried to invite a German team is probably apocryphal (I never found out for sure), but the fact that it was widely believed attests to the mutual regard with which the Italian campaign was fought. Fred Helfferich From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 22:33:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15529; Tue, 23 Apr 96 22:33:17 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz ([192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA12325 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 22:28:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21853; Wed, 24 Apr 96 08:25:11 NZS Message-Id: <9604232025.AA21853@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 08:28 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: "strategic" bombing Status: O Content-Length: 1012 I would very much like to see a comlete and absolute end to the debate on strategic bombing. If people want to apologize for causing offense, they should do it, and leave it at that, not continue on with their personal hobby horses. If they want to argue their points on strategic bombing further or explain themselves with the people they have been insulting and slapping, they should do so in private posts. I have had quite enough of "europa@bombing." Happy ANZAC Day, which is tomorrow. On this national holiday in New Zealand and Australia, the aging veterans of the two nations' shared wars will pay tribute to the living and dead wh fought at Gallipoli, Greece, Crete, Alamein, Cassino, Sattelberg, Trieste, the Imjin River, Phuoc Binh, and the Persian Gulf. I will be marching in the Christchurch parade along with some holders of the Victoria Cross. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Tue Apr 23 23:05:11 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA15924; Tue, 23 Apr 96 23:05:10 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA18666 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:02:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [204.217.246.137] (samarkand.crossover.com [204.217.246.137]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA27860; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:54:29 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 17:01:54 -0400 To: "Friedrich G. Helfferich" From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: "strategic" bombing Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 736 >Sorry to see that some participants in the debate seem to feel offended by >my remarks. Apology is offered where needed. No offense was intended, and >I don't feel offended by anyone stating an opinion contrary to mine on this >or other issues.... >I've had my say. From now on I'll just listen. Please continue to contribute! Emotions sometimes run high, but this mailing list is greatly enhanced through a broad exchanged of views and facts. Allowing occassionaly bad manners to drive people from contributing will in the end hurt us all. HINT TO PROTO-FLAMERS: If you have something rude to say, send it by private e-mail. Better, take a deep breath and reconsider whether it is better to respond rationally or emotionally. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 04:11:15 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18298; Wed, 24 Apr 96 04:11:14 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA21513 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 04:05:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id VAA15861; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:41:38 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:41:37 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Felddivisionen Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <9604230854.ZM13025@pepsi.gra.barclays.co.uk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 501 You should not be able to separate out the flak battalion if it never operated independtly of its parent division. And, so far as i know, they never did. Teh Luftwaffe 1-10 mot hv AA II has 5 batteries 3 of 4 88s apiece as well as two batteries of 12 20mm each. Sometimes a battery of 9 37mm would be substituted for a heavy battery. Teh 88 batteries also had a few 20mm , 2 I believe in the early part of the war, but I think it increased, but I don't remember offhand exactly how much. Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 04:25:08 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18446; Wed, 24 Apr 96 04:25:07 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA21713 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 04:22:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.121.9] (ip-pdx05-09.teleport.com [206.163.121.9]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA13062; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 19:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604240221.TAA13062@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 19:28:24 -0700 To: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Churchill-humanitarian award Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 1850 very insightful post, John. Of course Churchill was very enthusiastic about other forms of terror as well and had accumulated some experience in the practical application of terror against civilian populations when he advoacted the use of poison gas against Iraqi tribesmen in the '20s. Presumably this was a cost-cutting measure, since it was much easier to drop gas bombs on people from airplanes than to send another battalion of King's troops to some far away place. Winston felt that poison gas was just right for use against 'uncivilized tribes'-mainly Kurds who'd been promised independence. Churchill himself authorized the use of chemical weapons, "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment," denouncing the "squamishness" of those who objected to Another pertiment point: Noting approvingly that British diplomacy had prevented the 1932 disarmament conference from banning bombardment of civilians, the equally respected statesman, Lloyd George observed that "we insisted on reserving the right to bomb niggers," capturing the basic point succinctly. But Winnie is not off the hook just yet: As Home Secretary in 1910 he had secretly proposed sterilization of 100,000 "mental degenerates" and the dispatch of tens of thousands of others to state run labor camps so as to save the "British race" from inevitable decline if its "inferior members" were allowed to breed-We shouldn't be too hard on Churchill, though -these ideas were well within the bounds of respectable opinion, but had long been kept secret in the Home Office files because of their sensitivity-especially since Hitler put similar ideas into practice. And if you think I'm making this stuff up, you can get a lot more if you read Churchill biographer Clive Ponting, Sunday Age (Australia), June 21, 1992. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 04:52:15 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18572; Wed, 24 Apr 96 04:52:14 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA21967 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 04:49:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.121.9] (ip-pdx05-09.teleport.com [206.163.121.9]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA27158; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 19:48:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604240248.TAA27158@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 19:55:07 -0700 To: Tom West From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Tom's bombing ideas Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 810 I liked your suggestion about modelling terror bombing for the Europa game. I may incorporate them into my Grand Europa test project. I like giving the players some reason to follow historical precedent, while allowing them the option not to. The reasons cannot always be realistic- German, or English morale most likely wouldn't have cracked as a result of terror bombing- but if there's actually some chance that it might...players will be tempted to have a whack at it-especially if they have the resources to do so. I think the reason why leaders like Goring and Harris thought they could break enemy will by terror was the horror of what the Luftwaffe accomplished at Rotterdam (intentionally or not) that contributed to the Dutch surrender. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 05:10:44 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18670; Wed, 24 Apr 96 05:10:43 +0200 Received: from iac.iac.org.nz ([192.124.160.153]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA22172 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 05:07:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtpgate.iac.org.nz by iac.iac.org.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA23071; Wed, 24 Apr 96 15:03:47 NZS Message-Id: <9604240303.AA23071@iac.iac.org.nz> From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (David H. Lippman) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 15:01 GMT To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Churchill-humanitarian awar Status: O Content-Length: 806 I'm past the point of being tired of nastiness on this channel. I clued in to discuss Europa the game. Instead I'm being treated to endless nastiness, with this latest diatribe about Winston Churchill and his 1910 policies. Steve and "Bob Dobbs" can form his own Internet channel if he likes, and send out hourly statements on how the world should exist according to him, and his delighted audience can do whatever they think appropriate. If I come in Friday morning, and find more of this.....filth...I'm going to dump this line, and subscribe to alt@paranoia, where I can take nastiness and insults pure and untarnished, without the base alloy of hypocrisy. David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 05:45:01 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA18802; Wed, 24 Apr 96 05:45:00 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA26763 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 05:41:51 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA298866413; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 03:26:53 GMT Message-Id: <199604240326.AA298866413@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Wed, 24 Apr 96 03:26:53 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Wed, 24 Apr 96 03:24:25 UTC 0000) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 03:03:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 7494636 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 237973 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Luftwaffe XXs and the I.A.F. Status: O Content-Length: 2897 "shouldnt we be able to break off from the divisions a 1-10 (or 0-1-10) Mot AA II (flak=1) and remove the AA point from the division ? If the Luftwaffe divisions are used for garrisons, which they are ideally suited, then the 1 point mot AA would be rather more well utilised in the front somewhere." The absorption of the Luftwaffe divisions into the army gave the Luftwaffe the following AA battalions 1 xx I./40 2 xx I./50 3 xx I./43 4 xx II./8 5 xx I,/17 6 xx I./34 7 xx [decimated on the Don in early 1943, remnants absorbed by 15 xx] 8 xx [same fate as 7 xx] 9 xx I./2 10 xx II./32 11 xx I./28 12 xx II./6 13 xx I./54 14 xx I./15 15 xx I./46 16 xx I./53 17 xx I./20 18 xx II./52 19 xx I./35 20 xx I./48 21 xx [flak battalion not taken into Army but designation not given in Tessin] 22 xx [did not complete formation, absorbed by 21 xx, but its AT battalion became a light flak battalion, in Europa terms, 1 x 0-1-10 mot lt AA II (AA=1) 88 (LW)] Note that the Luftwaffe divisions did not become static divisions until they came under army control; given being saddled with a "Goring Rule," the German side probably shouldn't be allowed to break out the AA battalions until then. I don't see where these new battalions are accounted for in FiE/SE or in SF unless it is in the 8 points of position AA of various types that arrive on the Dec I 43 turn in FiE/SE (2 in SF) (but then again, I've been wrong before). "Question: How many batteries of 88's in a 1-10 Mot AA II (flak=2) ?? >3 ?" If I have it figured correctly, a standard German 1 x 1-10 mot hv AA II (AA=2) (LW) in Europa would be of the mixed variety with five batteries, three of 88s and two of light flak (20mm and/or 37mm); Alfred Price's LUFTWAFFE HANDBOOK 1939-1945 lists the following types of Luftwaffe AA battalions: -heavy (four batteries) -mixed (five as listed above) -light (three to four batteries) -searchlight which were further classified as fully motorized ("mot."); semi-motorized ("v.") or static ("o"). "Italian strategic bombing of Britain? Now THAT'S something for the twilight zone! :-)" Without trying to reopen previous discussions, the Italians did try this (sort of). Mussolini sent a token force to participate in the Battle of Britain. In Their Finest Hour: Oct II 40, Italian air units: 2 x Br.20M, 1 x CR.42, 1 x G.50. According to AIRCRAFT IN PROFILE #110 (THE FIAT B.R.20), the "Corpo Aereo Italiano" operated with 80 B.R.20s from Belgium from 25 Oct 1940 to Jan 1942, losing 20 B.R.20s and raiding places like Harwich, Ramsgate, and Ipswich. It should be noted that one of the leading prewar proponents of theory of strategic bombing was Giulio Douhet who wrote COMMAND OF THE AIR and THE WAR OF 19--. Jim Broshot, St. James MO p.s. Oops! thats to Jan 1941, not 1942 From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 07:40:59 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA19393; Wed, 24 Apr 96 07:40:58 +0200 Received: from sub.sonic.net (root@sub.sonic.net [199.4.118.8]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA04651 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 07:38:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [199.4.118.155] (pm155 [199.4.118.155]) by sub.sonic.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA32694 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 22:40:00 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 22:37:35 -0800 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bstone@sonic.net (Bill Stone) Subject: Re: Churchill-humanitarian awar Status: O Content-Length: 1589 David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer wrote: >I'm past the point of being tired of nastiness on this channel. I >clued in to discuss Europa the game. >Instead I'm being treated to endless nastiness, with this latest >diatribe about Winston Churchill and his 1910 policies. Dave, it appears that you're equating non-game topics to nastiness. I think most of us have agreed that we're as interested in the underlying history as we are in Europa, Glory, and the WWI series. Further, and I don't mean this as criticism of either of you, I think Steve's posts are not that much more off the topic than some of yours. Perhaps the real problem here is a collision of incompatible personal philosophies, a not uncommon occurence on the Net. When that happens, I'm all in favor of focusing our discussions on the games and their historical context without resorting to flame-fests or branding other opinions as "nastiness". While it might not be the height of good manners to call certain officers "stupid" or to claim that certain politicians were not the embodiment of late-twentieth-century politically correct liberalism, neither is it courteous to take clamorous offense at such opinions and stamp one's foot on the List. One strategy in these situations, and you might find it better than just dropping off the List, is to simply not read messages from those contributors you recognize as unpalatable. ---------------------------- Bill Stone Santa Rosa, CA bstone@sonic.net World War II Web Site: http://www.sonic.net/~bstone ---------------------------- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 16:14:14 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA27565; Wed, 24 Apr 96 16:14:13 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA27305 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 16:05:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [204.217.246.137] (samarkand.crossover.com [204.217.246.137]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA29020; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 08:57:02 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:04:23 -0400 To: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Churchill-humanitarian award Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 1938 >But Winnie is not off the hook just yet: >As Home Secretary in 1910 he had secretly proposed sterilization of 100,000 >"mental degenerates" and the dispatch of tens of thousands of others to >state run labor camps so as to save the "British race" from inevitable >decline if its "inferior members" were allowed to breed-We shouldn't be too >hard on Churchill, though -these ideas were well within the bounds of >respectable opinion, but had long been kept secret.... I wish to point out that "these ideas were well within the bounds of respectable opinion" is indeed correct for most independent nations of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, and was backed up (in Europe and America) by the work of supposedly repuatable and irrefutable science of the day. In many ways, it was the sins of tribalism (my tribe or class or sect must be best and others inferior) writ large on 19th C nationalism. Now, if a person back then believed what various scientists were saying, then your nation stood in risk of being dragged down by the over-breeding of mental defectives (either home-grown or immigrant) and criminals (one school of thought was that criminality was inheritable and came from throwbacks closer to brutish animals than humans). And, if you believe it, you should act on it -- in the US, such as IQ tests for immigrants, immigration quotas based on national origin, forces sterilization of "mental defectives" by various states, etc. (For further details, almost any of Steven Jay Gould's collections of essays will have several pieces on aspects of this. Highly recommended.) The above does not condone what happened, but shows that it was understandable why people would believe such things. The ethical failure is not so much in taking action on the beliefs as in not scrutinizing the beliefs and purported evidence for their accuracy. Blind trust in authority, as many know today, is rarely the best course of action! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 16:58:32 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA28357; Wed, 24 Apr 96 16:58:31 +0200 Received: from crash.cts.com (root@crash.cts.com [192.188.72.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA08665 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 16:56:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fhi by crash.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0uC5zB-0000q4C; Wed, 24 Apr 96 07:56 PDT Received: from notes.san.fhi.com by fhboot1.san.fhi.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0uC4kG-0000g9C; Wed, 24 Apr 96 06:36 PDT Received: by notes.san.fhi.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA1860; Wed, 24 Apr 96 07:35:54 -0700 Message-Id: <9604241435.AA1860@notes.san.fhi.com> Received: from Forte with "Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP" id 0298022C8A6FEFFC88256316004E8B40; Wed, 24 Apr 96 07:35:53 To: europa From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 24 Apr 96 7:34:57 PS Subject: Can we all get along? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Status: O Content-Length: 1289 I realize that I am a comparative newcomer to Europa on line, but I can't help but be struck by the recent decline in civility on this board. Please gentlemen, this is a board dedicated to the game we all love, Europa, and the history which surrounds it. Opinions regarding historical data are just that...opinions. We are all entitled to have them, and we are all bound to respect the existence of those which may differ from our own. Freedom of speech and expression, remember, are two of the things our fathers and grandfathers fought for during the Second World War. There is no need to launch personal attacks on fellow posters, nor should there be cause to withdraw from the board over simple disagreements. Europa gamers are generally a highly knowledgeable and well educated group. Please, let us refrain from petty squabbling like some hillbilly group of Hatfields and McCoys. I would agree that we should all try to keep the postings from being too subjective, but readers should keep rebuttals professional and not personal. This is a great board and there are many excellent contributors. Let's keep our standards and civility up where it should be and get back to where we were...on Europa (and it's forthcoming spin-offs)! Sincerely, Jay Steiger From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 18:16:57 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA29508; Wed, 24 Apr 96 18:16:56 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA13384 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 18:15:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.123.90] (ip-pdx14-26.teleport.com [206.163.123.90]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA09694; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604241613.JAA09694@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:20:01 -0700 To: cloister@dircon.co.uk From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: some air info (very long) Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 15999 Here are some tidbits I came across while looking for my data on the Yak fighter, which seems to be buried as securely as war Troy. I posted this to the group in general, since much of it pertains to the strategic bombing debate. The data is totally unedited and pertains to some design ideas I was tossing around with a correspondent a year ago: Economic Improvement - it should be possible for a nation to select cities (or areas) and expend money on infrastructure, supporting industries, raw material exploitation, etc... to improve its eco performance. This should be fairly simple, making it an expenditure of say ten points in the budget to increase a cities eco points by one. This figure is rough, but I think that much higher than ten prohibits usage, while lower than it would encourage unrealistic abuse. Anyway, see what you think about it. Economic Planning - the actual build orders and the like (as opposed to espionage, etc... that take place immediately) I think should have a lead time. I.e, a player turns in his orders for the next quarters production at the BEGINNING of that quarter (when he recieves the units built last quarter). This rectifies the rather glaring lack of any need for long range planning on the part of strategic level players. You'd have to have some idea of what you would need in advance, then order it from the factories, and wait while it is produced and assembled (both in the meaning of parts, and in the meaning of organization). This would be much more realistic. (hell, I suppose an arguement could be made for TWO quarters ahead, but that's up to you) I think this would be very simple (just file them away until needed) to do and add very much to the realism of the game. And also allow "strategic surprise" in the production area; you order loads of planes and tanks, in anticipation of extended land operations, while the enemy has in the meantime taken the war to sea, you would have to catch up in the naval department once you've discovered your error. Anyway, that's a simple example; let me know what you think. Dispersal of Factories - factories should be able to be dispersed if desired. For the cost of ten or twenty percent of the factory it is considered to have been dispersed for purposes of bombing (signified by a "d" placed next to it on the eco sheet). This renders actual bombing damage against that particular factory (for both production destruction or destruction of the factory itself) at only ten or twenty percent of inflicted damage. The down side is that they are reduced in capacity by around 25% or so (maybe more, maybe less, haven't thought on this much) and that they can not be moved unless the dispersal cost is paid again (reassembling the components of the industry for orderly movement). PILOT TRAINING: The Germans did indeed have a pilot bottleneck in the latter stages of the war. The greatest cause of this was lack of fuel for time in the air (the Russians just neglected to build trainers almost altogether, except for a few selected air units, and a portion of the combat avaiation production was funneled into training (and didn't see front line service). This did however have some advantages. Training in frontline combat aircraft produced some significant familiarization advantages for the best of the Russian pilots. The Germans in 1939 allocated 260 hours flying time to pupils. 100 of these were combat types. The RAF at the same period allocated 200 hours, 65 which were in combat types. (comparing these to first-time pilot losses is interesting; correlation is near perfect) As fuel (the KEY) became short, German pilot training had to cut back more and more. Here are some comparisons: Oct. 1942 - June 1943 Luft. 220 (55) RAF. 360 (75) USAAF 300 (100) July 1943 - June 1944 Luft. 175 (50) RAF. 360 (75) USAAF 340 (140) July 1944 - May 1945 Luft. 125 (35) RAF. 360 (75) USAAF 400 (200) As you can see, a significant difference is to be found (and it keys on fuel availablity - for more on this see Adolf Galland's FIGHTER GENERAL, Galland was of course the Luftwaffe Fighter Arm's commanding General at the most critical stages of the war). Even more telling is that the hours lost in the combat types and general combat training were those that should be devoted to: "gunnery and tactics. This was revealed in all the fatal mistakes of the inexperienced pilot in combat - absurdly inadequate air-search and preoccupation with formation keeping; an inability to fly the aircraft to its limits; a tendency to forget to jettison the drop tank or arm the weapons when joining combat and, finally, an inability to break off combat and escape when warranted by a tactical situation." I think your figures for US pilots are a little off. You said 50,000. In 1945 alone, 105,000 US pilots were graduating the schools EACH MONTH. These excesses which had been ongoing were found to be so large that by March the monthly grad rate had been purposely lowered to 30,000. In this same period, the Luftwaffe was forced by fuel considerations to make the recommendation that pilots for the He 162 jet fighters be found by taking a one year intake of Hitler Youth and training them IN GLIDERS. For these cites: see Galland's book mentioned above (excellent for the inside story on the Luftwaffe; fighter arm especially). John Ellis' Brute Force, p. 205. T. Wood and B. Gunston, Hitler's Luftwaffe, Salamander press, 1977, p. 112. By the end of the war the US "90 day wonders" were the best trained pilots coming out of any nation in the world. Also, the lack of training showed up in losses, non-combat losses. For example, in June 1944 over 3,000 aircraft were lost in take off and landing accidents, compared to 1,476 to ALL forms of enemy action. Not just at the front was attrition by accident due to lack of in-air training time a problem. Of all the aircraft ferried to the front lines from the factories, "twenty-five percent were totally destroyed in accidents." Fuel and training is the key. Now back to the Soviets who trained almost exclusively in combat types. While this was often mitigated by their VERY low total in-air training times, their combat type air-training time was higher than that of their enemies. The Russians (when they had the fuel to operate) generally had a high rate of combat newbie loss (like all air forces). This percentage however in the fighter arm was actually LOWER than that of the Germans. Interesting, and accountable apparently only to the fact that they were familiar from the very beginning with the type (and sometimes the actual plane) they were flying. Interesting too, is that near the end of the war the Ace of Ace's, Erich Hartmann (352 combat kills against modern Russian and American and British fighters - his story is classic, especially as he is the highest scoring pilot who ever lived) and a flight of German fighters were intercepting a Soviet bombing raid over Prague. They had run short of fuel and ammo and were about to call it quits when out of no where a group of P-51's appeared and dived into the fray. The escorting Russians, whom the Germans had barely engaged, turned furiously on these interlopers (neither side ever gave an explaination for this incident, or several others like it, and why they were allowed to continue) apparently in the belief the Americans had fired on them too. The Germans took their god-sent opportunity and bugged out. Hartmann watched at a distance as the two clouds of fighters swirled and dove and shot each other down in flames until his fuel forced him to retire. In the two incidents like this that I have been able to find figures for, the Soviets shot down more Americans than they lost. In one case, the numbers were equal, and in the other, the Americans actually had an advantage. Hartmann's account also details the fact that, as a mentioned before, Red Air Force operations were limited by their supply availablity. They were not able to operate for many days at a time while the Luftwaffe made daily sorties, weather permiting. A couple of comments, I've seen the book on JG-7. Fairly well written (I only skimmed it in a book store and checked it's bib and source lists), but if you like more detail on this kind of thing, see my previously mentioned FighterGeneral book by Adolf Galland. (Incidently, JG-7's creation in summer and early fall 1944 are detailed in this book, as is many of it's operational exploits, most of which were pre-jet). It covers the details of the what I like to call the Heavy Bombing Ratio. (for every four fighters the Germans could put in the air, propeller driven, they averaged one bomber downed and one fighter lost when using correct tactics; this is losses to all causes including Flak, which was the least effective of all anti-bomber weapons.) Jet fighter combat and deployment (and operations of course) are covered in meticulous detail from the founding of the first fighter squadron, Kommando Nowotny, in October 1944 from the Lechfeld Test Commando to Galland's attempted surrender of JV-44 (JV being of course the jet fighter designation opposed to the JG of prop driven squadrons) intact to the Allies. Excellent book and invaluable on understanding the problems the Luftwaffe labored under in the later half of the war, including deployment, accident, quality, and fuel problems. For more of the usable data of the USSBS (which included lists compiled during the war of German and Japanese formation, training, and in-service operability rates; all you gotta do is dig 'em up) see, in part, (since the actual thing isn't available - grin) World War II: A Statistical Survey, the newest book by John Ellis, a favorite of mine in the field. New York: Facts on File, 1993. 300 pp. Includes maps, tables, explainations and some of the most detailed citations for data you can find in the field. $85.00. Check out his other books as well. (just a sample of the data: number of armored divisions created in South Africa or from South African troops in other locations...) Interestingly enough, I have found several cites to the fact that in 1941 (winter) the Russians changed their procedure and instigated a requirement for all fighter aircraft coming off the production line to be equipped with radios. However, this was only completed in mid-1943, by which time the Red Air Force was able to operate where and when it wished with virtual impunity (they took losses, but were never detered from a target, unlike the Luftwaffe, which for all intents and purposes by this time had lost the strategic initiative, they could only react to the Reds) when fuel and supply stockpiles permited. Interstingly enough, the point I made about the Soviets looking bad primarily because of the ridiculously low sortie rate resulting from the inability to move supplies (which were abundant) to the front line airfields is borne out starkly in something I just dug up. Highest scoring Russian ace I mentioned before (Allied scorer for that matter) flew 323 missions during the entire war. A corresponding Luftwaffe pilot I examined flew 1259 in a SINGLE year. As I said before, there is no reason at all that the Soviet pilots should be penalized in comparison to any other air force (at least in my opinion.) Bombing: The B-17 (and B-24) both had some respectful bombing accuracies in the daylight. I personally have always seen strategic bombing as a waste of cash and effort (not to be totally discarded mind you, as they did have some important effects on the war; but to be pared down and the saved resources used to produce tactical aircraft in greater quantities) in many respects. There were some notable successes, but the Allies never capitalized on what the bomber could do, and continued fantasizing about obliteration of the enemy from above and all that. The two great mistakes in the European bomber record (American; and UK too when they began to coordinate their efforts under orders from Eisenhower) were they avoided crucial targets (the electrical plants, which I've mentioned before) and when they did strik, they did not return to that target. Time and again the Germans praised the fact that we, for some reason, we did not keep bombing a ceratain area or factory, but would allow them to repair what damaged had been caused by the first raid and get back into business, when four or five follow on raids would have more or less destroyed the target completely (from a production standpoint) and forced relocation and/or redispersal of the machinery at the site. Anyway, once the B-17 and B-24's got the rythme, they were able to bomb with an accuracy which was not as good as the AF thought, but far superior to that of the B-29 (which cost 3 billion dollars to develop; compared say to the Manhattan project, just over 2 billion) which was a failure as a high altitude strategic bomber. The guns were fairly interesting. The fact that they took into account (primitive computers on board) winds speed, temperature, angle of attack, aircraft speed, target speed, altitude, humidity, pressure, and estimated range to target did allow for vast improvements in performance (the greatest being able to fire at targets far beyond what manually controlled guns were capable of hitting, and produce good hits). The B-29's were by no means invulnerable, but they were tough and hard to attack. Where the ratio (I mentioned before) in Europe was for every 4 fighters the Germans put up, they lost one and downed one bomber, the ratio in Japan (which had some of the best anti-bomber types of the war, but were unable to manufacture many of them or employ them because of fuel and raw material shortages) was more on the order of for every six they put up they'd loose one to two and down one bomber. Anyway, the 17 and the 24 are superior aircraft in results. >RE: the B-29. Is not the real issue that except for Japan, for the reasons you >elaborate, that Strategic Bombing was not effective. In the European theatre, strategic bombing failed for a number of reasons (mainly that they would strike a target, then leave it alone for months - the rGermans never ceased to be amazed; while some of this was the weather, in some months only one or two raids could be flown, the rest was a misappreciation of what air warfare did) not the least of which was the British fixation on area bombing. Christ what a waste of time (boy did the RAF get stung when the USSBS came out) and aircraft and good crews. It successes were that it brought the Luftwaffe to battle (rather than allowing them relax and build up strength or shift more planes against the Russians) and tied up large number of FlaK guns that could (a smaller portion than you might think, for lots of reasons) have been used in the East to shot at Russians (supposedly). While its eventual effects mass-destruction wise were very large, its true impact on German production was totally unworthy of the effort expended to sustain the bomber offensive. I'm not advocating the abolishment of Strategic Bombing in WW II (not the game, the real thing), what I AM saying (and I believe the USSBS backs this up) is that far more could have been accomplished with half the heavy bombers and more ground support machines. Personally, I think the Russians had the right idea (and the Germans) when they geared the entire air effort to ground support and only built some 21,000 high-altitude "heavy" bombers. (compared with 97000 for the US and 34000 for the UK) The ground battles come FIRST. If you lose on the ground you can bomb all you want and it won't mean squat. (the German mistake was having geared their air force to ground support and then not recognising it, but then trying to make it do other things it was unsuited to; besides not catching the production "wave" at a good time) By the end of the war the USSR had some great heavy bomber designs, but they did not waste their time on them. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 18:34:15 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA29703; Wed, 24 Apr 96 18:34:14 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA17309 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 18:33:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.123.90] (ip-pdx14-26.teleport.com [206.163.123.90]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA20937; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604241633.JAA20937@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:39:38 -0700 To: bstone@Sonic.Net (Bill Stone) From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Churchill-humanitarian awar Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 1663 >One strategy in these situations, and you might find it better than just >dropping off the List, is to simply not read messages from those >contributors you recognize as unpalatable. I agree in general with your post. I wanted to comment only on the above sentence- I think you're correct in general: Mr. Lippman will no doubt see red any time his fundamental ideas are challenged. He should probably avoid my posts. However two thoughts come to mind: *First, at least half of my posts deal with things like mechanics, OB and map questions-directly pertinent to the game. So he's going to be missing out there. *Second, I personally go out of my way to digest ideas I find repugnant. I have read "Mein Kampf" for instance and did not go insane or blind from doing so. Nor did I start hating Jews. Anyone with a pretense to being an educated person or an intellectual should be open to any ideas- particularly those which are supported by cites. If he wanst to refute the Churchill bio I cited, then he is free to go dig through the record and find evidence that Churchill opposed using poison gas against the Kurds, or had nothing to do with the decision. The comment on "late 20th century politically correct ideals" (paraphrasing) is bathetic. Such ideals were not the issue- I was pointing out the monumental hypocrisy of men like Churchill who prated on about Nazi terror and British freedom, tossing moral platitudes left and right. Don't forget where those late 20th century liberal ideals came from- WW2. Noone in government took such things too seriously until the post war years. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 18:58:45 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA29961; Wed, 24 Apr 96 18:58:44 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA18471 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 18:58:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.21] (gw1-018.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA00138 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 24 Apr 1996 17:58:04 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 18:00:33 +0100 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Italian & French Pilots Cc: Patrick Tobin Status: O Content-Length: 1586 Patrick Tobin wrote: (snip) > Assuming France doesn't fall as quickly, what about the new pilots > joining the ranks of the expanded Armee de l'Air? How would their > quality be ranked? I'd just leave things as they are with regard to > the French, and yank the DRM for the Italians ( They were fine pilots, > but ineffective COMBAT pilots.) Frankly, ALL new pilots were fairly hopeless, regardless of whose airforce we are talking about, so I do not see any reason to penalise new French pilots more than everyone else's new pilots, i.e. not at all. I *really* disagree with what I think you are suggesting for the Regia Aeronautica. They had fine pilots, as brave and technically skilful as the RAF or Luftwaffe. The principal reason for the poor performance of the Italians in the air was not pilot quality but CRAP AIRCRAFT! Another factor was an air reporting system that was primitive compared to the British & German ones, a factor only partially rectified later in the war (frankly, even the German air reporting system left something to be desired in the early war years). Italy was quite an aviation conscious nation, with a suitably skilled pool of pilots and, by the reckoning of the early thirties, a highly competitive airforce qualitatively speaking. Unfortunately for Italy, in the crucial years 1936-1940, they fell badly behind technologically and simply did not produce aircraft comparable to the Me.109, Hurricane and Spitfire until it was far, far too late. However, regarding their pilots, Italy had nothing to be ashamed of. Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 19:51:14 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00678; Wed, 24 Apr 96 19:51:12 +0200 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA25743 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 19:48:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from osf1.gmu.edu by osf1.gmu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/07Sep94-1001AM/GMUv3) id AA15236; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 13:48:00 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 13:46:46 -0500 From: Nicholas Forte Reply-To: nforte@gmu.edu Subject: Re: SYSTEM: Luft peeves and France 40 To: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <9604231646.AA15060@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 2821 On Tue, 23 Apr 96 9:46:00 PDT ptobin@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Patrick Tobin) wrote: > I won't dispute that the Armee de l'Air was well trained. The > example you've given, however, was (just as you've indicated) the most > spectacular victory they achieved, and indicates the superiority of > the Hawk 75A over the Bf109D, as much as anything else. The other > encounters with the LW were far less spectacular, and don't indicate > that a DRM is in order. On Sept 30, 1940 56, and 152 squadrons RAF > intercepted a group of Bf110s flying escort. The British lost 1 Spit > and 5 Hurricanes (plus numerous damaged) for 1 Bf110 damaged. Does > this encounter indicate the inferiority of RAF Fighter Command? I think > not. More likely a bad die roll. When you're hot, you're hot, when > you're not, you're not. > Also, regarding the German losses above, were they all lost in > aerial combat with the French? The Brits made a substantial fighter > commitment to the defense of France. They often get overlooked when > the French start tallying up LW losses, and German losses in Norway > frequently end up in the final figures. > Assuming France doesn't fall as quickly, what about the new pilots > joining the ranks of the expanded Armee de l'Air? How would their > quality be ranked? I'd just leave things as they are with regard to > the French, and yank the DRM for the Italians ( They were fine pilots, > but ineffective COMBAT pilots.) > P.T. I think that my post may have been misunderstood. At this point I am agnostic on the question of whether the French should have a +1 DRM. All I was trying to do was answer the question of how many of the German aircraft shotdown were fighters (I may have been oversensitive to what I read in Elias' post as a discounting of the French victories). I have not made a study of the entire campaign to see if the number of French victories are higher than what would be expected by the number and types of fighters involved. As to your specific questions, the figures that I quoted were only those of air-to-air combat between French and German aircraft over the Western front. Losses due to British, Italian, Belgian, etc. are not included. Combat losses in Norway are not included. Losses due to flak are also not included. You make a good point about the expansion of the Armee de l'Air. Even if the French do rate a +1 DRM in the early part of the war--again, I am not arguing they do or do not--I would agree with you that they should loose it as the Armee de l'Air expands. As for the Italians, I don't know enough about their effectiveness in air-to-air combat. Any study of their quality, however, must correct for the unquestionable inferiority of their aircraft. Keep up the good fight, Nick Forte Reston, VA From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 20:05:38 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00830; Wed, 24 Apr 96 20:05:37 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA00478 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 20:04:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.123.90] (ip-pdx14-26.teleport.com [206.163.123.90]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA15487 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604241623.JAA15487@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:30:09 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Churchill-humanitarian awar Status: O Content-Length: 1959 > I'm past the point of being tired of nastiness on this channel. I >clued in to discuss Europa the game. > > Instead I'm being treated to endless nastiness, with this latest >diatribe about Winston Churchill and his 1910 policies. Steve and "Bob >Dobbs" can form his own Internet channel if he likes, and send out hourly >statements on how the world should exist according to him, and his >delighted audience can do whatever they think appropriate. > > If I come in Friday morning, and find more of this.....filth...I'm >going to dump this line, and subscribe to alt@paranoia, where I can take >nastiness and insults pure and untarnished, without the base alloy of >hypocrisy. Interesting how your diatribes against Mussolini are appropriate, but speaking unkindly of sacred cows like Churchill is "filth" or "paranoia". Especially so, since I'm using his and Lloyd George's own words. So- this ongoing debate about strategic bombing and everyone's thoughts on the subject is not pertinent to Europa? It seems that maybe the debate is academic and the official Grand Europa should stick entirely to tactical decisions, since many people can't handle debate past the level of "Germany Evil/Allies Good". That's generally what passes for understanding of WW2 politics, but I feel a deeper analysis is called for. And I seem to recall that there was widespread support for discussion of anything to do with WW2, especially WW2 in Europe. I have also contributed widely to the debate and discussion over counter strengths, map aesthetic and other matters which some players feel this list should be restricted to. In any event, I still say Mr. Lippman is an outstanding writer. He should be more open to the possibilities that Mr. Churchill's 1910 policies were indicative of his personality and though his attitudes may have been tempered by time, evidence would suggest otherwise. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Wed Apr 24 22:47:29 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02227; Wed, 24 Apr 96 22:47:28 +0200 Received: from smtp.utexas.edu (smtp.utexas.edu [128.83.126.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA12018 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 22:44:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slip-18-2.ots.utexas.edu (slip-18-2.ots.utexas.edu [128.83.128.98]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id PAA12415 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 15:42:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 15:42:16 -0500 Message-Id: <199604242042.PAA12415@smtp.utexas.edu> X-Sender: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Can we all get along? Status: O Content-Length: 248 > ... Let's keep our >standards and civility up where it should be and get back to where we were...on >Europa (and it's forthcoming spin-offs)! > >Sincerely, > >Jay Steiger > > Hear! Hear! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 01:31:01 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03693; Thu, 25 Apr 96 01:31:00 +0200 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA21265 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:28:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ab09438; 25 Apr 96 0:27 +0100 Received: from consecon.demon.co.uk ([158.152.9.235]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa19516; 25 Apr 96 0:24 +0100 Message-Id: <6PjesBAierfxEwyD@consecon.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:22:10 +0100 To: Steve Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Reg Danford-Cordingley Subject: Re: Churchill-humanitarian awar In-Reply-To: <199604241623.JAA15487@desiree.teleport.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.10 Status: O Content-Length: 2010 Dear All, I would just like to say that I read most things that are sent to me from the two list servers I subscribe to and I am very saddened when people get upset reading opinions and statements which they hold contrary views to. No group of people will ever agree on everything, that is human nature. I really do not see any need to get angry or take things personally, one of the great things about the Net is taking in a wide range of ideas and opinions, many of which one won't agree with at all. I would be very saddened if this mailing list was reduced to the nuts and bolts of Europa, sure I'm interested in that, but I am much more interested in World War II History, Orders of Battle etc on top of the techie Europa rules stuff. I think that we must try to be tolerant and polite in our correspondence. I would hate to see Mr Lippman leave the group as I often enjoy reading his posts, just as I enjoy reading other peoples. To comment about Churchill and the controversy. Steve was quite right when he said that WSC's views in 1910 were fairly respectable at the time. Eugenics was seen as 'real' and scientific; people talked of the 'Race' almost as though it were a single entity. Mr Astell made the point correctly I think. Winston Churchill was a public figure for over 60 years since he became famous at the time of the Boer War until his death in 1965. It is only reasonable that over that long period, he should reflect the opinions and prejudices of his time. Churchill was not perfect, no one is, but his ideas in 1910 about sterilisation and poison gas will not stop me respecting him as the greatest Englishman of his age and the man who rallied my country against the greatest threat that has ever faced the British people. For that, we can excuse him his other manifold faults and be grateful that he never carried his ideas out. Was Churchill a hypocrite? Of course he was, name me a politician who isn't! Respectfully, Reg DC. -- Reg Danford-Cordingley, London UK From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 01:48:54 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03831; Thu, 25 Apr 96 01:48:53 +0200 Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.255.59.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA21615 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:46:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com by hplb.hpl.hp.com; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:46:15 +0100 Received: by hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA19119; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 16:42:18 -0700 From: Patrick Tobin Message-Id: <9604242342.AA19119@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> Subject: Italian & French Pilots (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 16:42:17 PDT Cc: ptobin%hpwrc13.mayfield.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Status: O Content-Length: 4684 > > Patrick Tobin wrote: > (snip) > > Assuming France doesn't fall as quickly, what about the new pilots > > joining the ranks of the expanded Armee de l'Air? How would their > > quality be ranked? I'd just leave things as they are with regard to > > the French, and yank the DRM for the Italians ( They were fine pilots, > > but ineffective COMBAT pilots.) > > Frankly, ALL new pilots were fairly hopeless, regardless of whose airforce > we are talking about, so I do not see any reason to penalise new French > pilots more than everyone else's new pilots, i.e. not at all. Actually, I wasn't suggesting that new French pilots be penalized. I was attempting to make the point that French pilots were more or less the equal of the Germans, and that they would suffer the same effects of expansion, that the LW did. In other words, don't give them a +1 DRM against the LW, leave things as they are in this regard. > > I *really* disagree with what I think you are suggesting for the Regia > Aeronautica. They had fine pilots, as brave and technically skilful as the > RAF or Luftwaffe. The principal reason for the poor performance of the > Italians in the air was not pilot quality but CRAP AIRCRAFT! Another What I'm suggesting is that the +1 DRM for Italian fighter rolls should be done away with. They did indeed have fine pilots. I don't question their bravery for a moment. Technically skillful is where we part company. If you mean skillful in terms of piloting their aircraft, then we're in agreement. As pilots they were as good as, if not better, than their counterparts. Most accounts I've read of RA fighter pilots pay tribute to their aerobatic skills. However, there is more to being a successful and effective fighter pilot than skillful flying. The Italians were deficient in combat tactics, and their gunnery skills were virtually non existent. Although, Italian aircraft were underpowered and woefully underarmed, this was only a contributing factor to the poor results obtained by Italian fighter units. The firepower of an aircraft is of little benefit in combat if the pilot can't hit what he's shooting at. According to "Messerschmitt Me109 in Italian Service 1943-45" by D'Amico & (some other guy, Venieti?), Italian pilots claimed they'd never been given aerial gunnery training. When they served under LW supervision in the ANR they were pulled out of the line and given aerial gunnery classes. These were NOT novice pilots, but veterans with service in N. Africa. Doesn't sound like a +1 DRM to me. Another > factor was an air reporting system that was primitive compared to the > British & German ones, a factor only partially rectified later in the war > (frankly, even the German air reporting system left something to be desired > in the early war years). Sorry Perry, but you lost me on this one. Do you mean air to air radio communication? They were deficient in this as well. > > Italy was quite an aviation conscious nation, with a suitably skilled pool > of pilots and, by the reckoning of the early thirties, a highly competitive > airforce qualitatively speaking. Unfortunately for Italy, in the crucial > years 1936-1940, they fell badly behind technologically and simply did not > produce aircraft comparable to the Me.109, Hurricane and Spitfire until it > was far, far too late. However, regarding their pilots, Italy had nothing > to be ashamed of. > Technologically, the real problem the Italians faced was a lack of decent powerplants for their aircraft. Low powered radial engines resulted in increased drag and lower speeds. That aside, their designs were as modern and sound as any of their contemporaries. The Re2000,Fiat G50, and MC200 when modified to take high powered inlines, became the Re2005,G55 & MC205 which were outstanding aircraft, even by late war standards. This, to my mind at least, indicates well designed, quality airframes. Certainly not CRAP. The modest armament of RA fighters was a design compromise compelled by early engine performance, and rectified when more hp was available. Regarding pilots, and aircraft Italy had nothing to be ashamed of. I think, however, that there were inherent deficiencies in the RA training system, and that this didn't become apparent to the Italians themselves until they were under LW supervision. Once this was rectified, they were much more efficient COMBAT pilots, as opposed to aerobats. ANR fighter units were, in the last year of the war, better than most of their LW contemporaries. P.T. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 02:41:06 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04145; Thu, 25 Apr 96 02:41:04 +0200 Received: from server1.inetworld.com ([206.100.204.1]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA22655 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 02:40:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from server1.inetworld.com ([206.100.204.229]) by server1.inetworld.com (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA100 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 17:39:28 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4b12.16.19960424164242.384ffee0@mailhost.inetworld.com> X-Sender: ctenevada@mailhost.inetworld.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b12 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: ctenevada@inetworld.com (CTE NEVADA INC.) Subject: African Maps Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 17:39:28 -0700 Status: O Content-Length: 828 To Stefen Farrelly; Sorry it took so long to get back to you in regard to the maps covering the Upper Nile. Your understanding of what I have is correct. Maps are done and final draft of modular rules covering the region is nearly done. I am indeed prepared to send them in for the greater glory of Europa. I do need to know, however, how to get them to Arthur Goodwin. I have other questions as well; Who is on the design team for WinD? Would I be consulted on majar changes, etc., etc., etc. Looking forward to hearing from you or Mr. Goodwin. Grant Luetkehans P.S. my worthy opponant and I are nearly ready for another battlefield report. The Italian build up at Asuan is up to a full corps and getting larger. Bhagdad has been abandoned! More later.... From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 02:54:13 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04215; Thu, 25 Apr 96 02:54:12 +0200 Received: from homer20.u.washington.edu (attila@homer20.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.4]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA22833 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 02:53:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost by homer20.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.04/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA168264; Wed, 24 Apr 96 17:51:18 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 17:51:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "J. Nelson" Reply-To: "J. Nelson" To: Patrick Tobin Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se, ptobin%hpwrc13.mayfield.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: Italian & French Pilots (fwd) In-Reply-To: <9604242342.AA19119@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 660 I may be wrong, but I thought that the only game that the Regia Aeronautica recieves a +1 DRM for air combat was FitE/ SE, and that the DRM was given because Italian pilots historically performed well on the eastern front against the Soviet Air Force. They may have performed poorly in other theatres due to inferior aircraft and training relative to their western opponents, but that does not mean that they did poorly against all of their opponents. If John Astell, or anyone-else, has some background info. on RA exploits on the eastern front, I'd be very interested in seeing figures on their combat performance. John Nelson From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 04:14:16 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04697; Thu, 25 Apr 96 04:14:14 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA29702 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 04:12:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [204.217.246.137] (samarkand.crossover.com [204.217.246.137]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA30942; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 21:04:07 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 22:11:26 -0400 To: "J. Nelson" From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Italian & French Pilots (fwd) Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Status: O Content-Length: 635 J. Nelson wrote: > I may be wrong, but I thought that the only game that the Regia >Aeronautica recieves a +1 DRM for air combat was FitE/ SE, and that the >DRM was given because Italian pilots historically performed well on the >eastern front against the Soviet Air Force. You are correct on both accounts. >If John Astell, or >anyone-else, has some background info. on RA exploits on the eastern >front, I'd be very interested in seeing figures on their combat >performance. I'm on a trip at present, and I don't remember if I still this information in my files. If I have time, I'll check on this when I return home. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 04:39:10 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04871; Thu, 25 Apr 96 04:39:08 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA00016 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 04:38:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.80] (gw1-080.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA25236 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 03:38:28 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 03:40:53 +0100 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Italian & French Pilots Cc: Patrick Tobin Status: O Content-Length: 3302 Patrick Tobin wrote: >Actually, I wasn't suggesting that new French pilots be penalised. Ah. I misunderstood you. (snip) >What I'm suggesting is that the +1 DRM for Italian fighter rolls should be >done away with. Against the Soviets? They did rather well on the Eastern Front (which is where the +1 applies) (Snip) >These were NOT novice pilots, but veterans with service in N. Africa. >Doesn't sound like a +1 >DRM to me. Rule as written is vs. Soviets >>Another factor was an air reporting system that was primitive compared to >>the British & German >>ones, a factor only partially rectified later in >>the war (frankly, even the German air >>reporting system left something >>to be desired in the early war years). >Sorry Perry, but you lost me on this one. Do you mean air to air radio >communication? They were >deficient in this as well. True, the RA was somewhat deficient in cockpit radios, but no, that is not what I mean. An 'Air Reporting System' is the C3I organisation that reports the locations of enemy aircraft to a co-ordinating body (for example, the Royal Observer Corps and the Radar network in Britain constitute the Air Reporting System in TFH). My understanding of the Italian system was that it was crude and only the arrival of the Germans improved things. German C3I organisation and transportable air-warning and height finding radars certainly make a difference. >Technologically, the real problem the Italians faced was a lack of decent >powerplants for their >aircraft. Low powered radial engines resulted in >increased drag and lower speeds. Very true >That aside, their designs were as modern and sound as any of their >contemporaries. That is a rather big 'aside'. Modern compared to the Gloster Gladiator, perhaps. I have always rather felt that the engine was somewhat important when evaluating an aircraft's modernity and soundness. I can see that a design might be modern even if the engines are crummy: Westland Whirlwind... nice design, shame about the engines. I just do not think the Italian designs really fall into that category, at least not the fighters. >The Re2000,Fiat G50, and MC200 when modified to take high powered inlines, >became the Re2005,G55 >& MC205 which were outstanding aircraft, even by >late war standards. This, to my mind at least, >indicates well designed, >quality airframes. Certainly not CRAP. The principal enemy they flew against were Hurricanes and Spitfires and the Re2000, Fiat G50/G50bis, and MC200 were really no match for either. Under-powered, under-armed biplanes and open cockpit monoplanes in 1940/41 certainly qualifies as crap in my book. You need look no further for the principal cause of Italian misfortunes in the air at the hands of the RAF (though I grant you, duff aircraft was not the whole story...just the biggest chapter). Were there problems with the Italian air training system? Sure, but it took a while for the RAF to get things right as well. Also note, I did not say earlier that the Italians never produced decent aircraft, merely that they did not produce good aircraft *until it was far, far too late*. The Re.2005 etc were quite good (though I would say competitive rather than outstanding by 1943/44) but like I said...far, far too late. Regards Perry ...- From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 06:21:42 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05501; Thu, 25 Apr 96 06:21:40 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA01156 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 06:21:02 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA011595160; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 04:06:00 GMT Message-Id: <199604250406.AA011595160@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Thu, 25 Apr 96 04:06:00 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Thu, 25 Apr 96 04:05:29 UTC 0000) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 04:05:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 8491012 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 248141 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Regia Aeronautica Status: O Content-Length: 3413 The ongoing debate on the Italian and French air forces has been fascinating. I have a great deal of technical data on the Regia Aeronautica from the AIRCRAFT IN PROFILE series and books by William Green. Some comments: "Although, Italian aircraft were underpowered and woefully underarmed, this was only a contributing factor to the poor results..." Very true since (as noted elsewhere) the Italian aircraft engine industry had concentrated on air-cooled radial engines. When German liquid cooled engines were put into Italian aircraft like the Fiat G.50 (to become the G.55) and the Macchi C.200 (to become the C.202 and C.205v), the difference was amazing. As I understand it, based upon the results achieved by Italian pilots and aircraft in Spain, the air force generals and many of the pilots believed that there was still a future for biplane fighters armed with two mgs. Hence, the continued production of the Fiat C.R.42 and the continued standard armament for all Italian fighters at the start of the war of 2 x 12.7mm mgs. Interesting note, many of my books state that round counters were standard equipment on Italian fighters. Also interesting is Chris Shores' comment (see source below) that the Breda SAFAT 12.7mm mg had a poor muzzle velocity and rate of fire. The rate of fire was further slowed because most of the fighter designs had the guns in the nose so that they had to be synchronized to fire through the propellor. "That aside, their designs were as modern and sound as any of their contemporaries. The Re2000,Fiat G50, and MC200 when modified to take high powered inlines, became the Re2005,G55 & MC205 which were outstanding aircraft, even by late war standards." Discussed and noted above, BUT this point brings up the point as to why Regia Aeronautica had THREE quality fighters in full production at the same time, which used the same engine. Italy was very resource poor and dependent on imports for its aviation industry. Once Mussolini went to war on the side of Hitler, Italy became solely dependent on German largesse to keep its aviation industry going. Besides those liquid cooled aircraft engines and Mauser cannon, raw materials were needed. Lastly, the Regia Aeronautica for some reason decided that its bombers should have three engines. Besides making them harder to sell on the foreign market, this prevented them from having adequate defensive armament against frontal attacks. Perhaps it was the need to have three of the under-powered engines? I would hasten to add that the trimotored S.M.79 became one of the outstanding torpedo bombers of WW2, as the Royal Navy found out to its sorrow. Two sources (which may be out of print) that give a good overview. REGIA AERONAUTICA, by Chris Shores (a Squadron/Signal publication) ITALIAN AIRCRAFT OF WORLD WAR II, by Nico Sgarlato (a Squadron/ Signal publication). Perhaps some of our Italian correspondents can help us on these points. An afterthought: Shores says that the Regia Aeronautica frowned on the concept of an ace, and did not officially credit individual victories to pilots; this might explain some of the comments on Italian pilot quality, as "the final scores of the more successful pilots has remained very difficult to list with any degree of accuracy." I have complied a list of Regia Aeronautica units (Gruppo and Stormo), and admittedly incomplete, if anyone is interested. Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 09:20:35 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA07221; Thu, 25 Apr 96 09:20:34 +0200 Received: from bang.jmk.su.se (bang.jmk.su.se [130.237.155.254]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA04314 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:17:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.155.14] (Stora_Red_04 [130.237.155.14]) by bang.jmk.su.se (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id JAA16090 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:17:49 +0200 X-Sender: o-noreli@bang.jmk.su.se Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:17:49 +0200 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: SYSTEM: Luft peeves and France 40 Status: O Content-Length: 1298 >I think that my post may have been misunderstood. At this point I am agnostic >on the question of whether the French should have a +1 DRM. All I was >trying to >do was answer the question of how many of the German aircraft shotdown were >fighters (I may have been oversensitive to what I read in Elias' post as a >discounting of the French victories). I have not made a study of the entire >campaign to see if the number of French victories are higher than what would be >expected by the number and types of fighters involved. My post wasn't meant to discount the French victories, and I agree with you that the french pilots were as good as the Germans. As long as they had equal planes, they performed equally good. However, I have seen arguments that the German air losses in the French campaign were so high, despite the poor French aircraft, that a French +1 modifier against the Germans were motivated. According to what I have heard, however, a lot of the German losses were unescorted bombers, so a modifier is probably not neccesary (or accurate). Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se Address:Yrkesvagen 13 2tr 122 31 Stockholm Telephone: +46-8-648 09 62 Sweden From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 18:26:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00499; Thu, 25 Apr 96 18:26:13 +0200 Received: from sunic.sunet.se (sunic.sunet.se [192.36.125.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA00727 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:21:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from prague.crossover.com by sunic.sunet.se (8.6.8/2.03) id RAA24668; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 17:44:35 +0200 Received: from [204.217.246.137] (samarkand.crossover.com [204.217.246.137]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA31674 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 10:35:07 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:42:26 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Regia Aeronautica Status: O Content-Length: 5133 j.broshot@genie.com wrote: >Very true since (as noted elsewhere) the Italian aircraft engine >industry had concentrated on air-cooled radial engines. When German >liquid cooled engines were put into Italian aircraft like the >Fiat G.50 (to become the G.55) and the Macchi C.200 (to become the >C.202 and C.205v), the difference was amazing. Yes. BTW, It's not that air-cooled radial engines are inherently worse than liquid-cooled inline engines as much as it was that inline technology raced ahead of radial technology in the late 1930s, leaving those countries who had invested in radial technology temporarily behind (e.g., Italy and, to a lesser extent, the US). Radial engines caught up again by mid war (as did fuselage design to house them aerodynamically), as witnessed by the Fw 190 (better than any inline fighter when it appeared in service in 1942, and still one of the top fighters by the end of the war) and the P-47. (Now, perhaps the air fans will hold that the inline engine made for the best dedicated fighter while the radial made for the best multi-role fighter, but that's not a debate I want to get into at present). >As I understand it, based upon the results achieved by Italian >pilots and aircraft in Spain, the air force generals and many of >the pilots believed that there was still a future for biplane >fighters armed with two mgs.... Yes, again. The Italians examined the air war in Spain and decided that manueverability was the most important factor to consider for fighters, with armament and speed being of secondary importance--in essence, that WW1 fighter considerations still prevailed. Flying rings around your opponent is certainly impressive, and if your aviation people are already prejudiced in favor of manueverability (as Italy's were), you can point to sufficient incidents in Spain where highly manueverable biplanes could beat up the monoplanes. What the Italians didn't think through was that manueverable fighters were approach their design limits, while high-speed and high-firepower fighters had plenty of room for improvement. In the end, high speed and high firepower mattered more, and highly maneuverable but slow fighters were shot out of the skies by fighters that could engage and disengage at will (high speed) and could knock down their target with a single burst (high firepower). >... The Re2000,Fiat G50, and MC200... brings up the point as to >why Regia Aeronautica had THREE quality fighters in full production >at the same time, which used the same engine. The Re.2000 was not a service aircraft for the Italian Air Force; the IAF did not order it in any quantity. Instead, Reggiane built and exported the aircraft. (Later, improved models of the fighter (Re.2001, 2002) did serve in the IAF, but never in great quantities.) The standard production fighters of the IAF in 1939-40 were the CR.42 (an improved version of the highly successful CR.30/CR.32 series of biplane fighters) and the MC.200 (a monoplane the IAF accepted as they grudgingly conceded that monoplanes had a future). It made sense to have both in production for the IAF: the CR.42 since the CR.32/42 factories are already specialized in producing it, and the MC.200 since Italy does need a monoplane. The G.50 was another monoplane that was accepted, but so few were produced (no more than 1-2 E-scale counters operational at any one time) that they are really no strain on Italy's resources. >Italy was very resource poor and dependent on imports for its aviation >industry.... Yes, but the dependency was due to failure to invest in the right R&D (for aircraft engines and armament) and not due to resources. >Lastly, the Regia Aeronautica for some reason decided that its >bombers should have three engines. Besides making them harder to >sell on the foreign market, this prevented them from having >adequate defensive armament against frontal attacks. Perhaps it was >the need to have three of the under-powered engines? Exactly. Two Italian engines were insufficient for a modern medium bomber of the late 1930s, so the solution was to mount a third engine in the nose. (The Ju 52 has a similar arrangement.) This configuration hurt the armament layout somewhat, and didn't help the useful payload (since the weight of a third engine meant that fewer bombs could be carried), but its most significant impact may have been on bomb accuracy. The most accurate bombing layout was to put the bombadier in the nose, looking forward and down at the ground (through a glass panel, preferrably flat, although many bombers used curved glass for aerodynamic reasons). With the nose taken up by an engine, the bombadier had to be placed elsewhere, and bombing accuracy suffered. >Two sources (which may be out of print) that give a good overview. >REGIA AERONAUTICA, by Chris Shores (a Squadron/Signal publication) >ITALIAN AIRCRAFT OF WORLD WAR II, by Nico Sgarlato (a Squadron/ >Signal publication). Another excellent book is ITALIAN MILITARY AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT OF THE 1930S... or something like this; I can send out the exact title and author once I get home, if anyone is interested. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 18:28:00 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00590; Thu, 25 Apr 96 18:27:59 +0200 Received: from research.inland.com (research.inland.com [156.144.4.7]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA00999 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:31:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from msmail.inland.com by research.INLAND.COM (PMDF V5.0-5 #7865) id <01I3YGVU3OLS8X7P5V@research.INLAND.COM> for europa@lysator.liu.se; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:34:10 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:11 -0500 (CDT) From: "Witham, Tom G." Subject: Closet Churchill To: "Europa Email Group" Message-Id: <01I3YGVU4R6Q8X7P5V@research.INLAND.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:11 -0500 (CDT) Status: O Content-Length: 142 Could someone recommend a book(s) where these accusations against Churchill (Gassing and Sterilization) are documented. Thanks in advance. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 18:32:34 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00659; Thu, 25 Apr 96 18:32:29 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA01122 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:35:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA12231 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:35:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199604251635.AA12231@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:35:26 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa-request@lysator.liu.se, europa Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Felddivisionen Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 12:26:00 EST Encoding: 38 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 1393 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ REPLY FROM: Haugh, Patrick J. Return-Path: From: Stefan Farrelly Message-Id: <9604230854.ZM13025@pepsi.gra.barclays.co.uk> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:54:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: Johan Herber Z/XU "Re: Luftwaffe Felddivisionen" (Apr 23, 9:18am) References: <9604230718.AA27257@y0107> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 31aug95) To: europa%lysator.liu.se@internet.mhg.edu Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Felddivisionen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Stfan Farrelly wrote in response to my post on LW field divisions: (as)> their >integral batallion is motorized then shouldnt we be able to break off from >the divisions a 1-10 (or 0-1-10) Mot AA II (flak=1) and remove the AA point >from the division ? If the Luftwaffe divisions are used for >garrisons, which they are ideally suited, then the 1 point mot AA would be >rather more well utilised in the front somewhere. My answer would be no, you can't: It's the Fat Man's army; he is not going to allow the component units of his Field XX to be split up at the behest of other Reich bigwigs. Rational allocation of resources was not a Luftwaffe strongpoint. Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh WAshington DC. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 18:56:23 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00952; Thu, 25 Apr 96 18:56:22 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA01547 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:55:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA12625 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:55:32 -0400 Message-Id: <199604251655.AA12625@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:55:32 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu Cc: europa Subject: Ooops! Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 12:46:00 EST Encoding: 33 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 1310 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Upon re-reading my reply to your post, I notice that I responded as if you >had said you "preferred replacing artillery [units]" rather than the actual >"preferred [introducing] artillery [type] replacement points". Yes, I would >like to see artillery RPs too (or "weapons", as I usually call them), and >require them for replacing AA, AT, artillery, or XX-HQs, and as a proportion >for any other supported unit. Absolutely. "For whom the bell tolls" has shown some promise as an embryonic model for this system. Using a combination of ART,INF and ARM XX should enable us to better represent the manpower squeeze of the late-war period >Also, I'm curious whether we should allow AA units to "fire" at aircraft and >provide full ATEC in the same combat phase. I can kind of see the answer >both ways. It should be possible to elevate the barrel of an 88 in a two week turn... seriously, the major problem with c/m AA in the front line is that it leaves airbases and immediate rear area transport lines bereft of AA assets, especially in a dynamic campaign.... your FLAK can cover the Sedan crossings or support Rommel's 7th panzer but not both simultaneously. Haya Safari, Petrick Haugh, Washington D.C. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 19:06:05 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01106; Thu, 25 Apr 96 19:06:04 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA01781 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:05:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA12826 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:05:32 -0400 Message-Id: <199604251705.AA12826@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:05:32 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa-request@lysator.liu.se, europa Subject: Churchill- morality is temporal Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 12:56:00 EST Encoding: 20 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 859 Relative morality is a very dangerous thing. To attempt to engraft the moral outlook of the late 1990s onto a Victorian (as Churchill was) is unwise. The passage of time serves as a distorting prism: attitudes that were liberal, "scientific" and progressive in 1900-10-20 are now seen as incredibly reactionary. This is not to defend Winston: I am not a big fan of either Randolph or Winston Churchill, but to ask that their actions be placed in historical perspective and their ideas understood in the intellectual climate of the day. This goes for many of the figures of 1914-45. There are obvious exceptions. (Hitler, Stalin, Himmler....). On another note: keep the personal asides personal... My idea of fun does not include reading other peoples hate-mail. With malice toward none, Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh, Washington D.C. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Thu Apr 25 20:22:25 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02045; Thu, 25 Apr 96 20:22:24 +0200 Received: from mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (grunt.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA03633 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 20:21:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nbc.ksu.ksu.edu (danley@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu [129.130.12.5]) by mailhost.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA08102; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:20:58 -0500 Received: by nbc.ksu.ksu.edu (8.6.12/1.34) id NAA02582; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:20:55 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:20:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark H Danley To: "Haugh, Patrick J." Cc: europa Subject: Re: Ooops! In-Reply-To: <199604251655.AA12625@medlantic.mhg.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1531 On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, Haugh, Patrick J. wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >Also, I'm curious whether we should allow AA units to "fire" at aircraft and > >provide full ATEC in the same combat phase. I can kind of see the answer > >both ways. > > It should be possible to elevate the barrel of an 88 in a two week > turn... seriously, the major problem with c/m AA in the front line is that it > leaves airbases and immediate rear area transport lines bereft of AA assets, > especially in a dynamic campaign.... your FLAK can cover the Sedan crossings > or support Rommel's 7th panzer but not both simultaneously. Hmmm. Good Point - but doesn't the two week scale get is out of this one also? Sure for the unit to fire at AA and participate in combat on the same turn must represent leaving the immediate rear for the "forward edge of the battle area" or front line or whatever, but aren't some air missions "spread" over that two week period that a turn supposedly represents? (I realize that point has been hounded and propounded upon since the Ken Kettering days of ETO) Also, we're only talking about activity WITHIN one hex here (144 sq. mi total, or did I do the geometry worn) - if the AA fire is taking place in the combat phase - so is that unreasonable to conceive of the AA unit being deployed more forward in within the space of one turn (or even phase)? Would the one-week Europa people have a different take on this? Mark From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 00:58:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04507; Fri, 26 Apr 96 00:58:18 +0200 Received: from crash.cts.com (root@crash.cts.com [192.188.72.17]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA21475 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:56:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fhi by crash.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0uCZxN-0000ZyC; Thu, 25 Apr 96 15:56 PDT Received: from notes.san.fhi.com by fhboot1.san.fhi.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0uCZ0Y-0000mfC; Thu, 25 Apr 96 14:55 PDT Received: by notes.san.fhi.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA2054; Thu, 25 Apr 96 15:54:44 -0700 Message-Id: <9604252254.AA2054@notes.san.fhi.com> Received: from Forte with "Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP" id 41F00736E0E4C34888256317007C9837; Thu, 25 Apr 96 15:54:43 To: europa From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 25 Apr 96 15:54:25 PS Subject: WWII...Heros? (Non Game) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Status: O Content-Length: 1517 This is off the "nuts and bolts" game stuff, so if you have no interest in anything non game related, you should stop and delete now. Otherwise... Regarding the latest controversy over the Churchill posting, I would like to mention that nobody, but nobody walks with the angels 100% of the time. Leaders have their flaws like the rest of us, but they are generally held to a higher standard than the common man. I regard President Franklin Roosevelt as one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century (and of human history in general), but I have no illusions of his "purity". FDR bumbled the Jewish issue badly before and during WWII, he also dodged racial issues in the military. He could be spiteful, vindictive, and was always the political opportunist. However, despite this, he was a great and visionary leader. His guidance during the depression and the Second World War were invaluable for the United States (and the rest of the world as well). I have a great admiration for Churchill as well, but he was no saint either. Look as well at General MacArthur and General Patton. Both were brilliant leaders and powerful personalities (a good thing in war, as strong leadership is a morale builder). However, their enormous egos would ultimately be their downfall. MacArthur thought he outranked the President and Patton wanted to fight the Soviets for control of Central Europe. They were flawed, but I still have great admiration for their abilities. My opinion, Jay Steiger From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 01:17:29 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04686; Fri, 26 Apr 96 01:17:28 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA26195 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:17:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199604252317.BAA26195@lysander.lysator.liu.se> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:16:58 -0400 Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:16:58 -0400 Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-0); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:16:58 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa-request@lysator.liu.se, europa Subject: Civilians and boardgame morality. Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 19:05:00 EST Encoding: 50 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 2978 As the recent spate of posts will attest, the ethics of total war are disturbing to many, if not all gamers. This does raise some problems in the Europa setting. Are we going to model all the obscenities of the Third Reich? If the Grand Europa model ever gets going, are the German player(s) going to have to enact the final solution, slave labour, mass deportations, liquidation of commissars and abysmal treatment of Soviet prisoners? It does have a major bearing on the German War economy and manpower problems. As a simulation, Europa should have to straitjacket the Nazis into the Victory conditions laid out by Hitler himself: 1) A final battle with France. 2) The total annihalation of the USSR. 3) The final solution. Most gamers can deal with #1 and #2. Modelling the endlosung, even in the abstract form of producing SS-police einsatzgruppen and decreasing the railcap and resources available for the other purposes should make anybody feel ill and morally bankrupt. BUT it is one of the raisons d'etre of the whole National Socialist edifice and cannot be avoided: No nazis, no war, at least in any recognizable form. My personal feeling is that the German player should have no leeway in this. There should not be an option in which the Third Reich gets to be a bunch of Social democrat-Green party humanitarians. At most the OKH player can do an Ewald von Kleist and treat ethnic minorities half decently, gaining a bonus in Osttruppen replacements at a VP penalty. It raises the problem in a multi-player per side team: Do you want to be on the same team as a guy who ACTUALLY LIKES running the SS/SA/SD? If there is not a division of the Wehrmacht into competing fiefdoms, it is an inaccurate simulation, if there is, someone gets to be Himmler. On the emotive subject of strategic bombing....The trouble is Douhet was flat out wrong on the effectiveness of strategic bombing in the inter-war period, but politicians were haunted (and dictators inspired) by the vision of Guernica. The relatively modest abilities of the 1939-1940 medium bomber are only apparent in hindsight. How do you model a doctrine that you know won't work? At most, terror bombing should be marginally effective on the first turn it is used against a country....Holland and Denmark spring to mind...perhaps +1 on the surrender roll on the first turn of use. After that it becomes self-defeating...if anything, you are increasing the will to endure of your foe...perhaps, if we introduce a national will level, area bombardment could be used to boost domestic popularity with a range of possible effects on the other sides... Hamburg and Dresden both shaking the German will to resist, but the continued war of attrition over Berlin in early '44 actually boosting German endurance. Once again we will be on very shaky moral ground when we do so. Any proposals? Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh, Washington D.C. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 01:40:24 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04868; Fri, 26 Apr 96 01:40:23 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA26678 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:43:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA21137 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:43:51 -0400 Message-Id: <199604252343.AA21137@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:43:51 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa-request@lysator.liu.se, europa Subject: RE: Modelling The random factor Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 19:35:00 EST Encoding: 67 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 2765 >> Might I suggest something from TFH. As with the original radar >>stations, the Allied player should never know how close they are to >>breaking German morale. The Germans pick a card at the beginning of the >>game that represents just how many bombing factors are required before >>"something drastic happens". .... ( Of course, ideally the German player = >>shouldn't know what the card is either, but that makes it kind of hard = >>to check :-). Not a bad start, but perhaps a wee bit random >Things like the strategic air war (is it oil, ball bearings, civilian = >morale or the Luftwaffe?), the U-boot campaign (earlier snorts, German = >ECW, code breaking on both sides), German and Allied production (earlier = >German ramp up, full industrial mobilisation), technical advances, = >neutral country reactions to game events, can all be assigned random = >chits, cards or whatever to keep the other player in the dark as to what = >will work, and what won't. As posted earlier, the TFH radar system is a good model for this level of dual ignorance at start as to the vulnerabilty of various critical industries, with a limited german capacity to either break down a large value counter and scatter it into several cities or even build new industrial capacity (low value counters). Only the bombee will know how close he is to cracking.....Cards are very random, but might have a role for each neutral as to give a range of possible responses a la Finland. For instance: Eire. Initial posture Ace of spades: Eire enters the war as a commonwealth nation. Any other ace: Eire will enter the war as a commonwealth nation if given Northern Ireland. Commonwealth air and naval units may base in Cork and Dublin. Any King : Eire will allow basing of commonwealth air and naval units in Cork and Dublin if given Northern Ireland. Aliied units may overfly. Any Queen : Allied units may overfly Eire without violating her neutrality. Any Jack,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,or 3: Eire will remain strictly neutral. Any 2 : Increased IRA activity....The Garrison requirement for N.I. is increased by 6 RE's. Eire: response to pressure from UK. Any Ace: UK may base air and naval units at Dublin and Cork. Any King: Ditto, but on condition N.I. is handed over at wars end( Big VP loss). Any Queen, Jack, 10,9,8,7,6: No effect Any 5,4,3: Eire mobilizes fully; otherwise no effect Any 2 : As for 5,4,3 plus increased support for IRA: Increase Garrison for N.I. by 3 RE's This vastly overstates the level of popular support for the IRA, but models the risk of overbearing British diplomacy generating an Irish backlash. Any comments? Is mise le mas, Patrick Haugh, Washington D.C. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 01:55:07 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04932; Fri, 26 Apr 96 01:55:06 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA26833 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:54:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA21181 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:54:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199604252354.AA21181@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Thu, 25 Apr 1996 19:54:46 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa-request@lysator.liu.se, europa Subject: WWII...Heros? (Non Game) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 19:46:00 EST Encoding: 5 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Status: O Content-Length: 130 Hear hear Jay...all men have at least some clay on their boots. To equate Winston C. with Hitler is rather David Irving-esque From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 05:38:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06294; Fri, 26 Apr 96 05:38:02 +0200 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA29832 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 05:36:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id XAA07057; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:36:24 -0400 Date: 25 Apr 96 23:35:04 EDT From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@CompuServe.COM> To: Europa LIst Subject: Re: Ooops! Message-Id: <960426033504_74133.1765_BHR79-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: O Content-Length: 358 I don't think the length of the turn has much to do with it. AA which is assigned to defending hq, air bases, etc, wasn't available for tactical employment (except to defend themselves after the front had already collapsed). And the restriction to one mission per turn is consistent with the same restriction on the much more flexible air and naval forces. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 05:39:05 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06335; Fri, 26 Apr 96 05:39:04 +0200 Received: from jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (civguy@jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us [192.217.238.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA29847 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 05:38:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from civguy@localhost) by jean.dusable.cps.k12.il.us (8.6.10/8.6.9) id XAA15218; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:14:46 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:14:45 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Italian & French Pilots Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se In-Reply-To: <9604242342.AA19119@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 238 I see no reason that Italian pilots shouldn't continue to receive the favorable DRM, but only against the Soviets. I wasn't aware that it had been proposed that they receive it agasint any other nation. O rdid I miss something? Jason From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 05:52:36 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06420; Fri, 26 Apr 96 05:52:35 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA00025 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 05:52:11 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA228209825; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 03:37:05 GMT Message-Id: <199604260337.AA228209825@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 26 Apr 96 03:37:05 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Fri, 26 Apr 96 03:35:42 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 03:20:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 4427447 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 256429 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Grand Europa total war Status: O Content-Length: 2072 UP Patrick Haugh has written a very thoughtful post that starts: "As the recent spate of posts will attest, the ethics of total war are disturbing to many, if not all gamers. This does raise some problems in the Europa setting. Are we going to model all the obscenities of the Third Reich?" Unfortunately I have to agree and say yes. At the very least this requires that all of those SS Political Police units to be built (and maintained); along with the garrison requirements for the conquered countries. I seem to recall that SPI's War in the East game had an optional rule that allowed for "a kinder, gentler German occupation" of Russia which generated, as Patrick notes, more "Ost-truppen." However, the reality of the situation I do not believe allows this. Given the attitude of the people running the German government, there really was no place for a "liberation" of the various peoples of the Soviet Union, only the substitution of a new oppressor. In fact, given Nazi policies, it is amazing that as many of these peoples willing fought on the German side at all. This kind of shows what kind of government Stalin was running. "On the emotive subject of strategic bombing." Any Grand Europa set of rules will have to allow for the fact that strategic bombing was the "holy grail" of both the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force before WW2 and much effort was devoted to building up the theory which resulted in much effort being expended to provide the means of proving the theory. Therefore, the Allied player is stuck with Bomber Command and the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces, which are not always responsive to his wishes (as theatre commander) to act in direct support of the ground war and use up resources that the Allied player may want to see used elsewhere. Grand Europa will also not have to ignore the wishes of the German High Command (ie Hitler) to attack England at any opportunity. Not only was there the Battle of Britain, but also "the Baby Blitz," and development and use of the V weapons. Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 05:52:40 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06425; Fri, 26 Apr 96 05:52:39 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA00028 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 05:52:17 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA228529831; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 03:37:11 GMT Message-Id: <199604260337.AA228529831@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Fri, 26 Apr 96 03:37:11 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Fri, 26 Apr 96 03:35:45 UTC 0000) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 03:18:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 5995507 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 256447 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Regia Aeronautica fighters Status: O Content-Length: 2808 John M. Astell has written: "The G.50 was another monoplane that was accepted, but so few were produced (no more than 1-2 E-scale counters operational at any one time) that they are really no strain on Italy's resources." "The Re.2000 was not a service aircraft for the Italian Air Force; the IAF did not order it in any quantity. Instead, Reggiane built and exported the aircraft." The 1936 fighter specification issued by Regia Aeronautica resulted in the following: Macchi C.200 Fiat G.50 Caproni F.5 (14 preproduction types built) I.M.A.M. Ro.51 (prototypes only) A.U.T. 18 (prototypes only) The Macchi, Fiat and Caproni types all used the same engine: the Fiat A.74 fourteen cylinder air-cooled radial. Production of the G.50, its major variant the G.50bis and experimental models totalled 778; and it equipped some 12 fighter and assault groups ("Gruppo Caccia Terrestre" and "Gruppo Assalto"). 35 were sold to Finland in 1939 but, being "detained" by the Germans, reached that country in 1940; and another 10 were supplied to the Slovak air force. A "navalized" variant: G.50bis/A, was to have operated from Italy's first aircraft carrier, "Aquila," had it been completed. Production of the C.200 totalled approximately 1,200 aircraft; and it equipped some 20 fighter groups. The Regiane Re.2000 Falco I was designed in response to a later (1938) specification and, although rated superior to the C.200 by test pilots, was rejected by the Regia Aeronautica as a fighter due to structural defects. However, it was produced (190 a/c) and sold to foreign countries: Sweden (60) and Hungary (70). In fact, the British ordered 300 in January 1940 (and the German government approved the deal, at first)! [How about this being the basis of an optional Grand Europa "chrome" rule? I also seem to recall that the British tried to buy Italian engines for their PT boats...] The Re 2000 was powered by the Piaggio P.Xi fourteen cylinder air- cooled radial, although the Hungarians who built 192 more a/c under license re-engined it with a license built version of the French Gnome-Rhone Mistral Major 14K. Italian use was limited to one squadron of the Regia Aeronautica and one naval squadron of the Regia Marina. [Sources: William Green, WARPLANES OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR- FIGHTERS, VOLUME 2; AIRCRAFT IN PROFILE NOS. 64 (M.C.200); 188 (G.50), 123 (Re.2000).] Jim Broshot, St. James MO P.S. From FAST FIGHTING BOATS, by Harald Fock, "...because no sufficiently powerful, light-weight marine engine was available in Britain before the war and only the Thorneycroft petrol engine had been developed by private initiative, the proven Italian 1150hp Isotta-Fraschini petrol Asso 1000 was virtually the standard power unit for British coastal forces. This became unobtainable after 1940." !!! From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 15:30:16 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01182; Fri, 26 Apr 96 15:30:16 +0200 Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA12292 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:32:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from van0104.TVS.NET ([204.191.197.14]) by haven.uniserve.com with SMTP id <30795-26384>; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 06:35:06 -0800 X-Sender: davehum@popserver.uniserve.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: Dave Humphreys Subject: RE: Modelling The random factor Message-Id: <96Apr26.063506pdt.30795-26384+272@haven.uniserve.com> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 06:35:05 -0800 Content-Length: 2192 Patrick Haugh has brought up random events for Europa, modelling the reaction of Eire after the optional Finnish card-draw from FiTE. I have always been in favour of not being strait-jacketed totally by history (the Turks have just bagged Yerevan in our current game of SE), but the amount of variables involved in introducing events like these in a game like GE are monstrously intimidating. A whole game/module could be produced to handle non-historical events. It works much better in the context of the individual games, where the variables can be at least kept to a manageable minimum. I think that players should only rarely be 100% sure that an event will occur. However, combinations of events can cause an event to become much more likely. For example, in FoF it is ridiculously easy for the German player to cause Holland to surrender, with minimal (much less than historic) commitment. Rarely do those bright orange units ever get to move at all. In our games, the Dutch will still LIKELY surrender given the current conditions (no LOC to Allies), but it is not certain. It will be much more likely to occur, though, if the Germans - destroy Dutch units - occupy Dutch major and dot cities - hammer the French and British - deliver strategic bombing to Dutch cities (less effective as time goes on) The surrender becomes LESS likely if - the Dutch are reinforced substantially - there is some level of success achived against the Wehrmacht in the Netherlands - the Germans invade, but do little against the Dutch Army My original table called for a two-dice roll, with modifiers. Holland surrendered on a 15 or greater. Snake-Eyes always failed. Once a country has surrendered, an additional roll is made for the level of surrender (total surrender, supplied troops rolling to continue the fight with the Allied armies, RPs going over to the Allies, air escape, defection(?), etc etc) This works both ways. I don't think the Belgians surrender EASILY enough in FoF Weren't the Allies historically caught by surprise by the collapse of Belgium? Hope the Flame Wars are coming to an end. Dave Humphreys Vancouver, BC From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 16:08:43 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01802; Fri, 26 Apr 96 16:08:41 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA13233 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:07:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA00968; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:59:34 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:07:49 -0400 To: Jason Long From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Italian & French Pilots Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Content-Length: 427 At 6:14 PM 5-10-96, Jason Long wrote: >I see no reason that Italian pilots shouldn't continue to receive the >favorable DRM, but only against the Soviets. I wasn't aware that it had >been proposed that they receive it agasint any other nation. O rdid I >miss something? No, you didn't miss something. This whole Italian +1 thing started when someone misremembered that it was a FITE/SE DRM and thought it applied elsewhere. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 17:09:15 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00573; Fri, 26 Apr 96 17:09:13 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA14731 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:08:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.121.79] (ip-pdx06-15.teleport.com [206.163.121.79]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA08847 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604261508.IAA08847@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:15:02 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: German artillery units Content-Length: 810 Maybe I've missed something, but to what factors are the appearance of certain more powerful German artillery units tied? 7-5-6 Art X, 6-4-6 Art X...is this just a grouping of two artillery III? Or a different organization? My best reference on artillery is still Ian Hogg's "Illustrated Encyclopedia of Artillery". It doesn't appear that any really revolutionary German artillery designs showed up in 1944 to rate such an increase in firepower, so my best guess is that it's a larger grouping of guns. Based on OB instructions, the 6 and 7 point rocket brigades may indeed be groupings of two regiments, although I'm basing this on just one instance where two 3 pt rocket III are combined to form a 7 point X. SP "As long as someone wields the whip, someone else will want to kiss it." -G. Gordon Gordon From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 17:09:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA00578; Fri, 26 Apr 96 17:09:17 +0200 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA14735 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:08:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [206.163.121.79] (ip-pdx06-15.teleport.com [206.163.121.79]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA08907 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604261508.IAA08907@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: zaius@mail.teleport.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:15:08 -0700 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: 6-10 Panzer X Content-Length: 476 What kind of unit is the 6-10 Pz X? To take one example: I can't find any reference to the 109 Pz X anyplace except the SF OB...Drawing a blank with wartime intel record "German OB", admittedly not the most reliable or all-inclusive source! Is this just a bunch of tanks? And if so, what kind? What was the impetus behind its formation? (This would be a good TEM subject...) SP "As long as someone wields the whip, someone else will want to kiss it." -G. Gordon Gordon From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 17:37:52 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01196; Fri, 26 Apr 96 17:37:50 +0200 Received: from nucleus.com (root@nucleus.com [199.45.65.129]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA19744 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:40:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from johansen.nucleus.com (net37.nucleus.com [199.45.65.37]) by nucleus.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA14575 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:46:01 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:46:01 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199604261546.JAA14575@nucleus.com> X-Sender: johansen@nucleus.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: johansen@nucleus.com (Gordon Johansen) Subject: RE: Modelling The random factor Content-Length: 2059 >.....Cards are very random, but might have a role for each neutral as >to give a range of possible responses a la Finland. > >For instance: Eire. Initial posture >Ace of spades: Eire enters the war as a commonwealth nation. >Any other ace: Eire will enter the war as a commonwealth nation if given >Northern Ireland. Commonwealth air and naval units may base in Cork and >Dublin. > Any King : Eire will allow basing of commonwealth air and naval >units in Cork and Dublin if given Northern Ireland. Aliied units may overfly. >Any Queen : Allied units may overfly Eire without violating her >neutrality. >Any Jack,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,or 3: Eire will remain strictly neutral. >Any 2 : Increased IRA activity....The Garrison requirement for N.I. >is increased by 6 RE's. > >Eire: response to pressure from UK. >Any Ace: UK may base air and naval units at Dublin and Cork. >Any King: Ditto, but on condition N.I. is handed over at wars end( Big VP >loss). > Any Queen, Jack, 10,9,8,7,6: No effect >Any 5,4,3: Eire mobilizes fully; otherwise no effect >Any 2 : As for 5,4,3 plus increased support for IRA: Increase Garrison for >N.I. by 3 RE's > > This kind of method could workvery well for just about all the neutrals but I would suggest using only one deck for the whole game. Cards could be drawn as appropriate, hidden in an envelope until the end of the game, or shown to the other player when necessary. If only one deck is used, the political situation should average out in the long run as you wouldn't have the situation with four Aces of Spades coming up and distorting things too much. **************************************************************************** ********* Gordon Johansen The Sentry Box Canada's Largest Adventure Gaming Store (Over 13,000 sq. ft.) 1835-10th Ave. S.W., Calgary, Alberta T3C-0K2 Ph: (403)245-2121 Fax: (403)245-2272 E-mail: johansen@nucleus.com Web page and on-line catalogue: http://www.sentrybox.com **************************************************************************** ********* From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 18:26:41 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01936; Fri, 26 Apr 96 18:26:40 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA22313 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:26:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA01347; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:18:11 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:26:25 -0400 To: zaius@teleport.com (Steve), europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: 6-10 Panzer X Content-Length: 1886 At 11:15 AM 4-26-96, Steve wrote: >What kind of unit is the 6-10 Pz X? To take one example: I can't find any >reference to the 109 Pz X anyplace except the SF OB... >Is this just a bunch of tanks? And if so, what kind? >What was the impetus behind its formation? The mid-1944 German Army panzer brigades (#s 101-110 formed starting 7.44) typically consisted of a brigade HQ with a Panther battalion (usually 4 companies), a panzergrenadier battalion (3-5 companies), an engineer company, and minor support assets (no organic artillery, however). On some (subsequently shown to be dubious) indications that these brigades tended to be reinforced over establishment, they were rated 7-10 and 8-10 in SE. Later research proved that this overrated them, and the typical brigade rates 6-10, a la SF. The Germans formed these in mid 44 on the theory that the brigades would give the Army a good panzer punch quickly (by mid July 44 it was evident that the Army needed tanks in a hurry to shore up their collapsing fronts). Most were committed to action as soon as they were trained, and were frittered away fairly quickly, with the survivors usually being incorporated into the panzer divisions to help rebuild them (= disbanding in game terms). The 109th Pz Bde never saw action as a brigade. Instead, it was merged with the survivors of the destroyed Feldherrnhalle PzG Div to build the new FH Pz D (a process that will be shown in the revised SE OB; for now, just assume the bde was disbanded at the front for its armor RPs). BTW, the Germans began forming three additional Pz Bdes (111-113) in 9.44, which are not shown in the games. These had a different organization that the earlier brigades, they were formed from panzer training establishments called up when the Allies reached the western borders of Germany, and they were quickly used to rebuild smashed panzer divisions. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 18:26:46 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA01941; Fri, 26 Apr 96 18:26:45 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA22299 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:26:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA01345 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:18:05 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:26:19 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: German artillery units Content-Length: 714 At 11:15 AM 4-26-96, Steve wrote: >7-5-6 Art X, 6-4-6 Art X...doesn't appear that any really revolutionary >German artillery designs showed up in 1944 to rate such an increase in >firepower, so my best guess is that it's a larger grouping of guns. Yep. >Based on OB instructions, the 6 and 7 point rocket brigades may indeed be >groupings of two regiments, although I'm basing this on just one instance >where two 3 pt rocket III are combined to form a 7 point X. Yep again. The nebelwerfer brigades consisted of two nebelwerfer regiments (each typically with three battalions or truck-towed nebelwerfers), plus one or two companies of SP nebelwerfers (nebelwerfer launchers mounted on halftracks/Maultiers). From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 18:55:31 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02298; Fri, 26 Apr 96 18:55:30 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA23008 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:54:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA01985 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:54:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199604261654.AA01985@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:54:36 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa-request@lysator.liu.se Cc: europa Subject: Re: Italian & French Pilots Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 12:45:00 EST Encoding: 66 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Content-Length: 2801 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ REPLY FROM: Haugh, Patrick J. Return-Path: Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:14:45 -35900 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Italian & French Pilots Cc: europa%lysator.liu.se@internet.mhg.edu In-Reply-To: <9604242342.AA19119@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In response to your post on Fighter pilot quality: >I see no reason that Italian pilots shouldn't continue to receive the >favorable DRM, but only against the Soviets. I wasn't aware that it had been >proposed that they receive it agasint any other nation. O rdid I miss >something? > Jason I think we may be posting at cross purposes: The modifier for Certain Axis nations vs Red air force regulars exists in FiTE/SE. I proposed generalizing the pilot quality issue to Europa as a whole, in one of the Luft-peeves posts: LW, RAF/RAAF/RNZAF/RCAF/SAAF, USAAF, Poles, Czechs, Italians, Greeks and French all qualify as well-trained pilots. Poorer quality pilots (USSR, Egypt, Iran, Iraq) would get a +1 modifier to air to air rolls when faced by any "quality" airforce, and the good quality fighter pilots would get a -1 mod to the DR when facing poorer quality pilots. This is somewhat harsher than the FITE quality differential, but I think it would go some way to redressing the excessive attention to aircraft quality and point up differences in national aircrew quality. DNO used this harsher differential. I had also advocated the possibilty of increasing the Air RP rate at a cost of declining crew quality to cover player attempts to boost air force size at the cost of aircrew quality. The system could work with either two (well-trained/ poor) or three levels (elite/average/poor) of aircrew skill, with the modifiers only coming into play when the elite meet the poor. A matrix could be formed for Grand Europa. So far this system only addresses air to air combat, but it could be used to penalize really lousy airforces doing difficult things... perhaps a -1 mod on the die roll for tactical bombing. Is anyone else bothered by the way one can replace a Lancaster group just as cheaply as a Hurricane? Should we insist on multiplying the # of Air RPs by the number of engines on a plane, so a Fw190 costs 1 or 2 RPs, a Ju 88 2 or 4 RPs and a He 177 4 or 8 RPs? I realize that this is a very crude marker of the amount of labour, manpower and material required, but its a lot more realistic. The counters are our friends Haya Safari, Patrick Haugh From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 18:55:32 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02300; Fri, 26 Apr 96 18:55:30 +0200 Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.255.59.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA23018 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:55:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com by hplb.hpl.hp.com; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:55:05 +0100 Received: by hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA22889; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:51:06 -0700 From: Patrick Tobin Message-Id: <9604261651.AA22889@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> Subject: Re: Italian & French Pilots (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 9:51:06 PDT Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Content-Length: 2373 > > At 6:14 PM 5-10-96, Jason Long wrote: > >I see no reason that Italian pilots shouldn't continue to receive the > >favorable DRM, but only against the Soviets. I wasn't aware that it had > >been proposed that they receive it agasint any other nation. O rdid I > >miss something? > > No, you didn't miss something. This whole Italian +1 thing started when > someone misremembered that it was a FITE/SE DRM and thought it applied > elsewhere. > > John, I was aware that the Italian + 1 DRM applied to FITE/SE. This DRM mod discussion began when it was proposed, or so it seemed, that the French were being nominated for a +1 DRM over the LW. I voiced my opposition to this, and also the Italian +1 DRM. There is no evidence that the Italians performed any better than Rumanians or Hungarians did against the Russians. They certainly didn't perform on a level equal to the Germans or Finns. If the Italians are given this DRM, then all the Axis air units should have it. I hope I'm not wasting too much of our time over a single MC200 unit! The Italians claimed 88 Soviet aircraft destroyed for the loss of 19 in combat. Fifteen of these were MC200s. The only specific encounters I have recorded were against the following... Aug '41 6 SB2s and 2 I16s for no loss. Jul '42 3 Lagg3s claimed for 5 MC200s lost. If the overall Italian claims of 88 to 19 are taken at face value they have a respectable kill ratio, BUT, consider the following... Nov 11 Corpo Aero Italiano lost 3 BR20s and 3 CR42s to the British over England. They claimed 10 Hurricanes when none were lost. Nov 23 CAI lost 2 CR42s in combat with Spits. Claimed 5 Spitfires. None were in fact lost. Italian claims in N.Africa were just as inaccurate, so I think it's safe to assume their claims were also overstated in Russia. I don't want to start another thread about victory claims here. I realize that overclaiming wasn't limited to the Italians. Available evidence suggests however, that their claims were less accurate than the British or Germans. Often, it seems that they just claimed twice as many as they lost themselves. IMO there is no justification whatsoever for giving them a +1 DRM against the Soviets. If anyone has any real evidence to the contrary, please post it. P.T. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 19:06:02 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA02467; Fri, 26 Apr 96 19:06:00 +0200 Received: from medlantic.mhg.edu (medlantic.mhg.edu [198.133.139.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA23261 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:05:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu id AA02130 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for europa@lysator.liu.se); Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:04:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199604261704.AA02130@medlantic.mhg.edu> Received: by medlantic.mhg.edu (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:04:58 -0400 From: "Haugh, Patrick J." To: europa-request@lysator.liu.se Cc: europa Subject: RE: Modelling The random factor Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 12:56:00 EST Encoding: 32 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Content-Length: 1097 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ REPLY FROM: Haugh, Patrick J. >>.....Cards are very random, but might have a role for each neutral as >>to give a range of possible responses. > This kind of method could workvery well for just about all the neutrals but >I would suggest using only one deck for the whole game. Cards could be drawn >as appropriate, hidden in an envelope until the end of the game, or shown to >the other player when necessary. If only one deck is used, the political >situation should average out in the long run as you wouldn't have the >situation with four Aces of Spades coming up and distorting things too much. >Gordon Johansen I concur, but perhaps we'll need a non-standard card deck... there are more than 52 "spectrum of possibilities" events. An added bonus would be that each player would have some limited intelligence about the remaining range of possibilities as cards (some of which only one side will see until game-end) come into play. Tarot, anyone? Haya safari, Patrick Haugh From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 20:12:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03102; Fri, 26 Apr 96 20:12:16 +0200 Received: from hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca (hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca [205.206.207.101]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA24887 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:11:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hal-ham-g01-u01 (i486nt01.harte-lyne.ca [205.206.207.103]) by hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id OAA06279; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <318113C7.6D7E@harte-lyne.ca> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:19:51 -0400 From: "James B. Byrne" Organization: Harte & Lyne Limited X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (WinNT; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Gordon Johansen Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Modelling The random factor References: <199604261546.JAA14575@nucleus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 811 Gordon Johansen wrote: > > > > This kind of method could workvery well for just about all the neutrals but > I would suggest using only one deck for the whole game. Cards could be drawn > as appropriate, hidden in an envelope until the end of the game, or shown to > the other player when necessary. If only one deck is used, the political > situation should average out in the long run as you wouldn't have the > situation with four Aces of Spades coming up and distorting things too much. > Gord, the only problem with that approach is that the drawing player will know what outcomes for other random events are excluded by virtue of the card or cards he has already drawn. -- James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241 From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 21:03:08 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03619; Fri, 26 Apr 96 21:03:07 +0200 Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com (hplb.hpl.hp.com [15.255.59.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA25990 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 21:02:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com by hplb.hpl.hp.com; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:02:24 +0100 Received: by hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA23145; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:58:25 -0700 From: Patrick Tobin Message-Id: <9604261858.AA23145@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> Subject: Re: Italian & French Pilots (fwd) To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 11:58:25 PDT Cc: ptobin%hpwrc13.mayfield.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Content-Length: 2338 > > The principal enemy they flew against were Hurricanes and Spitfires and the > Re2000, Fiat G50/G50bis, and MC200 were really no match for either. > Under-powered, under-armed biplanes and open cockpit monoplanes in 1940/41 > certainly qualifies as crap in my book. You need look no further for the > principal cause of Italian misfortunes in the air at the hands of the RAF > (though I grant you, duff aircraft was not the whole story...just the > biggest chapter). Were there problems with the Italian air training > system? Sure, but it took a while for the RAF to get things right as well. > Perry, Excuse me if I'm beating a dead horse here, but.. Granted the CR42 and G50 were outclassed by the Hurricane. The MC200 was in terms of performance, pretty much the Hurricanes equal. A little bit slower, but more manuverable. The real drawback was its' pathetic armament. The P-40s gave them more trouble. The Spits arrived late, and in small numbers. The problem with the Italian training was that it wasn't really rectified by the Italians themselves. They seemed oblivious to it until Germans took them in hand. This might be rather difficult to model in game terms. The ratings of these aircraft really need to be looked at in Europa. While every little sub variant of the P-51 rates a different counter, the RA (if I recall correctly), gets a 3-3 rating for the lot. CR42=G50=MC200. I think the MC200 ought to be around 3-5, and the MC202 (currently a 6-5?) about a 4-6. The standard version 202 had the same armament as the 200. The whole rating system could use a good overhaul, maybe even a redesign. It just seems that we're painted into a corner. In hindsight (isn't hind- sight wonderful?) the designers should have started with the Wright Flyer rated as 0-1 and proceeded from there, advancing through WWI,the 20s etc. There is too little room in the current range of numbers to represent the variety of performance and armament in the earlier aircraft. Am I howling at the moon here, or is there any interest in this group in getting some changes made with regard to the air system? P.T. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 21:09:34 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA03689; Fri, 26 Apr 96 21:09:33 +0200 Received: from nucleus.com (root@nucleus.com [199.45.65.129]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA26139 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 21:09:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from johansen.nucleus.com (net25.nucleus.com [199.45.65.25]) by nucleus.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA05127; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:14:51 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:14:51 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199604261914.NAA05127@nucleus.com> X-Sender: johansen@nucleus.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "James B. Byrne" From: johansen@nucleus.com (Gordon Johansen) Subject: Re: Modelling The random factor Cc: europa@lysator.liu.se Content-Length: 1275 > >the only problem with that approach is that the drawing player will know what >outcomes for other random events are excluded by virtue of the card or cards he >has already drawn. > A very good point. If the Ace of Spades has been drawn for the Finns, it is unlikely to be drawn for the Irish. The only solution would be to use 3 or 4 decks mixed together to cut down on the card counting as it were. Random dice rolls are fine but not if you want to keep the result hidden from the other player. A computer program with the political effects tables built in might be a better solution. The program could then hide the result from the opposing side until a password is given by the appropriate player. It would have to keep all results untamperable until the end of a game at which point the program could be reset. Gord **************************************************************************** ********* Gordon Johansen The Sentry Box Canada's Largest Adventure Gaming Store (Over 13,000 sq. ft.) 1835-10th Ave. S.W., Calgary, Alberta T3C-0K2 Ph: (403)245-2121 Fax: (403)245-2272 E-mail: johansen@nucleus.com Web page and on-line catalogue: http://www.sentrybox.com **************************************************************************** ********* From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 22:07:28 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04175; Fri, 26 Apr 96 22:07:26 +0200 Received: from felix.dircon.co.uk (felix.dircon.co.uk [193.128.224.10]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA27546 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 22:06:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [194.112.35.75] (gw1-075.pool.dircon.co.uk) by felix.dircon.co.uk with SMTP id AA17875 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 26 Apr 1996 21:06:18 +0100 X-Sender: cloister@popmail.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 21:08:39 +0100 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Italian & French Pilots Cc: "Haugh, Patrick J." Content-Length: 3317 Patrick Haugh wrote: (snip) > I think we may be posting at cross purposes: Similarly, I suspect I rather misunderstood some of the remarks various folk have made on this subject or at least talked past them. (snip) > I proposed generalizing the pilot quality issue to Europa as a >whole, in one of the Luft-peeves posts: > LW, RAF/RAAF/RNZAF/RCAF/SAAF, USAAF, Poles, Czechs, Italians, Greeks and >French all qualify as well-trained pilots. > Poorer quality pilots (USSR, Egypt, Iran, Iraq) would get a +1 modifier to >air to air rolls when faced by any "quality" airforce, and the good quality >fighter pilots would get a -1 mod to the DR when facing poorer quality >pilots. (snip) > So far this system only addresses air to air combat, but it could >be used to penalize really lousy airforces doing difficult things... perhaps >a -1 mod on the die roll for tactical bombing. I agree on all these points. I do not share the view that the importance of the technology is over-rated but that does not preclude me agreeing these modifiers seem about right. One of my reasons for this is that not just pilot quality needs to be modelled; over-all organisational or systemic factors should figure more strongly. Air reporting/early warning systems, communications & despatch effectiveness (so-called 'Scramble times'), ground controlled interception and just plain organisational savvy are all *extremely* important when attempting to run an airforce. The reason for reduced patrol zones for the Soviets was clearly an attempt to show these factors. It has always bothered me that fighter aircraft *always* scramble or intercept if attacked on the ground. Even the British, with the best early warning and air reporting system of ANY of the combatants, occasionally got fighters caught on the ground by the Luftwaffe. When we had aborted 'cripples' at specific locations on the map, at least *these* could be attacked and I regarded that as an acceptable compromise. > Is anyone else bothered by the way one can replace a Lancaster group >just as cheaply as a Hurricane? Yes: though as I have said in earlier posts, I do not really care for the whole air replacement system for all sorts of reasons. > Should we insist on multiplying the # of Air RPs by the number of engines >on a plane, so a Fw190 costs 1 or 2 RPs, a Ju 88 2 or 4 RPs and a He 177 4 or >8 RPs? I realize that this is a very crude marker of the amount of labour, >manpower and material required, but its a lot more realistic. Actually, I think is quite a good idea but the lower values seem more reasonable. In a heavy bomber, there are only really four people who are 'resource intensive': Pilot, Co-pilot (an EW specialist in some), Navigator, Bombardier. No disrespect intended, but air-gunners and radio-men are two a penny. Flight engineers are valuable but rather less so than pilots of a trained bombardier. How about: Single engine fighter/attack or *any* transport 1 RP Twin or triple engine fighter/attack 2 RP Radar-equipped night fighter or four engine bomber 3 RP Similarly crude but I think the figures are a better simulation of resources spent. I *do* like your idea, though. >The counters are our friends Yes! Yes! More towers of tottering cardboard! :-) Regards Perry From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Fri Apr 26 23:13:19 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA04714; Fri, 26 Apr 96 23:13:18 +0200 Received: from prague.crossover.com (root@prague.crossover.com [204.217.246.5]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA28750 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:10:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [205.161.32.192] (jastell.tiac.net [205.161.32.192]) by prague.crossover.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA02258 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:02:45 -0400 X-Sender: jastell@post.crossover.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:10:59 -0400 To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Regia Aeronautica fighters Content-Length: 1902 j.broshot@genie.com wrote: >John M. Astell has written: >"The G.50 was another monoplane that was accepted, but so few were > produced (no more than 1-2 E-scale counters operational at any one > time) that they are really no strain on Italy's resources." >Production of the G.50, its major variant the G.50bis and >experimental models totalled 778; and it equipped some 12 fighter >and assault groups ("Gruppo Caccia Terrestre" and "Gruppo >Assalto"). 35 were sold to Finland in 1939 but, being "detained" by >the Germans, reached that country in 1940; and another 10 were >supplied to the Slovak air force. A "navalized" variant: G.50bis/A, >was to have operated from Italy's first aircraft carrier, "Aquila," >had it been completed. The full reference for the Italian aircraft book I previously mentioned is: "Italian Civil and Military Aricraft, 1930-1945," by Jonathan Thompson (Aero Publishers, 1963). I was suprised to see the 778 total production figure for the G.50 series, but checking my notes this is correct (I have 782 total production, of which 450 were G.50bis, which appeared Sept. 40 ). If you deduct about 25 for prototypes and variant models (G.50bis/A fighter-bomber, G.50ter) and 35 G.50s going to Finland, this leaves the IAF with about 270 G.50s. There are only 19 G.50s in the IAF on 11.39 (the closest date to 9.39 that I have a breakdown of IAF a/c strengths), and of these only 7 were "employable" (another 8 were in units but "unemployable" and 4 were in depots, "repairable"). By 6.40, this number has risen to 118 (or 101, depending on which source you use): 89 employable in units, 8 unemployable in units, 12 in depots, 9 repairable in depots. It is unclear in production numbers whether CMASA's G.50B is counted with Fiat's G.50/G.50bis or not. The G.50B was a two-seat training aircraft that CMASA manufactured, based on the G.50. About 100 G.50Bs were built. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 27 01:09:18 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA05872; Sat, 27 Apr 96 01:09:17 +0200 Received: from travel1.travel-net.com (root@travel1.travel-net.com [204.92.71.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA00859 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 01:08:17 +0200 (MET DST) From: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Received: from 204.92.71.2.travel-net.com (trc135.travel-net.com [205.150.57.135]) by travel1.travel-net.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA24082 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:23:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:23:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199604262323.TAA24082@travel1.travel-net.com> X-Sender: bradbury@mail.travel-net.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: GE - National War Aims (long post) Content-Length: 4676 The position that follows has two underlying assumptios: 1) WWII starts Sept I '39 with Germany invading Poland, with Britain and France then declaring war on Germany. The German-Soviet Non-Aggression pact (complete with secret protocols) is in place. 2) The GE player is head of a country's armed forces, not head of government (e.g., Marshall not Roosevelt). The GE player is attempting to achieve a defined set of political objectives for his country. Condition 2 may be too restrictive for some players, but if the GE player can define the political objectives, then a game could quickly diverge from any reasonable semblance of WWII (for instance, having Italy allied with France and Britain). As a variant, it may be of interest to some, but I don't believe that this flexibility should be in "core" GE. Given the above, I believe GE would start out as a 3 sided affair: Germany (with Italy having some independence); France and Britain (+ Commenwealth); and the Soviet Union. Other countries may be involved in sub-plots (e.g., Hungary vs Romania), but they want to avoid being stepped on by the 900 pound gorillas and have limited ability to control their own destiny. The use of die rolls or drawing from a deck of cards (i.e., like Finland in FitE) would seem to be the appropriate way to deal with the probabilities of various political responses for these countries. German War Aims German war aims are to control Europe, through conquest or exerting influence on puppet governments and to gain lebensraum, primarily in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Given these aims, Poland is attacked first with France and Britain to follow. Given the Non-Aggression pact, it is highly doubtful that Hitler would attack the Soviet Union before having dealt with France and Britain. Once France and Britain have been neutralized, then the Soviet Union must be attacked. I don't believe that this should be in any way optional, given the political goals stated above. If the war followed its historical path through 1939 and most of 1940, it is unlikely that Germany would pursue a North African strategy unless packaged as part of a final push to defeat England (in terms of explaining it to the Russians as being in accordance with the Non-Aggression Pact). The goal would have to be focussed on gaining control of Middle-Eastern oil (likely through puppet governments in Iraq and Iran) combined with seizure of Malta, Gibralter and an invasion of England. Assuming that all went well for the Germans, this would delay the invasion of the Soviet Union until 1942. However, given that Hitler is in political control, I think this scenario is unlikely. He was confident of defeating the Soviets quickly, which then would then force Britain to make peace (given that at this point the U.S. has not declared war). Also, the Mediterranean is in Italy's sphere of influence and Hitler was reluctant to dominate this area at this stage in the war. France/Britain Their war aims are to restore Poland and Czechoslovakia as independent countries. Given that Hitler is in power, and would never agree to this, this equates to a demand for unconditional surrender (even if Hitler had been ousted in a coup, would the new government have given up its pre-1939 gains?). When Germany invades the Soviet Union, France/Britain will form an alliance and are unlikely to make a separate peace with Germany. Soviet Union The war aims are to increase its sphere of influence through gaining territory and/or setting up of puppet governments in adjoining countries. It is unlikely that the Soviet Union would invade Germany. There is a possibility that the Soviets could reach a settlement with the Finns (e.g., trade territory near Leningrad for parts of Karelia) and so avoid AWW. The Soviets will form an alliance with France/Britain after being invaded, but would sign a separate peace treaty with Germany under certain conditions (e.g. a stalemate on the Eastern Front). Finally, the GE players in their role as military commanders would conduct operations within these political constraints. This could lead to "sub-optimal" military decisions (e.g., constraints on deployment of Soviet forces in the border regions in 1941; German economic production (delays in going to a full war footing); creation of LW field divisions). These constraints would apply particularly to the German and Soviet players. I believe the French/British/American political leaders were less likely to "meddle" in these type of things (e.g., Churchill never forced operations such as Jupiter or Culverin when his Chiefs of Staff were opposed). Nigel Bradbury Ottawa, Ontario From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 27 03:21:34 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA06667; Sat, 27 Apr 96 03:21:32 +0200 Received: from psyche.the-wire.com (psyche.the-wire.com [198.53.192.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA07834 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 03:20:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mhughes.the-wire.com (mhughes.the-wire.com [205.206.32.167]) by psyche.the-wire.com (8.6.10/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA13690 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 21:19:17 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 21:19:17 -0400 Message-Id: <199604270119.VAA13690@psyche.the-wire.com> X-Sender: mhughes@psyche.the-wire.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: europa@lysator.liu.se From: mhughes@the-wire.com (Marian Hughes) Subject: Air Replacement System Content-Length: 3090 Several comments have been made about the 'new' Air Replacement System. Since I have the responsibility (or blame) for suggesting its general outline while SF was in progress, I thought I should comment on at least one issue mentioned in recent posts. Mind you I realise that this opens me up to all sorts of other complaints - I dread hearing what Perry de Havilland means by "I really do not care for (it) for all sorts of reasons.""!! When introduced it was important to keep the system as simple as possible, so that players could easily adapt (hopefully) from the old Group Replacement System. As a result a lot was left out - my first draft showed air units converting, converging, reforming etc etc. One simplification was to count all units as being the same for replacement purposes. I recognise that equating a Lanc to a Spit is daft, but it is not as simple as that. The answer does not lie in creating a formula applicable for all aircraft: For a start the same aircraft has different crewing needs in different airforces (idem the RAF use of a flight engineer instead of a pilot). The 'simple' solution is to group aircraft of the same 'class' in an OB table and assign ARP's to them. Note that this was put into effect with the British, with separate ARP's for Tac, Anti-Shipping, Carrier (and Strat). The British probably do not need more, since their Tac is dominated by SE Fighters, and single pilot light and medium Bombers. As for the others: - US TAC: I am unsure on the US Tac, though my gut feeling is that at the Europa scale there is little difference between the crew demands of US Fighters and Bombers (remember that the system relates to units and pilots, and that a fighter unit had more 'extra' or reserve pilots per plane than did a bomber unit.) - Germans: This is where an SF update (now that the new system is more clearly understood) would pay off. In the interim, simply take the total German Tac OB from SF: Create two lists - one with all F and HF; the other with all the rest. Allocate the existing total ARP's to the two lists, but bias it so that the ratio splits 60/40 per air unit in favour of the F/HF list. - Russians: Just like the Germans. Have already done this for use in our Grand Europa Game, so that I know it works! - Strat Air: Pass till needed! Note that the advantage of this approach is that, unlike the otherwise excellent comments of Perry and Patrick, it avoids having to remember which air counter has how many engines. Also specific concerns can be fixed by allocating air units to a particular list: For example, in defining German Tac above I followed Perry in classifying NF as having the same crew demand as medium bombers. Mind you it is important not to go overboard. My premise is that the Air Replacement System should be 'comparable' in detail and complexity to the Ground one. It has Armour and Infantry (maybe Artillery); the Air should have no more than two groups per category. Open for any comments on the Air Replacement System: But please be kind!! David Hughes mhughes@the-wire.com Marian or David Hughes From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 27 07:19:28 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA07717; Sat, 27 Apr 96 07:19:27 +0200 Received: from relay1.geis.com (relay1.geis.com [192.77.188.2]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA15789 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 07:18:33 +0200 (MET DST) From: j.broshot@genie.com Received: by relay1.geis.com (1.37.109.16/15.6) id AA131111402; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 05:03:22 GMT Message-Id: <199604270503.AA131111402@relay1.geis.com> Received: by (genie.)relay1.geis.com ( 2rem/1.40 ) ; Sat, 27 Apr 96 05:03:22 UTC 0000 ( from INTERNET# ; Sat, 27 Apr 96 05:03:08 UTC 0000) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 96 05:03:00 UTC 0000 To: europa@lysator.liu.se X-Genie-Qk-From: J.BROSHOT X-Genie-Qk-Id: 0909585 X-Genie-Gateway-Id: 265375 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Italian Fighters-2 Content-Length: 4328 "I think the MC200 ought to be around 3-5, and the MC202 (currently a 6-5?) about a 4-6. The standard version 202 had the same armament as the 200." Not entirely correct, but I do agree that the Italian fighter ratings could use a second look. To round out my previous posting on the fighters of the Regia Aeronautica: Macchi C.200 Saetta redesigned and re-engined with imported Daimler-Benz DB601A-1 engines (or Italian license-built version: Alfa Romeo R.A.1000 R.C.41-I Monsoni) becomes Macchi C.202 Folgore; approximately 1,500 built armament: 1. 2 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (nose) 2. 2 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (nose) 2 x 7.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (wings) 3. one batch also carried 2 x 20mm Mauser MG151 cannon under the wings. Macchi C.202 Folgore redesigned and re-engined with Daimler-Benz DB605A-1 engines (or Italian license-built version: Fiat R.A.1050 R.C.58 Tifone) becomes Macchi C.205V Veltro 262 built armament: 1. 2 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (nose) 2 x 7.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (wings) 2. 2 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (nose) 2 x 20mm Mauser MG151 cannon (wings) Macchi C.205V Veltro redesigned and aerodynmically cleaned up (but still with DB605A-1) becomes Macchi C.205N Orione 1,200 ordered but cancelled in favor of C.205V armament: 4 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (nose) 1 x 20mm Mauser MG151 cannon (firing through propeller shaft) Fiat G.50 Freccia redesigned and re-engined with Daimler-Benz DB605A-1 engines (or Italian license-built version: Fiat R.A.1050 R.C.58 Tifone) becomes Fiat G.55 Centauro 105 built (most after Sep 1943, used by Mussolini's R.S.I.) armament: 2 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (nose) 3 x 20mm Mauser MG151 cannon (1 through propellor boss, 2 in wings) Fiat G.55 Centauro re-engined with Damiler-Benz DB603A engine becomes Fiat G.56 [done by Fiat under the auspices of Mussolini's R.S.I, 1 prototype only] armament: 2 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (nose) 3 x 20mm Mauser MG151 cannon (1 through propellor boss, 2 in wings) Reggiane Re.2000 Falco I re-engined with imported Daimler-Benz DB601A-1 engines (or Italian license-built version: Alfa Romeo R.A.1000 R.C.41-I Monsoni) becomes Reggiane Re.20001 Falco II 237 built; some as Re.20001CB fighter-bomber and many as Re.20001CN night fighter armament: 1. Re.20001CB: 2 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (nose) 2 x 7.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (wings) 550lb standard bomb load 2. Re.20001CN: 2 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (nose) 2 x 20mm Mauser MG151 cannon (wings) Reggiane Re.20001 Falco II redesigned and re-engined with Daimler- Benz DB605A-1 engines (or Italian license-built version: Fiat R.A.1050 R.C.58 Tifone) becomes Reggiane Re.20005 Sagittario 36 built (5 after Sep 1943 for Germany)(about 750 ordered) armament: 2 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (nose) 3 x 20mm Mauser MG151 cannon (1 through propellor boss, 2 in wings) 2,200lb bomb load Reggiane Re.2001 Falco I re-engined with Piaggo P.XIX RC 45 Turbine B 1,175hp air-cooled fourteen cylinder radial engine becomes Reggiane Re.2002 Ariete fighter bomber 225 built (76 after Sep 1943 for Germany) armament: 2 x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (nose) 2 x 7.7mm Breda-SAFAT mgs (wings) 1,433lb bomb load NOTES: from Profile #28, "the production of the M.C.202 was hampered throughout its entire life by the extreme scarcity of engines; the Italian industry was unable to provide more than 40 or 50 powerplants per month at best in the R.A. 1000 series and part of this output was reserved for the Re.2001." Once the Germans had agreed to allow license manufacture of the DB605A engine the Italian Air Ministry invited tenders for the "caccia della serie 5" which resulted in the C.205, G.55 and Re.2005 designs (Air Enthusiast #24) My point (somewhat long-winded) is that there is no rational reason for the Italians to try to produce two or more different fighters types, all using the same engine, when there weren't enough engines even to equip one fighter type. [Sources: William Green, WARPLANES OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR- FIGHTERS, VOLUME 2 and FAMOUS FIGHTERS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR- VOLUME 2; AIRCRAFT IN PROFILE NOS. 28 (C.202); 244 (Re.2001, Re.2002 & Re.2005); AIR ENTHUSIAST NO.24] Jim Broshot, St. James MO From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 27 13:14:03 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA09553; Sat, 27 Apr 96 13:14:01 +0200 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA19687 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 13:13:18 +0200 (MET DST) From: EuropaStag@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06423 for europa@lysator.liu.se; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 07:12:46 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 07:12:46 -0400 Message-Id: <960427071245_101509730@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: europa@lysator.liu.se Subject: AWW questions Content-Length: 221 In a message dated 96-04-26 12:59:55 EDT, you write: >europa@lysator.liu.se Rick posted several questions on AWW i tryedto post the answers but my internet provider could not prossess the file please repost questions. From europa-request@lysander.lysator.liu.se Sat Apr 27 17:55:46 1996 Received: from lysander.lysator.liu.se (mailhost.lysator.liu.se) by ida.liu.se (5.65b/ida.minimaster-V1.0b6d5) id AA11168; Sat, 27 Apr 96 17:55:44 +0200 Received: from post.QueensU.CA (root@knot.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.54]) by lysander.lysator.liu.se (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA29278 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 17:55:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mast.QueensU.CA (MAST.QueensU.CA [130.15.100.1]) by post.QueensU.CA (8.6.12/8.6.10+ASH) with SMTP id LAA21016 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:54:58 -0400 Received: from hilda.mast.QueensU.CA by mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22262; Sat, 27 Apr 96 11:47:23 EDT Received: by hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA10370; Sat, 27 Apr 96 11:46:24 EDT From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Message-Id: <9604271546.AA10370@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA> Subject: thanks/strat bombing To: europa@lysator.liu.se Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:46:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1500 Hi, A few people have written nasty things to one another related to the strategic bombing of Germany through this list. I join several others in hoping that that is over. But, I think that it has been overlooked that most of the posts on the methods, objects, results and ethics of terror bombing have been intelligent and sensitive, even when they have reflected passionately held views. I thank everyone involved for such an interesting discussion. I hope that the occasional nastiness that has surfaced in this discussion will not deter anyone from making reasoned contributions without further nastiness towards others on this list. It has been pointed out that many learned people have addressed these issues at length without settling them. Rather than demonstrating that we should avoid these issues, I think that these demonstrates that these issues are very interesting. Looking only at the moral issue for a moment, I'm not sure that there is any moral issue in the history of the Second World War on which people have such different views for such good reasons. I have some things to say about representing terror bombing in Europa, but I need to give up the computer to my wife, so I'll write on Europa tomorrow or the next day. (Thanks also to those who have been putting forward so many interesting ideas on how to model terror bombing in Europa.) I look forward to more vigorous discussion of all of these issues. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada