Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 14:42:00 +0200 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: Second Front battle > Dear Elias: Read your Second Front replay. >>I chose a hard-med strategy for the allies. I started with invasions of >>Sardinia and Corsica, with the intent of capturing air and naval bases >for >>a strike against southern France fast. Both invasions, especially the >>Corsican one, ran into trouble at first, but I still managed to get >ashore >>between Marseille and Italy by September (I think). Since this area was >>guarded by the italians, they received enough losses to make them >>surrender. This meant that Marseille was handed over intact to the >allies >>by defecting italians (I assumed the germans got no demolition try in >this >>peculiar situation). The invasion soon bogged down in bad weather, hard >>terrain and tough german fortified lines. The potential release of the >>balkan garrison definitely scared me from entering Italy. > > I've been eyeing that strategy myself, which I call "Climbing the >long ladder," as it's based on climbing up the map from North Africa to >France, and given that a good chunk of the campaign is out of air range, >it's a tough proposition. One can see why the Allies chose more cautious >strategies, given the frail British manpower situation. Air power wasn't the main problem. I put combat engineers in the first or second waves of the invasion. then they started quick construction of airfields so that the turn after the invasion, there was fighter cover (the Americans did like that in the pacific when they island-jumped, didn't they? I have heard of some instance when aircraft, taking off from the beach, had a 45 second flight before it was time to drop the bombs...) The main problem was danger zones! >>Meanwhile, Italy was awfully thinly held by Germans. I parachuted Sicily >>and started preparing a land advance up Italy from there. At the same >time, >>I did a major invasion somewhere north of rome (I don't remember exactly >>where, but there was a big port in the area - Civitaveccio? I think that >>was it. That invasion turned into a near disaster with great losses, as >>most of the german panzer force in the west ganged up on it. It finally >>held out until bad weather, but it was an awfully close call. The >germans >>held them tight and built a line south of rome. > > The Germans, of course, have some mobility in 1943, because elements >of the 1st and 2nd Parachute Divisions, when broken down, can be >airdropped as reinforcements, as the Germans did in Sicily. Yes, mobility wasn,t the problem, but the general scarcity of units was. On the whole, my strategy was to commit as much as possible of the allied force at as many different places as possible, thus effectively overstretching the germans. It worked. >>The battle in southern France turned meatgrinder, with an one hex >advance >>per turn (not forgetting the 6 week battle for Aix). In italy, the >>Civitaveccio beachhead managed to breakout after a long buildup and >panzer >>withdrawals to the east. The germans estabilished a new line through >>Firenze. That area also turned into a one hex a turn meatgrinder. Forgot to say. I got an afwul lot of dead combat engineers in this game. More than I could replace before the ent of the game. The at-least-half losses seems very harsh to me. >>This left northern France thinly held. I planned to invade massively the >>first clear turn close to Calais. By the time the invasion landed (Jun I >>44), the southern France beachhead had already hacked its way out. In >>Italy, a lucky attack managed to breakthrough into the Po valley by >>overrunning with a real killer stack in the exploitation phase. At the >same >>time, I started advancing into Italy from France. The Released Baklan >>garrison was enough to form a good line in the alpes, though. The >fighting >>terminally bogged down here. > > Did you run into trouble in Calais from German mines and >fortifications? No, not really. I landed between the fortifications, south of calais. >>In France, the retreating panzers turned to fight as the allies were >>overextending themselves in pursuit. A major panzer battle across the >>entire central France erupted. In the end, The germans inflicted >>considerable losses on the allies, but a large part of the panzers got >>trapped. France was liberated about simultaneously from the north and >>south. The germans retreated to the Rhinewall, but it was awfully thinly >>held, and the allies would have time to assault it before bad weather. I >>quit playing here (sep I 44 I think). It is my estimate that the war >would >>have ended before the end of 44. (Whew! I guess I DID remember all the >>details!) > > Sounds like the fields of France were strewn with wrecked cardboard >tanks. There's one of the holes in mega-games...individual units lose >their identity and uniqueness and become swallowed up by corps counters. >Sometimes I've lost track of my corps counters, and fall into the trap >Hitler had, where I see a 47 PZ Korps flag on the map and assume that it >must consist of three elite panzer divisions. However, when I check the >roster, I find out that the corps has taken hard fighting, and is down to >a grab-bag of Ost truppen cavalry and mobile flak. Yes, you get the picture :-) Mvh Elias Nordling From: Italorican@aol.com Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 08:42:27 -0500 Subject: Re: The BEF to Greece To: David Lippman -- what is the reference for : < Your comments about the rationalization for Churchill sending his So much of Churchill's intervention in Greece and plans for the Balkans, and the really botched BEF campaign there, reads like a reply of Norway. And what of the mess the British made in the Aegean after the Italian collapse? Anyway, I also hope that we will be able to integrate BF with WITD. And more. Antonio Lauria (italorican@aol.com) From: s.dahman@genie.com Date: Wed, 28 Feb 96 13:14:00 UTC 0000 Subject: Disengagement Hi All, I have just started a game of FWtBT and this is my first try with the new SF style naval rules. I have some questions about the rules for disengagement and was wondering about the general consensus of opinion for those who have played SF or FWtBT. First, I guess it is due to remembering some other naval mechanic but it is not explicit in the rules that after declaring disengagement only one more round of combat is played. Is this true? Or is there unlimited rounds until the disengagement attempt is successful? Next, suppose a disengagment is successful, which happens to be the non-phasing player, and the naval unit moves 15 MPs away but couldn't quite get away. Now the rules say that this is a reaction per the reaction moves so by them only one reaction is allowed. Ok so next the phasing player is still trying to hunt this group down. And moves to reinitiate combat. This happens to be in the same step. If disengagement is successful can there be another reaction to get away again to some port this time. Or must the group stay in the hex and a fight to the death ensue? Sam Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 15:59:20 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: FWTBT (was Re: SJC Playtest) >Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 15:58:49 +0100 >To:"J. Nelson" >From:o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) >Subject:FWTBT (was Re: SJC Playtest) > >>Digression: I don't see very much mention of FWTBTs around these parts. >>Does that mean that everyones happy with it? I personally think its a >>great game. Lots of room to improve on the historical performances of the >>respective sides without getting too wildly improbable. The supply rules >>in particular help minimize the amount of aggresiveness taking place each >>turn, without being too cumbersome. The size of the game makes it >>convenient for jotting down unit locations at the end of a session ( a >>big plus for those of us who cannot devote a table and room for weeks on >>end ). > >I also found it a great game. The small size shouldn't be confused with >short playing time, though. I have played it through once (and it took a >while), and the republicans won (not only on points, but in absolute >terms), but they were very lucky. > >I'm very annoyed at the VP schedule, though. It is constructed for >comparison with historical performance, but it also forces the national >player to follow the historical course of action for no good reason. For >example, after a certain date, the nationalist player will start to lose >points for not having conquered the three north-coast gobernitos. This >applies even if he has occupied , say, Madrid and Valencia. In reality, >this would be a "better than history" result by far, but he will get less >points. As a matter of fact, the VP schedule doesn't even take into >account the fact that the nationalists only turned to the gobernitos after >failing to occupy Madrid. > >I made my own fix for that, but since the Republicans cleaned the >nationalists clocks, I never had to apply it. > Mvh Elias Nordling Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 16:02:54 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: FWTBT vs. FITE/SE supply >Mr. Pardue, > >"How about a system in which attack supply points are kept track >of, but not placed on the map? That would be less cumbersome than >retrofitting the detailed systems of the smaller games to FITE/SE." > >I would have no major objection to that amount of work. That >would reduce the number of attacks to something realistically >sustainable. > >The only objection I can see would be that you are "beaming" >attack supply to the front line. I can see a scenario where AGN >and AGS, say, are attacking and using up the entire turn's quota >of supply. Amazingly, exactly the right amount makes it to each >AG, with no shortages because too much was sent the wrong way. > >Of course, the current system has exactly the same problem, so it >wouldn't be any worse. > >Far better minds than mine has grappled with this problem in TEM >and on GEnie (and CA I think), but no one has come up with a >solution that everyone else says "Yeah! That's great!" > >Personally, I like the idea of HQs coordinating attacks, but >others have pointed out problems with that approach. At the >moment, I still use the RAW (at least in that narrow section; I'll >exercise my fifth amendment priviledge on the other sections.) > > A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil >This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114 >a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1 >than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__ >block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--' > `-----''(_/--' `-'\_) >DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge >I CAN'T speak for this administration; I tell the truth. Mvh Elias Nordling Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 16:20:08 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: FWTBT vs. FITE/SE supply >Mr. Pardue, > >"How about a system in which attack supply points are kept track >of, but not placed on the map? That would be less cumbersome than >retrofitting the detailed systems of the smaller games to FITE/SE." > >I would have no major objection to that amount of work. That >would reduce the number of attacks to something realistically >sustainable. Yes, I agree with this kind of system too. After all, you're already counting REs for armour most of the time, so there will be very little additional burden of play. >The only objection I can see would be that you are "beaming" >attack supply to the front line. I can see a scenario where AGN >and AGS, say, are attacking and using up the entire turn's quota >of supply. Amazingly, exactly the right amount makes it to each >AG, with no shortages because too much was sent the wrong way. > >Of course, the current system has exactly the same problem, so it >wouldn't be any worse. > >Personally, I like the idea of HQs coordinating attacks, but >others have pointed out problems with that approach. At the >moment, I still use the RAW (at least in that narrow section; I'll >exercise my fifth amendment priviledge on the other sections.) Yes, HQs from which you trace your attack points! And they should be slow to move for the russians especially. You wouldn't neccesarily have to keep track of specific points for specific HQs. Just one pool for them all would do. And then you should be able to break out supply counters from the HQs and move them the usual way, much like you can with general supply points, to get them to remote areas for limited offensives (the arctic, perhaps). And, if we put the resource points in here too, we're actually reducing the player workload! I don't really see any big problems with this treatment. I would be glad to hear more specific critizism to this treatment. I, for one, would be very dissapointed if the supply system wasn't properly fixed in time for the reprint of FITE/SE. This fix is badly needed for SF too. After all, Patton overextended his supply line in France, didn't he? That is something that won't happen in a game of SF. So the issues that need to be fixed as I see it are: * Limiting the amount of attack supply. * Limiting the range and mobility of attack supply. If only one of these points are adjusted, then we will just replace one skewed supply system with another. Mvh Elias Nordling Date: Wed, 28 Feb 96 11:32:32 EST From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re:Re: FWTBT vs. FITE/SE supply > HQs from which you trace your attack points! This line of thinking is right on, in my opinion. My logistical system ideas: Army / Front HQ units to which supply points are assigned. HQ units are more aesthetic than dozens of supply step markers. Expend supply points for attack supply. For playability, it may not even be necessary to count REs and just say "everybody within X hexes of a HQ has attack supply." I do agree that you usually have to count REs anyway so personally I don't think it is that big a deal. Expending multiple supply points in a turn allows a Major Offensive / Big Push / Whatever you want to call it. This yields an artillery multiplier and extra stacking, and must be planned in advance like an amphib or airborne operation. Movement ratings of HQ units affected by the number of supply points they tote. This brakes the huge Soviet / Allied 44-45 offensives. It will be interesting to see if the new WitD supply system is any different than the older version (You folks should begin to get the idea that I am as far in the dark as you are on WitD). Frank Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 12:11:28 -0400 From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: The BEF to Greece >Anyway, I also hope that we will be able to integrate BF with WITD. And >more. WITD itself will not directly link to BF, but GRD plans to publish a linking scenario for the two in a future issue of Europa magazine. From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 08:56 GMT Subject: Churchill's decision A dicussion of the subject of the 2nd BEF (ANZAC Corps) to Greece is in The Battle for Crete by Tony Simpson. It was published in New Zealand. The story of Greece and Norway have a lot of similarities, both seeing the British trying to wreck Germany's economy by intervening in one small nation to cause an intervention in a second. However, the 2nd BEF in Greece, while suffering ultimate defeat, seems to have put on a better show than the force that went to Norway. That was a fairly badly-handled affair. The British troops were a Terrier mob, Territorials, which were deficient in training and equipment. Their leadership was flabby, as well. The British general in command lacked initiative and was replaced by Gen. Auchinlek, who went on to greater things. Bad planning resulted in a ship loaded with critical mountain gear having to unload at a pier far too small for the ship. So the supplies stayed loaded. British troops were not trained in alpine warfare, and lacked transport, AA guns, and maps. The British general had to round up civilian cars to move his battalions. The French mountain troops were fairly tough, led b Gen. Behtouart, who later commanded a division in French 1st Army in 1944. But they'd left an essential strap for their skies back in Brest, so they couldn't move into the mountains. After considerable indecision, the Allies attacked towards Narvik, to drive Gen. Edouard Deitl's mountain troops out of the city. Deitl's men hung on, but were forced to retreat. Deitl himself holed up in the mountains outsie the city, expecting to have to surrender or flee into Sweden. After a short and bitter campaign, French, Polish, and British troops entered Narvik. But before they could complete this victory, France had collapsed, and the Allied forces were evacuated. The bulk of the French troops were from 13eme Demi-Brigade of the Legion Etrangere, and went on to be the basis of De Gaulle's Free French Army. That was unsurprising, as the Legion contained France's best troops, many of them anti-Nazi Spaniards and Germans. The Poles became the basis of the Carpathian Brigade, which fought in North Africa and Italy. One victory for the British in the Norwegian campaign was the partial disabling of the German Navy for the loss of the carrier Glorious and two destroyers. When Adm. Raeder prepared Operation Seelowe in August 1940, he could only sortie one operable capital ship, the pocket battleship Admiral Scheer. All the other big ships were dockyard cases, and more than 10 destroyers had gone to the bottom of Narvik Fjord in two major battles. The second of which saw the battleship HMS Warspite, under Capt. Victor A.C. Crutchley VC, batter the Germans to submission. Also lost to Hitler was the light cruiser Konigsberg and the crack new cruiser Blucher, sunk while invading Norwegian ports. The experience irritated Hitler considerably...his big ships lost most of their escorts, and he became increasingly wary of committing large ships to the North Atlantic. Incidentally, the British never issued a "Norway Star." Sincerely, David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 09:34 GMT Subject: Second Front battles Interesting comments on these various SF wars. Your use of engineers to create instant airfields shows the importance of studying SF rules and coutner mix. Combat and labor engineers aren't just a couple of extra points in a stack or coutners on a mpa, they have important abilities. Advice to new Europa gamers: PAY ATTENTION! It's easy to get swallowed up by fascinating outfits like SS Panzer Divisions or squadrons of Spitfires, but the war was fought and won by supply and engineering. The first time I played FitE/SE, the Germans overran a lot of useful airfields and ports. Then I realized that I had forgotten to use my various rear area armies to destroy everything in the Nazi path. Those semi-useless Soviet tank divisions and cadres could have been put to useful service by torching airfields, railways, bridges, and ports, before being disbanded to provide armored replacement points. Same thing with all those goofy little battalions and regiments. Look at your garrison requirements, your Anti-Partisan Zones of Control, those long, undefended coastlines. It's useful to overstrain the enemy by hitting him at a lot of places at once (Japan in December, 1941). Certainly the SF German OB shows that most of the Wehrmacht is obviously in the Soviet Union. I think most of the German counters that start the game are parked in garrison boxes as training assets, which gives them limited battlefield utility. By the way, where, physically, is the Fuhrer Headquarters Box? Otherwise, I can't see how those clowns can get activated. Another hole I noticed...the OB says the Germans and Italians can't start the game with airfields in Sicily. But there were a number of airfields in Sicily...that was one of the points of Husky. So what is to be done? Should I expend RPs at game's beginning to create the airfields outside Catania and Gela? Sincerely, Dave Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 13:34:54 -0800 From: bstone@Sonic.Net (Bill Stone) Subject: Re: Churchill's decision David H. Lippman wrote: snip > The French mountain troops were fairly tough, led b Gen. Behtouart, >who later commanded a division in French 1st Army in 1944. snip A minor addition to your post is that Bethouart commanded 1st Army Corps of the Free French 1st Army in 1944-45. ---------------------------- Bill Stone Santa Rosa, CA bstone@sonic.net World War II Web Site: http://www.sonic.net/~bstone ---------------------------- From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 12:09 GMT Subject: Bethouart's command Dear Bill: That's right, he had one of De Lattre's corps. I think he had a mountain division in Italy under Marshal Juin, but I can't remember which. I'm not sure, but I think Bethouart held a command in North Africa for Vichy between Narvik and Operation Torch. He's one of those highly capable WW2 commanders who lapsed into toal obscurity because he had no ability to generate publicity for himself. A roster of those might include Miles Dempsey Courtney Hodges Alphonse Juin Harry Broadhurst Elwood Quesada Richard O'Connor Geoffrey Keyes Lucian Truscott Gerald Templer Jacob Devers Kent Hewitt Bertram Ramsay Keith Park Hugh Dowding D.C. Bennett Guy Simonds Pip Roberts Andrew Cunningham James Somerville Henry Harwood Basil Embry Jacques Leclerc Leslie Morehead Pierre Koenig William Simpson Richard Nelson Gale Eric Bols Stanislaw Maczek (who died last year aged 101) Those are just a few that come to mind. It's kind of unfair to folks like these that they're forgotten, while more flamboyant characters with questionable or controversial claims to fame are remembered. But then, Oliver Cromwell was hailed as the hero of the English Civil War, but he won most of his battles fighting the Scots after it was over. Fairfax and Manchester led the Parliamentary Army. Sincerely, Dave Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From: Italorican@aol.com Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 00:38:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Churchill's decision & Emile Bethouart In both Greece and Norway the British were considerably arroagnt in their handling of their opposite numbers, and did not communicate their plans or purposes. Bethouart commanded the Division Casablanca on the eve of TORCH. Antonio Lauria From: Rich Velay Subject: GURU! Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:23:32 PST Hi everyone. Rich Velay here, the new Europa Rules Court Editor, jr. Guru as I like to think of myself. I am taking over for Rick Gayler as of Issue 48 of the Europa Magazine and only hope I can fill his shoes. Rick has done a wonderful job in the past and deserves all of our thanks. Unfortunately for us, Rick has a "real" job and more importantly, a family, and has decided to take a well earned rest from matters Europa for a time. Please join me in wishing Rick a happy "retirement" and let's all hope it is just a semi-retirement! :) Fool that I am, I thought I would start off with a couple of naval questions, this seems to be an area that a lot of people are having trouble with. Coming from the Guru, and having been checked by John Astell himself, these are official. >>Frm: s.dahman@genie.com Subject: Disengagement > >>Hi All, I have just started a game of FWtBT and this is my >>first try with the new SF style naval rules. I have some >>questions about the rules for disengagement and was >>wondering aboutthe general consensus of opinion for those >>who have played SF or FWtBT. First, I guess it is due to >>remembering some other naval mechanic but it is not >>explicit in the rules that after declaring disengagement >>only one more round of combat is played. Is this true? >>Or is there unlimited rounds until the disengagement >>attempt is successful? *> Hi Sam. Per SF 29C. third bullet, "If the player's *>disengagement attempt fails, another round of naval combat *>occurs." This new round is handled as per SF 29B.1e, in *>that one returns to step a of the Naval Combat sequence. *>At the end of this new round, either player can attempt *>disengagement again, as usual. So yes, there can be *>unlimited rounds of Naval Comabt until either one side is *>totally eliminated or one or both players successfuly *>disengage. *> Please note that FWTBT handles things in the same way. >>Next, suppose a disengagment is successful, which happens >>to be the non-phasing player, and the naval unit moves 15 >>MPs away but couldn't quite get away. Now the rules say >>that this is a reaction per thereaction moves so by them >>only one reaction is allowed. Ok so next the phasing >>player is still trying to hunt this group down. And moves >>to reinitiate combat. This happens to be in the same >>step. If disengagement is successful can there be another >>reaction to get away again to some port this time. >>Or must the group stay in the hex and a fight to the >>death ensue? *> First of all, even if the reacting NTF stayed in the *>hex, the Phasing player would have to re-initiate combat *>by moving into the reacting Naval Groups Combat Zone *>following the disengagement. Note the fourth bullet of *>29C, "It must, if it has sufficient MPs ...". This *>indicates that the reacting Naval Group does not have to *>leave the hex to be "disengaged" since Naval Groups may *>not be *able* to leave a hex. And if so disengaged, the *>phasing Naval Group would have to retrigger combat, by *>*entering* a hex in the combat zone of the Naval Group. *>Secondly, note that 29C says that "If a non-phasing group *>disengages, it makes a reaction movement, with a movement *>allowance of 15 MPs, per the reaction movement rules." It *>does not say it makes a Reaction movement *attempt*, and *>rule 28A. limits reaction attempts, not reaction moves. *>So, the non-phasing Naval Group may attempt disengagement *>after one round of the new combat and if successful, may *>make a reaction move of 15 MPs away from the hex (indeed *>it *must* leave the hex, if able). RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 09:00:19 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: FWTBT (was Re: SJC Playtest) >Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 15:58:49 +0100 >To:"J. Nelson" >From:o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) >Subject:FWTBT (was Re: SJC Playtest) > >>Digression: I don't see very much mention of FWTBTs around these parts. >>Does that mean that everyones happy with it? I personally think its a >>great game. Lots of room to improve on the historical performances of the >>respective sides without getting too wildly improbable. The supply rules >>in particular help minimize the amount of aggresiveness taking place each >>turn, without being too cumbersome. The size of the game makes it >>convenient for jotting down unit locations at the end of a session ( a >>big plus for those of us who cannot devote a table and room for weeks on >>end ). > >I also found it a great game. The small size shouldn't be confused with >short playing time, though. I have played it through once (and it took a >while), and the republicans won (not only on points, but in absolute >terms), but they were very lucky. > >I'm very annoyed at the VP schedule, though. It is constructed for >comparison with historical performance, but it also forces the national >player to follow the historical course of action for no good reason. For >example, after a certain date, the nationalist player will start to lose >points for not having conquered the three north-coast gobernitos. This >applies even if he has occupied , say, Madrid and Valencia. In reality, >this would be a "better than history" result by far, but he will get less >points. As a matter of fact, the VP schedule doesn't even take into >account the fact that the nationalists only turned to the gobernitos after >failing to occupy Madrid. > >I made my own fix for that, but since the Republicans cleaned the >nationalists clocks, I never had to apply it. > Mvh Elias Nordling From: Roberth Lundin Subject: RE: AWW: Western Intervention throu hostile Sweden! Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:06:35 +-100 > About the rules of Swedish resistance, you have to consider that it > would look really bad if Sweden fought the allies that were actually > trying to help Finland as much as Sweden. Resistance would probably > have the character of threats and deployed troops, but without actual > firing. Thus the garrison rule. Thats what is the problem. The Supply line goes throu Boden and thinking = that the Swedish government would give away a fortress to Brittish is a = very far fetched thought.=20 You have to remember that Churchill wanted the mines in Kiruna out of = action, that was is his MAIN goal for intervention. So the Swedish = government is supposed to give away a key fortress for the defense of = northern half of Sweden, and let the Brittish sack the mines in Kiruna. = A very nice chain of reasoning which both parts was quite aware of.=20 The main reason the Swedish government said no to transport Brittish = troops was of course the Mine in Kiruna. So the conclusion of the intervention rule is that the rule is kapputt. Robbox Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:06:15 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: RE: AWW: Western Intervention throu hostile Sweden! >> About the rules of Swedish resistance, you have to consider that it >> would look really bad if Sweden fought the allies that were actually >> trying to help Finland as much as Sweden. Resistance would probably >> have the character of threats and deployed troops, but without actual >> firing. Thus the garrison rule. > >Thats what is the problem. The Supply line goes throu Boden and thinking >that the Swedish government would give away a fortress to Brittish is a >very far fetched thought. > >You have to remember that Churchill wanted the mines in Kiruna out of >action, that was is his MAIN goal for intervention. So the Swedish >government is supposed to give away a key fortress for the defense of >northern half of Sweden, and let the Brittish sack the mines in Kiruna. A >very nice chain of reasoning which both parts was quite aware of. > >The main reason the Swedish government said no to transport Brittish >troops was of course the Mine in Kiruna. > >So the conclusion of the intervention rule is that the rule is kapputt. It isn't kaputt, it's just simplified. Oversimplified, one might argue. Since the event never happened, we can't know how the Swedish government would have reacted. What I am arguing is that the Swedish army wouldn't have gone to full war against the allies even if they would have resisted the allied incursion. What you are really arguing is that the garrison required to keep the Swedish army occupied is too small. Perhaps, perhaps not. After all, there aren't many Swedish regiments in the area from the beginning, we don't know how many additional regiments would be sent to the area, and the required garrison is at least four REs. The only way to find out is to play with the swedes, I guess. About the Boden fortress. It isn't exactly Eben Emael, you know, and Eben Emael fell on the first day of the invasion of the west. Though the brits aren't exactly german paratroopers either, I guess. This letter turned out to be a bit unstructured, I hope I made myself clear enough, though. Mvh Elias Nordling Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 13:31:44 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Another naval oddity There's one strange thing (several actually) with the SF naval rules that really puzzles me. A cargo naval group has no combat zone. To initiate naval combat, you have to enter a unit's combat zone. Thus, you can never initiate naval combat (that is attack) against a cargo group! Now, of course, you could park your surface combat group atop the enemy cargo group, and the next time he moves, he must enter your combat zone and initiates naval combat. But the cargo group doesn't have to move! (yeah, I know, time passes, but that's not actual movement) At least not until it gets desperate for supply, but then reinforcements might have arrived... Is this really naval warfare? Nah... Mvh Elias Nordling From: Roberth Lundin Subject: RE: AWW: Western Intervention throu hostile Sweden! Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 13:43:05 +-100 > It isn't kaputt, it's just simplified. Oversimplified, one might = argue. > Since the event never happened, we can't know how the Swedish=20 > government would have reacted. There is a gigant diffrence between letting the Britts throug and = letting them have large portions of Swedish territory. What the rule should say is if Sweden resists, the amount troop the = Britts and French is sending is not enough for both taking Swedish = territory and waging war in Finland against LARGE amounts of Russian = troops. Dont forget that the Strategic Reserve is received all at once = when Western Intervention is triggered. =20 > What I am arguing is that the Swedish army wouldn't have gone to full > war against the allies even if they would have resisted the allied=20 > incursion. It is very simple operation to clipp the Railroad. No railroad =3D No = Supply. No units to repair the railroad. > What you are really arguing is that the garrison required to keep the > Swedish army occupied is too small. Perhaps, perhaps not. After all,=20 > there aren't many Swedish regiments in the area from the beginning,=20 > we don't know how many additional regiments would be sent to the=20 > area, and the required garrison is at least four REs. The only way to=20 > find out is to play with the swedes, I guess. Sweden had from beginning of January 2 Divisions(22500 men) and 3 = regiments, plus troops for Bodens Fortress. =20 > About the Boden fortress. It isn't exactly Eben Emael, you know, and > Eben Emael fell on the first day of the invasion of the west. Though=20 > the brits aren't exactly german paratroopers either, I guess. But you have to remember it is a long way for Britts to travel, and it = is Snow, and only one railroad. Enormous diffrence of setting. =20 > This letter turned out to be a bit unstructured, I hope I made myself = clear > enough, though. You made yourself clear, but not very many Swedes is actually aware of = how much and what tropps we had and where they were commited. Most think = that Sweden had a very bad army the whole war. Thats not the case, = Swedens army was not regarded as bad state as the other Scandinavian = countries. Well the Air Force was not in good shape. Robbox From: s.dahman@genie.com Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 13:14:00 UTC 0000 Subject: New Rules Court Rich, Yes we should wish Rick and happy and short retirement. I do want to say thanks and that I am happily surprised with your quick response. Keep up the good work. Sam... From: Rich Velay Subject: SF play Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:47:44 PST Hi everyone. A couple of people has expressed interest in seeing how people are playing SF; strategies, tactics, etc. I think that's a great idea. Parenthetically, TEM will be having some articles along these lines in the future, so watch your mailboxes or game store. And if you don't get TEM, you really should think about becoming a member of the Association; it is the best source for articles and features of this kind. (Hmm, I hope that doesn't count as advertising through the net, I'm just a partisan and it's only one man's opinion.) Anyway. What I have been doing with the Axis lately is as follows. First of all, don't worry about the Italians; they're going to surrender and the faster the better. Try to have 'em surrender with as large an army as possible on map and in play; that way you get the most German Inf Repls from disarming them. Don't waste the fleet, the more there is of it, the better your chances of capturing some. Use the Italian air force VERY aggressively, especially on anti-shipping missions. Defend your ports. Without Mulberries, the Allies HAVE to capture a functioning port quickly to avoid the Disastrous Operation rule; units in a beachhead without a port are isolated and generate big VP awards for the Axis when eliminated. This is when to hit the Allies, during invasions. They will be isolated after disembarking (due to the ISO check at the start of the Combat Phase) and remain so throughout your player turn even if they do capture a port, since you can't use a port until it was friendly owned at the beginning of HIS initial phase. This forces you to use Rommel's strategy of hitting them hard on the beaches; do so! Have reaction forces available for the big ports and never ever leave a large port under garrisoned, especially if it is not in an Allied danger zone. Good rear security will force the Allies to come where you want them to, south of the Gustav line running from Cassino over to the Adriatic. If anything, pay more attention to your rear than you do the front line; a breakthrough at the front is recoverable, Allied units sitting in La Spezia or Genoa is a nightmare.... Remember that the game is won on VPs, and the only way you get VPs is by killing Allied units and inflicting excessive losses. If you bleed the Allies, it won't matter when they get to Berlin, Churchill and Roosevelt will have both lost their elections and the Aliies will have lost the game, if not the war. Well, those are some quick thoughts. I am going to be addressing these issues in more depth in an article in TEM, so I can't give everything away! :) late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From: Jeff White Subject: Second Front Plans (long) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 00:19:36 -0600 (CST) Okay, as per a couple of requests, here's a rather raw dump (from Microsquish Word) of the Allied Offensive plans. Most, but not all of these plans were executed. Not all plans were executed as is, sometimes modifications did not make it into the computer. The follow ups are in the list to as to not forget to do something.... I can explain (from memory) most of the plans if anyone is interested in specific details. ----------------------------cut here------------------------------------- Jul I 43 Allied Plans Operation Silver Amphib: 26:3622 4-8 Inf III 9/B 3-8 Inf III 9/B 3-8 Inf III 9/B 3-8 Inf III 34 26:3433 3-8 Inf III 3/E 3-8 Inf III 3/E 3-8 Inf III 3/E 3-8 Inf III 45/D 2-8 Inf III 45/D 3-8 Eng 36 26:3633 3-8 Inf III 36/C 3-8 Inf III 36/C 2-8 Inf III 36/C 1-8 Ranger 1, 4 26:3431 4-8 Inf III 1/A 3-8 Inf III 1/A 3-8 Inf III 1/A 3-8 Inf III 45/D 3-8 Eng 40 1-5 Amph Aslt Eng 6 1-8 Ranger 3 20 Landing Craft Follow up: 16-10 Arm XX 1, 2 5-3-10 Tank X 1, 2 3-10 Mot hv AA 8 18 Naval Transports Transfer to Landing Craft 32 Supply Points 8 Naval Transports 3-8 Eng III 19, 540 2-8 Eng III 20 3 Naval Transports 6 Naval Transports to Near East Return 5 NTs to Malta Jul II 43 Allied Plans Operation Platinum Airborne 27:2111 1-8 Para II 1 SAS, 2 SAS 1-8 Para II 3 SAS, 4 SAS (Fr) 2-5 Para X 4 Follow up: 13-10 Arm XX 11 13-10 Arm XX 5 (Can) 11-10 Arm XX 7 9-8-10 Arm XX 6 Hq Inf XX 1, 5, 78 6-8 Art X 1 (Can) 20 Landing Craft 9-8 Inf XX (Breakdowns) 1, 5, 78 2-3-8 Eng X 10, 11, GHQ 28 Supply Points 22 Naval Transports Aug I 43 Follow up: 27:2010 2 x 3 RE Movement 11-9-6 Mixed XX 4 7-10 Arm X 4, 23 6-8 Art 2 (Can) 12 Landing Craft 40 Supply 10 Naval Transports Jul II 43 Allied Plans Operation Gold Airborne 26:0830 3-5 Air Landing X 52 Low 3-5 Air Landing X 52 Low 2-5 Para X 2 2-5 Para X 3 3-5 Para X 2 4-5 Glider 1 Follow Up: 2-3-8 Eng X 11, 22 0-1-5 Cons X 32 0-1-4 Cons X 66 RPC (Ind) 24 Supply Points 6 Resource Points 18 Naval Transports 2003:1332 Night Jul II 43 Allied Plans Operation Iron Airborne 26:3624 1-5 Para III 509 1-8 Para Cmdo II 2671 4-5 Para III 504 (82nd) 3-5 Para III 505 (82nd) Follow Up: 0-1-8 Cons III 21, 41 (from Malta) 1-8 Inf II 202 1-8 Mountain II 1 (CS) 1-3-5 Training X LE (Fr) 4 Resource Points 10 Points of supply 13 Naval Transports Aug I 43 Allied Plans Operation Gold-II Airborne 26:0830 3-5 Air Landing X 52 Low 3-5 Air Landing X 52 Low 2-5 Para X 2 2-5 Para X 3 3-5 Para X 2 4-5 Glider 1 Follow Up: 2-3-8 Eng X 11, 22 0-1-5 Cons X 32 0-1-4 Cons X 66 RPC (Ind) 24 Supply Points 6 Resource Points 18 Naval Transports 2003:1332 Night Aug I 43 Allied Plans Operation Bronze Amphibious 27:1104 3-8 Marine X 1, 3 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 2, 4 (RM) 1-8 Marine Cmdo II 1, 2 SAS 2-3-8 Eng X 13 6 Landing Craft 27:1103 3-8 Inf III 46 2-8 Inf III 46 2-8 Inf III 46 2-3-8 Eng X 16 4 Landing Craft Follow Up: 27:1103 8 Inf XX HQ 46, 51 High 8-7-10 Arm XX 1 (Broken Down) 6-4-6 Tank X 25 T 2-1-10 Recon II 11 H, 1 HCR 8-8 Mtn XX 4 Mar (Fr) 2-1-8 Mtn III 1 TM (Fr), 2 TM (Fr), 3 TM (Fr), 4 TM (Fr) 3-8 Inf X 46 (Break down), 51 High (Break down) 2-8 Inf X 2 x 46 Break downs, 2 x 51 High Break downs (Pick up marines) 13 Landing Craft 16 Naval Transports 27:1203 0-1-5 Cons X 2, 18 24 Supply Points 4 Resource Points 12 Naval Transports Carrier Air Support Groups 1 & 2 (Call Up) All Task Forces Sep I 43 Allied Plan Operation Uranium 26:3616 1-8 Para Cmdo II 1 Sas (British) 1-8 Para Cmdo II 3 Sas (Fr) 1-5 Para II 509 (US) 26:3516 1-8 Para Cmdo II 2 Sas (British) 2-8 Para Cmdo X 1 Choc (Fr) 1-8 Para Cmdo II 4 Sas (Fr) 1-8 Para Cmdo II 2671 (US) 26:3411 4-5 Para X 504 (US) 3-5 Para X 505 (US) 26:2422 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 2, 4 (RM) 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 1, 3 (British) 1-8 Marine Cmdo II 10 26:2323 3-8 Inf X 50 Nth, 56 Lon (breakdowns) 2-8 Inx X 2 x 50 Nth, 2 x 56 Lon (breakdowns) Follow Up 13-10 Arm XX 11 13-10 Arm XX 5 (Can) 11-10 Arm XX 7 8 Inf XX HQ 50 Nth, 56 Lon 2-3-8 Eng X 10, 12 18 Landing Craft 30 Supply 4 Resource Points 28 Naval Transports Sep II Allied Plan Operation Plutonium Para: 26:2322 3-5 Para III 101/506 C-47, CG-4A 3-5 Glider III 101/327 Horsa x 2, C-47 x 2 4-5 Para III 101/502 C-47, Horsa 2-5 Glider III 82/325 CG-4A x 2, C-47 x 2 4-5 Para III 82/504 C-47, Horsa 3-5 Para III 82/505 82/325's C-47's 19 Pts Ground Attack, 6 RE's 7 Gliders 7 C-47's Final Stack: 16-10 Arm XX 1 3-5 Para III 101/506 3-5 Glider III 101/327 4-5 Para III 101/502 26 Pts Defense, 6 RE's 26:2423 (Island) 2-8 Para Cmdo X 1 Choc (Fr) 1-8 Para Cmdo II 3 SAS (Fr) 1-8 Para Cmdo II 4 SAS (Fr) 1-8 Para Cmdo II 2671 OSS 1-5 Para II 509 1.5 Pts Ground Attack, 3 RE's 6 C-47's (?) Amphib:26:2422 (Naples) 3-8 Inf III 9 3-8 Inf III 9 4-8 Inf III 9 1-5 Amph Aslt Eng II 6 1-8 Ranger II 3 3-8 Eng III 540 3-8 Eng III 36 4 Pts Ground Attack, 6 RE's 5 LC's, 1 NT, American and British Fleets (maybe we'll throw in a carrier or two). Follow Up: 16-10 Arm XX 1 Second Wave 16-10 Arm XX 2 Second Wave 8 HQ 9 Third Wave 3-10 mot hv AA 92 Third Wave 3-10 mot hv AA 4 (from Palermo) Third Wave 2-3-10 mot Art X 9 Third Wave 2-3-10 mot Art X 5 (from Palermo) Third Wave transport counter (3 REs) Third Wave 28 Pts Supply 30 NT's Final Stack: 11-8 Inf XX 9 1-5 Amph Aslt Eng II 6 (Fly out?, otherwise overstack) 1-8 Ranger II 3 (Fly out?, otherwise overstack) 3-8 Eng III 540 3-8 Eng III 36 3-10 mot hv AA 92 3-10 mot hv AA 4 2-3-10 mot Art X 9 2-3-10 mot Art X 5 1 A/B XX ? (Fly in HQ, advance regs after combat) 37 Pts Defense, 13 RE's 26:2423 (Island) Follow Up: 0-1-8 Cons III 342 0-1-8 Cons III 354 24 Pts Supply 6 Resource Points 14 NT's 26:2421 (South) 3-8 Inf III 1 3-8 Inf III 1 4-8 Inf III 1 3-8 Inf III 5 3-8 Inf III 5 3-8 Inf III 5 4.75 Pts Ground Attack, 6 RE's 6 LC's Follow Up: 8 HQ 1 Second Wave 5 HQ 5 Second Wave 2 LC's, 2 NT's Final Stack: 10-8 Inf XX 5 11-8 Inf XX 1 16-10 Arm XX 2 37 Pts Defense, 9 RE's 26:2323 (North) 3-8 Inf III 34 3-8 Inf III 34 2-8 Inf III 34 3-8 Eng III 1121 1-8 Marine Cmdo X 2 Choc (Fr) 1-8 Ranger II 1 1-8 Ranger II 4 4.25 Pts Ground Attack, 6 RE's 4 LC's, 2 NT's Follow Up: 3 HQ 34 Second Wave 0-1-8 Cons III 346 1 LC, 2 NT's Final Stack: 9-8 Inf XX 34 1-8 Marine Cmdo X 2 Choc (Fr) 1-8 Ranger II 1 1-8 Ranger II 4 3-8 Eng III 1121 0-1-8 Cons III 346 16 Pts Defense, 7 RE's Totals: 15 LC's Initial Assault 3 LC's commited to HQ's on second wave, from late arriving 1st. 51 Transports 20 Landing Craft Sep II 43 Allied Plan Operation Copper 26:3923 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 2 (RM) 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 4 (RM) 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 1 (RM) 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 3 (RM) 1-8 Marine Cmdo X Timf 1-8 Marine Cmdo II 10 (IA) 7 Pts Ground Attack, 5.5 RE's 6 NT's Follow Up: Stuff Oct I 43 Allied Plan Operation Iridium 26:1825 9-6 Para XX 1 26:1824 6-8 Para* XX 52 Low 26:2023 1-8 Para Cmdo II 1 SAS, 2 SAS 2-5 Para X 3, 4 26:1925 1-8 Marine Cmdo II 10 (IA) 1-5 Marine Cmdo* II RFME 3-8 Inf X 5, 5 2-8 Inf X 5 3-8 Inf X 59 Stf 26:2024 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 1 1-8 Marine Cmdo X Timf 3-8 Inf X 1, 1 2-8 Inf X 1 2-8 Inf X 59 Stf 26:2124 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 2 (RM), 4 (RM) 3-8 Inf X 49 WR 2-8 Inf X 49 WR, 49 WR 2-8 Inf X 59 Stf 12 LC's 6 NT's 4 C-47's 4 Gliders Follow Up: 13-10 Arm XX 4 (Can) 8-7-10 Arm XX 1, 9 9-8-10 Arm XX 6 7-10 Arm X 4, 23 Oct II 43 Allied Plan Operation Pyrite 17A:1322 1-8 Ranger II 1, 2, 3, 4 2-8 Marine Cmdo X 2 Choc (Fr) Follow Up: 3-10 mot hv AA X 7, 109 3-8 Art X 190 0-1-8 Cons III 366 2-8 Eng X 1105 2-8 Eng X 1109 4 Resource Points 12 Supply Points Dec II 43 Contingent Plan Operation Blue Monkey Para 17A:0813 1-8 Para Cmdo II 3 Sas (Fr) 1-8 Para Cmdo II 4 Sas (Fr) 4-5 Para X 1 (Pol) 17A:0913 3-5 Glider X 155 (52 Lo) 3-5 Glider X 156 (52 Lo) 2-5 Para X 2 (1) 2-5 Para X 3 (1) 8x Glider 17A:1015 3-5 Para X 1 2-5 Para X 4 (6) ` 2-5 Para X 5 (6) Amphib 17A:0914 1-8 Marine Cmdo X Timf 1-8 Marine Cmdo II IA 1-8 Marine Cmdo II 1 Sas 1-8 Marine Cmdo II 2 Sas 2-8 Marine Cmdo X 2 Choc (Fr) 17A:1013 3-8 Inf X 15 Scott 2-8 Inf X 15 Scott 2-8 Inf X 15 Scott 3-8 Inf X 53 Welsh 2-8 Inf X 53 Welsh 2-8 Inf X 53 Welsh 17A:0915 2-3-8 Eng X 10 2-3-8 Eng X 11 2-3-8 Eng X 12 3-8 Inf X 5 3-8 Inf X 5 2-8 Inf X 5 17A:1014 3-8 Inf X 1 (Can) 3-8 Inf X 1 (Can) 3-8 Inf X 1 (Can) 3-8 Marine Cmd X 1 3-8 Marine Cmd X 2 (RM) 3-8 Marine Cmd X 4 (RM) 17A:0916 3-8 Inf X 78 3-8 Inf X 78 2-8 Inf X 78 2-8 Inf X 228 Feb I 44 Plan Operation Skybolt Pre-landing Unload at Alger 0-8 lt AA II 1 (Can) 0-8 lt AA II 6 (Can) Unload at 27:2208 - Caligari 14-8 Para XX 101 (US) 0-1-8 Cons X 346 (US) 0-1-8 Cons X 926 (US) Unload at Alger 13-10 Arm XX 4 (Can) Pickup in MTO, deliver to landing hex 0-2-6 hv AA X 2 MNBDO (RM) (Use LC) 2-3-8 hv AA X CEF (Fr) 24 pts of supply from Caligari with MTO ships 16 pts of supply from Oran with ETO ships 24 pts of supply from Caligari with MTO ships after dropping off Para's and Cons Para 17A:4519 1-8 Para Cmdo II 1 Sas (Br) 1-8 Para Cmdo II 2 Sas (Br) 1-8 Para Cmdo II 3 Sas (Fr) 1-8 Para Cmdo II 4 Sas (Fr) 1-5 Para II 509 (US) 1-8 Para Cmdo II 2671 (OSS) 6 Transports 6 Gliders Follow Up: 14-8 Para XX 101 (US) or 11-8 Para XX 101 (US) 3 Gliders, 5 Transports 0-8 lt AA II 1 (Can) 0-8 lt AA II 6 (Can) 2 Transports 0-1-8 Cons X 346 (US) 0-1-8 Cons X 926 (US) 4 Transports Amphib: 17A:4618 - LC's 4-10 Mech X B 6-10 Arm X B 7-10 Arm X 8 7-10 Arm X 4 2-3-10 mot hv AA X 101 (Move to 4417) 1-3-6 port cons X 1056 (US) (Overstack) 0-2-6 hv AA X 2 MNBDO (RM) (LC from Med) 3-10 mot Art X 2 A 2nd wave queue - in priority order 2-3-8 hv AA X CEF (Fr) (from Med) 1-8 hv AA II 2 (Can) 7-10 Arm X 23 (Overstack) 8 HQ's A, B, C, D, A (Can) Transports All broken down divisions (2 Divs assemble out of OS, rest in) 2-3-8 Eng X 11 (No Overstack) 2-3-8 Eng X 12 0-1-5 Cons X 8 (No Overstack) 0-1-5 Cons X 15 (No Overstack) 17A:4518 - LC's - overrun 4417 (LC's move out after unloading) 5-10 Mech X A 7-10 Arm X A 3-10 hv mot AA X 11 (US) Transports 0-1-5 Cons X 20 (No OS) 0-1-5 Cons X 6 (No OS) 3-8 Eng X 1106 (US - No OS) 2-3-8 Eng X 10 (No OS) 3-8 Inf X 227 (No OS) 2-3-8 Eng X 16 (No OS) 2-8 Eng X 1101 (US - OS) 2-3-8 Eng X 1128 (US - OS) 2-8 Eng X 1103 (US - OS) 0-1-5 Cons X 21 (OS) Feb II 44 Plan Operation Fullback Amphib: 27:4316 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 1 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 2 (RM) 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 4 (RM) 1-8 Marine Cmdo X Timf 1-8 Marine Cmdo II 10 (IA) 2-8 Marine Cmdo X 2 Choc (Fr) Mar I 44 Plan Operation Quarterback Amphib: 26:1227 1-8 Ranger II 1 1-8 Ranger II 2 1-8 Ranger II 3 26:1128 1-5 Amphib Aslt Eng II 6 (USN) 26:1027 1-8 Ranger II 4 1-8 Ranger II 5 Mar I 44 Plan Operation Halfback Amphib: 26:0328 11-8 Inf XX (Broken Down) 1 11-8 Inf XX (Broken Down) 9 26:0428 10-8 Inf XX (Broken Down) 3-8 Inf III (part of 9-8) 3-8 Inf III (part of 9-8) 3-8 Marine Cmdo X SSF 26:0528 10-8 Inf XX (Broken Down) 8-8 Inf XX (Broken Down) (Fr) Apr I Marines in Brindisi to Rimini Apr II Plan Operation Fullback Airborne: 16A:4831 3-5 Para Cmdo X SSF 3-5 Para III 82/505 3-5 Para III 507 3-5 Glider III 82/325 4-5 Para III 82/504 Jul I Plan Operation Hammer Airborne: 4820 4-5 Para III 504 (US) C-47, CG-4A 5014 2-8 Para Cmdo X 1 Choc (Fr) C-47, CG- 4A 1-8 Para Cmdo II 2 SAS (Br) 1-5 Para II 509 (US) 1-5 Para II 551/I 4918 3-5 Para III 517 (US) C-47, CG-4A 4919 3-5 Para III 507 (US) C-47, CG-4A 4821 3-5 Air Landing X 52 Low 155 (Br) Hamlicar, Halifax 3-5 Air Landing X 52 Low 156 (Br) Horsa x 2, C-47 x 2 4-5 Air Landing X 6 AB (Br) Horsa x 2, C-47 x 2 2-5 Para X 2 (Br) Horsa, Stirl 2-5 Para X 5 (Br) CG-4A, Stirl 4-5 Para X 1 (Pol) CG-4A, C- 47 3704 1-8 Para Cmdo II 1 SAS (Br) CG-4A, C- 47 1-8 Para Cmdo II 4 SAS (Fr) CG-4A, C- 47 1-8 Para Cmdo II 2671 (OSS) CG-4A, C- 47 (Maybe) Follow Up: Verona 6 A/B HQ C-47 52 Low HQ C-47 Vicenza 101 A/B HQ C-47 3-5 Para III 506 C-47 4-5 Para III 502 C-47 3-5 Glider III 327 C-47 Padova 3-5 Glider III 325 CG-4A 3-5 Para III 505 C-47 3-5 Para III 508 C-47 82 A/B HQ C-47 Amphib: 5017 2-1-10 Amphib Tank II 741 (US) 2-1-10 Amphib Tank II 743 (US) 2-1-10 Amphib Tank II 70 (US) 1-8 Ranger II 1 1-8 Ranger II 2 1-8 Ranger II 3 1-8 Ranger II 4 1-8 Ranger II 5 1-5 Amph Aslt Eng II 6 1-5 Amph Aslt Eng II 7 5018 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 1 (Br) 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 2 (RM) 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 4 (RM) 1-8 Marine Cmdo II 10 (IA) 1-5* Marine Cmdo II RFME 5019 2-8 Marine Cmdo X 2 Choc (Fr) 1-8 Marine Cmdo X Timf (Br) 6-4-10 Amphib Tank X 27 (Br) 6-4-10 Amphib Tank X 2 (Can) Follow Up: 4918 10-8 Inf XX 4 1 LC, 3 NT's 1st Wave 2-3-8 Eng X 1104 5017 9-8 Inf XX 35 1 LC, 2nd Wave 5-3-10 Tank X 1 2 LC 1st Wave 5-3-10 Tank X 6 2 LC 1st Wave 2-8 Eng X 1134 1-10 Mech Cmdo II 526 1 LC 2nd Wave transports from assault 5018 1-3-6 Port Cons X 1061 1 LC 2nd Wave transports from assault 7-8 Inf XX 90 1 LC 2nd Wave 12-10 Arm XX 4 6 LC 1st Wave 2 Resource Points - Barletta 72 Points of Supply - Brindisi & Bari 5019 9-8 Inf XX 30 1 LC 2nd Wave 8-8 Inf XX 59 Stf 1 LC 2nd Wave 8-8 Inf XX 56 Lon 1 LC 2nd Wave 12-10 Arm XX 6 6 LC 2nd Wave pickup at Pescara - transports from assault 16-10 Arm XX 3 6 LC 1st Wave 14-10 Arm XX 4 6 LC 1st Wave 4919 2-3-8 Eng X 1111 Oct I Plan Operation Black Adder (Attack on Emden, Germany) Marines: 0412 2-8 Marine Cmdo II 2 Choc (Fr) 0413 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 4 (RM) 0414 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 1 (RM) 0514 1-8 Ranger II 1 (US), 2 (US), 3 (US), 4 (US), 5 (US) 1-5 Amphib Aslt Eng II 6 (USN) 3-8 Inf X A (102 US) 2-8 Inf X B (102 US), C (102 US) Follow Up: 0514 1-3-6 Port Cons X 1053 (US) HQ XX 102 (US) 12-10 Arm XX 10 (US), 12 (US) 9-8 Inf XX 44 (US) 3 RE Truck 3 Resource Points 2-3-6 Mtn Cons X 210 (It) 1-2-8 Lt AA 2 (Pol) 4-8 Art X XVI (US) 6-4-10 Amphib Arm X 2 (Can), 27 (Br) 2-1-10 Amphib Arm II 70 (US), 741 (US), 743(US) 24 Supply Pts 0413 0-1-4 Cons X 61 RPC (Ind), 66 RPC (Ind) 2-8 Eng X 1142 (US) 4-8 Art X 424 (US) 1 Resource Pt 8 Supply Pts Nov I Plan Operation Pannekoeken (Dutch attack) 0316 1-8 Ranger II 2 (US) follow-up 7-8 Inf XX 92 (US) 4 pts supply 0217 1-8 Marine Cmdo II 2 Sas (Br) follow-up 8-8 Inf XX 56 Lon(Br) 8 pts supply 2 Resource pts 0218 1-8 Marine Cmdo II 10th(IA) follow-up 0-1-8 Cons III 922, 398 (US) 0219 1-8 Marine Cmdo II 1 Sas(Br) follow-up 0-1-8 Cons III 372, 923 (US) 0-2-5 Cons X Alpine(Fr) 4 pts Supply 2 Resource pts 0321 2-8 Marine Cmdo X 2 Choc(Fr) 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 1 (Br) 3-8 Marine Cmdo X 4 (RM) 1-2-6 Marine III 4FM (Fr) 3-8 Inf X (LVT) 52 Low (Br) 1-8 Marine Cmdo X Timf (Br) follow-up 8-8 Inf XX 52 Low (Br) 8-8 Inf XX 59 Stf (Br) truck 12 Pts Supply -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY jwhite@ghq.com "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." From: Rich Velay Subject: mail Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 22:53:55 PST Hi everyone. Man, I have got to get my mail organized! If you ask a Rules court question, could you please label it, in the subject line, as: Guru:XX , where the xx is the abbreviation for the game you are asking about? This will help me to sort the questions, top priority, from the general mail traffic, nice but not critical. Hopefully this will also insure your question doesn't get lost in the midst of my copying text files, doing screen captures and getting screen images; all of which I am trying out to figure out an easy way to handle mail off line. Who knows, I might have to install Windows again, but I am going to try anything else first... :) Thanks from the jr. Poohbah. late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 10:54:52 -0800 (PST) From: "J. Nelson" Subject: amphibious invasions Did the allies really have the capability to plan and carry-out large frequent amphibious operations with two weeks notice? Personally, I am inclined toward tying the number of turns that the operation must be planned during to the number of REs involved in the amphibious landing. The larger the landing, the larger the number of turns during which the operation must be planned. Of course, if the allies *could* have pulled off landings in fairly rapid succession, then I suspect its just tough luck for the axis. I'm not writing this as a perpetual axis player spouting sour grapes, but as someone who plays both sides in various europa games who is concerned with either side having too great a capability for something that they did not have historically. Any comments? -Ciao