Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 09:13:24 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: Re: GRD www site Something strange is afoot. > I get a not found error at that URL, I can get to >www.icomplete.com tho'. Please repost. This now seems to be correct. The web site was active a couple of days ago, but now when I try to get there it doesn't seem to exist. I'll write a letter to GRD via their AOL address to see what's going on. Sorry, it I accidently raised any hopes which now may be dashed. > Agree completely on the need to get Europa off GEnie and onto >the net/web. > > Larry Peter Rogers Center for African Studies 427 Grinter Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 USA phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science) fax: (904) 392-2435 e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 08:25:02 -0600 From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: GRD www site > I get a not found error at that URL, I can get to >www.icomplete.com tho'. Please repost. > I get the same problem, even when using the full spec as recommended by the message that followed Larry's. - Bobby. Date: Fri, 1 Dec 95 10:11:42 EST From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: Re: GRD www site Everybody, I get the same error, but it worked fine yesterday. The server is probably just down for something today. Try again this afternoon or sometime. My guess is it's just another case of life on the superhighway. Somebody post when it get's back up. Frank From: Mats Persson Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 16:16:22 +0100 Subject: Re: FitE/SE questions. > > 1- Can a unit mix Administrative movement with operational (normal) > > movement within a movement phase? >No. But the unit can mix Admin movement with operational rail movement. > > 4- Why can't russian rail engineers change from standard to broad gauge? >Can't they? To quote rules "a railroad engineer may regauge a rail line, changing the gauge from broad to standard (or vice versa)." Old messages to this mailing list has been archived on ftp.lysator.liu.se in directory pub/europa. Unfortunately I lost messages from 1994 to summer 1995. If somebody have them I can put them on the archive. Mats Persson From: John Sloan Subject: Re: GRD www site Date: Fri, 01 Dec 95 15:02:05 GMT Frank E. Watson wrote on Fri, 01 Dec 95 15:11:42 GMT > Everybody, > > I get the same error, but it worked fine yesterday. The server is probably > just down for something today. Try again this afternoon or sometime. My > guess is it's just another case of life on the superhighway. > > Somebody post when it get's back up. > > Frank I don't think the server is down per se. You can get through to http://www.icomplete.com/ no problem. My guess is that the grdgames directory has been disabled while they build it. John From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson) Subject: Re: GRD www site Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:10:22 -0600 (CST) > > Everybody, > > I get the same error, but it worked fine yesterday. The server is probably > just down for something today. Try again this afternoon or sometime. My > guess is it's just another case of life on the superhighway. > > Somebody post when it get's back up. > > Frank It is up, but the address has changed. It was moved to -Charlie -- Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt... Date: Fri, 1 Dec 95 15:25:45 EST From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: SF Naval Gunfire Question: SF Allied TFs can provide gunfire support six times per year. Does this mean they can PREPARE to fire six times or does it mean that they can prepare without bound but can only pull the trigger six times? Thanks, Frank From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson) Subject: Re: SF Naval Gunfire Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 15:04:19 -0600 (CST) > > Question: > > SF Allied TFs can provide gunfire support six times per year. Does this > mean they can PREPARE to fire six times or does it mean that they can > prepare without bound but can only pull the trigger six times? > > Thanks, > Frank > We have always played that it means you can only pull the trigger 6 times. If you could only setup 6 times it would make task forces a LOT less useful. -Charlie -- Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt... From: Jeff White Subject: Re: SF Naval Gunfire Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 15:39:13 -0600 (CST) Frank E. Watson Said: > > Question: > > SF Allied TFs can provide gunfire support six times per year. Does this > mean they can PREPARE to fire six times or does it mean that they can > prepare without bound but can only pull the trigger six times? > We've been playing with "pull the trigger" six times per year. Makes sense. If you don't fire, you're not wasting the ammo, barrel wear, and maintenance. Setting up would be arranging fire support with the grunts, liason, getting maps, etc. While were on the subject, what are opinions about naval ships blowing up ports, and airfields (ala plane bombings)? There are historical examples of this occuring... Guadalcanal - plastering the air strip. Mers-el-Kebir, ports and ships getting it. These types of missions would be different from gunfire support. They usually lasted a day or a night, and had a specific physical target. Rather than the week(s) of support for grunts. -- Jeff White ARS N0POY Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 11:03:24 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: Finn AWW Mk II Here's the second incarnation of the Finnish deployment I posted the other day. As I mentioned then, while posting the first setup I suddently realized that the Finnish Coastal Defense Command units can start in 4717 (it's a coastal hex on the Gulf of Finland). What follows is my revised setup based on this tardy observation. There is also another signigicant difference which I'll discuss below. Kannaksen Army (includes the Coastal Defense Command (CDC)) 4716 - 1-2-8 ski, 1-8 ski, 1-6 ski (reserve, A) = 2 total defense strength 4717 - 4-5-6, 2-6 art, 0-1-0 art, 1-6 (CDC), 0-1-8 (CDC), 3 x 0- 1-6 (CDC) = 13 total defense strength 4616 - 4-5-6, 0-1-6, 1-2-6 (reserve) 4615 - 4-5-6, 2 x 2-6*, 1-6* = 10 total defense strength 4614 - 4-5-6, 0-1-6 = 6 total defense strength 4613 - 4-5-6, 2-6*, 0-1-6, 1-6 art = 9 total defense strength 4514 - 1-8 ski, 0-6 arm 4516 - 0-1-5 cons After rereading Peter Robbins's article in TEM # 38/39, I decided to think again about deploying some Finns forward of the M. Line. I tried a more ambitious forward defense/delaying action in my first solitare game and the Finns got badly burned. However, I now think that deploying the three ski units noted above in 4717 is a good idea. It limits attacks on 4716 and 4615 to one stack of Soviets only. This makes it possible for the Finns to prevent any 3-1 attacks on the M. Line on turn 1. Note that you need at least 2 defense strength in 4717 to avoid a 12:1 overrun by a 20 strength Soviet stack, but the Soviets don't have enough MPs for a 10:1 overrun. December II is going to be a bit stickier. With the reserve 4-5-6 shifted over to 4th Corps and all the CDC ants taking up space in 4716, it is impossible to prevent a 3:1 vs. that hex. Using all the December I reinforcements and replacements, the Finns can make the other 4 hexes of the M. Line 3:1 proof. Thus the stage is set for a very exciting die roll during the December II Soviet combat phase. 4th Army Corps 4210 - 4-5-6 (reserve) 3910- 3-4-6* 3711 - 3-4-6* 3512 - 1-2-6 ski 3412 - 1-6* ski 3513 - 0-1-5 cons "Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy" says General Stimpy of the Finnish 4th Corps. The 4-5-6 reseve XX has arrived. By massing their units the Soviets can get a 1st turn 4-1 (-1) vs. one of the Finnish divisions, but all three have secure retreat paths. The 0-1-5 cons should probably rail over to the M. Line area to assist in the construction of reserve forts. Northern Finland Defense Area (all ski) 2912 - 1-2-6 2715 - 1-6 (reserve) 2612 - 1-6* 2011 - 1-6* 1310 - 1-6 The only difference here is that with the arrival of the reserve 4-5-6 in 4th Corps, one of the reserve 1-6 ski units now assumes the exalted title of the Northern Finland Strategic Reserve. The RR eng and the air setups remain the same as in my first setup. One hint to make life easier for the Soviet player. Before you start xerox the area around Leningrad and then enlarge the copy. This way you have somewhere to keep all your air units without cluttering up the map. Peter Rogers Center for African Studies 427 Grinter Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 USA phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science) fax: (904) 392-2435 e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 9:28:41 EST From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: Mountain Hexsides Rules Question: If you attack into mountains your strength is halved. If you attack across a mountain hexside your strength is halved. If you attack from one mountain hex into another mountain hex, is the hexside a mountain hexside making you halved twice? I have my own opinion on this but want to hear what other people think. Frank Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 9:31:09 EST From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: Disembarking Rules Question: Per the SF standard rules, you pay 1 MP to disembark. Do you also pay the cost of the terrain for the hex you are entering? I think the rules imply that you do, but I bet that is not the way most people play. Frank From: John Sloan Subject: Re: Mountain Hexsides Date: Tue, 05 Dec 95 14:34:16 GMT Frank E. Watson wrote on Tue, 05 Dec 95 14:28:41 GMT > Rules Question: > > If you attack into mountains your strength is halved. > If you attack across a mountain hexside your strength is halved. > > If you attack from one mountain hex into another mountain hex, is the > hexside a mountain hexside making you halved twice? > > I have my own opinion on this but want to hear what other people think. > > Frank We played that it wasn't. This, to me, makes the most sense. John From: Jeff White Subject: Re: Mountain Hexsides Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 10:09:40 -0600 (CST) Frank E. Watson Said: > > Rules Question: > > If you attack into mountains your strength is halved. > If you attack across a mountain hexside your strength is halved. > > If you attack from one mountain hex into another mountain hex, is the > hexside a mountain hexside making you halved twice? > > I have my own opinion on this but want to hear what other people think. > > Frank > Our group has debated this in some fashion. First off, attacking from one mountain hex to another would be just halved (non-mountain) and -2. Here's a better problem. Right now I sit in a wooded rough hex, with a mountain hexside between me and the Germans. (I'm the Americans and I've surrounded a Panzer Corps in La Speza in Italy. They're in a port fort having been surrounded for the last couple of months.) Anyway, if the Germans attack across that mountain hexside into the wooded rough, are they halved and -2 for mountain, or halved and -2 for mountain and -2 for wooded rough? I'd go with the worst terrain, halved and -2. -- Jeff White ARS N0POY Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 11:26:51 EST From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re:Re: Mountain Hexsides Jeff asks: > ... I sit in a wooded rough hex, with a mountain hexside between me and > the Germans. (I'm the Americans and I've surrounded a Panzer Corps in > La Speza in Italy. They're in a port fort having been surrounded for > the last couple of months.) Anyway, if the Germans attack across that > mountain hexside into the wooded rough, are they halved and -2 for > mountain, or halved and -2 for mountain and -2 for wooded rough? I say they are halved for the mountain hexside and -2 for the wooded rough. If I remember correctly, the terrain effects chart doesn't specify -2 for a mountain HEXSIDE, only attacker halved. This MUST be true because some units could attack the hex from another place that wasn't across the mountain hexside - I don't think there are any precedence rules for that. As for my original question, I think that you are not halved both for mountain hexside and mountain terrain, the reason being that the terrain effects chart shows a mountain hexside as a hexside without a mountain hex on each side. Sorry if this has been debated here in the past. I missed it. Frank Date: Tue, 05 Dec 1995 14:24:20 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Disembarking -Reply Frank, I've always played that: 1) If disembarking into a coastal hex, you also pay the regular terrain entry cost of the hex [indicating a disembarkation unassisted by any port facilities]; 2) If disembarking into a port without a rail line connection, you pay the clear terrain entry cost [indicating a disembarkation assisted by bare-bones facilities (at least breakwater protection for the port)]; 3) If disembarking into a port with a rail connection, you pay the road-rate entry cost [indicating a full-service disembarkation]. Notes a) All ports with hits on the port, or on a rail line in a port hex, are treated as ports without rail lines. b) All demolished ports are treated as the first case, no port at all, until repaired. It may not be RAW, but it makes sense to me. Ray From: Jeff White Subject: Re: Disembarking Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 16:00:26 -0600 (CST) Frank E. Watson Said: > > Rules Question: > > Per the SF standard rules, you pay 1 MP to disembark. > Do you also pay the cost of the terrain for the hex you are entering? > > I think the rules imply that you do, but I bet that is not the way most > people play. > We've been playing with the rule that it costs nothing to board, but 1 MP (2 MP for c/m) for each naval step spent at sea in that phase. So, if you unloaded in step two of the movement phase, it would cost you 2 MPs if you were a infantry unit, for instance. I'm not so sure you should charge for the hex, since the ships "paid" for putting you in that hex. -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:01:30 +0100 From: Johan Herber Subject: Re: Mountain Hexsides > Here's a better problem. Right now I sit in a wooded rough hex, with > a mountain hexside between me and the Germans. (I'm the Americans and > I've surrounded a Panzer Corps in La Speza in Italy. They're in a port fort > having been surrounded for the last couple of months.) Anyway, if the > Germans attack across that mountain hexside into the wooded rough, are they > halved and -2 for mountain, or halved and -2 for mountain and -2 for wooded > rough? > > I'd go with the worst terrain, halved and -2. If I'm not totally mistaken, terrain effects are cumulative which makes it attacker halved and -4 in total. I believe the entry on the TEC says 'As mountain' for mountain hexsides, which would remove any doubt that the -2 should be used. /Johan Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 11:29:39 -0500 (EST) From: Edward K Nam Subject: more FitE questions I am playing Scorched Earth and have afew more questions from the rules: RULE 20 A- Interception: According to the Sequence of play on the chart, only the non-phasing player may intercept. This means that the phasing player may NOT intercept bombers on Defensive Air Support (DAS) or do naval patrol. Also it may be possible for the phasing player to send fighters to a hex to escort ground support and NOT fight enemy planes in the same hex providing DAS. this is probably to prevent DAS bombers from getting attacked twice in one turn, but it is still strange that planes can occupy the same hex and ignore each other. Am I interpreting these rules correctly? Also, if a defending fighter is the target of a tactical bombing which is heavily escorted, that fighter may not scramble (since they are the subject of attack and not their airbase) BUT it may evade attack if there is another enemy plane within interception range performing some other mission. If there is no such mission it either can stay over the airbase and fight or stay on the ground and hope it won't get destroyed. Am I also understanding this correctly? RULE 31H Can Turkey and Iran share the same garrisons? ie,. can the same unit garrison both countries? Thanks, Ed Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:37:39 +0100 From: Johan Herber Subject: Re: more FitE questions > I am playing Scorched Earth and have afew more questions from the > rules: > > RULE 20 > A- Interception: According to the Sequence of play on the chart, only > the non-phasing player may intercept. This means that the phasing player > may NOT intercept bombers on Defensive Air Support (DAS) or do naval patrol. As the DAS/Naval Patrol mission was flown in the previous player turn the now phasing player had the opportunity to intercept it then. > Also it may be possible for the phasing player to send fighters > to a hex to escort ground support and NOT fight enemy planes in the same > hex providing DAS. Yes, this happened a lot with the old air rules. > this is probably to prevent DAS bombers from getting > attacked twice in one turn, but it is still strange that planes can occupy > the same hex and ignore each other. Am I interpreting these rules correctly? No, not entirely 8-). > Also, if a defending fighter is the target of a tactical bombing > which is heavily escorted, that fighter may not scramble (since they > are the subject of attack and not their airbase) BUT it may > evade attack if there is another enemy plane within interception range > performing some other mission. My memory is not too clear on the point of scrambling, but as missions are flown sequentially there should exist possibilities for the phasing player to trick the intercepting player into committing his interceptors or vice versa with soak off missions etc. > If there is no such mission it either can > stay over the airbase and fight or stay on the ground and hope it won't get > destroyed. Am I also understanding this correctly? Now I begin to remember the scrambling rule, is it not so that you may not scramble _to_ an airbase that is under attack? In that case, to force the defending fighter to either fight or be bombed on the ground, you will have to send an airbase bombing mission to every airbase within scramble range of that fighter. > RULE 31H Can Turkey and Iran share the same garrisons? ie,. can the same > unit garrison both countries? I'm not sure, but I don't think a unit can count for more than one garrison. /Johan Johan Herber | Email: eraherr@lmera.ericsson.se Rydsvagen 104A | Phone: +46 13173013 S-582 48 LINKOPING | -Work: +46 13284160 SWEDEN | Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:19:44 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: Causeway Destruction While playing AWW, I started to wonder about the possibilities of blowing up causeways. AWW doesn't have any rules for destruction of bridges over rivers, which would be pretty pointless anyhow because there are only two bridges crossing an unfrozen river. However, if the Finns could blow up causeways this would be a big help. They could prevent any Soviet attacks on or movement into 4914. In addition the blowing of causeways would slow the Soviets if and when they reach the lake region in the southeast portion of Finland. I checked out the bridge destruction rules in BF and SF, and in both cases, the rules refer specifically to bridges over rivers. Furthermore, SF distinguishes causeways from bridges, and this would seem to pretty conclusively rule out using the optional brdige rules in connection with causeways over either lake or sea hexsides. This all leads up to some questions I would like to pose: 1. Does anyone out there allow for the destruction or capture of causeways, and, if so, how do you handle these situations? 2. Specifically, if anyone has played AWW with such rules, what has been the effect? 3. Historically, did the Finns make any attempts to destroy any of the causeways represented in AWW, especially the critical one in front of the Mannerheim Line which crosses L. Suvanto? I've checked Allen Chew's book, _The White Death_, and he makes no mention of any such demolitions. Interestingly, at one point, Chew refers to a Soviet attack across "frozen Lake Suvanto," something which is impossible in the game. 4. Lastly, and this is for Gary Stagliano or anyone else involved in the design and development of AWW, did you consider causeway destruction or capture rules while creating the game? Peter Rogers Center for African Studies 427 Grinter Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 USA phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science) fax: (904) 392-2435 e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 16:37:39 EST From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re:Re: SF Naval Gunfire > SF Allied TFs can provide gunfire support six times per year. Does this > mean they can PREPARE to fire six times or does it mean that they can > prepare without bound but can only pull the trigger six times? I just got a message from John Astell - all the list answers were right, you can prepare to fire without bound, but only pull the trigger six times. Frank Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 00:46:56 -0800 From: steveh@UVic.CA (Steve Huhtala) Subject: M-M or BF? Hi, I do not have Balkan Front, however, I have the chance to get Markita-Merkur. What are the differences between the two? (Besides GDW and GR/D) Does M-M mesh at all with FitE/SE. Should I just pass, and buy Balkan Front instead? Confused. Thanks, SteveH steveh@uvaix.uvic.ca Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 06:27:57 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: RR units and rail gauge I've been looking ahead to what we might be playing when we finish AWW. I've been thinking about the Operation Felix scenario from FWTBT. I came across something that has me a bit confused. Can the German RR art units move on unconverted Spanish rail lines? A strict reading of the rules would seem to indicate they can by making a strategic rail move and then spending 20 of their rail move points to jump from one gauge to the next. In addition, the Germans receive a number of RR art units with their first group of reinforcements. They generally weren't that stupid, so it would seem that German plans for the attack on Gibraltor called for the use of RR art. On the other hand, what little I do know about RR art makes me wonder exactly how they planned on converting these units to operate on Spanish rail lines. It's obviously not as simple as for other units who just get off one train and then climb on another. Peter Rogers Center for African Studies 427 Grinter Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 USA phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science) fax: (904) 392-2435 e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 14:25:56 +0100 From: Johan Herber Subject: Re: M-M or BF? > I do not have Balkan Front, however, I have the chance to get > Markita-Merkur. What are the differences between the two? (Besides GDW and > GR/D) Does M-M mesh at all with FitE/SE. Should I just pass, and buy Balkan > Front instead? Confused. Go for Balkan Front, it is much improved over Marita Merkur. You can get MM just to see how much the rules/maps have improved since GRD took over. /Johan Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 23:48:10 -0500 (EST) From: Larry Woloshyn Subject: Re: RR units and rail gauge On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Peter Rogers wrote: > I've been looking ahead to what we might be playing when we finish AWW. > I've been thinking about the Operation Felix scenario from FWTBT. I came > across something that has me a bit confused. Can the German RR art units > move on unconverted Spanish rail lines? A strict reading of the rules would > seem to indicate they can by making a strategic rail move and then spending > 20 of their rail move points to jump from one gauge to the next. In No dice! I think the Spain & Portugal rules are more explict on this. You can use the RR arty to overwhelm the border defenses. I don't think you have a chance at taking Gib. without the big guns so the game becomes a race to regauge the Spanish net. Count hexes along the various routes before you set up and after every turn! Larry Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 07:25:12 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: Re: RR units and rail gauge and More! >>Can the German RR art units move on unconverted Spanish rail lines? > > No dice! I think the Spain & Portugal rules are more explict on >this. You can use the RR arty to overwhelm the border defenses. I >don't think you have a chance at taking Gib. without the big guns so the >game becomes a race to regauge the Spanish net. Count hexes along the >various routes before you set up and after every turn! This would seem to rule out the use of the RR art. units in an attack on Gibraltar in the Operation Felix scenario. The one and only German RR eng. unit arrives in Bordeaux on the Sep I turn, and this gives the Germans a total of 12.5 turns worth of reguaging (the RR eng has to spend a last one MP to move to border via rail). It cost 2 MP to reguage a hex and at least 1 MP to move from hex to hex. This means that under ideal condition one RR eng can reguage 2 rail hexes per turn for a total of 25 hexes (this rate slows to 1.5 per turn on mud, winter, and snow turns). According to my count, the shortest rail distance between Gibraltar and the Franco-Spanish border is 49 hexes. The German player will be lucky if his RR art units are even half way to Gibraltor before the scenario ends. This then leads me to some questions/comments on assualting Gibraltor. Johan Herber's recent contribution to the discussion on mountain hexsides fits in with my understanding of the rules, terrain effects on combat are cumulative. Though it should be noted that this is not explicitly stated anywhere I can find; rule 38A2 on the mtn unit status of the German G zvb XX when attacking Gibraltor would seem to be implicit confirmation of the cumulative effect of terrain. This means that most units attacking Gibraltar will be quartered and subject to a -3 die modifier, as well as being subject to the mountain stacking rules. The best German attack force I can come up with is as follows: 8-8 inf XX G zbv = 4 15-5 art XX = 7.5 2-8 eng III = 1 5-3-10 pz III = 1.25 12-6-4 siege art X = 12 total = 25.75 attack strength with eng modifier The Germans can also throw in 5 air units with GS quartered for attacking a mountain improved fortress adding an additional 4.75 points. Thus we have a grand total of 30.5 points able to attack Gibraltar. By this point, the Germans are most definitely missing the extra 8 strength that their 4 LR siege art units could have provided. Of course, the Brits will be having their own problems, mainly in the area of supply. In theory, Gibraltar can defend with a total of 26 factors. However, Gibraltar lies in the danger zone cast by the Spanish naval base at Ceuta across the straits which makes the tracing of a naval supply line into Gibraltar impossible. If the Germans can keep Gibraltar out of supply and isolated for long enough, perhaps they can get its defense strength down to 10 which would allow for a 3:1, -2 attack (the -1=AE result on the 2:1 column would scare me away from anything less). Thus in the end, the Felix scenario would seem to revolve around the supply of Gibraltar. In true Europa fashion, this leads me to one last question. What is the status of Tangier in the WWII scenarios? Could the British invade as a prelude to attacking Ceuta and opening up a naval supply line to Gibraltar? Peter Rogers Center for African Studies 427 Grinter Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 USA phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science) fax: (904) 392-2435 e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu From: Mats Persson Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:17:44 +0100 Subject: Re: M-M or BF? Forwared to europa@lysator.liu.se: > > I do not have Balkan Front, however, I have the chance to get > > Markita-Merkur. What are the differences between the two? (Besides GDW and > > GR/D) Does M-M mesh at all with FitE/SE. Should I just pass, and buy Balkan > > Front instead? Confused. > >Go for Balkan Front, it is much improved over Marita Merkur. You can >get MM just to see how much the rules/maps have improved since GRD >took over. There is no reason to get Marita Merkur. Balkan Front has better maps, better research, more scenarios and a cooler box. :) Mark Pitcavage Department of History The Ohio State University mpitcava@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:33 -0500 (CDT) From: "Witham, Tom G." Subject: A ? on Flak I'm playing Lenningrad 41. My illustrious panzer formations were attacking an important Russian defensive position last night. To assist his defense my opponent called in DAS ( we are blending in some of the SF and FWTBT game rules). In Fire in the East he would have had to guess which hexes I would be attacking before hand and then send his air units flying this mission and then hope he guessed correct. In SF and beyond, players simply call DAS to the defending hex at the moment they need it. Knowing that the Heroic Red Air Force was about to interfere with my desire for the hex I sent some Luftwaffe flak units with the 2 and 4 factor AA values to my attacking hexes to pump flak. Questions arose. Do those Flak units have to be literally attacking the defending hex in order to provide flak against the Red air force? Or do they need only by in the hex(es) with attackers in order to shoot? If they must attack, their lack of AECA will "muddy" the ratio and drop the attack from the optimal +3 to +2. Your opinions will be appreciated Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:33 -0500 (CDT) From: "Witham, Tom G." Subject: A ? on Flak I'm playing Lenningrad 41. My illustrious panzer formations were attacking an important Russian defensive position last night. To assist his defense my opponent called in DAS ( we are blending in some of the SF and FWTBT game rules). In Fire in the East he would have had to guess which hexes I would be attacking before hand and then send his air units flying this mission and then hope he guessed correct. In SF and beyond, players simply call DAS to the defending hex at the moment they need it. Knowing that the Heroic Red Air Force was about to interfere with my desire for the hex I sent some Luftwaffe flak units with the 2 and 4 factor AA values to my attacking hexes to pump flak. Questions arose. Do those Flak units have to be literally attacking the defending hex in order to provide flak against the Red air force? Or do they need only by in the hex(es) with attackers in order to shoot? If they must attack, their lack of AECA will "muddy" the ratio and drop the attack from the optimal +3 to +2. Your opinions will be appreciated Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 21:35:51 +0100 From: Johan Herber Subject: Re: A ? on Flak > From: "Witham, Tom G." > > Do those Flak units have to be literally attacking the defending hex in > order to provide flak against the Red air force? Or do they need only by in > the hex(es) with attackers in order to shoot? If they must attack, their > lack of AECA will "muddy" the ratio and drop the attack from the optimal +3 > to +2. Yes, you have to attack with them to receive any AA benefit. The Germans are very lucky in having motorized AA (that is AEC neutral). If you remove some of your other AEC neutral units from the attack, I'm sure you can get +3 at a few points loss in attack strength. /Johan From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson) Subject: Re: A ? on Flak Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 14:37:19 -0600 (CST) > > > I'm playing Lenningrad 41. My illustrious panzer formations were attacking > an important Russian defensive position last night. To assist his defense > my opponent called in DAS ( we are blending in some of the SF and FWTBT game > rules). In Fire in the East he would have had to guess which hexes I would > be attacking before hand and then send his air units flying this mission and > then hope he guessed correct. In SF and beyond, players simply call DAS to > the defending hex at the moment they need it. Not in the version of Second Front that I read. During the combat phase DAS is flown then GS then you declare where your attacking. I usually fly CAP over the hex I'm attacking if I think it's going to get DAS. > Knowing that the Heroic Red Air Force was about to interfere with my desire > for the hex I sent some Luftwaffe flak units with the 2 and 4 factor AA > values to my attacking hexes to pump flak. Questions arose. > > Do those Flak units have to be literally attacking the defending hex in > order to provide flak against the Red air force? Or do they need only by in > the hex(es) with attackers in order to shoot? If they must attack, their > lack of AECA will "muddy" the ratio and drop the attack from the optimal +3 > to +2. > > Your opinions will be appreciated > They have to be attacking I believe. If the flak is motorized they are neutral and therefore do not dilute your armor. -Charlie -- Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt... From: Jeff White Subject: Re: A ? on Flak Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 17:27:00 -0600 (CST) Charles Anderson Said: > > > > > > > I'm playing Lenningrad 41. My illustrious panzer formations were attacking > > an important Russian defensive position last night. To assist his defense > > my opponent called in DAS ( we are blending in some of the SF and FWTBT game > > rules). In Fire in the East he would have had to guess which hexes I would > > be attacking before hand and then send his air units flying this mission and > > then hope he guessed correct. In SF and beyond, players simply call DAS to > > the defending hex at the moment they need it. > Not in the version of Second Front that I read. During the combat phase > DAS is flown then GS then you declare where your attacking. I usually fly > CAP over the hex I'm attacking if I think it's going to get DAS. Or even better, bounce any aircraft that could interfear with the operation before things get rolling. (ie hit them on the ground or otherwise inop them.) When were gearing up to attack in Second Front, we usually look over what the remnaints of the Luftwaffe can do. I recall in one attack we flew about a dozen Spit 7 fighters over the intended target hex. This tends to deter the Luftwaffe. This can get tricky.... The phasing player gets to fly CAP first in the inital phase, then the non-phasing player. Suppose I am the phasing player and I intend to smack a hex. My opponent thinks this will happen too. So I decline to fly CAP in the inital phase. He then puts CAP over the intended victim. If I can't intercept or patrol the CAP, it's "stuck" there. That means I have to fly escort on any GS I fly. It also means I might have a harder time bouncing his DAS. Flying CAP on the initial phase can be good if you're the weaker air force. You can't be hit on the ground at that point and you might do some good. You're also harder to contain with CAP. For example, the Luftwaffe in our game is down to about 12 planes. They are as good as useless, since the moment they fly, they get shot down (or least have a near-death experience). > > > Knowing that the Heroic Red Air Force was about to interfere with my desire > > for the hex I sent some Luftwaffe flak units with the 2 and 4 factor AA > > values to my attacking hexes to pump flak. Questions arose. > > > > Do those Flak units have to be literally attacking the defending hex in > > order to provide flak against the Red air force? Or do they need only by in > > the hex(es) with attackers in order to shoot? If they must attack, their > > lack of AECA will "muddy" the ratio and drop the attack from the optimal +3 > > to +2. > > > > Your opinions will be appreciated > > > They have to be attacking I believe. If the flak is motorized they are > neutral and therefore do not dilute your armor. > Also keep in mind, if you're attacking from more than one hex, you get divided by the number of attacking hexes. For example if you have 5 pts AA in one hex, 3 pts in another and 4 pts in another you're shooting with a strength of 4 (5+3+4 / 3 = 4). Shooting the AA also commits you to the attack. You can change your mind once they fly DAS, but not after you shoot your AA. -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 15:49:18 -0800 From: steveh@UVic.CA (Steve Huhtala) Subject: Supermarina Hello, Thanks for all your replies about Markita-Merkur. I will wait to get Balkan Front instead. On a different note: What exactly is Supermarina? From a few articles in the Europa magazine, I gather it was a naval add-on for Europa (and Grand Europa?) Was it an actual boxed set like 'Urals' was, or was it created by Europa Magazine? My uncle who played it said it wasn't that good, but the air system may have been better. Does anyone know much about Supermarina? Is it going to be reprinted or redesigned? Thanks, SteveH Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 08:18:30 +0100 From: Johan Herber Subject: Re: Supermarina Supermarina is a naval rules set for Europa that was published in the Europa Magazine. I think it is a bit more detailed than the rules in the Europa naval module will be. I seem to remember that there were large gaps both in the rules and in the OBs (for the Mediterranean)... /Johan Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 02:35:50 -0500 (EST) From: Larry Woloshyn Subject: Re: RR units and rail gauge and More! On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Peter Rogers wrote: > >>Can the German RR art units move on unconverted Spanish rail lines? > > > > No dice! I think the Spain & Portugal rules are more explict on > >this. From Spain and Portugal Rule 7. "...German units may not use Iberian gauge rail lines for rail movement or for supply lines..." This game does not have RR engineers, 10 hexes in German control can be regauged. > This would seem to rule out the use of the RR art. units in an attack on > Gibraltar in the Operation Felix scenario. The one and only German RR eng. > unit arrives in Bordeaux on the Sep I turn, Hey, I always wait 'til '41. You get the extra RR eng unit plus all that air power, mountain, engineer and air landing units(let them die if they're overstacked). > total of 12.5 turns worth of reguaging (the RR eng has to spend a last one > MP to move to border via rail). It cost 2 MP to reguage a hex and at least > 1 MP to move from hex to hex. This means that under ideal condition one RR > eng can reguage 2 rail hexes per turn for a total of 25 hexes (this rate > slows to 1.5 per turn on mud, winter, and snow turns). According to my > count, the shortest rail distance between Gibraltar and the Franco-Spanish > border is 49 hexes. The German player will be lucky if his RR art units are > even half way to Gibraltor before the scenario ends. I also use the quick construction rules, add a cons eng unit to the stack and you can easily get to Gib., maybe even by two routes! > The best German attack force I can come up with is as follows: > > 8-8 inf XX G zbv = 4 > 15-5 art XX = 7.5 > 2-8 eng III = 1 > 5-3-10 pz III = 1.25 > 12-6-4 siege art X = 12 > > total = 25.75 attack strength with eng modifier > See my remarks about timing above, I'd try and get half combat engineers and the rest mountain vs Gib. die roll mods are deadly. Heck I'd hope to get 2-3 attacks against the rock. Larry Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 02:43:24 -0500 (EST) From: Larry Woloshyn Subject: Re: Supermarina On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Johan Herber wrote: > Supermarina is a naval rules set for Europa that was published in the > Europa Magazine. I think it is a bit more detailed than the rules in > the Europa naval module will be. I seem to remember that there were > large gaps both in the rules and in the OBs (for the Mediterranean)... > > /Johan > > It includes maps(all the med.), counters, etc. For the Italian navy and the brit med fleet. Includes naval supply rules. I never actually played it but it looks as good as any thing given the large time scale problem (I think it has 28 naval movement phases per turn divided amongst the various ground phases). Larry Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 07:40:05 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: Re: RR units and rail gauge and More! Thanks Larry, I do have a few comments and questions on your response to my post. > From Spain and Portugal > > Rule 7. "...German units may not use Iberian gauge rail lines for >rail movement or for supply lines..." > > This game does not have RR engineers, 10 hexes in German control >can be regauged. For whatever reason, the designers decided to tone down this reguaging ability in FWTBT. > Hey, I always wait 'til '41. You get the extra RR eng unit plus >all that air power, mountain, engineer and air landing units(let them >die if they're overstacked). This is true for the Invasion of Spain scenario, but the Operation Felix scenario ends on the Mar I 1941 turn before the large wave of German reinforcements you are refering to arrives. Also, you seem to be saying that you can overstack during the combat phase and use the overstacked units to make an attack as long as the stacking limits are followed at the end of the combat phase, either through combat losses, advance after combat, or elimination of the overstacked units. However, the rules are very explicit in stating that stacking limits do effect the quantity of troops which can attack out of hex during an overrun or regular combat. > I also use the quick construction rules, add a cons eng unit to >the stack and you can easily get to Gib., maybe even by two routes! The rules seem to indicate that quick construction can not be used for regauging. The section of quick construction, 14A1b, is a subset of the construction rules, while rail gauging, 14A3, is a seperate case (yeah, I played a lot of SPI games when I was younger, so sue me). In TEM #7, John Astell discusses quick construction/reguaging for FitE/SE, but explicitly states that both units must be RR eng. > See my remarks about timing above, I'd try and get half combat >engineers and the rest mountain vs Gib. die roll mods are deadly. Heck >I'd hope to get 2-3 attacks against the rock. I thought there weren't any eng. modifiers greater than +1 for 1/7 eng participation and that there were no die mods for mtn units. Also, in the Felix scenarios, the Germans don't receive any regular replacements so most of what they lose ain't ever coming back. Thanks for your reply. I hope it keeps this thread alive for a bit more. Peter Rogers Center for African Studies 427 Grinter Hall University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 USA phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science) fax: (904) 392-2435 e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 11:39:43 -0800 (PST) From: "J. Nelson" Subject: FWTBT Hi Everyone, My opponent and I have been enjoying a rip-roaring campaign in the above. I have not seen very much feedback from other Europa players regarding this game ( well, the Spanish Civil War scenarios ). There seem to be some problems with national colors on counters, and with units listed on the orders of battle. Despite the problems, we are still pretty happy with the game. Since we are only into Dec. 1936, I was wondering what other players experiences have been. Do the problems become worse later on in the game? Does it tend to become wildly ahistorical ( as in very unlikely things happening )? Are there any problems which I/ we should watch out for? Thank you. Sincerely, John Nelson Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 15:06 -0500 (CDT) From: "Witham, Tom G." Subject: Mechanized As Neutral Having had it pointed out to me that units with the mechanized symbology added to their unit symbol allows for them to be considered neutral for AECA benefits I wondered why I had not seen this privilege in the rules. Now, granted that I indeed overlooked it somewhere, I did look last night into my For Whom The Bell Tolls rules and saw this information added to one of the charts on Unit Capabilities. I do not recall seeing this information in the main body of the rules which is or should be around rule 10. My question is... Is this the only place (the note on the chart) that this important information concerning treating mech symboled units as neutral is found or have I overlooked this information in the main body of the rules? If so where? From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson) Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 15:40:06 -0600 (CST) It's in the chart. The rules should refer to the chart to determine what the AEC and ATEC capabilities for each unit is. It's probably a waste of paper to print it in the rule book since the chart shows it much more consisely. Another good thing about 1/2 capable units is that they can be counted as neutrals, good for diluting down attacks so that ATEC doesn't kick in. -Charlie -- Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...