From: Dave Humphreys Subject: Re: Italy Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 09:51:34 -0800 At 16:44 03/15/96 -0800, Steve P. wrote: >Which leads me to make the point that Italy would do well to have an >independent player- to be rewarded by attempting to play a game of >upsmanship with Germany-all the time pushing Italy far beyond its realistic >capabilities. If only because it was supposed that Italy might prove to be >as formidable on the battlefield as they looked in the newsreels. And >perhaps they may have accomplished something if they'd picked their fights >better. Which leads us to another interesting proposition. If Italy actually outperforms itself historically in the early war, could this result in better unit ratings or organization later on? At tyhe very least we may be able to throw out rules such as "Italian Disarray" from WitD. Or would Mussolini be so full of himself after these accomplishments that he may decide to invade Greece with an even smaller force?! From: "David H. Thornley" Subject: Re: Grand Europa Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 12:06:51 -0600 (CST) > The situation in the air is no better for Germany. The combined French and > British aero industries would have outbuilt the German industry if the Battle of > France continued beyond June 1940. It is true that the French industry was > plagued with problems in the winter of 39-40, but this was due primarily from > the rapid mobilization of the industry from very low peacetime production rates > to wartime levels. By the spring of 1940, most of these problems had been > worked out and French production levels were on target, producing modern > aircraft, such as the D.520 fightes and Leo.451 bomber, which were the match to > anything the Luftwaffe could through at them. In fact, the Armee de l'Air was > larger on June 22 at the end of the campaign than it was on May 4 at the > beginning. By the fall of 1940, it is likely that the Luftwaffe would have lost > air supremacy to the Allies. > I'll disagree with you slightly here: you aren't making a strong enough point. During the Battle of Britain, Britain was outproducing Germany in aircraft and pilots. Had the two air forces started on an equal footing, the Germans would have been unable to do anything more than the sort of raiding they did, historically, after the battle. Had France been involved as well, the Luftwaffe would have been fighting hard defensive battles in the fall. A friend of mine told me that all countries had major reliability problems when moving to the sorts of metal low-wing monoplanes with relatively large engines that were considered modern fighters at the start of WWII. The difference in the war was that Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union had gone through this before the war, while France was going through it. The French would therefore rapidly become much more effective in the air. While the fighter that the French used most heavily, the M.S. 406, was at best obsolescent, they were rapidly re-equipping with more modern fighters. If my memory serves, I once counted up the 1940 FoF OOBs and noticed that, assuming all reinforcements arrived and there were no losses, the French would have as many D.520s as the Germans had 109s. Further, the stuff the French had under development was at least as good as anything anybody else was developing, and any German technical edge would be minor by late 1940 and possibly negative sometime in 1941. > The only weakpoint in the French ability to survive a long campaign was its > manpower shortage. With half of the population of Germany, France was in no > condition to match, man-for-man, the replacements available to Germany. > However, to the French manpower pool must be added that of Britain. The British > had promised the French that 30 British divisions would be in France by the > spring of 1941. Also, it is questionable if Germany could have thrown the full > weight of it manpower advantage at the French. During the short campaign of > 1940, the Germans could afford to post only a handful of division on their > eastern front to watch the Red Army. However, if the German Army got bogged > down in France, Hitler and the general staff would have to look increasingly > with concern over their shoulders to the east. Even if Stalin would not have > considered intervening in the war, Hitler could not be certain. Prudence would > have caused Germany to syphon off a considerable number of troops to guard the > eastern frontier. > I see no problem with a 30-division BEF in the spring of '41. The major difficulty the British had in raising troops in late 1940 was the loss of all the equipment at Dunquerque. Even if U.S. aid had been less forthcoming, the British should have been able to do it. If Italy had indeed joined the war, it wouldn't be much to the German benefit if such intervention resembled the historical Italy. I think the German plan for the Soviet Union was to dazzle the Soviets with success until falling upon them and conquering them, and I think Stalin's plan was to bide his time until the proper moment, and then defeat the Germans. Had France refused to fall on schedule, the German army would have started to feel very small indeed. 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: Rich Velay Subject: GURU:SF Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 10:24:20 PST Hi Some more SF naval questions coming at you. Rule 28A Reaction Movement 1. If a reaction attempt is triggered at night is the reacting group considered to be moving at night? No, see Rule 34A4, only phasing naval groups may use night movement, and per Rule 28A, only non-phasing NGs may use reaction movement. So the two are mutually exclusive. 2. May a reacting naval group opt to use night movement and if so, at what allowance? Per above, a reacting, ie non-phasing, NG may not use night movement. Note however, that if the reacting NG forced combat (by moving into the hex occupied by a NG moving at night) then night combat rules would apply. Simply by reacting, the non-phasing NG can't strip the phasing NG of it's night movement status. Rule 34F 1. May multiple contact checks be made if a TF enters more than one port's danger zone in the same hex? Checking for Danger zone contact is not effected by the number of ports that might be available for tracing a five hex radius for creating a danger zone. See Rule 34F for when you check for danger zone contact; you check once, maximum, per naval movement step, regardless of the number of ports projecting danger zones. This is why the rule says "...the *first* time...". 2. Is a non-functioning port still able to exert a danger zone. No mention of port status is mentioned in the Danger zone rules, so yes, even a no-functioning port exerts a danger zone. RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From: Rich Velay Subject: Fightin' 526th Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 10:25:20 PST Hi . Got this question forwarded to me via Rick Gayler, the Poohbah emeritus. Rich, Looking over my "Second Front" counter sheets, I noticed that the 526th Armored Infantry Battalion is shown as a Mechanized Commando II. Why? Checking in Stanton's "U.S. Army WW II OB", I don't see a reason why the 526th should be rated differently than any other Armored Infantry Battalion. It didn't belong/work for the OSS. Thanks, Don. Any ideas, anyone? (US battalions are *not* my strong suit, unfortunately)... 8^) late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 16:27:16 -0400 From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: SouthEast Front On 15 March 96, Jason Long wrote: >The deployment of 1st Panzer is an example of the Germans buying into >supposed Allied plans to invade the Balkans with units based in >Syria/Palestine/Iraq. The effects of the Allied intelligence operations >are going to be very hard to model, and modelled they must be for Grand >Europa!, and in some in some cases will straight-jacket players. >The deployment of c/m units to far-flung theaters like Norway and Greece >may well be one of these straight-jackets. Though I have no problem with >any sort of generic combat factor/RE size requirements so long as they >are sufficiently detailed to force historical garrisons in terms of >security, c/m, mountain, etc. What players should be able to do is to >override garrison requirements if and when necessary.... The garrison forces should only consist of those troops needed to keep subjugated area itself under control, and should not contain any units that are there to repel an invasion from outside the area. In other words, a garrison is governed by the area's internal factors, and not by external factors. When sending troops to a region to guard against invasion, it should be up to the player to do what he thinks is best. It's totally unclear to me that "The effects of the Allied intelligence operations are going to be very hard to model, and modelled they must be..." in the context of sending panzer divisions to Norway or the Balkans. Having a panzer division in such an area may make sense for a player to do as an insurance policy -- even alone pz div might be able to defeat a small incursion or slow down a large incursion (both Norway and the Balkans have sparse, blockable transportation nets) sufficiently while other German forces rush to the invaded theater. Without it there, the Allies may be tempted to invade the region, requiring the Germans to send even more reaction forces there (or to abandon the place). If you look at the pz divs in Norway and the Balkans, it sure seems the Germans were following a rational strategy. In 1943, the Allies have a wide range of options for invading Europe: Norway, France, Italy, the Balkans. As the year progresses, their options narrow. Note that 25th Pz Div leave Norway as autumn and winter weather approaches Scandinavia -- an Allied landing in Norway in later 1943 probably can be contained by the static divs there and the bad weather. Also, the later the Allies invade Norway, the less effect the get out of an invasion, unless they decide to forgo a landing in France in 1944. (Even then, it'll be no prize to fight through the mountains of Norway in winter, only to have to cross the heavily-defended Skaggerat to get into Denmark and Germany later.) Similarly, 1st Pz Div stays in the Balkans until late 1943, when Allied commitment to Italy and winter weather in the Balkans makes a Balkans invasion less likely. So, deploying a pz div to a backwater theater may be a rational move for some players and does not require special rules. Also, it also seems a valid (albeit perhaps risky) strategy for players not to send "insurance policy" pz divs to backwater areas, on the theory that static forces can temporarily deal with any invasion until help arrives. Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 16:27:05 -0400 From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Grand Europa On 15 March 96, Steve Phillips (zaius@teleport.com) wrote: >I knew that you must be reading some of the heavy Grand Europa volume. I >also figured that you would, as usual, pick an approach that will end up >satisfying most everyone. Thanks for the kind words. I just skim the GE material, and I don't even skim every post -- my main time commitment goes to getting the individual E games in place! >I have been consistently against a lock-step historical approach, but I do >understand that people have concerns about rediculous game situations. But >I always assumed that the best course was to simulate as far as possible >historical rewards and punishments for various actions. As you say, >Hitler's declaration looks rediculous, but he did hope Japan would fight >Russia (and so did many Japanese Generals) Simply mandating that certain things must happen at certain times is very heavy handed and doesn't illuminate what went on in WW2 very well -- for example, it was not inevitable that Germany would have invaded the USSR in 1941, and there were serveral options the Germans could have pursued. It strikes me as much more worthwhile to try to simulate the important factors that led to the decisions that were made. If this is done well, you get the feel and insight of WW2, even if the specific events diverge from the war. In many ways, the events of 1939-40 tended to be exceptional rather than inevitable, so a game that starts on 1.9.39 may have just a small likelihood of repeating the historical events. One way to handle this is to have several GE start dates, such as SEP I 39 (historical start date), APR I 41 (allowing Germany to decide how to pursue its strategy: invade the USSR, attack Britain, whatnot), and JUN II 41 (Germany vs. USSR, "WW2 as we know it"). >The same approach should work for things like Vichy France.... I am not >well enough versed on this issue beyond that to suggest how Europa might >handle prodding Germany into agreeing to Vichy.... Actually, this may be fairly simple: if Germany doesn't agree to Vichy, the French decide to fight on from North Africa. This can have to major consequences: 1) the French fleet means the Allies a) won't lose control of the Med to the Italian navy, and b) won't be hurt as much by the U-Boat war, and 2) the French forces in North Africa can invade Libya and throw the Axis out of Africa in 1940-41. These considerations may well lead the Germans to agree to set up Vichy. Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 15:32:12 -0600 From: conrad alan b Subject: Re: Who is the player On Sat, 16 Mar 1996 grd1@genie.com wrote: Alan Tibbetts wrote concerning what allowances we might let players do in GE: for Germany - > 4. Change his war strategy to avoid a 2 front war: take Britain's Empire out > of the war (I assume Sea Lion to be next to immpossible) by taking > Gibralter, Malta, N. Africa and the Middle East. > 5. Only after the British Empire has been reduced to a shadow of it's former > self would Russia be attacked. > > Even if we remove the first three from consideration this will make an > interesting game. > > > Of course this ability can go against Adolf when we give it to the French. > Being the student of history that most EUROPA players are, a French player > would realize France is going to fall, and: > > 1. Evacuate to North Africa and England as many forces as possible. This > would include the entire French Navy and major air and ground forces. > 2. Invade and take Italian N Africa. > 3. Wait for help to regain France. > > Give players the ability to make Stalin's decisions and they are going to: > > 1. Deploy their frontier forces in a very sensible fortified defense in > depth with their armor well protected. > 2. Take all of Finland as soon as possible. > 3. Bide their time until they are ready to attack. > > Alan Tibbetts > Kudos to Alan, these are very valid points. Mainly that there are two sides to letting players run loose with intelligent play. Both sides will benefit. However note that part of this is already upon us. As some have noted in othr articles, proper Soviet play in FitE/SE will save most of the armor and this creates tactic dilemmas that are not historical. And I cringe at the rules that would be necessary in GE to force the French and the Russians to set up poorly and to not dig in over the 1939/40/41 periods. Alan Conrad Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 16:05:38 -0600 From: conrad alan b Subject: Re: The Fall of France (to be or not to be) On Sat, 16 Mar 1996, Perry de Havilland wrote: > Nick Forte wrote re. the contention France was always doomed to fall: > > >I must disagree with your position that France will fall except for totally > >incompetent German play. The historical case was one of totally incompetent > >French play. General Gamelin's decisions in deploying the French Army invited > >the blitzkrieg that fell upon it. > > Hear, hear! > Add my supprot here to Perry and Nick. > > > >The situation in the air is no better for Germany. > > Worse. MUCH worse, in fact. In this respect, the effects of the much > higher rate of Allied air production would have made itself felt much > faster than tank or truck production. Deprived of its tactical air support > in 1941 by clouds of D.520s and Spitfires, the Luftwaffe would probably > have found itself concentrating not on supporting the Wehrmacht, but > trying to prevent the RAF/Adel'A bombing the hell out of German industry if > the front line was still pinned on the Maginot. Really, things start to > get pretty dicey for the Luftwaffe as early as Nov/Dec 1940 if France is > still in the game. > > >The combined French and > >British aero industries would have outbuilt German industry if the Battle of > >France continued beyond June 1940. It is true that the French industry was > >plagued with problems in the winter of 39-40, but this was due primarily from > >the rapid mobilization of the industry from very low peacetime production rates > >to wartime levels. By the spring of 1940, most of these problems had been > >worked out and French production levels were on target, producing modern > >aircraft, such as the D.520 fightes and Leo.451 bomber, which were the match to > >anything the Luftwaffe could through at them. > > Basically I agree although I do not entirely agree that the D.520 was quite > as good as a Bf-109E. It was certainly good enough that you could come up > and fight (one could say the same about the Hurricane) and it had the legs > to escort bombers to the Ruhr in 1941 (by which time a new and much tastier > generation of French fighter would has started appearing in good numbers > and have eroded any German technical edge down to nothing). Also, the > Leo.451 was a very fine bomber. > > >In fact, the Armee de l'Air was > >larger on June 22 at the end of the campaign than it was on May 4 at the > >beginning. By the fall of 1940, it is likely that the Luftwaffe would > >have >lost air supremacy to the Allies. > > Pretty much guaranteed to loose it, I would say. Anglo-French aero > production was simply too great for any other outcome. Here however I disaggree. The air situation was advantage (but not overwhelmingly) Luftwaffe. Even if production on the allied side was higher, getting those planes into units, with trained pilots into combat is another matter. Look at the RAF: even by September they are throwing raw recruits in poorly formed units into the Battle of Britain. I have little real data on the French air force, but oft stated comments like ` the Armee l'Air was larger on June 25th' as we have often seen tends to make me believe that the French were afraid to spend their forces because there was no way to replace them. Sort of prudent economics combined with bad generalship. Same reason the RAF would not send more or better units to France. If their unit replacement was so great why not sent Spitfires to France? This is interesting in terms of the air system for GE. I have looked at Fall of France in terms of the SF air system and have wonderd how it should look. When I played FoF years ago the Allied air forces stayed intact behind the lines since the Luftwaffe could not get at them. The Allies could not affect the front lines but they kept the Germans from the interior. So the Luftwaffe was mainly in Ground Support. Not historical but that was the air system then. And no matter what happens on the tactical field, no one in the world has any effective strategic bombing potential, so other than a few VPs for terror bombing, it is not an issue, Now how many air replacements the game gives the players will decide a lot of what each does. A high Luftwaffe rate will allow the German to use his air force to do what historically was done. A low Allied replacement rate will force that player to decide when and if to spend his units since they will not return. At a raw glance at this time that is how I think the GE - FoF situation should look. In terms of Nick's and Perry's argument then, although a more intellegent Allied air use may prolong the French campaign, and will certainly cost the Luftwaffe many assets (affecting the later war) I believe that the Germans can maintain at least a gereral air superiority. > > >In all, the fall for France was far from being pre-ordained. Some better moves > >by Gamelin and a few poorer ones by the Germans could have led to a stalemate > >in the West. > > > > I am less sanguine about the Nazi regime collapsing if France hangs in > there, but basically, Nick, I think you are absolutely right > > I too think France has at least a chance to survive. But it will certainly cost the Germans more. My FoF games always had the Germans taking France, but never befor October rolled around. Alan Conrad Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 18:03:19 -0600 From: conrad alan b Subject: SF Victory Points On March 4th I posted a note of a SF game. In spite of a seemingly valiant defence wherein the Allies did not enter Germany, the Germans lost when the VP total was 297 points. All for territory, no Allied force loss VPs. This prompted me to look into the SF VP situation. First what happened in history. When I total the territory in SF and when it was taken I come up with a VP count of 584. Some places/times are hard to determine at the end of the war. The Allies walked into places like Trieste and Wilmhelmshaven after the war was over, would they count? And in terms of the game did Germany surrender before the game was over? If we count everything that happened by the time May I was over the VP count could be 669 VPs. Very large; if 299 is an Allied Marginal, 349 is an Allied substantial, and an Allied Decisive goes to ?? 450, then 669 would be a super duper boy did you cream them victory. However we do have Allied troop loss points to subtract, and that is a subject hard for us outside the design team to estimate. In Europa terms (and all games for that matter) troop and unit loses are always tricky. In books one sees units in the line forever, while in games units vaporize all the time. One way to estimate more closely is to look at the Victory in Europe scenario (starting April 44). We can count that in territory the Allies have 58 VPs. The game starts them with 8 VPs. Therefore they lost 50 VPs points worth of troops. Where could these have been? When I look at the naval side I see very few losses, maybe four or five points max so no VPs there. There air is very hard to calculate since what a lost or aborted unit counts as as in planes loss is hard to nail down since the units come back immediately up to a point. My estimate would be that there were no air loss VPs. So it is up to ground loses. In Sicily the Brits might have taken an exchange or two going up the east coast, but nothing that would cost VPs. One could speculate that an exchange at Salerno would have flipped two Allied divisions in a Disastrous Operation that would have cost 20 VPs. In the rest of the Italian campaign thru the winter of 43/44 there were certainly a lot of losses, but I would claim not enough to trigger VPs since the Allies would have tons of replacement points by that time. So we can identify 20 of the 50 necessary Allied ground loss VPs and have to wonder at the rest. This same idea then applies to all of SF. We can quote the game's Victory Conditions (p. 67) "these victory conditions judge players' performances against their historical counterparts." Therefore we can assume that the 260 VP point is what happened historically. And the real Allies lost about 420 VPs worth of troops in the campaign. Where did these happen? Again in my estimate there would be no naval or air losses to trigger VPs, maybe I'm wrong. Particularly since strange things can happen in history vs Europa terms. Example: since South France is a danger zone that can not be negated, if the Allies ran a Dragoon in game terms the fleet would have taken fearful losses (vs very light naval losses historically). About 40 REs of transports plus maybe two ENTFs so some 72 naval points checking each naval movement step (one to move in, three to prep fire and unload landing troops, maybe more depending on whether a port is then seized and determined to then negate the danger zone). One might get lucky and roll four 1 to 4s, or get unlucky and roll a couple of 5 & 6s. Each discovery is an expectation of 12 lost naval points plus possible troop losses. [ this is why we can not see how anyone can make '43 attacks up the coast of Italy, just a disaster waiting to happen]. But still by August '44 the Allies would have some 45 naval repair points minus what they have spent, so maybe they don't care about the losses in game terms. So if there ar no VPs lost to air and naval it is up to the ground losses. What would the ground situation be? Certainly we can estimate some of the Disastrous Operations losses: Salerno - 20 VPs Normandy - 100 VPs ? (15 regular units x 2, 17 specialists x 4) Arnhem - 60 VPs ? (1st British + Poles + part 82nd IF isso) plus a few, maybe 200 points. But where is the other 260 points? Could they be from everyday normal attack losses. Certainly looking at the history the Americans were disbanding AA and other small units to get needed infantry replacements, and the British were disbanding whole divisions to get replacements. So one could certainly look at this and say the Allies must have taken huge troop losses that could have triggered VPs. However in game terms can this be? By December '44 when this crunch for replacements really hit, the principal Allies have received almost 800 replacement points (plus any from disbanded units). Now it could be that the Allies made a lot of low odds attacks and rolled poor dice and got a lot of attacker halved and maybe AE? But other than that the only way to lose troops is to take Germans with you. Exchanges (and HX) means that the German army is down by this 800 points too more or less. I have not made a precise count but a rough estimate shows me that the German Army minus 400 points (they get 300 replacements of their own plus odd stuff) in December '44 will be almost non-existent. No Bulge, no Hurtgen Forest, the Allies just walk to Berlin. Since it didn't happen that way, my deduction would be that the game's VP counts were set up at the last and did not have a chance to get play tested out. If John, the game's design team or any of the mailing list have any corrections or additions to this I would like to see where I might be in error. Certainly this type of analysis will be necessary as we move on into GE VP discussions, Particularly since giving VPs is part of the discussion on what might be done with politics. Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 22:36:29 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re: Computers and Europa Jason, >I just have a gut feeling, based on playing >Gold-Juno-Sword and Stalingrad that there's a bias >towards the offense when dealing with individual >combats. My friend John Fluker and I also found this when playing the Atomic games on Market Garden and Veliki Luki, to the extent that we gave them both up in disgust. >The effects of the Allied intelligence operations are going >to be very hard to model, and modelled they must be for >Grand Europa!, and in some in some cases will >straight-jacket players. I completely agree with you. In the past, however, interactions with various "Europa Officials" have led to discussions about this ending with the statement once again [which is why I jump on it every time I hear it], that Europa is primarily a Land Combat Operational Series. >What players should be able to do is to override garrison >requirements if and when necessary. This is what I was trying to get at with my example of garrison determinations. As far as specific unit placements, however, what if 1st Pz is not mauled on the East front at this time, but some other c/m unit, perhaps with different cbt factors, is? Whoever is acting as the OKH staff should be able to make determinations re: specific units. >I could be called a believer in limited flexibility as nations >did things during the war that are inexplicable in the strict >military terms of a wargame, but make perfect sense if you >look at them in the contexts of the time. I don't want to >factor the out right stupidity of some bureaucrat in >Whitehall or Berlin out of Europa. Again, I completely agree, with the caveat that the nature of any Grand Europa or Long-Term Europa scenario [as on the East Front] is going to be one of generally following the historic sweep of the campaigns, NOT slavishly dictated by it. Ray From: j.broshot@genie.com Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 03:18:00 UTC 0000 Subject: The 526th and the British Thanks to Antonio and Alan for posting the info on other "alternative history" sources. 1. 1 x 1-10 Mech Cmdo II 526 (526th Armored Infantry Battalion). I don't understand this rating either. Is Shelby Staunton still dabbling in Europa OB research? Since he wrote THE BOOK on the U.S. Army OB in WW2 maybe he could shed some light. The only special note about this unit is that it was First Army's "palace guard" at the start of the Battle of Bulge. None of the Bulge sources that I consulted give it any special attributes. Is Rick working on his Bulge scenarios again? 2. The "30 Division British Army in Dec 1941." Since David Hughes, the resident Europa British OB guru, does not seem to be online anywhere I will take a stab at this (David and I collaborated on some British stuff for the late, lamented "E.T.O."). The British Army in September 1939 was in lousy shape due to: a. "The Ten Year Rule," i.e. long years of neglect. There were barely enough I-tanks ("Matilda Is") available to equip one battalion of the Royal Tank Regiment. To compound the felony, the British government vacillated, repeatedly, on whether to even send a BEF to France in the event of war (this helps explain the Munich Pact). b. The "doubling" of Territorial Army just before the start of the war (the British government ordered the existing Territorial Units to create duplicates, despite lacking equipment and manpower for the existing units). c. Onerous overseas commitments: India, Palestine, etc. (there was even a battalion in Jamaica to put down civil unrest!). d. The best and brightest of the manpower pool were being siphoned off for the Royal Air Force (see THE RIGHT OF THE LINE). The British Army had two incomplete armored divisions; five regular infantry divisions (one incomplete) and twenty-four Territorial Army infantry divisions available in England in Sep 1939. None was ready for combat. Subsequently, up to Dec 1941, four more armored divisions were formed in England. Four more infantry divisions were formed but three of these were reserve units (only 78th Infantry Division, formed from surplus regulars, saw combat). To acerbate existing shortages the British insisted on taking the Guards, elite infantry, and converting them into an armored division and converting a veteran Territorial infantry division into an armored division. If there is an historic U.S. entry into the war in Dec 1941 (which presumes, I guess, Japan going to war) then the British will lose at least two infantry divisions from England plus numerous non- divisional units sent to the Far East. This also ignores British commitments to North Africa (where the only British Cavalry Division was sent after being formed early in 1940). Sorry to ramble. My point being that the British would need a lot of help from the Commonwealth (manpower) and from the Americans (equipment) to field 30 combat ready divisions by December 1941 even without Dunkirk and the Fall of France. Jim Broshot, St. James MO Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 21:51:06 -0600 From: conrad alan b Subject: Re: AREONAVAL On Sun, 3 Mar 1996, Rich Velay wrote: > Hi everyone. > Saw the post about Air war thoughts. > Myself, if Europa *never* included a strategic air > war module I would be quite happy. As a player, I am drawn > to Europa for the lushness and depth of its representation > of *operational* ground and air combat. Anything more > detailed than the SF system is beyond my needs, or my > desires. > Same thing for naval matters. I *love* the task force > system introduced in SF and used in FWTBT. If I never have > to see another Paris Commune or Hood, it won't be too soon > for me. Individual ships have no place in a game devoted to > Corps level ground combat, IMO. We maneuver *Armies* over > 16 mile hexes within two week game turns. Having to worry > about whether or not the Ajax has a full torpedo re-load or > not is not my idea of Europa. Extending things to submarine > flotillas and differentiating DEs from DDs is *way* too much > To a certain extent I agree, but if I would carry this thought to it's logical solution I'll bet I'd get a howl from the Europa community. I do not need ship silhouettes or individual ship counters in the game either. But I do not need Ju-88 & He-111 counters either. There is no logical reason to have such counters as units in Europa. Throughout the war Luftwaffe units had gruppen of various aircraft types in larger units. Units had operation strengths that would vary from 5 to 50 aircraft per unit and training was variable. Add to that that a JU-88 over a two week period will deliver a very different number of sorties and bomb loads to a target at a range of five hexes vs 26 hexes. So air point counters would do just as well and even work better as a game mechanic and as a way to adjust force levels with counter mixes. I hate having to hunt up new counters at air phases so I can get a unit with one extra defence factor. However it can not be denighed that Europa people like Ju-88s, so that's why they are there. But one could make the same argument for the Hood. As a opposite point I am unhappy with a system where the player will keep track of the 44 HuD infantry division because it is the best stacking infantry division in the army, a 10-8; or the 76th Static division because it is one of the best defenders in the German army, at least on a bang for the buck idea. Its a 5-8-4 therefore you get eight defence for only five replacements. In fact one of the best units in the German army is the PomK naval brigade. At a 1-3-2 it is a great defender and it would bear the brunt of the defence of the Riech, if you could get it out of garrison, stupid upper command. We have been discussing the GE issues in terms of history and logic. Nothing wrong with that, that is as it should be to a point. But one of the great problems with games, Europa among them, is that most play them as games, not as history. To do well at Europa one does not need to know anything about history, just be able to count factors, count hexes and understand rules. As a noted example: at this year's Europafest in the Sudden Storm game I watched our TEM editor do the following. While fighting his battle at the gates on Moscow Rick noticed that the Russians in front of Leningrad had left a stack (in a city hex where you could not attack it at this defence value) in the second line, small enough to be overrun by his panzerkorps. And his units were sitting right on a rail line. So he entrained, at Moscow, railed over to Leningrad, to destroyed the first line and overrun a city hex in Leningrad. Now that may be great game playing, but to my mind it is not history. I've never liked railing as part of tactical moving then attacking anyway. And historically, one - the rail lines probably could not have been reguaged right up to both Moscow and Leningrad, and two even so there is no capability to pick up a whole panzerkorps and then getting it right up to the lines and then doing an attack and then having time and force for an overrun. To those arguing who we are in when playing the games, would von Bock have known or cared what was going on in front of Leningrad when he was fighting to get into Moscow? As players we are certainly above the Army Group level. And to much of the other topics we have been bringing up, remember that the game is played at an almost tactical level, factor by factor. No matter how much good we do to get the Big Picture accurate, all those little actions we rule the game. I feel there are some of them that need addressing as well. Alan Conrad Champaign, Illinois Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 23:40:28 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Grand Europa Frankly I'm not enamored of the French abilities to survive Sickelschnitt even without those class B divisions defending the Ardennes because of their serious command and control problems at high levels. This is something that Europa doesn't handle very well yet, despite those so-called idiot rules,though maybe we'll figure something out before we redo FoF. I must agree with those who've talked about the dicey situation the Germans are in in the air if the French manage to survive. The Brits alone out-produced the Germans in 1940, imagine if the French factories were able to contribute as well! Speaking about the French continuing the war from French North Africa, my preliminary research indicates that this was a non-starter. Nonetheless, I've been researching this situation for a scenario to be called Squeeze Play as the Italians are in bad shape against a combined thrust from both Egypt and Tunisia. Fortunately for them the Brits aren't really prepared for offensive operations, but with French reinforcements from Syria who knows? As soon as WitD is released I'll commence serious research and playtesting. As a point of interest I've discovered that the French had about 450 bombers and 350 fighters in French NOrth Africa alone at the time of the armistice. Continuing to design scenarios for FoF that no one ever plays! Jason PS the starting premise is that a stray bomb wiped out Petain, Laval and the whole surrender crowd around June 12th or so. Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 23:43:26 -0600 From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Howling about Alan's post. Re: > To a certain extent I agree, but if I would carry this thought >to it's logical solution I'll bet I'd get a howl from the Europa >community. [etc.] Great post, Alan! *My* howl is in support. > But I do not need Ju-88 & He-111 counters either. There is no >logical reason to have such counters as units in Europa. I have never understood why air units are represented as hardware rather than as historical units. We don't represent armored formations according to tank type. Why not represent air formations according to the units actually deployed, with historical IDs and "typical" strengths? The designer's notes to SE (I think) said that most Pz XXs are given a single upgrade to represent major reorganizations, though some of them could have been represented in several intermediate steps. Why not the same with air units? Some of them get a new counter for anything more substantial than an oil change. The air system mechanics are overdone, too. I complained in that same "late, lamented ETO" about the way you often have to roll a dozen dice to bomb a rail hex (patrols, interceptions, AA, and the hit table), meanwhile desposing of a Guards Tank Army ("sometimes quite literally") with the roll of a single die. And the air system is implemented as though to model single air raids rather than two weeks of sorties. Bombers will go on flying defensive support in a hex for two solid weeks even though no attack occurs; meanwhile an adjacent stack gets thrashed for its life due to a lack of support. Ditto for naval patrol: one air attack accounts for two weeks' operations, even though the boats may only be in the air unit's range for a tiny fraction of their 300 movement points per turn. I think this stylistic mismatch between the representation of ground and air units is a result of the way Europa originated. Circumstantial evidence hints that Frank Chadwick's proto ground game was married to Marc Miller's proto air game and DNO was born as the result. (Can any oldtimer-insiders confirm this?) > Add to that that a JU-88 over a two week period will deliver a very >different number of sorties and bomb loads to a target at a range of five >hexes vs 26 hexes. So air point counters would do just as well and even >work better as a game mechanic and as a way to adjust force levels with >counter mixes. I hear tell of a recent SF game in California where they scrapped the air rules in favor of air points (and scrapped most of the naval rules as well), with the result that the players actually *enjoyed* the game. > As a noted example: at this year's Europafest in the Sudden Storm >game I watched our TEM editor do the following. While fighting his >battle at the gates on Moscow Rick noticed that the Russians in front of >Leningrad had left a stack (in a city hex where you could not attack it >at this defence value) in the second line, small enough to be overrun >by his panzerkorps. And his units were sitting right on a rail line. So >he entrained, at Moscow, railed over to Leningrad, to destroyed the first >line and overrun a city hex in Leningrad. My favorite is when a Pz XXX evacuates a bridgehead, moves parallel to the line, kicks some butt, and exploits back to defend the bridgehead again -- all before the Soviets across the way realize that the bridgehead was ever empty. - Bobby. From: Rich Velay Subject: GURU:SF Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 06:17:00 PST Hi . Just a little SF garrison question... >As I remember the garrison rules, a garrison could be >activated immediately if enemies enter the province, or at >the start of the turn if there are enemies in an adjacent >province. They appear in cities. RCV: As an official clarification, garrison forces may also appear in friendly owned Fortresses. Please note, also, that Valetta is the placement site for the Malta garrison, even though it is neither a city nor a fortress. It is a special case. >Now, can they appear in the SAME HEX as the entering unit >if: A) The entering unit is performing an amphibious >invasion? (If yes, too bad for the allies) B) The entering >unit is airdropping (If no, too bad for Malta) RCV: What matters is whether or not the City/Fortress hex is friendly owned; enemy occupancy doesn't really come into it. Indulge me here... For example, lets imagine an Allied airdrop against an unoccupied but Axis owned port in Germany, say the island of Helgoland. Now when the first Allied unit drops in the hex, that triggers garrison activation, in this case of WK X. Helgoland has a CD strength of 6 CD (as a minor Atlantic port and an Improved Fortress) and using Optional Rule 44G3, will have an artillery defense strength of 3 def pts. However, since this is treated as artillery, Rule 14B will reduce this strength to 1 def pt since there are no non-artillery REs in the hex. Assuming that the Allied unit landing in the hex is a 5-5 Br Glider X and that it is not disrupted upon landing, we need to check for airborn overrun. The 5-5 is halved for lack of support and halved again vs the Fortress, for an att str of 1.25, not sufficient to overrun the Axis 1 def str pt in the hex. Since Helgoland is still friendly owned, although enemy occupied, garrison forces can appear there. Note that garrison activation *and* placement happens immediately upon entry of an enemy unit into the region; in this example, the first unit of an airborne invasion of Helgoland. Even if there were more Allied units waiting to drop, or amphibiously assault, the garrison is activated and placed "immediately"; this suspends the Allied player turn, even within a multi-unit air drop, say, for garrison unit placement. >I assume it can't appear in the same hex if the enemy >enters from overland. RCV: How the enemy unit enters the hex isn't really an issue, friendly ownership of the hex is what is important. If, for example, a unit activated a garrison by moving overland into a port with a def strength from CD, as above, and that unt was unable to overrun the hex, then garrison forces could appear there, if friendly owned. >However, this causes some additional problems. Consider the >following (very hypotetical, but it COULD happen) >situation. A province has a sizeable garrison and an >important city at the border of the province. Enemy units >start their turn in a non adjacent province, drives thru a >lightly defended small province and enters the important >city. Is there no way for the garrison to defend this >important city? RCV: If the player has taken the chance of leaving the city totally unoccupied, or overrunable, then they are out of luck. Moral: Don't leave "important" cities without some sort of defense... >The FWTBT garrison activation rules are slightly different, >I think. Is this also errata for SF? RCV: FWTBT garrison rules apply to FWTBT; SF garrison rules apply to SF. So, no, not only are FWTBT rules not an errata for SF, they are not applicable t SF at all. Thanks for allowing me to use your questioin to go into this a bit deeper than I think you were asking for. :) late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Subject: SF Victory Points Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:47:19 -0500 (EST) Hi, I just read Alan's interesting post about VPs in Second Front. It seems to me that his discussion shows more that the replacement point system is broken than that the victory point system is broken. If the Americans, and even more so the British, were feeling a manpower squeeze at the end of the war, then they shouldn't have hundreds of replacement points stockpiled at the end of the game. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 15 Mar 96 13:44:33 PS Subject: East Africa Greetings all, With the release of WitD drawing ever nearer, I would like to re-open a persistant can of Europaworms. This is the question of Europa East Africa (also known as Africa Orientale). I am very much interested in seeing an expansion game for WitD which will include this theater of operations (after all we are going to get most, if not all of the forces needed in WitD). I would be curious as to hearing what the level of interest among other Europa players is. Additionally, I have heard rumors that this game may emerge as a game covering the Italian invasion of Ethiopia with expansion rules for the African campaigns during WWII (kinda like Spanish Torch in FWTBT). I think this would be a great idea (but then again, I'm one of the crazies who wants Naval Europa, Strat Air, PioT, Glory, The Great War...). Commentary from the masses? Also, anybody want to weigh in with scale and linkage opinions. My view is change the scale back to 16mi/hex and expand maps to link up with WitD. Jay Steiger Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 16:59:52 +0100 From: Johan Herber Z/XU Subject: Re: East Africa > With the release of WitD drawing ever nearer, I would like to re-open a > persistant can of Europaworms. This is the question of Europa East Africa > (also known as Africa Orientale). I am very much interested in seeing an > expansion game for WitD which will include this theater of operations (after > all we are going to get most, if not all of the forces needed in WitD). I > would be curious as to hearing what the level of interest among other Europa > players is. Additionally, I have heard rumors that this game may emerge as a > game covering the Italian invasion of Ethiopia with expansion rules for the > African campaigns during WWII (kinda like Spanish Torch in FWTBT). I think > this would be a great idea (but then again, I'm one of the crazies who wants > Naval Europa, Strat Air, PioT, Glory, The Great War...). Commentary from the > masses? Also, anybody want to weigh in with scale and linkage opinions. My > view is change the scale back to 16mi/hex and expand maps to link up with WitD. > > Jay Steiger yes, Yes, YES. I also want a standard Europa scale treatment of East Africa. If the battles in the Near East are covered, then why leave the ones in East Africa out? They are at least as important in draining Allied resources from the Desert War. I can't say I'm too thrilled by the idea of an Italian invasion game, but if that is what it takes to get the maps... /Johan Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:06:30 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Who is the player >In GE the players will need more freedom than has been allowed in the >individual (Campaign) games. The questions is how much freedom? Well, rather than all of us haggling over definitions of 'simulation' and other arcana, this should be the focus of the debate. >If we assume (a dangerous thing sometimes) that the players represent the >heads of state then ANYTHING sould resonable be allowed. With 20-20 >hindsight a German player (lets call him Adolf) would want to do some or all >of the following: Well, in common with you, I would rather avoid saying that the player is supposed to represent a 'head of state' or any person specifically. >1. Develop the A-bomb This might be better left out of any European wargame. As a tactical weapon, it's almost as dangerous to the user as the use-ee. As a strategic weapon, it has problems of delivery over Europe -what if the Germans (or English or Russians) shoot down and capture the enemy's atom bomb? Much like nerve gas (a weapon noone has yet brought into discussion- and one I think should be discarded for similar reasons.) Use of these kinds of weapons turns the game from WW2 into apocolyptic nightmare. > 2. Develop ground to air missiles What's so radical about that? It would merely be a more effective anti-aircraft battery. You'd still have to get a hit on the table. > 3. Speed development of the ME262 As I've mentioned before, a more rapid development of the Me262 would have been difficult. The German aero-industry required time to retool to build jet engines. A detailed account of the development of the 262 by Manfred Boehme provides ample evidence to suggest that the Me262 might have appeared a month or two earlier. The project suffered from the same bureaucratic red tape and SNAFU that all such R&D runs into. So throwing up visions of Me262 in 1943 is creating a red herring. > 4. Change his war strategy to avoid a 2 front war: take Britain's Empire out >of the war (I assume Sea Lion to be next to immpossible) by taking >Gibralter, Malta, N. Africa and the Middle East. > 5. Only after the British Empire has been reduced to a shadow of it's former >self would Russia be attacked. Again, what is so horrible about this? And the Russians sit aroud and wait for the Germans to finish off Britain's whole empire? Probably not. >Of course this ability can go against Adolf when we give it to the French. >Being the student of history that most EUROPA players are, a French player >would realize France is going to fall, and: > >1. Evacuate to North Africa and England as many forces as possible. This >would include the entire French Navy and major air and ground forces. > 2. Invade and take Italian N Africa. > 3. Wait for help to regain France. I think there are (and have been discussed at length) easy methods to prevent France from invading carrying on the war from Italy or some such nonsense. Point #2 is beside the point, Point #1 is leaving out the likely and almost certain provision in the rules for limitations on how many units can be supplied in someplace like Algeria. And point #3 doesn't seem to be saying anything at all...wait for help? Well, help from who and for how long? Isn't that what they did do? >Give players the ability to make Stalin's decisions and they are going to: > >1. Deploy their frontier forces in a very sensible fortified defense in >depth with their armor well protected. > 2. Take all of Finland as soon as possible. > 3. Bide their time until they are ready to attack. Sounds like an eminently sensible Soviet strategy. #1 is what they did. The Soviets built and then abandoned a fortified line, as their overall strategy changed in response to events in the rest of Europe. The Soviets certainly would have attacked Germany as soon as an oppurtunity presented itself. Soviet protestations of peacefulness can be discarded, I think. >#1 seems the very least we should allow, and that alone will make a German >invasion much less likely to succeed. Not necessarily. It comes down to the level of expertise of the players and how adept they are at employing their respective instruments of state power (war machines). I see this kind of protest from the Europa gamer who I don't understand. That likes to play the game as a kind of exercise in mathematical prowess-playing the exact same scenarios over and over, knowing every permutation of the Soviet and Axis setups on Jun II in incredible detail. Calculating odds for battles that both sides know will be fought for the next four turns. This bores the scheisse out of me! If you want to play the same battles over and over, then why would you even be interested in discussing Grand Europa? Why not just link all the battles together and play them sequentially- predicting all the outcomes ahead of time. This idea of 'simulation' is mere 're-creation'. I can see clearly that this is exactly what many arehoping for when they head "Grand Europa". The Fall of France is played out as historically, leading to Finest Hour...then dinner is served and everyone has a break. Then the Balkan campaign and some activity in North Africa. If Germany has a couple extra units left over from France, then maybe they get to put them into Operation Barbarossa and that's the extent of variance from history. What this amounts to is a sort of Marxist historical determinism- it was all fated to happen. And what I hope comes out of this dialectic is a Grand Europa that the determinists can play on their own in their own redundant fashion, while the experimental players can play out WW2 on its own terms. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:07:59 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Mussolini and Graziani >> As far as Rodolfo Graziani goes, he was extremely brave in fighting >>badly-armed Libyan and Ethiopian tribesmen. He also was quite right, the >>Italian 6th and 10th Armies were in no shape for offensive warfare. > >I often wonder why an opponent becomes "badly armed" and primitive >("tribesmen") when you want to disparage the accomplishments of their foe? >Fighting qualities count for a whole lot more -- I far more prefer to face >a heavily-armed creampuff nationality/group (insert the name of your >favorite here), Hitler, never one to mince words about his subjects, had a great point about some of the bottom of the barrel units formed by the SS. To paraphrase he said that there was no point in giving German equipment to things like Turkmen units and the like, saying that it was criminal to give such people weapons(to satisfy Himmler's empire building) that could easily be turned against the Germans while the German Army had difficulty supplying its own formations. He said the Indian Legion might be good at "turning prayer wheels", but otherwise were not going to be of any practical service to Germany. than a poorly armed Libyan and Ethiopian force! The >Ethiopians after all had beat the 19th Century Italian invasion at Adowa -- >the only indigenous people south of the Sahara to defeat a 19th Century >European invader and keep their independence. The Libyans were good >fighters, too. Neither rolled over and played dead in the face of the >Italians. Interesting point- the Ethiopians were supplied with Krupp 37mm antitank guns. I don't imagine the Duce was too happy about that. >The Rif Moroccans were poorly armed vis-a-vis the French, but that didn't >make them contemptable. I have spent time in the Rif, talking with an old British mercenary (Cypress, Rhodesia...) making a film about the 'kif' trade. Those Berbers are hard as nails and the Morroccan government doesn't mess with 'em. (the kickbacks from the hash trade are an extra incentive of course...) "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:08:08 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Germany/US interventionism >Yes, more lend lease would have reached Britain in 1942, but why would this >force Hitler to declare war? The more likely scenario is that German >submarines would attack US ships more and more, with the USN escalating its >response, until the American public was outraged at German attacks on >neutral (US) shipping and the US declared war. This is a good place for a random die roll, eh? I mean, does *anybody* want to try to track American public opinion (never a good subject for scientific polling)? "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:08:26 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: GE, Hitler & Garrisons > Oh, I don't know. Uncle Dolph had a pretty limited >repetoire of reactions to events from winter 41 on. "Defend >to the last man", "Kill him", "Never give up", "Kill them" >seems to pretty much cover the essentials. This is a big oversimplification, but it's fair to say that after being proved right that the Wehrmacht could hold out in its overextended positions through the disastrous winter, Hitler beleived from then on that he was right about everything and worse still that the hold till the last round option would *always* work. A chain of events in which Hitler ended up on the right side of disputes between the Generals as to how to organize the armoured forces, then how to take on France and then whether an attack on Russia could succeed fed his always self-congratulatory ego (masked by a faux humility) until the pivotal point of the winter of 41/42. If the Germans had decided to make a huge leap backward as advocated by Rundstedt, they would certainly lose massive stocks of equipment, and perhaps the entire Axis force in the east. Since Hitler's stand fast order worked, he started beleiving his own propaganda about the indomitable German soldier who could take on tanks with his bare hands. How would a player act? Since a GE player would be, in my own conception, an amalgam of the German military decision makers from top to bottom, he might decide to make the big leap back to, say the Dnepr/Dvina line or even back further. What the consequences might turn out to be would be up to the players to decide through the way they implemented the strategies on either side. Maybe the German front would collapse (this happened in a FitE/SE game I played once- the German player essentially conceded the game as he had a gaping hole in the middle of his front and nothing coming up to plug it) Maybe the retreat would save the Germans for a while, or perhaps have WW2 in the east turn into a big WW1, with long fortified lines and no movement despite big sexy units. >>The mandates from above the level of player decision- >>making should be: >>DIRECTIVE [you must do this if this], >>GENERAL [x number of >REs (not 169th Inf Div., 1st Pz Div., >>and 369th Emergency Lederhosen Bde) go here], >>CONSTRAINED BY EVENTS, NOT TIME [until either the Allies >>are no longer adjacent, or an anti-Axis revolt occurs, x >>REs must remain in region 512], >>and ACTUALLY STRATEGIC, AND NOT OPERATIONAL IN NATURE. Well, I would say that even in a game with a larger degree of player control than you like that a lot of this might be desirable, just to keep from having to worry about a lot of things like how to handle various partisan factions, &c...easy, the Axis just has to maintain a certain RE size garrison in whatever region. Maybe the Allies flying in resource pts ("supplies") to the region would force the Axis to enlarge their garrison by a certain proportion every turn such supply drops were successful. I'm all for keeping an initial GE simple, as historical and reasonable as possible, as long as spaces are left to plug in optional rules and modules allowing the liberally minded players to have fun with ahistorical options. Steven P "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:27:06 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: East Africa >Greetings all, > >With the release of WitD drawing ever nearer, I would like to re-open a >persistant can of Europaworms. This is the question of Europa East Africa >(also known as Africa Orientale). I am very much interested in seeing an >expansion game for WitD which will include this theater of operations (after >all we are going to get most, if not all of the forces needed in WitD). I >would be curious as to hearing what the level of interest among other Europa >players is. Additionally, I have heard rumors that this game may emerge as a >game covering the Italian invasion of Ethiopia with expansion rules for the >African campaigns during WWII (kinda like Spanish Torch in FWTBT). I think >this would be a great idea (but then again, I'm one of the crazies who wants >Naval Europa, Strat Air, PioT, Glory, The Great War...). Commentary from the >masses? Also, anybody want to weigh in with scale and linkage opinions. My >view is change the scale back to 16mi/hex and expand maps to link up with WitD. That would take a lot of maps. I repeat, a lot. Ethiopia alone is four maps, and most of Egypt are missing from WITD. And between Egypt and Ethiopia, there's Sudan. Ever taken a look at Sudan on a map? The country is BIG. Your suggestion would estimately double the play area of WITD! Sure, I would buy Ethiopia, I'm the kind who buys everything, but linkup maps to Egypt? Er, no thanks. They would probably make those roadless marshes in TU look exciting in comparison anyway... Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Subject: East Africa (fwd) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:20:29 -0500 (EST) Hi, I second Jay's call for a Europa game on East Africa. The East African campaign had an important influence on the North African campaign and I think that it should have been included with WITD. Also, there were at one point contingency plans for a British withdrawal into Sudan if the Axis broke into the Delta. So, linking maps make sense. However, I would be happy with East Africa without linking maps as well. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue > Greetings all, > > With the release of WitD drawing ever nearer, I would like to re-open a > persistant can of Europaworms. This is the question of Europa East Africa > (also known as Africa Orientale). I am very much interested in seeing an > expansion game for WitD which will include this theater of operations (after > all we are going to get most, if not all of the forces needed in WitD). I > would be curious as to hearing what the level of interest among other Europa > players is. Additionally, I have heard rumors that this game may emerge as a > game covering the Italian invasion of Ethiopia with expansion rules for the > African campaigns during WWII (kinda like Spanish Torch in FWTBT). I think > this would be a great idea (but then again, I'm one of the crazies who wants > Naval Europa, Strat Air, PioT, Glory, The Great War...). Commentary from the > masses? Also, anybody want to weigh in with scale and linkage opinions. My > view is change the scale back to 16mi/hex and expand maps to link up with WitD. > > Jay Steiger > > From: Stefan Farrelly Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 16:52:46 +0000 Subject: Re: East Africa I agree wholeheartedly with Jay Steiger and Johan Herber and would love to see Europa treatment of East Africa, especially including the Sudan incase the Brits need to retreat there as they would have done historically. Stefan Farrelly Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:21:50 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Howling about Alan's post. >I have never understood why air units are represented as hardware rather >than as historical units. We don't represent armored formations according to >tank type. Why not represent air formations according to the units actually >deployed, with historical IDs and "typical" strengths? I'd never thought about it before, but I must say that you're really onto something there- that's areally great idea. >And the air system is implemented as though to model single air raids rather >than two weeks of sorties. Bombers will go on flying defensive support in a >hex for two solid weeks even though no attack occurs; meanwhile an adjacent >stack gets thrashed for its life due to a lack of support. Ditto for naval >patrol: one air attack accounts for two weeks' operations, even though the >boats may only be in the air unit's range for a tiny fraction of their 300 >movement points per turn. >I hear tell of a recent SF game in California where they scrapped the air >rules in favor of air points (and scrapped most of the naval rules as well), >with the result that the players actually *enjoyed* the game. >My favorite is when a Pz XXX evacuates a bridgehead, moves parallel to the >line, kicks some butt, and exploits back to defend the bridgehead again -- >all before the Soviets across the way realize that the bridgehead was ever >empty. I always thought some limited reaction impulse should be allowed to non-phasing players, to add more of a simultaneous feel to the flow of the game- and to prevent this kind of thing, which I have done myself to great effect- we played our Grand Europa, sort of a pre-Clash of Titans, and to save the German Army, I massed three corps of mechanized forces and used them to tear the center of the Soviet line to pieces, since they had all their armour on the strategic flanks- (Ukraine and in the north). One thing I've never liked is the ability of infantry units to infiltrate around the flanks of c/m forces and pin them in place, threatening them with encirclement and attack from multiple hexes- it seems to me that the ZOC of a Panzer division should prevent a rifle division (or Soviet Mech XXX preventing Axis infantry or whatever) from doing this: In history, did Panzer divisions sit around and let scrappy rifle divisions surround them so they could be attacked easier? This is the surest way for a Soviet to crack any German line- all you have to do is risk some spare rifle XXX and you can force key German units to move back- often unhinging an entire front without having to fight at all. Since units are not allowed to conduct normal combat against any more than one hex, then even Panzer Korps/Mech XXX are unable to avoid having to retreat, since if two forces infiltrate, they can deal out death to one only. It seems to me that combat is a function of time, as are movement points- it shouldn't require the entire 2 weeks to wipe out a rifle XXX. Has anyone ever experimented with allowing, say c/m units to attack twice providing they don't move, or that they move, say one hex only per movement and exploitation phase? I'm happy enough with the rules as written on these points, but they do seem somewhat unrealistic- Steve P "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:22:27 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Luftwaffe strength comparisons An interesting point about the Luftwaffe, re strength comparisons with France and Britain is that the Germans only had one fighter school (!) at the war's start and this became a major problem. I'm not sure if they rectified it later. Maybe this kind of data can be used in conjunction with some simple industrial rules to create a realistic method of 'buying' air units. Countries would end up with similar mixes. Maybe they could spend 'resources' or whatever on new schools- sacrificing production capability, &c... Steve Phillips "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:23:47 -0600 (CST) From: David Holmes Subject: FTF victory points scales In FTF, the victory conditions clearly state that the Germans should win, and the game should be played twice with each player taking both sides once. Has anyone come up with a victory points chart based on the historical outcome which would give a victory indication without 2 games? David Holmes From: psmith@hpmail2.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Paul Smith) Subject: Re: East Africa Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:44:13 -0600 (CST) > >Greetings all, > >With the release of WitD drawing ever nearer, I would like to re-open a >persistant can of Europaworms. This is the question of Europa East Africa >(also known as Africa Orientale). I am very much interested in seeing an >expansion game for WitD which will include this theater of operations (after >all we are going to get most, if not all of the forces needed in WitD). I >..... > I've had the S&T version of Africa Orientale for quite a few years and never played it. If there was a new one made, I'd probably never play that. However, I probably WOULD buy it in order to have a complete collection (if I don't have it, I'll definitely not play it - if I buy it, at least there's a chance I'll play it). So I vote for GR/D to spend their finite resources pursuing other games (I'd rather see an updated Narvik than an update Africa Orientale). -- 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." -- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:56:49 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re: Who is the player On 3/18/96, Steve wrote: >Much like nerve gas (a weapon noone has yet brought into >discussion- and one I think should be discarded for similar >reasons.) Tony LeTissier, in his latest book, *Zhukov on the Oder* notes on p. 17 that: "1st Byelorussian Front had a chemical warfare bn equipped with poison gas with them in the field". Unfortunately, he does not list this in his otherwise excellent citations. It does point out, however, that the Soviets [at least; the accident at Bari shows that the Allies had gas in-theatre, though not 'in the field'] were prepared to use gas, probably in retaliation for any Axis first-use. Anyone out there know if this was a standard Front-level asset, and if so, at what point it became so? Ray From: psmith@hpmail2.fwrdc.rtsg.mot.com (Paul Smith) Subject: Fall of France a forgone conclusion... Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:51:23 -0600 (CST) > >Of course this ability can go against Adolf when we give it to the French. >Being the student of history that most EUROPA players are, a French player >would realize France is going to fall, and .... > Although I have no basis in history for what I'm about to say, in virtually ALL strategic type WWII games I've played, the fall of France can be prevented (or at least majorly delayed) if the British chooses to commit heavily to its defense. In GE, I can see this as a valid choice the British player can make. He can choose to risk home defense for the defense of France. After all, the best defense of the British homeland is a France still in the war. -- 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." --