From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Subject: modular rules Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:12:53 -0500 (EST) Hi All, The modular rules idea seems to be very popular. But, it is very hard to do well. World In Flames has adopted this approach, with all sorts of add-ons which often don't mesh. Anyone who has spent time as a member of the WIF mailing list knows that discussion of the games is greatly curtailed by the fact that everyone uses a different set of rules. Also, the players (myself included) feel that ADG puts out rules without properly playtesting them and has paid little attention to how different collections of rules are supposed to be used together. The ASL binder approach seemed like a great idea when they came out with it. But, ASL, although it is a great game and is immensely popular, has rules that are a big mess. I suspect that the only people who disagree with that statement learned the rules from someone else, and not from the book. (Boy, Rich, you should be glad that you're not answering rules questions for ASL!) Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:16:11 -0500 From: "James B. Byrne" Subject: Re: Sealion possibilities - LONG POST WARNING > However remember that there is a balancing factor > to the rest of the U-Boat war. All of the German > light naval production has to go into landing craft > and anything else to try to keep the army in England > alive. Just using all the Rhine river barges for the > invasion has a real negative economic effect on German > production too. ... Well, that presupposes that the Germans have to undertake a long term campaign in GB. This is something that I seriously doubt. The basic premise that the Germans were working on in 1940 was that it would either be a quick blow followed by capitulation and occupation, or withdrawal. In the event they decided not to invade at all. If the former then the issue of diverted naval production never arrises and in the later the same conditions become operative. The main issue is what the consequence of a decision to invade will have on future operations in other theaters. We need to assume that the intervention of the RAF and the RN in significant numbers would be required to preven the German army from successfully invading England. We also need to assume that this intervention would have suffered considerable losses due to German air activity and that the conditions of air combat would have been less favourable for the RAF than the historic campaign. Given the closeness of the historic outcome of the Battle of Britian and the advantage that the RAF enjoyed by fighting a defensive campaign over friendly territory one could reasonably conclude that a significant change in either or both of these circumstances would have had a negative impact on the UK. If the Germans lose a dozen infantry divisions in 1940, and two or three armoured ones will that have as much impact on the ultimate outcome of the Europenan war as the loss of 20% of the RN and a good portion of the RAF fighter command? Bear in mind that such German losses would not have been sufficient to prevent Germany from maintaining control of the continent, but it would have probably been enough to delay or prevent the invasion of the USSR. Now, with the entire German army in the west and no ongoing campaingn in the east along with a weakened GB; what happens in the Atlantic in 1941/42? > The German navy has a limited number of trained seamen > to draw for crews also. So the U-Boast arm will be very > limited for some time. The only real limitation on the U-Boot arm was the yard and machine works capacity in Germany. A U-Boot only required aproximately 35 qualified individuals to get to sea and carry out operational cruises out of a total crew of arround 50-60 depending on the class. Towards the end of the war the KM was employing surplus air and ground officers to command and officer U-Boots. With a population of between 65 and 80 million people, Germany could certainly man more U-Boots at 60 men per than GB (pop ~55 million) could destroyers at 200+ Men per. We are after all, only talking of one specific turning point in history in a multiyear war which had many such turning points. My purpose in raising the issue isn't to impose my view of the probable outcome. I only want to highlight that there are some real issues inherent in GE which have to be addressed directly and not as an afterthought. As I see it, GE can follow three possible themes, with many variations on each: 1. The 'historic' path wherein a player of GE is so constrained by system rules, victory point requirements or other artifices that they are compelled to follow the general outline of the European War regardless of their performance as military commanders. Victory conditions would necessarily be convoluted as they would need to incorporate components of both relative and absolute success of the players vs. their historic counterparts. 2. The 'tournament' path wherein a player plays each of the campaigns in order, accrues victory points based on relative performance to the historic 'norm'; and starts the next campaign without any carry forward of losses of gains from prior campaigns. At the end of 1945 each player determines whether or not they 'won' by comparing their individual scores. The relative positions of the their countries are unimportant for this purpose. 3. The 'alternate universe' path wherein the player must make strategic decisions and will have to deal with the consequences of those decisions throughout the rest of the war. Victory is decided by the relative positions of the countries involved at some predetermined time (spring/fall 1945?) or based upon some predetermined measure of success (number of capitals/resource centres controlled etc). My personal preference is for some form of version 3 as this makes the player as concerned with the conservation of his forces as a real military commander. It will also require that GE provide some rational for undertaking the risks and adventures that the real participants did. It also requires some mechanism to conceal the future from the player. Most strategic games on WWII fail in this critical regard because we the players know so much about the real, as opposed to perceived, capablities of the participants. Our counterparts could only dream about having the detailed information regarding the capablities of the 7 Pz Div or the 1st Inf or the Dessert Airforce or the KM etc. Given Europa's tremendous investment in research in this area the design of GE has to provide some way of making the actual performance of these units vary somewhat in order that we the players be forced to make decisions based upon approximations of enemy capability rather than certainties. I know that this seems counter intuitive but consider the impact on planning if you absolutly know, down to the last rifle, how big, fast, and effective the force opposing you is. The effect of knowing exactly where they are located and how far that they can travel. If you remove this knowledge then the player will have less oportunity to avoid the 'obvious' mistakes that actually occured. Germany can invade Yugoslavia and find a tiger waiting instead of a fractured and divided country and army. Italy could possibly have a cake walk through Greece (as she expected and didn't quite get). The French could weaker or stronger or perhaps more mobile. The point is that the attacker should not know exactly what he is going to face. The British might have to take that invasion threat seriously while the German player might know that it just isn't possible. If we don't introduce uncertainty into the game then Europa, and particularily GE, becomes one large battle of attrition, with an inevitiable outcome given competent play on both sides. -- James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:38:23 +0100 From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Another monster GE rant Steve P wrote: >Why not take an informal vote? I don't want to see 4 types of schnee >either. It strikes me that a great many of the ideas bandied around (like >4 types of snow) are things that would be better developed by players >themselves and then distributed via fora like this or the magazine. >I cull many ideas from such sources for the various Europa games I've >played -scenarios, rules twists, &c...that are great on their own, but GRD >can't use every single great idea, whatever its merit, in GE. >Should I retrench and suggest that GE perhaps be approached like Advanced >Squad Leader (except without redesigning the entire system!!!) A pretty >binder and basic rules that stitch the maps and counters together with an >elegantly simple production system...then start canvassing all those great >ideas to create modules like "Strategic Air War"? > >I know the volume on this topic is massive- I've hardly had time to follow >it, but I'd imagine any lurking GRD people (Mr. Astell) are interested in >distilling these kinds of ideas down to something they can actually use. > The modules I want to see are: 1. Strategic Air War (including a substantive reappraisal of the air rules generally to take into account the importance to command and control) 2. Naval Operations 3. The Economics of Total War Oh dear, someone give Rich a stiff drink, I think he just keeled over. Yes, I know. These are going to be tough to do due to the extremely complex nature of these topics. Yet somehow I suspect they ARE do-able. Keith Pardue quite correctly warns of the danger of modules that do not really fit very well and that is indeed a valid concern. Nevertheless, there is a huge pool of helpful scholarship out there. It certainly is important that each draft module be properly debugged. Face it, one of the attractions of Europa is a significant lack of *Rules Fascism*. Just look at the early Europa games and compare them with SF: quite a difference. Europa games are living, breathing systems that are in a constant state of refinement. This is merely the logical extension of this ethos. My ideas for a module called *The Economics of Total War* (or something like that) are pretty much a prerequisite for the other two (Strategic Air & Naval Operations). This is because in order to attack the enemy's economy, you must first have an economic system to attack! I do not support the idea of free production (a la SPI *War in Europe*), but rather some system that requires economic points to make units available for production according to a historical schedule. A certain amount of flexibility is okay (such as having alternate counters appear on certain dates cf the optional units in SF) in order to deal with a particular GE game that may have seriously diverged from the historical one (an Allied Balkan strategy, an Axis Turkey strategy, France still around in 1941 etc, etc.). This list need not be exhaustive. There is no need to attempt to cater for every conceivable contingency and that in fact is not really desirable. As long as long as the *essential* character of the historic combatant militaries is preserved, a little tinkering is not going to be too hard. A few more/less mountain units or a few ships that were partially built but historically cancelled (i.e. the German aircraft carrier) is not going to cause major distortions but will go a long way to making happy, smiley players. Once we have a system that simulates the national economies, we can busy ourselves figuring ways to blow it all up in a historically satisfying matter. Regards Perry ...- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 21:26:07 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re: Another monster GE rant -Reply On 3/12/96, Perry eloquently stated: >The modules I want to see are: >1. Strategic Air War (including a substantive reappraisal of >the air rules generally to take into account the importance >to command and control) >2. Naval Operations >3. The Economics of Total War -snip- >These are going to be tough to do due to the extremely >complex nature of these topics. Yet somehow I suspect >they ARE do-able. -snip- >there is a huge pool of helpful scholarship out there. It >certainly is important that each draft module be properly >debugged. -snip- >Europa games are living, breathing systems that are in a >constant state of refinement. This is merely the logical >extension of this ethos. >My ideas for a module called *The Economics of Total >War* (or something like that) are pretty much a >prerequisite for the other two (Strategic Air >& Naval Operations). This is because in order to attack >the enemy's economy, you must first have an economic >system to attack! >I do not support the idea of free production (a la SPI *War >in Europe*), but rather some system that requires >economic points to make units available for production >according to a historical schedule. A certain amount of >flexibility is okay (such as having alternate counters >appear on certain dates cf the optional units in SF) in order >to deal with a particular GE game that may have seriously >diverged from the historical one (an Allied Balkan strategy, >an Axis Turkey strategy, France still around in 1941, etc.). >This list need not be exhaustive. There is no need to >attempt to cater for every conceivable contingency and that >in fact is not really desirable. As long as the *essential* >character of the historic combatant militaries is preserved, >a little tinkering is not going to be too hard. A few more/ >less mountain units or a few ships that were partially built >but historically cancelled (i.e., the German aircraft carrier) >are not going to cause major distortions but will go a long >way to making happy, smiley players. >Once we have a system that simulates the national >economies, we can busy ourselves figuring ways to blow it >all up in a historically satisfying matter. >Regards >Perry Thanks, Perry, for saving me the time to post exactly this. This should be a framework within which both the "Landsers" and the "Combined Arms" groups can coexist. All that remains is getting together and getting it done. Ray From: grd1@genie.com Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 01:47:00 UTC 0000 Subject: Re: GE politics Helo EUROPANS, Let me introduce myself briefly as Rick Gayler's replacement on GEnie as a representative of GRD. If you haven't heard, Rick has asked for some time off from his official duties as GEnie Rep, Ultimate Rules Judge and TEM editor. A little news from Grinnell. Winston says the production work and assembly of WitD should take about a month. With that said, no one can promise the game will be out in a month, but it does look like we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. RE: GE Politics - my personal views, not necessarily those of GRD What level of command do the players represent? IMO, the players of the individual EUROPA games represent the Army Group/Theater commanders of the major powers (ie Germany, USSR, USA); and Service Chiefs of the minor powers (ie Greece). In GE the players will represent the Military Service Chiefs (Germany) or Theater Commanders (Allies). The players will not have the authorities found at the National Command Level (Hitler, Stalin, Churchill or FDR/Marshall). What political decisions will be left to the players? Will the players have some level of influence over political decisions? These questions remain unaswered at this time. A few questions without answers: Should Britain & France be allowed to invade Norway in 1940 as they planned? If so, does Norway accept German intervention the way she accepted allied intervention? Hum, an axis Norway? Should Germany be allowed to invade Spain? If so, under what circumstances and with what restrictions? Should Germany be allowed to invade France rather than Poland in September 1939? If so what will Poland do about it? And what will Uncle Joe Stalin do about it? Can Germany chose NOT to invade the low countries when she attacks France? Most of all, what level of control/influence should players have on these decisions? Alan Tibbetts GRD GEnie Rep Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 20:07:21 -0600 (CST) From: Mark H Danley Subject: Re: GE politics On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, Steve wrote: I'm only 29 and I keep hearing about how the wargame hobby is fading > away because "kids these days are a bunch of idiots that don't understand > history" > That's untrue. What's happened is, none of us can find jobs that pay > enough money to be able to justify paying $125 for a board game. I mean > think about it. YOU SAID IT. I'm only a scawling brat of 26, but I played my first Europa game (no, it wasn't DNO, it was _Marita Merkur_) at 14. And, frankly, I enjoy studying history as well, (or I wouldn't be pounding my brains out in grad school)! Mark From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 15:12 GMT Subject: Campaign for North Africa Dear Jason: You know a couple of guys who played all of CNA? Holy cow. Every now and then my brother and I broke that game out, stared at the counter sheets, flipped through the rules, and put the game back in its box. We never believed anyone could play that game. I gotta admit, it's a heck of an Order of Battle, though. And the intention: that the game be used by groups and clubs, with players as various corps and division commanders, is not that bad an idea, especially for Grand Europa, where players can be theater commanders, then army group commanders, down to army commanders. Corps commanders might be pushing it. Best, DHL From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 15:55 GMT Subject: Re: GE politics Dear Alan: Nice load of questions, good to hear WitD is enroute. Bigger question: When can we expect snappy new SF counters to replace the two-toned US Army and splotched British? Keep up the fight. GRD is doing good. Best, Dave Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:21:58 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: GE politics > I'm only 29 and I keep hearing about how the wargame hobby is fading >> away because "kids these days are a bunch of idiots that don't understand >> history" >> That's untrue. What's happened is, none of us can find jobs that pay >> enough money to be able to justify paying $125 for a board game. I mean >> think about it. > >YOU SAID IT. I'm only a scawling brat of 26, but I played my first >Europa game (no, it wasn't DNO, it was _Marita Merkur_) at 14. And, >frankly, I enjoy studying history as well, (or I wouldn't be pounding my >brains out in grad school)! I'll second (well, third) that. I'm another one in the brat-pack (23, also played Marita-Merkur at 14.) In addition, I would say that the situation is a lot different outside of the States. Here in Sweden, I would say that most wargamers are under 30. Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:33:05 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: Airdrop rules (fwd) >> What really bothers me with the rules for airdrop is this: >> When a transport is hit by FLAK (R or A), it returns to the base with the >> cargo. Since most airborne units require two transports to drop, there's a >> MAJOR chance this will happen, even with just 1 or 2 points of AA. >> >> My question is: has this ever happened? Is there ANY occasion in the >> history of the parachute when the transports return to base without letting >> the soldiers jump because of flak? I think not. > > According to the UK official history, "The Mediterranean and the >Middle East", Volume 5, this happened in Sicily. In fact there were so many >problems with missdrops, flak from both sides, and planes returning with >their cargo that plans were eventually changed to cancel further air drops. Well, OK, then. It DID happen. But I doubt it happened as often as with the current rules. If there are even a few points of flak, you will have about 1/3 chance of being returned with the cargo. The big problem is that if ANY of the two air units are afflicted, the airborne unit is too. A battallion has a much greater chance of dropping successfully. I don't think this was intended when the AA rules were written. Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From: Rich Velay Subject: GURU:SF Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 04:27:25 PST Hi All. Looks like some more SF is coming your way... >Yeah, I have another one about the naval rules (they really ARE messy!) >If units start a turn loaded on transports in port at the start of a turn, >are they in supply? >This is significant, because if the answer is yes, then allied troops can >start the game loaded in transports (allowed per TEM#??) for a turn 1 >invasion of southern France (the extra 30 NMPs are needed.) Units embarked upon ships trace supply as per normal rules, so if they are in a port t and the NT/LC is *in* port (NOT at sea in the hex) then yes they are in supply. Note also that for your first turn invasion, the units and NT/LCs they are embarked upon could be set up in the N.Afr. Holding box at start, they needn't be deployed at separate ports on the map. Also note that since they are already embarked, port capacity is not an issue; ALL of your NT/LCs, along with anyone they are transporting, could be placed, for example, at Bougie during the initial phase and carry out their invasion from there. The fact that Bougie is only a minor port is immaterial. Note also that any units embarked upon NT/LC could remain in the N.Afr. Holding Box, or any on map port, and remain in supply from turn to turn, indefinitly. late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 15:36:58 +0100 From: peterlj@smab.se (Peter Ljungberg) Subject: Re: Airdrop rules >>> What really bothers me with the rules for airdrop is this: >>> When a transport is hit by FLAK (R or A), it returns to the base with the >>> cargo. Since most airborne units require two transports to drop, there's a >>> MAJOR chance this will happen, even with just 1 or 2 points of AA. >>> >>> My question is: has this ever happened? Is there ANY occasion in the .>>> history of the parachute when the transports return to base without letting >>> the soldiers jump because of flak? I think not. >> >> According to the UK official history, "The Mediterranean and the >>Middle East", Volume 5, this happened in Sicily. In fact there were so many >>problems with missdrops, flak from both sides, and planes returning with >>their cargo that plans were eventually changed to cancel further air drops. >Well, OK, then. It DID happen. But I doubt it happened as often as with the >current rules. If there are even a few points of flak, you will have about >1/3 chance of being returned with the cargo. >The big problem is that if ANY of the two air units are afflicted, the >airborne unit is too. A battallion has a much greater chance of dropping >successfully. I don't think this was intended when the AA rules were >written. > >Mvh Elias Nordling >o-noreli@jmk.su.se The house rule I ususally use to mitigate this is not to assign individual planes to specific airborne units, but instead treat them as groups, like I would do with Naval transport. So if some transports are turned back/aborted I turn back airborne units corresponding only to the capacity of the turned back planes. This will at least increase the probability of getting some of several airborne units through. Doesn`t help when dropping only one unit though. The rules suggestions regarding dedicated air missions presented way back in TEM are also a way of solving this - if you`re prepared to accept losses in planes you can improve the chances of your paratroopers landing and not being scared away. Peter Ljungberg From: Dave Humphreys Subject: Re: GE politics Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:37:59 -0800 At 01:47 AM 13/3/96, you wrote: >In GE the players will represent the Military Service Chiefs (Germany) or >Theater Commanders (Allies). The players will not have the authorities >found at the National Command Level (Hitler, Stalin, Churchill or >FDR/Marshall). > >What political decisions will be left to the players? Will the players have >some level of influence over political decisions? These questions remain >unaswered at this time. > >A few questions without answers: >Should Britain & France be allowed to invade Norway in 1940 as they planned? > If so, does Norway accept German intervention the way she accepted allied >intervention? Hum, an axis Norway? In my opinion, of course the Allies should be able to invade Norway, but there must be some clear benefit to them doing so. It should not be mandated one way or the other, or else the Germans can sit back, wait for the Allied invasion and, if the Norwegians resist, they'll find themselves an easy ally in Norway (and possibly Sweden). It's much easier than invading, themselves. However, political rules will have to be worked out so that the Allies will only invade if there is a good possibility of quick success, or of the Norwegians rolling over a la Greece in the Great War. Unfortunately, within the context of alternating player turns in Europa, we will never be treated to the spectacle of a simultaneous Allied/Axis invasion! >Should Germany be allowed to invade Spain? If so, under what circumstances >and with what restrictions? Again, it would be nice if the Axis had the option of invading Spain, but I think GE will have to give the Axis an objective timetable (so many Soviet cities by Date X) in order to make this feasible, This would give the Axis player(s) some free hand, but still restrict them somewhat. If they think they can grab Gibraltar and still invade the Soviet Union on schedule, maybe they should go for it. Meanwhile, if they don't invade the USSR by a certain date, maybe Uncle Joe can roll for a chance to pull off Groza and/or reorganize the army ahead of schedule. >Should Germany be allowed to invade France rather than Poland in September >1939? If so what will Poland do about it? And what will Uncle Joe Stalin >do about it? I think that this should be in France's hands more than Germany's. I think Hitler was content to let the West sit on its hands while he took apart Poland as a step toward his ultimate goal of the destruction of Russia. Indeed, he was almost counting on the paralyzation of the western democracies to give him free rein in the East, as it had in Czechoslovakia. >Can Germany chose NOT to invade the low countries when she attacks France? Why not? However, a cursory glance at the maps shows that the best route into France is through Belgium and the best route into Belgium is through the Netherlands. We once had a game of FoF where the Axis made their initial thrust through Switzerland. Then, when the bulk of the French army was responding to this move and a break over the southern Rhine, a spearhead led by by six Panzer divisions withdrawn from the Swiss front (Where'd they come from?? - Weygand) smashed through Belgium and Holland, leaving the French commander's head spinning. >Most of all, what level of control/influence should players have on these >decisions? Mutual agreement by players (it may not be true Europa, but if that's how they want to play it...), die rolls, political tables, random events (an ugly spectre, but my favourite ugly spectre), etc etc. Dave Humphreys Vancouver, BC From: Dave Humphreys Subject: Re: GE politics Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:58:15 -0800 At 09:21 AM 13/3/96 +0100, it was written, seconded and thirded that: >> I'm only 29 and I keep hearing about how the wargame hobby is fading >>> away because "kids these days are a bunch of idiots that don't understand >>> history" >>> That's untrue. What's happened is, none of us can find jobs that pay >>> enough money to be able to justify paying $125 for a board game. I mean >>> think about it. I'm 34 and got into wargaming at 24 (3R, FoF). I agree that wargames are very expensive. My friends and I had to pool close to CA$300.00 to but FiTE\SE\TU but, we have played these games, usually with 4-5 players, for a total playing time of about 600 hrs EACH! That's about 10-12 cents per hour. Can you rent movies that cheap? Can you party that cheap? Can you even surf the net that cheap? I think that there's a dearth of wargaming clubs (that would buy the games through dues, etc) and veterans who want to actually take the time to find new blood and cultivate it. (Actually, the thought of cultivating blood is quite strange. Maybe I should switch to Science Fiction games.) Anyway, the so-called death of our hobby is being attributed in part to the Trading-Card game phenomena. I submit, however, that people who will spend $100 on a singel card are not the type likely to be interested in our hobby in the first place. Now, I hope we're nto going to hear any more negativity on this subject (especially from those closely affiliated with the company, you-know-who-I-mean). Onwards and upwards into the 21st Century (Jan 1, 2001) Dave Humphreys Vancouver, BC From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 13 Mar 96 11:05:07 PS Subject: Not Gen X I would like to add my 4th voice to that of Mark, Steve, and Elias in that not all of those under 20 have no interest in history. I am a 28 year old grad student in history and many of those in my grad classes are also under 30 (however, they don't wargame). I will agree with part of Winston's commentary in the latest TEM. Many of those under 20 seem to demonstrate even less appreciateion or comprehension of history than previous generations, however I don't think they are all incabable of understanding game rules. I do think that many of the brighter ones would be able to comprehend Europa rules, but they lack the motivation and interest to do so. I run into a lot of "History graduate school? Uggg, why would you want that?" I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know I plan to keep studying it and keep gaming as well. A question to those Europa players under 30. My expericence has been that most of the gamers of our age group are more interested in role playing or "simple history" like Axis and Allies. Commentary? P.S. Question to Elias: What is the level of interest in history among the under 30 set in Sweden? Sincerely Jay Steiger steigerj@notes.san.fhi.com Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 17:00:52 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re:Not Gen X On 3/13/96, Jay Steiger gave a shout: >I would like to add my 4th voice to that of Mark, Steve, and >Elias in that not all of those under 20 have no interest in >history. I am a 28 year old grad student in history -snip- YES! As happens with gratifying regularity in history, perhaps we are witnessing right here the beginnings of a 'Young Turk' revolution to revitalize Europa! As we said in the '60s, when we were young Turks, and not old farts, YIPPIE! Ray [just another solidified old codger] the K From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:18 GMT Subject: History still matters I'm always astounded at how people trash history as being unimportant. How can you know where you're going if you don't know where you've been. I get tired of people who whinge at me about "Oh, it's just a bunch of dead dates and places." If you look at the "Revenge of the Nerds" movies, they're all computer and math guys who know how to build a supercomputer, but are unable to shower properly (or for one character, get his eyes checked). None of them are history majors. I actually find that quite offensive. I know this has nothing to do with Europa, but I felt a need to say it. Dave Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand From: grd1@genie.com Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 23:32:00 UTC 0000 Subject: Re: GE politics Dave Humphreys, Some reasons why Germany might not want to invade France vis Belgium and Holland: 1. Try bombing Germany from England without going thru Belgian/Dutch airspace. 2. The major allied armies will be in the north to prevent just such a move. 3. If the campaign starts earlier in the "Phoney War" period the Germans will still have plenty of time to grind down the French army. As for Spain: Why wait until 1941 when you can invade in 1940? No need to upset your timetable in Russia. While your at it, why not invade the Balkans in 1940? Alan Tibbetts From: Rich Velay Subject: GURU:SF Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 16:20:35 PST Hi SF Naval rears its ugly head again. 8^) > I am under the impression that NO C/M units can ever >land on beaches, friendly or otherwise. Per Rule 31B: >Non-amphibious units with heavy equipment may not embark or >disembark at beaches." And 27B6 clearly spells out that >C/M units cannot be made amphibious by use of an LC. So >how do they land at beaches? The SF Naval rules as they pertain to amphibious invasions and transport have been extensively re-worked. Anyone who hasn't seen the "Official Amphibious Recap" should request one from GR/D. Send a note asking for this, along with a SASE, to : GR/D PO Box 591, Grinnell, IA, USA, 50112. (note also that this Recap appeared in TEM # 40.) To answer your question, *anything* can land at a beach, as long as it is transported solely by LCs. Note the amended version of Rule 31B below: "Any amphibious unit (as defined in Rule 27B6) may land at a beach. A non-amphibious unit may aslo land at a beach, if it is solely on board LCs at the time of its landing. (Note: A non-amphibious unit on board NTs or NTs in combination with LCs may not land at a beach.) A naval unit may not embark or disembark cargo at a beach during stormy sea conditions." Also, delete the following sentence from Rule 30B: "However, cargo that has HE may not embark/disembark at a beach unless it is amphibious (per Rule 27B6)." Note that this allows C/M and other units with HE to get to a friendly owned beach, via naval transport while on LCs. Note that it doesn't affect movement to an enemy owned beach, ie an invasion, since while non-amphibious CM units and/or units with heavy equipment can disembark at a friendly owned beach, they are still considered non-amphibious and may not participate in amphibious invasions, per Rule 32. I heartily recomwend that any one who doesn't have the Amphibious Recap get a copy from GR/D. late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From: bradbury@travel1.travel-net.com Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:54:21 -0500 Subject: Europa and Computers To add to Peter Morris' and Carl Rugenstein's recent comments on the Stalingrad computer game, I too am someone who plays and enjoys both Europa and the World at War (Stalingrad) and its predecessor V for Victory series. The WAW and V4V games have excellent maps and counters and have the stengths that one would expect of computer games (admin duties such as tracking movement and supply, ease of setup and storage, and PBEM capability). The main disadvantages are bugs (I think the average Europaphile would find this extremely irritating) and the lack of capability of having house/chrome rules (again, an advantage of board games that many Europa players appear to value highly). I have purchased the Aide-de-Camp software and the SF module and have found it disappointing in terms of the maps and counters. This likely reflects being spoiled by the quality of the maps and counters in Europa and WAW/V4V, but it means that I likely wouldn't purchase any additional modules. As to the future, as a customer I would be extremely interested if the Europa games were available either on disk/CD-ROM or a WWW site with the quality of maps and counters that are available in the board games. The sheer logistics of trying to play Clash of Titans or GE in terms of map space and time I think are daunting to the average player (to say nothing of what would happen if one was months/years into a GE game and have your dog/cat/kids/??? wreck the setup in a matter of seconds). Having the game on PC solves these problems plus might permit other refinements such as a revised CRT (grinding down the Hitler Jugend bit by bit in front of Caen sounds like fun) and new supply system. AI is probably not worth the hassle (the one in WAW/V4V is not very good). The above is simply a wish list - whether it is a viable business proposition is another question. Atomic Games, the developers of WAW/V4V, have basically quit supporting the games (in terms of issuing new patches, etc) and have indicated that they want to appeal, not only to hardcore gamers, but also to the broader strategy gaming market. This seems quite consistent with the message given by Winston Hamilton in TEM 45 regarding the level of demand for military history games. I know that I would buy such a product - I only hope that there are enough other people out there that would do the same. Nigel Bradbury Ottawa, Ontario Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 20:26:35 -0600 From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: GE politics >What level of command do the players represent? IMO, the players of the >individual EUROPA games represent the Army Group/Theater commanders of the >major powers (ie Germany, USSR, USA); and Service Chiefs of the minor powers >(ie Greece). > >In GE the players will represent the Military Service Chiefs (Germany) or >Theater Commanders (Allies). The players will not have the authorities >found at the National Command Level (Hitler, Stalin, Churchill or >FDR/Marshall). This response is not addressed to Alan per se; I just take this opportunity because he is the most recent of a number of persons to touch on the notion of "role playing" in wargames. A number of people have refered to it with more or less explicitness over the last couple of weeks, and a few have based their arguments on it. I think the notion's greatest proponent -- probably its inventor -- was GDW's Frank Chadwick. He was very explicit about it in reference to to some of his game designs starting sometime in the mid(?) 80's (the _Assault_ series comes to mind). But though I admire Frank for bringing a gaming theory to his corpus of excellent designs, I simply don't think the idea is applicable to Europa, even in the campaign-level games. Notice in particular that the notion of role-playing *drove* the design of a number of Frank's later games, but that the notion did not even exist -- so far as I can tell -- until many years after the basic assumptions of the Europa games were laid down. SF gives a great example of the implausibility of the notion of Europa players representing individuals: what individual or body had the ability to decide when and where the Allies returned to the continent, but also had the responsibility of deciding which fighter groups should escort which air raid along the Rhine or of ensuring sufficient anti-tank assets (and which ones) were "stacked with" individual divisions on the Italian front? If Europa casts us in the role of politicians, we hardly need the maps and counters to play our roles. If upper-echelon generals, we need only corps and army markers. If lower-echelon generals, we need only a handful of counters to play our assigned role in the scheme of things. And for *any* sort of generals, most of the political and some of the strategic decisions will be dictated to us. Europa, even the individual titles released thus far, simply was not designed to cast players in any sort of historical role. It glories in the fact that it lets players make decisions an a broad range of scales. So I think we must give up the idea that Europa will cast us in the role of individuals, whether politicians or generals: let the debate on the implementation of politics continue, but do not base conclusions on the notion of role-playing. (Granted, my entire argument is less relevant with regard to Hitler, who apparently issued orders for positioning individual antitank guns at Stalingrad, as well as directing national policy. But many of the nations did not offer any such role, historically.) - Bobby. p.s. -- The recent suggestion of a division of labor among a team according to interests has much to merit it, and since Europa will virtually require team play, such an arrangement will probably turn out to be the de facto solution. But how much of this should be specified in the actual rules? Will we need separate schedules of VPs for politicians and generals as they pursue their divergent notions of success? Rules for sacking general-players who fail to meet the politicians' unrealistic expectations? I hope not! I would rather have some decision on the scope of Europa, and let players work out among themselves how to divide responsibilities. From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 16:04 GMT Subject: Italy Sorry I haven't added my two cents to the discussion on Italy, but I've been dealing with a medevac flight to and from Antarctica for a sick Sailor, that did not come off. The whole problem with Italy is that her war effort was completely bound up with her war leader, who was in turn one of the most inept generalissimos in recorded history. Benito Mussolini has received shorter and shorter shrift from historians as the decades wear by, and his influence on the world becomes smaller and smaller. Like Adolf Hitler, he was a man of little education and less vision. But while Hitler had a fascination for detail and a digest of information that could silence or bore his interlocutors, Mussolini's main characteristic was a bombastic concern for his own ego, which was fed by his advisors, most notably Achille Starace (who required all correspondence, official or unofficial to end in the salutation "Viva Il Duce," an excess that was too much even for Mussolini). Mussolini wasted a great deal of official time on working his image, as did his whole administration. Young children were issued textbooks in which Mussolini solved simple arithmetic problems ("If Il Duce has five apples, and picks seven more, how many does he have?"). Mussolini was the subject of a personality cult as great as that of Kim Il Sung. He would soon solve the Rosetta Stone, it was said. He worked nightly until midnight in his office on the Piazza Venezia, even when it was known he was dancing with one of his many mistresses. He wasted officical time studying the previous day's newspapers from all over the world, to see how he appeared, and spent even more time with Fascist editors and writers, determining rules for Italian news coverage and front pages of Italian newspapers. As Australian media critic said, "He was superman, and he turned his nation into a multi-million dollar movie, with himself as the director and star, and the population as extras." Domestically, he strutted, but did little. He boasted of "8 million bayonets" and "Book and Musket, the Perfect Fascist," but neither meant anything. He waged the "Battle of the Wheat," churning out his share religiously, adding more corn to an already glutted market. He heightened Italian arms production, then sold the newest guns and planes to foreign clients, while his troops marched in cardboard shoes, and manned ancient artillery from the 19th century. This drive to be the Caesar of the new Roman Empire, to gain a seat at the peace table (and territory thereof) for only a few thousand dead, to show up his ally and rival, Hitler, led Mussolini down the path of destruction. His armies avenged their 1894 humiliation at the battle of Adowa in Ethiopia by conquering the primitive country. His forces chased King Zog of Albania and his wife out of their bed 48 hours after she gave birth to their child, a feat made easy by the fact that Albania was under Italian "protection" anyway. He provoked a war of aggression against Greece that left thousands of Italian corpses strewn across the Albanian mountains. He sent ill-equipped divisions across the Alps against French fortifications, and was soundly defeated by a country itself about to collapse. Italian arms disgraced themselves at Bardia, Benghazi, and Tobruk, yielding 150,000 PoWs to 30,000 Britons, an image that would become the inescapable (and laughable) face of Italian war efforts. Knowing that a German invasion of the Soviet Union was a suicidal act, Mussolini sent an army of cavalrymen, mountain troops, and infantry to plod across the Ukrainian steppe, only to be swallowed up in the hegira at Stalingrad. Even after the collapse of Rommel in North Africa, as German troops retreated from Stalingrad, Mussolini busied himself with trivia, arguing with his Grand Council over the date Roman policemen should change to summer uniforms. When the Allies invaded Sicily, even the Grand Council had enough. They were ready to vote Mussolini out, but gave Il Duce one last chance on July 25, 1943. Fighting for his political life (and perhaps his personal skin), Mussolini, the once-powerful orator, botched it, claiming that the Allied drive across Sicily was walking into a trap, and that the British attack at El Alamein the year before had been deliberately timed for the 20th anniversary of his "March on Rome." This irrelevancy was not lost on the Grand Council. To them it was clear that Mussolini had to go, Italy had to leave the war. The Council accomplished both, voting Mussolini out of office, replacing him with Pietro Badoglio, and King Vittorio Emmanuelle supported the council, telling Mussolini the people were sick of war and Il Duce. The deflated Duce left the Palazzo Quirinale, seeking his car, and was instead led to an ambulance manned by Carabinieri, who in turn took Mussolini into captivity. That was quickly followed by Italy's surrender, and by the daring glider raid by Otto Skorzeny and his SS commandos, who swiped Mussolini and bundled him off to Germany. At that point, Mussolini was an exhausted man. He'd made a feeble attempt at suicide while in captivity. He realized that his work had come to naught, and his life was a farce. He wanted to retire from active life, but Hitler had other plans. Mussolini was named president of the puppet Italian Social Republic, and a pathetic band of Germanophiles banded around this unlikely standard. Heading the RSI's army was Marshal Rodolfo Graziani, whose main contribution to this war so far was to lose his 10th Army to the British at Beda Fomm in 1940. Graziani combined a hatred of Britain and Badoglio with a ferocity used against Libyan tribesmen in the late 1930s. While Graziani built up the RSI's army, Hitler ordered Mussolini to execute the "traitors of July 25th," who included Mussolini's own son-in-law, Galeazzo Ciano, the former foreign minister. Mussolini, the good vassal, obeyed his new lord, and Ciano and other "plotters" were shot to death in Verona after a mock trial. The RSI accomplished little beyond that. It raised a small army of questionable value, and pleaded uselessly with the German occupiers for relief and assistance. To little avail. The Germans treated Italy as an occupied territory, stripping it of industry and agriculture, annexing two provinces, and using disarmed Italian soldiers as laborers. The SS fanned out across northern Italy to maintain Nazi racial policies. Italian Jews were shipped to Auschwitz. The reaction was inevitable...ferocious partisan warfare that turned the last three years of WW2 in Italy into a bloody civil war. Through it all, Mussolini did little. He puttered at his memoirs, fretted over his ulcer and nervous stomach, greeted callers by passing the decisions to his ministers, and toyed with restoring his old Socialist values to the RSI. As the Axis cause waned, he flirted at negotiations with Catholic archbishops to in turn negotiate his way with the Allies to a surrender or accommodation. But history had passed Il Duce by. SS General Karl Wolff surrendered Italy without reference to Mussolini. He fled Salo in April, 1945, trying to get either to Switzerland or Germany, and was caught by his own countrymen, partisans of the Garibaldi Brigade. Many accounts exist, but the results of what happened next are the same. Mussolini was shot, and hung upside down next to his mistress Claretta Petacci in an unfinished gas station in Milan's Piazzale Loreto, his corpse torn and shredded by furious Milanese crowds. Some resented that Claretta was wearing nylons. The brutal murder drew many reactions. Winston Churchill was angry that Petacci had been gunned down. Dwight D. Eisenhower gasped, "God, what an ignoble end!" On the scene were two horrified observers, former New York Gov. Charles Poletti, of the Allied military government, and New York Times reporter Milton Bracker. The latter wrote a story on "The Day Caesar Hung Upside Down." The former sought to remove Caesar from his incongruous perch, but found no undertaker willing to accept Il Duce's body. However, Poletti found the city potter's field ready to take care of the remains. "That's fine," Poletti said. "It's all over now. Let no more harm come to that man. Let no more harm come to that man at all." So whatever shape Italy takes in Europa (I find it hard to see as an independent player, but it could be done), it will have to reflect on the personality of this sawdust Caesar, this strutting pretender, whose image remains that of Mussolini's shaven skull, head flung back, jaw pointed up, as he delivers yet another bellicose and bombastic speech to his army of claques, forever thrusting out a flabby, insubstantial aggression towards the world. Dave Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 23:21:56 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re:Europa and Computers On 3/13/96, Nigel Bradbury sent in this good post: -snip- >The WAW and V4V games have excellent maps and >counters and have the stengths that one would expect of >computer games (admin duties such as tracking >movement and supply, ease of setup and storage, and >PBEM capability). The main disadvantages are bugs (I >think the average Europaphile would find this extremely >irritating) -snip- I gave up on V4V/WAW for just this reason: the bugs were unreasonable, and Atomic was more interested in going on to their next game rather than cleaning up their existing offerings [contrast this with Scott Hamilton, who produced ADC, and has continually and in a timely fashion responded to gamers bug reports, as well as doing EXTENSIVE beta testing, which I do not believe is one of Atomic's hallmarks]. Sure, I loved their maps and counters, too, and wish that Europa can evolve into this one day, for all the reasons Nigel states. But give me a game that works over a pretty face any day of the week. By the way [and this may be old news], Atomic and Avalon Hill had a falling out, and the last time I heard about this were wrangling over the designs done for AH. And yes, Computerized Europa would allow more and faster playtesting for chrome and 'official' variants [one week turns; step or percentage reductions, automating replacements, etc.], at the very least because playtests should be done with the least number of time-consuming variables, such as historic vs. 'free' set-ups. >The above is simply a wish list - whether it is a viable >business proposition is another question. Atomic Games, >the developers of WAW/V4V, have basically quit >supporting the games (in terms of issuing new patches, >etc) and have indicated that they want to appeal, not only >to hardcore gamers, but also to the broader strategy >gaming market. Well, that is where the money is...as shown by GAMES like Panzer General, Perfect [or whatever its called] General, etc. But these are GAMES, not simulations. Europa is never going to have broad, mass-market appeal. Winston is acting perfectly appropriately to try to increase his customer base by producing WW I and Pacific Theatre game systems based on Europa, which is a proven system with a loyal customer following. But I doubt that Winston believes that he's going to get rich off of Europa, and I don't think that the original GDW crew did either. If they'd wanted just to do that, they'd have created WiF, or 3R, or some other GAME instead. I think that the major issue for Computerized Europa is: Where are the thousands [or even, perhaps, tens of thousands] of person hours going to come from to create, lay out, and program the sucker so that it is true to the original? And, will it be available for the Mac as well as the PC. After all, before they got bit by the big bucks bug, the Atomic guys were doing the Mac 4V4 before the PC versions. Sorry to ramble on so, and possibly step on an already excellent post. Ray Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 23:32:14 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Second Front end game The SE theater should be available for play for those who want to test Churchill's idea out, but the rest of us should be able to ignore it. My rules in CoT were an approximation of what I would like to see although I simplified things significantly due to counter and time constraints. Not that much from Greece and Yugoslavia really reaches areas north of the Sava(?, the one bordering yugoslavia and Hungary) River and they could be released based on a timetable after defection/conquest of Romania and Bulgaria. Everything else should remain in Yugoslavia fighting off Tito's partisans and the Bulgars and the odd soviet units. Jason Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 23:38:57 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Second Front end game Ray, I concur wholeheartedly that the SE theater OB needs to be finished completely up to Europa standards, but I think that we don't necessarily need to allow people to loot the place of all the good stuff. The Germans did keep 1st panzer there for around a year until the Kiev offensive. A really strict garrison rule would do alot to keep things within the realsm of probable conduct given some of the wierdness that player will commit. As an aside I refuse to use that Axis political police rule as I think it exagerates the units' real effects. Jason Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 23:44:40 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Computers and Europa I've played Stalingrad as well and it offers some tastes of what Computer Europa could be like. However the game is badly researched and I have serious qualms about the system as the offense seems too powerful in all the scenarios I've played. Jason Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 23:44:40 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Computers and Europa I've played Stalingrad as well and it offers some tastes of what Computer Europa could be like. However the game is badly researched and I have serious qualms about the system as the offense seems too powerful in all the scenarios I've played. Jason Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 23:50:18 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Second Front end game The poor quality of the German pilots is addressed in one sense in that the Germans no longer get one counter per 40 aircraft, but one per 50 from early '44 on. also the late period withdrawls were increased beyond the norm to account for the declining quality of the pilots. I thought about a DRM a la SE, but decided it was rather redudant given the Allied margin of numbers over the Nazis. Jason Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 23:54:01 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Airdrop rules I kinda like your idea as I can't think of any airdrop aborted by flak. Granted that flak wasn't much of a factor at most airdrops in the West, with the possible exceptions of Crete and Arnhem, but still... I don't know anything about the Soviet airdrops in the East as I haven't read Glantz's opus on the subject. Jason Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 00:16:58 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: occupation policies Steve, >From some of the stuff I've read it seems that some areas in Russia where the residents were well treated by the Germans that little partisan activity occured. This doesn't appear to be the case in Yugoslavia. The difference seems to be that the ethnic groups in Russia were resentful of the Soviets while the Serbs were resentful of the invaders. I'm not greatly worried about the SE theater as it required far less of a garrison than did russia. Jason From: j.broshot@genie.com Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 04:48:00 UTC 0000 Subject: Sea Lion, The Balkans, etc. I regret that I don't have the computer skills and/or software to reprint all of the things that I am responding to (being one of the old geezers, I bought my first Europa game in the summer of 1975, "Narvik"): 1. Re Sea Lion: C.S.Forester's assumption was that the British could rebuild their air forces quicker than the Germans. A reasonable given the resources and manpower available from overseas. He also assumes that all of the existing U-Boats are thrown into and decimated in the invasion. Also, don't forget that the officers and manpower for the U-Boat arm was conscripted off of the surface fleet. If your surface fleet is at the bottom of the English Channel.... 2. Re The Balkans: the only "what-if" story I ever saw was an obscure novel by John Master THE FIELD MARSHAL'S MEMOIRS. A hypothetical Allied invasion of the Balkans followed by a major defeat of the Germans was the background (the old field marshal was going to publish his memoirs about the battle 30 years after the event and tell things that his government did not want revealed). I have a copy and check out details if anyone is interested. 3. Re France 1940: according to Field Marshal Alanbrooke's memoirs, the German invasion was originally scheduled for 12 Nov 1939 but was cancelled because of bad weather. Another point can the Germans use the Manstein plan or do they have to use the original OKH plan (which incidentally omitted Holland). Which leads into another point: 4. Re Weather: does GE use the historic weather patterns. I know that weather is rolled randomly but allowances are made for historic bad weather. Again according to Alanbrooke, the winter of 1939-1940 was "coldest...for years." Another reason for the cancellation of the German plans (and don't forget that copies of the original plan were captured when two staff officers took the wrong flight). 5. Re Gen-X: I am glad to see the interest of the younger generation. Its good for the hobby as a whole and Europa in particular. After seeing some of the garbage my son had to learn in elementary school that was supposed to be history (we home- school now) I was worried. Especially after an incident some years ago. I saw a model of a Junkers Ju188 [four types represented in SF] on sale at a discount in a hobby shop in St. Louis and not having had been able to get one when I was a kid I bought it. The young guy at the counter looks at the picture on the box (a bomber plastered with black crosses) and says, "what war was this plane in?" Sigh. History is valuable, I forget the exact quote, but "those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it." I have a BA with honors in history to go with my J.D. and sometimes I wished that I had stayed in history. I submit that many of the leaders of the world have never read, studied or even know of what has happened in the Balkans before now. There is an important reason for all of those German and Italian divisions sitting in that off-map box in SF. I really enjoy the postings here. Jim Broshot, St. James MO