From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson) Subject: Re: Alternative CRT Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 13:55:49 -0600 (CST) I had made a comment about an idea for simulating attrition in the europa rules about a month ago. It didn't seem to generate any response then so with this current thread being talked about, I'll throw it out for comment again. When attacking, every 30 points of ground troops costs 1 replacement point (round to the nearest 100th). Proportional spending to the AEC for armor vs infantry RPs. The number 30 was picked because it "felt right" to me YMMV. Comments? -Charlie -- Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt... Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 09:23:50 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: Re: Alternative CRT I think this thread is touching upon some of the issues which are critical to the future development/evolution of the Europa series. With the arrival of SF, we witnessed a revolution in the Europa air system. A revolution that seems to have been very well received according to every comment I have seen. However, the SF air system did not entail the wholescale scrapping of all previous Europa air concepts or units. In that sense it was a revolution born of evolution. Also as near as I can tell from reading TEM and elsewhere, it was a revolution much influenced by discussion and debate inside the Europa community. My impression is that John Astell and the other Europa designers and developers are receptive and responsive to comments from those of us who buy and play the games. (BTW, this is one of the main reasons that I prefer Europa over other games, the relationship between designer/developer and gamer seems to be more open and interactive than is the case with most games or gaming systems (that, and it freaks out other gamers when you tell them you're a Europa junkie)) The point to this rather meandering introduction is that I think we do have a role to play in influencing the nature of future Europa releases through discussions such as this. Thus I'd like to toss in a couple more cents worth of "wisdom" on the subject in play. >From Bob in Bogota >I tend to agree with you, however, one would expect (hope!?) that in >Europa the CRT would be divorced from replacement rates to a greater >degree than in other wargames. We use essentially the same CRT for all >our games, and for our "mini-scenarios", as well. Clearly the Germans >will do the brunt of the attacking in the early war years, and the bulk of >the defending later on. Yes and no. Remember, Europa games generally have both regular and special replacements. I agree the regular replacement rate should be divorced from considerations. This represents new troops and material "produced" at home to rebuild destroyed or badly depleted combat formations. I can't see a good reason why this replacement rate should be directly related to the combat system. However, the situation is rather different for special reinforcements generated by the loss of unisolated units. These represent the return to service of combat assets temporarily lost in battle, wounded personnel returned to service, routed forces which are later rallied, repair of damaged AFVs, and possibly even intangibles such the recovery of unit cohesion after a particullarly fierce engagement. Special replacement rates are directly tied to the bloodiness of the CRT, and this relationship represents a design choice on how to simulate combat losses. If you alter the combat system to increase the level of attacker losses, something I am in favor of, then you probably need to increase the level of special replacements to simulate the eventual recovery of a proportion of that part of the attacking force lost. >From Charles Anderson >When attacking, every 30 points of ground troops costs 1 replacement point >(round to the nearest 100th). Proportional spending to the AEC for armor >vs infantry RPs. This seems to me to be a third form of replacements, one which is not simulated by the Europa replacement rules, but rather by the supply system. Supply is not just material, it is also men. Being "in supply" means that a unit is receiving a small, but continual flow of personnel replacements aimed at maintaining its combat effectiveness. Charles's suggestion seems to be aimed at more directly simulating this practice, especially the case of "topping off" units which are slated for offensive operations. I don't think that his proposed rule is necessary, but it does focus our attention on the weakness of the current Europa supply system and the relationship between supply and replacements, particularly regular replacements. Outside of WitD and FWTBT, supply is generally unlimited. I have a lot of trouble with that and think there needs to be some sort of restrictions on the quantity of supply a country can generate at any time. However, such a supply restriction can not be calculated in a vacuum. The production of supply is influenced by the production of replacements and reinforcements. At this point, I'm getting very close to discussing the economics of Grand Europa, so I'll end it here. 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: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 09:32:14 +0200 (EET) From: Markku T Nieminen Hello! Could you please add me on the europa mailing list. My email address is: mniemine@hila.hut.fi with best regards Markku Nieminen Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 12:50:48 +0100 From: c-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: GRD homepage Where has the GRD WWW-homepage moved? I can't find it anymore. Mvh Elias Nordling Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 12:21:46 +0100 From: c-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: Alternative CRT >I had made a comment about an idea for simulating attrition in the europa >rules about a month ago. It didn't seem to generate any response then so >with this current thread being talked about, I'll throw it out for comment >again. > >When attacking, every 30 points of ground troops costs 1 replacement point >(round to the nearest 100th). Proportional spending to the AEC for armor >vs infantry RPs. > >The number 30 was picked because it "felt right" to me YMMV. > >Comments? A very good suggestion! All the time people are moaning about how attacker attrition isn't factored into the game, but every suggestion I've seen so far seems to require at the very least ten years of playtesting with a new CRT and at worst new counters. This idea, however, solves the problem without affecting the game too much. It also seems fairy easy to test. The details have to be worked out, though. If forced to cadre or remove a unit because of attrition losses, you must get the extra losses as RPs for example. Also, factors like weather should have a definitive effect on attrition. Perhaps even some kind of table is needed to add some randomness. But on the whole, the idea seems simple, clean and easy to implement and play with. I think you should try to get this one through to GRD. Mvh Elias Nordling Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 13:48:02 +0100 From: Johan Herber Subject: Re: GRD homepage > From: c-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) > > Where has the GRD WWW-homepage moved? I can't find it anymore. It can be found at: http://www.grdgames.com/ /Johan Date: Fri, 22 Dec 95 10:42:50 GMT From: kh@dcs.st-and.ac.uk (Kevin Hammond) Subject: Re: Der Beverly Hillbillies Charles Anderson writes: >I don't remember the flip a truck rule. I was just reading the SE rules last night. You can indeed flip a truck to supply ALL units within truck supply range. It's in the supply section, and not an optional rule! Having flipped the truck you can still use it to extend the overland supply route, but it has to be replenished from a recognised source (supplied rail hex) before you can flip it again. Reminds me of Imperium Romanum's ox-driven supply waggons... Kevin ---------- Division of Computer Science, Tel: 01334 463241 (Direct) School of Mathematical Fax: 01334 463278 and Computational Sciences, URL: http://www.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~kh/kh.html University of St. Andrews, Fife, KY16 9SS. From: Jeff White Subject: Re: Der Beverly Hillbillies Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 09:17:33 -0600 (CST) Kevin Hammond Said: > > Charles Anderson writes: > >I don't remember the flip a truck rule. > > I was just reading the SE rules last night. You can indeed flip a truck to > supply ALL units within truck supply range. It's in the supply section, > and not an optional rule! Having flipped the truck you can still use it > to extend the overland supply route, but it has to be replenished from > a recognised source (supplied rail hex) before you can flip it again. It's not so crazy. A truck represents a way to stretch out the normal supply lengths for the Germans. Flipping the truck would mean that you're depleting the supply in the pipeline, thus you can't use the truck to stretch it out until it "refills". -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 13:08:08 -0500 (EST) From: Morten Hjertaas Subject: Naval transport of air units I am playing the FWTBT invasion of Spain scenario. The Spaniards are trying to fight off the german invasion, and the english are trying to send as much aid as possible to Spain, the bottleneck of course being avalibility of naval transport (NT). In the rules concerning naval transport it says that air units can be transported with NT, and in the rules I find no further references to naval transport of air units. This leads to my questions: What is the size of a wing in RE that is transported this way? Does the wing have to embark in a hex with an air- strip/field? What is the status after embarking? Is the unit operative or inoperative? I find it strange that the rules does not mention anything about transporting air units with a carrier group (CG). Historically this happened both when British forces aided Norway, and several times when Malta was about to run out of planes. If I remember my 'Supermarina' right the rules here included transport of air units on air craft carriers. In these rules each carrier capable air unit was only of squadron size, so one 'normal' air unit occupied the space of three carrier squadrons. Does anybody know if the size of a carrier air unit is a wing or a squadron these days? What about allowing a CG to use of its airbase capasity to transport wings, and if the wing is of type F, the planes can take off from the CG and make a normal transfer. (in Narvik expect to see an optional rule allowing Hurricane fighters to roll 1D6, and land on a carrier if successful) ========================================================================== _/// Morten Hjertaas email:morten@phy-server.phy.queensu.ca / 31 Garrett St phone:(613) 544 8091 __/ K7L 1H7, Kingston / | Canada \_/| 'It is much more difficult to judge oneself than to judge others. If you succeed in judging yourself rightly, then you are indeed a man of true wisdom' Antoine de Saint-Exupery in 'The little prince' Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 15:29:29 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re: Alternative CRT >From Peter Rogers, responding to Bob from Bogota: >>Europa the CRT would be divorced from replacement rates to a greater >>degree than in other wargames. We use essentially the same CRT for all >>our games, and for our "mini-scenarios", as well. >Europa games generally have both regular and special >replacements. I agree the regular replacement rate should >be divorced from considerations. This represents new >troops and material "produced" at home to rebuild >destroyed or badly depleted combat formations. I can't see >a good reason why this replacement rate should be >directly related to the combat system. As I stated in my initial post, unless you know the algorithm used to determine the regular replacement rate [since only a very little research will show undeniably that nowhere near every single regular replacement for any Europa army is accounted for in the replacement rate], you can't divorce it from the CRT, since the two are connected to produce 'relatively historical' overall combat results without showing the monotony of day-to-day attrition rates, which represented a certain, unshown, portion of the replacement rates. In terms of adjusting the CRT to represent more attacker casualties, and therefore adjusting the special replacement rates to reflect the new interaction, note that the proportion of attacker casualties recovered would be far less than the defender's rate, as the attacker in many cases suffers higher numbers of nonreturnable casualties than the defender. This is the essence of attrition warfare, that you can defeat an enemy even though taking higher numbers of casualties. This type of warfare was far more common in WW II [in terms of overall time] than was mobile warfare. >However, such a supply restriction can not be calculated in >a vacuum. The production of supply is influenced by the >production of replacements and reinforcements. At this >point, I'm getting very close to discussing the economics of >Grand Europa, so I'll end it here. This is an area ripe for research and quantification, and representation in Europa, Grand or otherwise. Someone should make this their Master's or Doctoral thesis, or if anyone out there has won a lottery and doesn't know what to do with their time, here's a project. Otherwise, I can't see this being addressed in the near future. Ray Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 09:06:51 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: Re: Naval transport of air units My two cents on these questions. >In the rules concerning naval transport it says that air units can be >transported with NT, and in the rules I find no further references to >naval transport of air units. This leads to my questions: > >What is the size of a wing in RE that is transported this way? An air unit is one RE according to rule 3A3 on p. 3 >Does the wing have to embark in a hex with an air- strip/field? I'm assuming you mean disembark, as the UK air units usually embark from the UK off-map box. On-map naval movement of air units from port to port could be done, though I have never seen it in any of my games. I would say yes, air units must disembark in ports which also have an operational airbase capacity. Otherwise, they are screwed and can't do anything, since there are no rules for moving air units overland. >What is the status after embarking? Is the unit operative or inoperative? While the rules are not explicit on this point, I have played that air units are operative when they disembark. This is based on rule 16B1, p. 17, which states that units become inoperative after flying missions or if their airbase lack the capacity to make all air units operative. This would seem to mean that air units disembarked at an airbase which already contains air units up to its capacity would not be operative. Otherwise, newly disemabarked air units are operative and could even fly a mission in the movement phase they disembarked. >I find it strange that the rules does not mention anything about >transporting air units with a carrier group (CG). Historically this >happened both when British forces aided Norway, and several times when >Malta was about to run out of planes. > >If I remember my 'Supermarina' right the rules here included transport of >air units on air craft carriers. In these rules each carrier capable air >unit was only of squadron size, so one 'normal' air unit occupied the >space of three carrier squadrons. Does anybody know if the size of a >carrier air unit is a wing or a squadron these days? All air units are wing size in the SF/FWTBT naval rules. I think, but I'm not positive here, that CG units in these rules represent two carriers plus escorts. >What about allowing a CG to use of its airbase capasity to transport >wings, and if the wing is of type F, the planes can take off from the CG >and make a normal transfer. I'd let CG units carry one non-C type F air unit in addition to its normal complement of air units. This non-C air unit may fly a transfer mission off the CG to a land airbase. I would not let any of the CG's normal class C units fly missions while it is carrying non-C units. Generally, non-carrier planes had to be carried up on the flight deck, because they lacked the folding wings necessary to move them down to the hanger deck. 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: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 09:46:15 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: Re: Navies in Europa (Was: Pacific Europa) I posted this response to a message on rec.games.board. I thought it might be of interest to the Europa list. Ah, naval rules, the great bug-a-boo of Europa. >/* Written 1:48 AM Dec 26, 1995 by ppii@delta.hut.fi in igc:rec.games.boar */ >/* ---------- "Navies in Europa (Was: Pacific Euro" ---------- */ >In article , >Brian Gregory wrote: >>mabellam@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mark Lee Bellamy) writes: >>>My real reason for this post involves the old naval system used in >>>Europa originally. Many of the modules have naval counters and I'm >>>curious as to what the rules for their use was. Does anyone know how >>>they were used?? The most complete naval rules for the "standard" Europa naval units are Supermarina which can be found in Europa #s 17, version I, and 20, version II. Even these rules use counters which are slightly different from the naval counters included in games such as First to Fight or Balkan Front. Supermarina aims to provide a naval module for the war in the Med, War in the Desert and Balkan Front. I have never played it and don't plan on trying. It's very, very complex with individual ships down to the DD sized vessels and a naval phase of 7 naval action segments inserted in between the initial and movement phases. Each naval action segment is structured as follows: Phasing player subsegment recon step naval movement step combat step non-phasing player subsegment recon step naval movement step combat step I think GRD as given up on Supermarina as too messy even for Europa, hard to believe I know. >>Indeed, I'd like to know which games included such counters ("deep sea" >>navies only, please). I believe Their Finest Hour and Fire in the East/Scorched Earth both contain naval units at the individual ship level and rules for their use. Of the latest Collector Series games, Balkan Front, A Winter War (optional naval rules in Europa # 38/39), For Whom the Bell Tolls, and First to Fight all contain such naval units, but no rules for their use. >>So, it's really two questions: >> >>(1) Has anyone else seen Narvik with German naval counters? > > I haven't. A Collector's Series Narvik is due out in 1996 and may have German naval units. >>(2) What other Europa games have some provision for naval (ship-v-ship) >>combat? > > Their Finest Hour. Most of the games had some naval counters, but no > rules I think. (E.g. Polish DDs and Submarines in "Case White" - for > The Grand Europa... ;-) The best current naval rules were first introduced in Second Front and are also used in For Whom the Bell Tolls. GRD wisely gave up on trying to use individual ships and switched to a Task Force system. There are surface TFs built around BBs and Carrier Groups which include their escorts, while Naval Transports and Landing Craft are represented by points of cargo capacity which assemble and breakdown as the owning player sees fit. Submarine Squadrons are introduced in For Whom the Bell Tolls. While I like the TF system much more than any previous attempts at a Europa naval system, there are still a few improvements I would like to see. 1. The sub rules don't seem to work very well. In For Whom the Bell Tolls, the British player can pretty much steamroller any and all subs at sea with either his TF or CG units. 2. I'd like a little more flexibility in assembling TFs. Currently, you're given a certain number of TFs with fixed strengths, from 2 to 16. There is no provision for changing either the size or number of these TFs. There must be a middle course between the madness of Supermarina and the current TF system which would allow a player to tailor TFs for specific missions and situations. 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: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson) Subject: Re: Navies in Europa (Was: Pacific Europa) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 10:05:03 -0600 (CST) > > I posted this response to a message on rec.games.board. I thought it might > be of interest to the Europa list. > > Ah, naval rules, the great bug-a-boo of Europa. > The biggest problem that we've encountered with the task force style of Navies in SF is sweeping of mines and danger zones. You have no mine sweeper units so this must be done with a task force, and because mines do more damage to larger task forces, you basically wait until you get the smaller French or Italian task forces to sweep mines. Danger zones are supposed to represent small patrol craft, and subs. They are much more likely to damage large task forces, which should be able to defend themselves, than they are to damage small task forces. -Charlie -- Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt... Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 17:25:30 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re: Navies in Europa Responding to Peter Rogers, who said: >The most complete naval rules for the "standard" Europa >naval units are Supermarina which can be found in >Europa #s 17, version I, and 20, version II. Even these >rules use counters which are slightly different from the >naval counters included in games such as First to Fight or >Balkan Front. The original Their Finest Hour contained [in addition to a close-up map of SE England at 8.33 mi/hex] counters for a majority of the 1940 RN and High Seas Fleet units at DD level and above, and intricate rules for naval engagements, including exhaustive [and exhausting] counters for German transport across the Channel, including type of vessel group [barges, motor vessel, etc.], port of basing, and whether it could beach-land units and/or carry heavy equipment. These were the first actual ID-based naval counters [DNO/Unt had counters marked simply BB, CL, and LC for the Soviet navy] in Europa. While the SF naval system is far easier than either the Supermarina or Their Finest Hour systems, my own opinion is that, overall, it is still to onerous to integrate easily with the land war. I was recently involved in a SF game scenario with Bill Stone dealing with a 1943 Allied invasion of France, where we abstracted most of both the naval and air operations, and it was immensely more fun than any of my previous attempts at SF. Narvik has never had German naval counters up until now, though as Peter says, the latest incarnation due in 1996 may have them. >1. The sub rules don't seem to work very well. In For >Whom the Bell Tolls, the British player can pretty much >steamroller any and all subs at sea with either his TF or >CG units. Historical evidence would generally tend to support the efficacy of TFs & CGs [escorts and speed being their two best weapons] in dealing with subs. >2. I'd like a little more flexibility in assembling TFs. Given that people will use the SF system, there should, indeed be more flexibility in TF assembly, but the lack of this may be an issue of space on the countersheets, rather than intent on the part of GR/D. Ray 'bibliographic references available on request' Kanarr Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 21:34:47 -0600 From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: SF rules questions. I'm going to start a "quick" game of Second Front before school starts back up. Below are a number of questions I still have about the rules. Please comment on any/all that you care to. - Bobby. -------------------- Are the effects of the unimproved fortress at Toulon cumulative with any port fortification there? (I know that effects are usually cumulative in Europa, but two different types of fortification in one hex seems rather odd.) When there are too many units in an area to take advantage of a limited supply source (rule 12.C.2), are the excess units isolated, or merely out of supply? If (for example) you have 30 REs of units that can only be supplied through a minor port, may they use the port in groups of 15 REs on alternate turns (so that none are ever worse than in the first turn out of supply)? The first paragraph of rule 12.D gives an example that seems to be incorrect. If the unit is "first judged to be out of supply in the Axis initial phase of the Dec I 44 game turn", shouldn't its "first turn out of supply" consist of the Dec I 44 Axis game turn and the Dec I 44 Allied game turn? Shouldn't the supported breakdown components of the Allied airborne divisions have the full movement rating of the parent unit? According to rule 20.G.2.h, air units on the naval patrol mission roll to make contact during the mission movement step. Should this not be done after interceptor movement? (As written, the interceptor pilots have an unusual degree of prescience about which enemy missions they can safely ignore.) What is the role of the "Invasion Reaction" information at the bottom of the "Gr. Germany Strat Air OB"? This seems to be the referent of the "Luftwaffe Alarm" section on page 15 of the Axis OB, but I cannot find a rule that governs its use. (How long do the units stay in play? Is there any penalty for their use? Is there any interaction between this and rule 26.B, "German Strategic Air Assets"? Was rule 26.B supposed to replace this OB material?). If the Axis player has insufficient ARPs to replace losses when withdrawing strategic air assets (per rule 26.B), and has not been able to pay off the resulting deficit, is the full strategic air OB deemed to be available when next called up for a special effort, or is the deficit deducted from the available pool? Rule 33.A specifies that a task force "must fire all its NGS in the same combat phase". This does not make a lot of sense, since it "remains prepared as long as it remains in the same hex and does not fire during any naval combat". Does this mean that NGS is considered to be a form of "naval combat", so that the unit may not fire again until it has gone through the preparation process? Does it mean that a task force firing NGS may only fire in one combat phase of a turn? Does it have some other implication that escapes me? From: Jeff White Subject: Re: SF rules questions. Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 22:28:12 -0600 (CST) Bobby D. Bryant Said: > > I'm going to start a "quick" game of Second Front before school starts back > up. Below are a number of questions I still have about the rules. Please > comment on any/all that you care to. > - Bobby. > > -------------------- > > Are the effects of the unimproved fortress at Toulon cumulative with any > port fortification there? (I know that effects are usually cumulative in > Europa, but two different types of fortification in one hex seems rather odd.) They would be cumulative. You can have an ourvage and a fortified hexside, plus a major river and wooded rough (how's that for fun). > > > When there are too many units in an area to take advantage of a limited > supply source (rule 12.C.2), are the excess units isolated, or merely out of > supply? Limited supply source has them isolated no matter what (cannot trace to a full supply source). If there are excess, they are isolated and out of supply. > > > If (for example) you have 30 REs of units that can only be supplied through > a minor port, may they use the port in groups of 15 REs on alternate turns > (so that none are ever worse than in the first turn out of supply)? Sure. Why not. It does halve the attack of armor though. > > > Shouldn't the supported breakdown components of the Allied airborne > divisions have the full movement rating of the parent unit? The HQ probably has all the trucks. Airborne units are odd to start with, so it makes sense. > > > According to rule 20.G.2.h, air units on the naval patrol mission roll to > make contact during the mission movement step. Should this not be done after > interceptor movement? (As written, the interceptor pilots have an unusual > degree of prescience about which enemy missions they can safely ignore.) We always did that if the naval air units made contact, the non-phasing player could fly intercepts and patrols. > > > What is the role of the "Invasion Reaction" information at the bottom of > the "Gr. Germany Strat Air OB"? This seems to be the referent of the > "Luftwaffe Alarm" section on page 15 of the Axis OB, but I cannot find a > rule that governs its use. (How long do the units stay in play? Is there > any penalty for their use? > Is there any interaction between this and rule 26.B, "German Strategic Air > Assets"? Was rule 26.B supposed to replace this OB material?). > > > If the Axis player has insufficient ARPs to replace losses when withdrawing > strategic air assets (per rule 26.B), and has not been able to pay off the > resulting deficit, is the full strategic air OB deemed to be available when > next called up for a special effort, or is the deficit deducted from the > available > pool? You get ARP's when you call up the strat air force. I would just keep the deficit. The strat AF stays the same. > > > Rule 33.A specifies that a task force "must fire all its NGS in the same > combat phase". This does not make a lot of sense, since it "remains prepared > as long as it remains in the same hex and does not fire during any naval > combat". Does this mean that NGS is considered to be a form of "naval > combat", so that the unit may not fire again until it has gone through the > preparation process? Does it mean that a task force firing NGS may only > fire in one combat phase of a turn? Does it have some other implication > that escapes me? Well, it can split up it's fire to multiple targets, but once it fires off on NGS, it's depleted and needs to replenish, and then of course set up again. You could move in, setup, fire, replenish, come back, setup, and fire again for defensive NGS. -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson) Subject: Re: SF rules questions. Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:23:58 -0600 (CST) > Rule 33.A specifies that a task force "must fire all its NGS in the same > combat phase". This does not make a lot of sense, since it "remains prepared > as long as it remains in the same hex and does not fire during any naval > combat". Does this mean that NGS is considered to be a form of "naval > combat", so that the unit may not fire again until it has gone through the > preparation process? Does it mean that a task force firing NGS may only > fire in one combat phase of a turn? Does it have some other implication > that escapes me? The implication that this rule has is you can't "hold over" unused NGS. For example the British TFs have 16 NGS, you setup and fire 8 NGS. You do NOT have 8 more that you can use next turn, use it all or lose it. You can split it and fire in two different attacks, as long as they are made in the same combat phase. There is only one combat phase per player turn. -Charlie -- Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt... Date: Fri, 29 Dec 95 9:55:40 EST From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re:SF rules questions. Bobby Bryant asked: >> When there are too many units in an area to take advantage of a limited >> supply source (rule 12.C.2), are the excess units isolated, or merely out of >> supply? Jeff White responded: > Limited supply source has them isolated no matter what (cannot trace > to a full supply source). If there are excess, they are isolated and > out of supply. I'm not sure this is correct. >From Second Front isolation rule: "A unit or hex is isolated if the owning player cannot trace an overland supply line of any length from the item to any of his regular sources of supply. " >From Second Front supply rule: "Supply sources are divided into the following categories: o Regular Supply Sources: All full or limited supply sources. o Special Supply Sources: All other supply sources." Note the use of the term "regular" not "full." Hence I don't think units tracing to a minor port are isolated. >> If (for example) you have 30 REs of units that can only be supplied through >> a minor port, may they use the port in groups of 15 REs on alternate turns >> (so that none are ever worse than in the first turn out of supply)? > Sure. Why not. It does halve the attack of armor though. Why does it halve the attack of armor? Did I miss something? I thought first turn out-of-supply halved the movement of c/m units, but basically nothing else. I agree that you can juggle the in-supply status of units supplied through a limited source. This sort of makes sense; that's what you would do in real life, I think. The way I read it, this has a strange effect in combination with the limited supply source rule. Since there is little bad effect on 1st turn out of supply units, you can, in effect, supply double the supply source capacity using this alternating technique with only effect being half movement for some c/m units. With something less than 30 REs in the "beachhead" you could possibly keep those c/m units supplied all the time. I'm not 100% sure this is what was intended, but I think it is what we have. Maybe it's not really too bad, since I suppose you would start rationing gasoline offloads at the port before you would let units run out of ammo. I must confess that I am often wrong in rules interpretations. Frank From: Mats Persson Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 13:36:56 +0100 Subject: FWTBT & Black sea slime Please use the address europa@lysator.liu.se when you send messages to the mailinglist. Here are a forwarded message: ------------------------------------------------ Hello. Just a few words on glitches in the civil war scenarios in FWTBT: The Republican OB booklet and counter sheet are at odds. I assume that the counter sheet is correct in representing the brigades as 1-2-6/2-6*, as per the rules, rather than the OB booklet, i.e. appearing initially as 2-6(unsupported) with a later half point Art RP upgrade to 2-6*. THe Basques non-divisional forces appear to have defected to the other Gobernitos: this makes for a mess in the very congested zone of operations. Hopefully there will be a corrected counter sheet at a later date. Balkan aero-naval slime: A slick trick for Scorched Earth is to use Rumanian AF fighters to escort bombers flying the naval patrol mission. Once Bessarabia is retaken, it is counted as part of Rumania proper, so any aircraft flying in this area do not count against the 3 unit limit for Rumanian air units in the Soviet Union. Several coastal hexes in Bessarabia are close enough to Odessa to use for the hex to which the mission is flown. As any intercepts will be flown against this hex, the bomber force can then bomb any naval force entering its patrol zone without fear of being intercepted. In effect, this allows for a large Rumanian fighter escort for the anti-shipping forces protecting Odessa in 1943-1944 The gloriously sick variant of this move is to use Rumanian bombers as the anti-shipping forces: A close reading of the rule shows that the aircraft flying a naval patrol mission never leave the hex to which they were originally flown. Thus, all AA fire and bombing attempts take place without the air units actually leaving their original hex and flying to where the ships actually are.( Yes I know that Flak at ~64 miles is silly, and no anti-shipping forces in the world had stand-off devices like this in 1941-45, but just because it's physically impossible dosent mean it can't be done, as I always say.) In defence of this pair of flying balls of slime, I would offer the rationale that coastal patrols are one of the things that the Rumanians should be doing with their air force: their navy was just not up to the task. I also believe that Odessa was annexed to Rumania from 1942-1944, at least in theory, as a sort of New Order consolation prize for having lost Transylvania to Hungary and much of the lower Danube to Bulgaria. What is the status of the WD/NE/Torch replacement? My local game store is unsure of whether it exists or not. Why is the Europa association page on the Web all white-out? Haya Safari, Patrick ------------------------------------------------ Mats Persson From: pardue@hilda.mast.queensu.ca (Keith Pardue) Subject: Requred Losses Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 10:57:10 -0500 (EST) Hi, Before the holidays, there was some discussion about whether or not you can voluntarily reduce your AEC/ATEC or combat engineer proportion to avoid taking required losses. I had assumed for a long time that you could; but this raises some questions about in which order the players make their decisions in this regard. In any case, I was just looking over some SF questions which I sent to Rules Court last year. One of the questions was: "May a player voluntarily reduce his AECA/AECD/ATEC or combat engineer proportion in order to avoid "Required Losses"?" The answer: "No." I had two pages of questions. If I find can find the time in the next few days, I'll type them into the computer and post them. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 13:10:35 -0500 (EST) From: "Steven C. Petras" Subject: Newbie Questions I hope the subject didn't scare anyone away. I'm new to this list and have a few questions: 1. Is there a FAQ(s) and if so where? 2. Is there any ftp sites and if so where? Europa Question: I was playing Balkan Front over the holiday (pretty apropos), and ran into a minor question. In the Apr I 41 turn, the Germans intervened. It states in the OB that the forces detailed for the invasion of Yugoslavia are only setup if Yugo has joined the Allies, at this point in my game Yugo was still Neutral. Now I didn't want to have to send my Germans over the Mataxas Line when just a quick detour through Macedonia would be so much easier. It just seemed a little ahistorical for me to have to repsect Yugo neutrality at this point in the campaign. The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia, they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they? I ended up setting up all the Germ forces and smashing Yugo in the free turn before the Apr I Axis turn. (I took Beograd but the Yugo Govt escaped) I believe I ended up violating the letter of the rules, but it seemed the correct thing to do 8). Is there errata on this? How should it have been played? One last question: When is GR/D going to update their web page? The errata links haven't been updated in 6 months and would be extremely useful. Thanks for your time, Steve Petras stilgar@wam.umd.edu Silver Spring, MD, USA Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 10:21:10 -0800 From: graham@ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) Subject: Re: Newbie Questions At 1:10 PM 4/1/96, Steven C. Petras wrote: >The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia, >they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they? >I ended up setting up all the Germ forces and smashing Yugo in >the free turn before the Apr I Axis turn. (I took Beograd but >the Yugo Govt escaped) I believe I ended up violating the >letter of the rules, but it seemed the correct thing to do 8). >Is there errata on this? How should it have been played? The German goal was to get Yugoslavia into the war on their side. My gut feeling is that they would have respected Yugoslav neutrality. Besides, the game is more interesting if you have to go through the Metaxas Line. --- Stephen Graham graham@ee.washington.edu graham@cs.washington.edu Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 19:28:52 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: Re: Newbie Questions >>The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia, >>they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they? >>I ended up setting up all the Germ forces and smashing Yugo in >>the free turn before the Apr I Axis turn. (I took Beograd but >>the Yugo Govt escaped) I believe I ended up violating the >>letter of the rules, but it seemed the correct thing to do 8). >>Is there errata on this? How should it have been played? > >The German goal was to get Yugoslavia into the war on their side. >My gut feeling is that they would have respected Yugoslav neutrality. >Besides, the game is more interesting if you have to go through the >Metaxas Line. I don't even think the Germans wanted Yugoslavia as an ally. A truly neutral Yugoslavia would have suited the Germans just fine as they were preparing for the invasion of the USSR. The main German objectives were a. a quiet Balkans on their southern flank b. ejection of the British from Europe, the Brits having gotten a foothold in Greece after the moronic Italian invasion of that country; the big German concern here was a British air or ground threat against the oil fields of Rummania Two problems with BF's simulation of these political concerns might be the Axis VP chart and the German withdrawal schedule (mind you in all of my BF games, the Germans have had to invade an Allied Yugoslavia so this is based on conjecture rather than experience). One, the Germans lose 12 VP for intervention even if only the Greek invasion force is used. Perhaps a lower VP penalty for a Greece only invasion might be appropriate. Two, the German withdrawal of forces seemed to be based on a combined invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia. For example, the Greece invasion forces only receives 15 air units, but the Germans have to withdraw a total of 13 air units even if the air units tasked to the invasion of Yugoslavia are never use. Once again, perhaps a less harsh withdrawal schedule might be appropriate in the case of a Greece only invasion. The end result of these two features of BF is that the Germans want to invade Yugoslavia even though in the real war, that was the last thing that the Germans wanted to be forced to do. 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, 5 Jan 1996 12:47:08 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: Re: Newbie Questions One other thing. I found an article in TEM #26 which provides a revised VP schedule for BF. It goes part way to dealing with some of the problems I raised in my earlier post. For example, the Germans get 10 VP for a pro-Axis Yugoslavia. The article is "Balkan Front Revisited: New Strategies and Revised Victory Conditions" by Flavio Carrillo and Jason Long. 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: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 10:35:16 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: Death of GDW Europa-Folk: I just found out this morning from AOL and rec.games.board that GDW is going out of business as of the end of Feb. Winston Hamilton has several times mentioned the assitance provided by GDW to GRD after GRD established itself to continue the production of Europa. I was wondering if anyone knows who the demise of GDW might effect GRD? 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: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 12:24:16 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Death of GDW -Reply The demise of GDW, lamentable as it might be in the historical sense [as having been the company that gave birth to Europa, and in fact the concept of monster-gaming], will in no way affect Europa, as they had already sold all right to the titles to Winston & GR/D, and no current GDW employees are involved with Europa. Ray Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 11:15:40 EST From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: Neutral Yugoslavia (was Newbie...) >The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia, >they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they? Yes, they are. It is my understanding that... The German / Yugoslav agreement from early April (or was it late March) 1941 guaranteed Yugoslav neutrality and NO PASSAGE of German troops. This appalled the German high command who desperately needed the high capacity rail line through Macedonia for the invasion of Greece. Politician Hitler apparently decided that a neutral Yugoslavia was better than use of the railroad. Neutral Yugoslavia also guaranteed supply of certain important raw materials such as bauxite from Mostar and others (maybe antimony but my memory lapses). The Yugoslav's pro-Allied coup obviously solved the immediate railroad problem for the Wehrmacht as they could just take it during the invasion. Don't remember exactly where I read this info, but I think I've found it in more than one place. I remember it surprised me. I too, would not have thought Yugoslavian neutrality would have made Hitler pause. Frank Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 12:06:14 -0800 From: bstone@sonic.net (Bill Stone) Subject: Re: Neutral Yugoslavia >>The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia, >>they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they? > >Yes, they are. It is my understanding that... > >The German / Yugoslav agreement from early April (or was it late March) >1941 guaranteed Yugoslav neutrality and NO PASSAGE of German >troops SNIP The Germans guaranteed: 1) No passage of troops. 2) Respect Yugo sovereignty and territorial integrity. 3) No request for Yugo military assistance. 4) "Consideration" of Yugo interests in Salonika during peace settlement. The first two points were publicly broadcast; the latter two remained secret. There are several useful books on Yugoslavia in the war. Two which contain text of the protocol and side notes: Hoptner, J. B. YUGOSLAVIA IN CRISIS, 1943-1941. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. Littlefield, Frank C. GERMANY AND YUGOSLAVIA, 1933-1941: THE GERMAN CONQUEST OF YUGOSLAVIA. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1988. ---------------------------- Bill Stone Santa Rosa, CA bstone@sonic.net World War II Web Site: http://www.sonic.net/~bstone ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 17:16:14 -0700 From: jfratesi@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Jeffrey Fratesi) Subject: How do I remove myself from this list? (sorry) Sorry about this message, but can someone tell me how to get off this mailing list? Thanks. Jeff Fratesi jfratesi@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca http://www.ualberta.ca/~jfratesi/jeffy.html Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 20:33:48 -0500 (EST) From: Larry Woloshyn Subject: Re: Neutral Yugoslavia On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, Bill Stone wrote: > >>The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia, > >>they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they? > >Yes, they are. It is my understanding that... > >The German / Yugoslav agreement from early April (or was it late March) > The Germans guaranteed: > There are several useful books on Yugoslavia in the war. Two which contain > text of the protocol and side notes: > Hoptner, J. B. YUGOSLAVIA IN CRISIS, 1943-1941. New York: Columbia > University Press, 1962. > Littlefield, Frank C. GERMANY AND YUGOSLAVIA, 1933-1941: THE GERMAN > CONQUEST OF YUGOSLAVIA. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1988. A neutral Yugo was very desirable for Hitler since he and Mussolini had both been after it for some time. That is to say after it's resources, while letting it remain nominally sovereign. Italy was well ahead in this contest and when the German invasion occurred Hitler had to hand over Croatia to the Italians. Check out: Smith, Dennis Mack MUSSOLINI'S ROMAN EMPIRE Knox, MacGregor MUSSOLINI UNLEASHED 1939 - 1941 both good reads. The twisted history of the German/Italian occupation plus the British/Soviet aid to the "resistance" is largely responsible for current events in "the former Yugo", much more than the "centuries of hate" which commentators refer to. Larry Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 13:27:17 +0200 From: c-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: Neutral Yugoslavia (was Newbie...) >>The Germs just want to get this over quick and get to Russia, >>they're not going to let Yugo neutrality stop them. Are they? > >Yes, they are. It is my understanding that... On another, related, subject: Am I the only one who has noticed that the germans can't attack the yugoslavs before they start their mobilization, with the BF rules-as-written. It was a while since I checked the rules, but it goes something like this: Germany can't check for yugoslav participation after their invasion is triggered. The way the rules are phrased, the invasion is triggered before the participation check in the turn. Thus the germans must check the yugoslavs the turn before, which gets them a free round of mobilization if they remain neutral or hostile. Worse yet, the rules state that the germans must invade the first clear-wheather turn if they are to invade at all. Now the germans can't know for sure which turn that is, so to be absolutely certain about yugoslavia, they must try to pressure them the turn before the first possible clear-wheather turn! This most likely gives the yugoslavs two free turns of mobilization. Needless to say, this is absurd, and I assume it's wrong. The german invasion scenario don't allow for any yugoslav mobilization. When I play the game, I simply ignore the passage that states that you can't try to pressure yugoslavia after the geman invasion is triggered. By the way, I find this treatment of yugoslav neutrality in the game stupid. As several mails on this subject has stated, The germans wanted the Yugoslavs neutral. In the game, if the germans want the yugoslavs neutral, they remain neutral. If anybody was pressuring the yugoslavs, it was the allies, but they can do nothing to affect Yugoslavia in the game. Personally, I think that the old Marita-Merkur game did a much better job at portraying this, among a lot of other things. Anyone agrees? Mvh Elias Nordling Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 07:04:18 -0500 From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers) Subject: Bye Bye Europa Folk: It's been fun, but now I've got to go. I hope this list continues and increases in activity. As I said in an earlier post, I think this is the proper internet forum for Europa discussion, rather than GENIE or AOL which some folk are unable to access. I'm off to Tanzania for my dissertation work and will be back in mid-November. In the meantime, good luck knocking down the interior walls of your houses to play (drum roll please) Clash of the Titans. BTW, I never did discover Tangier's status in the FWTBT WWII scenarios. 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: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 13:25:31 +0100 From: Johan Herber Subject: WitD, magazines etc I hope you have had as nice a Christmas and New Years leave as I have had. Someone mentioned 'Clash of Giants' on the Europa mailing lists today. Is this the name of the 1943 Grand Europa scenario? Does this mean that Europa 43-44 is out? A status report on WitD would also be appreciated. Does it for instance include complete OBs for Italian East Africa and Vichy French North Africa? And the BIG question, when can we expect it? /Johan Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 18:45:48 -0500 (EST) From: Larry Woloshyn Subject: Re: Neutral Yugoslavia (was Newbie...) On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Elias Nordling wrote: > On another, related, subject: > Am I the only one who has noticed that the germans can't attack the > yugoslavs before they start their mobilization, with the BF > rules-as-written. > Needless to say, this is absurd, and I assume it's wrong. The german > By the way, I find this treatment of yugoslav neutrality in the game > stupid. As several mails on this subject has stated, The germans wanted the > Personally, I think that the old Marita-Merkur game did a much better job > at portraying this, among a lot of other things. Anyone agrees? As was mentioned earlier in relation to FWTBT the Germans _cannot_ get their RR arty to Gibralter within the rules as written. Does anyone playtest these scenarios before they are published? Well GRD? Larry From: Kevin Maroney Subject: Re: Death of GDW -Reply Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 23:39:02 -0500 (EST) > The demise of GDW, lamentable as it might be in the historical sense > [as having been the company that gave birth to Europa, and in fact > the concept of monster-gaming], will in no way affect Europa, as they > had already sold all right to the titles to Winston & GR/D, and no > current GDW employees are involved with Europa. There might conceivably be a John Astell design or two freed up by the end of GDW, but I'm by no means sure. Many of the non-Europa games he did were Traveller tie-ins (Invasion Earth, Fifth Frontier War, Azhanti High Lightning?), and Traveller is going to Mark Miller. But yes, all of Europa, as far as I know, is already in GR/D's possession. -- Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker Oh no, it's the apocalypse. Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 09:46:24 +0100 From: Johan Herber Subject: Latest on WitD I've managed to wrestle some information out of Winston concerning WitD, although he seems quite tight-lipped on release dates... OBs (or at least counters?): Italian: Africa from 1930 on US: 1939 on (not including the Pacific I guess) British: lots (whatever that means) Vichy: complete OB 9 maps covering NA and NE (including all of Turkey and somewhat more to the east). /Johan From: viktor@mgr.hjf.org (Viktor Kaufmann) Subject: How long to play FWTBT? Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 13:13:34 -0500 (EST) How long does it take to play any of the scenarios available in For Whom the Bell Tolls? An acquaintance of mine is interested in playing, but only if the game is of short enough length. I've only skimmed through the rules and setups, and I can't judge from that. Thanks, Viktor Date: 17 Jan 96 14:03:29 EST From: Jim Arnold <74133.1765@compuserve.com> Subject: Computer-supported BF & FWTBT I'm looking for a few playtesters for DOS-based computer-support programs for EUROPA which handle weather, alerts, political events, VPs, etc,. For FWTBT, there is support for pacification and purification, replacements, and factories. They are designed to speed and enhance play by reducing the administrative tasks and providing timely reminders. Anyone interested please Email me at 74133.1765@compuserve.com, and state your preference - Balkan Front or For Whom the Bell Tolls. Jim Arnold Date: Sun, 21 Jan 96 17:58 GMT From: nicklaw@cix.compulink.co.uk (Nicholas Law) Subject: Re: How long to play FWTBT? In-Reply-To: <9601171813.AA07414@mgr.hjf.org> Viktor asked: > How long does it take to play any of the scenarios available in > ForWhom the Bell Tolls? An acquaintance of mine is interested in > playing, but only if the game is of short enough length. In that case you should stick to the Operation Felix scenario, which can be got through in one day. The Civil War scenario is a monster -- I played it for six days straight, eight hours a day -- so it's probably not for your friend.An alternative 'shorty' is a hypothetical Spanish invasion of Portugal, based on the Grand Europa orders of battle. Nick From: Mats Persson Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 18:02:36 +0100 Subject: Opponent search for a new comer Forwarded mail: ------------------------------------------------------------ To all of you, Hello !! My name is Cassina Giorgio, I'm from Italy and I'm playing Europa Serie Games since 1989. I would like to play a PBeM game of one Europa game: all of them are OK except for Narvik and For Whom the Bell Tolls. I have the software Aide Camp, from HPS, and so I can play even with the support of this software. Contact me at this e-mail address if interested: lame@pol88b.polito.it One more question: do you know if there is an ftp site dedicated to Europa Games from which I can download some interesting stuff ? Giorgio ------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 19:05:56 -0600 From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: GRD errata pages fixed (sort of). Folks, I notice that the GRD web site now has the on-line errata working for BF, WW, and FWBT (Second Front is, unfortunately, still not available). The WW errata has a date of Jan '96, but BF looks like an older file. Still, it's nice to see that they have it working. For those of you who have joined the list recently, the web site is at: http://www.grdgames.com/ Or you can go straight to the errata-selection page at: http://www.grdgames.com/errata.htm - Bobby.