From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 10:15 GMT Subject: Computers and volunteers Well, I feel like an owl that wandered into a video arcade with all these debates over computer Europa, but I think this is beginning to descend into trivia. What if the loss of a parachute battalion affects all future German airborne operations? Or what if Horthy gets shot? It begins to sound like an ancient "Saturday Night Live" gag, "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?" Seriously, if we abandon control of the game to dice-rolling, it doesn't become much fun. I remember an old story about one of SPI's games, "CA," which simulated tactical naval battles between the US and Japanese in the Solomons in 1942. It came in an S&T, number 38, I believe. The joke was that anyone could play the game without counters or a mapsheet, all you had to do was roll dice. Whoever got four sixes first, won. This joke was based on the combat resolution system. Another SPI game, Atlantic Wall, had the same problem. This battalion/company level simulation of the Normandy campaign featured a long and drawn-out invasion segment, which in turn featured endless die rolls. The designer's notes admitted that the invasion segment was a die-rolling exercise. While it was colorful (1982 graphics vice 1977, detailed counters for naval and air units), it was slightly tedious, and there didn't seem much call for strategy or tactics. You simply shovelled your US or British assault companies against German strongpoints, and blazed away until the German defenses fell or the demolition engineers blew enough gaps in the beach to make the invasion stage self-destruct. Meanwhile, airborne troops could drop anywhere, using more counters for Drop Zones and transport squadrons that in turn were only used on the first turn. The weakness in the whole thing was that the Germans could shell the demolition engineers at will, so that the switch out of the invasion stage wouldn't take place for days, if at all. The Allies drew no more Demolition engineers than they got at H-Hour. On the whole, it seemed like an awful lot of hiding for nothing. I think plays should have more control over a situation, based on their relative theories and abilities, but with ample room for the "iron dice of war." Dave Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:53:32 -0600 (CST) From: Mark H Danley Subject: Re: GE options On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, Keith Pardue wrote: > Hi, > > Rich is right that one can go overboard with political > minutae, but I don't think that that is what people have been > trying to do in the France discussion. Hear Hear! I'm not sure I understand _where_ in any of the discussion about France anyone was arguing to give grand-strategic decisions to the hands of the players! Gary hit on something when he mentioned that we have rules for how Finland behaves when pounded too hard, what it takes to make Romania defect. If SE includes rules about what it takes to kick Romania out of the war, and there is some variant regarding when, how, and if Romania changes sides, how is anything we were talking about regarding France and the French Empire different? Did anyone ever speak of letting the PLAYER "decide" whether or not to continue the war for North Africa? If I did, boy, I really mispoke! Just because one indentifies different strategic possibilities which form the context for operational activity, that doesn't mean one is suggesting that the players are in the shoes of national leaders! If France falls and I roll to see whether or not North Africa rallies, how am I representing anyone above an operational commander? I'M ROLLING ON A TABLE! - to see what I have to do and get to do operationally! I'm not representing Reynaud browbeating the conservatives! I'm only the British Chief of the Imperial General Staff seeing whether or not Nogues will still fight with me. Rich mentioned he thought it not a good idea to "roll to see if x an y politicians make it to North Africa" Who suggested that? John outlined four possibilities - and I cited the Massilia incident as evidence backing up one of his possibilities! How does that translate into suddenly advocating that Europa become Third Reich or World in Flames? Suppose we got into a fiery debate on how many of a certain type of tank it took to make some 2-1-10 Arm II a 3-2-10 instead? Would that warrant an accusation that we were trying to make Europa into a tactical game rather than an operational simulation? NO! We would only be considering what the tactical context for our operational simulation is! Hey, I agree that the game is operational, but like Gary Renaud, I maintain that if you want ALL the political and strategic possibilities carved in stone, then you can never put all the games together. The fact is, if we subscribe to the point of view of those who maintain that NO political possibilities are permissible, we have GE right now. It's called Clash of Titans, the 1943 scenario linking SF and FITE/SE. Because 1943 is the earliest you can definitely say that the basic grand strategic and political blueprint for the rest of the war was worked out. There are some who even suggested some time ago that the earliest you could begin GE was 1943 anyway, because otherwise you'd have something that supposedly didn't look like World War Two. I strongly disagree. What they seem to mean is that you'd have something that didn't look close to what WWII TURNED OUT TO BE. If you want to straitjacket all the possibilities of the early war period, fine! It'd be a neat game and I'd have fun playing it - but I argue that you're changing what Europa is. We won't have series of games simulating of World War Two in Europe in the Med at an operational level. We'll have a series of games simulating the something that is guaranteed to turn into the second half of WWII at an operational level. Responses? Mark Date: 7 Mar 1996 17:32:44 U From: "Merrill, Robert C" Subject: Computers and Europa In a note to me (the list? it's hard to tell with my email system) Eric Pinnel suggested that Computer Europa would need decent AI, play be email etc., and that the interface was, in comparison, trivial. Eric: I agree that decent AI would be all important (and difficult to code) if C.E. were to be a mass-market product. I have a feeling, though, that the market would be restricted to the likes of us denizens of this mailing group. I'd really more envision a playing aide that could not be used without player/player or solitaire interaction. Something along the lines of ADC, but with Europa specific subroutines. Bob in Bogota From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: 7 Mar 96 14:08:14 PS Subject: Re: Detail and detail Regarding suggestions by Dave Lippman: Amen and hallelujah to idea of individual ships and TF holding boxes (analagous to Corps holding boxes). Realistically, how often will you be sending the King George V out to do battle with the Tirpitz...alone. Yeah right, like you wouldn't stack it with loads of CA, CLA, DD, and DDE (plus the odd CV or CVL). This system would allow for individual ships without making that option unmanageable. Also, remeber that most of the naval action will take place in the Med, North Sea, and off of Norway. Convoy/U-Boats should be outside of this scale. I do think that the current Task Force system is great for now. It allows for a naval option beyond a die roll on an option chart, and it will serve the system well until a final decsion is made regarding Naval Europa. Incidentally, speaking of things naval and the straits of Messina, commentary on the Dardanelles may be very appropriate. Using the new Great War system (courtesy of Eric Pierce and Arthur Goodwin) I played the Entente Commander against Eric's CP commander. My fleet actually managed to make it all the way to Constantinople (without forcing a Turkish surrender), but when I managed to get what was left back out into the Agean...my ships were in reeeeallly bad shape. Yes, I blew away a lot of Turkish batteries along the way, but it just wasn't worth the cost in capital ships. I agree with whoever said that Cunningham was right to stay the hell out of the Messina straits. Soldiers law #24 Incoming fire always has the right of way... Jay Steiger From: Rich Velay Subject: GE or cloud cookoo land? Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:08:30 PST Hi Bill. Good to see you floating around! >Rich, I personally prefer to leave the mutts at the kennel >when given a choice between geo-political/grand strategic >considerations and mine dogs. [...] Well, maybe I'm just a dog lover. :) >What's required here is a gamemaster. It may not always >prove possible to round up a qualified person, but any >serious attempt to settle hash -- especially with teams of >players -- at Grand Europa's scope and scale needs a >gamemaster (or guru or junior poobah) on hand to administer >the game, mediate rules disputes, and handle the >consequences of unforseen developments (because not even >the best rulebook can predict every permutation of events). Couldn't agree more. Don't think it will be *this* jr. poohbah, but we can get someone to do it... :) Having a gamemaster, answer man, pizza box disposer would be almost de rigeur. One would also allow relatively easy use of intelligence rules, hidden movement, surprise attacks and a myriad other things so difficult to employ in a two team FTF game. My concern would be that as the amount of "random events/political table fluctuations" grew exponentially to include everyone's pet theory, the gamemaster would need a staff to keep everything straight! :) Can you imagine just having to handle Balkan politics from turn to turn? But regardless of the problems, the gamemaster, IMO, is the way to go. And I would prefer another beer-swilling "professional kibitzer" at the table (auditorium?) to a computer program... late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From: Rich Velay Subject: GE or cloud cookoo land? Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:11:18 PST Hi Kieth. >Rich is right that one can go overboard with political >minutae, but I don't think that that is what people have >been trying to do in the France discussion. I don't expect >that we will make a die roll for Darlan's location every >time something happens with Vichy France. No, I'm employing some hyperbole (some, hah!) :) It is simply a question of inclusion vs exclusion; what do we give up to get something else? There are always trade offs and I was simply expressing my prefence as to what we dispense with and what we focus on. >The smaller individual games are truly on an operational >level and don't offer many strategic decisions. Grand >Europa will offer strategic decisions, unless those >decisions are somehow mandated by the rules. While possibly offering strategic decisions, GE will still just be an operational level wargame. Just a huge one. Playing ASL with 50 boards doesn't make it an operational level game, just a huge tactical level game. And it is my opinion that some things that Strategic level games can represent, simply can not be represented in an Operational level game within any reasonable boundries. No matter how big the playing surface is. >One can write a schedule: invade Poland in September, then >Norway and Denmark in April, France and the Low Countries >in May, Egypt in September (I think) Greece in November, >and so on. This wouldn't be very satisfying, [...] But it would be do-able. And much easier to do than most of the alternatives. It also wouldn't require a computer program to play... >Now, you can decide to remove all restrictions. But, then >the players really are representing political leaders, >which everyone seems to be opposed to. Invading this or >that country is a decision that military leaders may have >less influence on than war production. And you are no more simulating WW II than Chess does. Just having a grand old time pushing non-historical counters around on a map of Europe. Might be fun, but it isn't WW II and it doesn't sound like *my* idea of Europa. Maybe someone else's, but not mine. >Finally, political decisions by the major participants >might be decided randomly. Players would then have to >implement these decisions militarily. I think that this >would have to be pretty involved, if it's to be carried out >with the same attention to historical reality (not detail) >that Europa has been given so far. But, this seems like the >route that would be most consistant with what we understand >Europa players to represent: military leaders. Also, it >shouldn't require any more work than keeping track of unit >conversions in all of those Nazi garrison boxes. And what if the German player doesn't *want* to invade the USSR within three months, as mandated by the die roll? Some people here seem to be resistant to the idea of being forced to take some actions by the "political instability table". I don't know what other people are or are not willing to accept; I know what I think, and have said it. >This sounds a bit like what I think that Rich was >complaining about. But, I think it is also what the system >needs if, as I think Rich wants, we are to represent >military and not political leaders when playing Grand >Europa. I didn't mean to sound like I was complaining, rather that I was voicing some cautionary rejoinders to some of the ideas I have seen here and other places, in the past. I also want to see a linking scenario from WW I:The Great War to Grand Europa and Glory; the fact that I want it won't make it so. :) And the fact that I don't want to bother with a group level representation of the Strategic Air War in WW II doesn't mean it won't be there, in all its 3000 counter, 112 page, glory, in Grand Europa. But I can hope. late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Subject: computers vs. paper Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:59:52 -0500 (EST) Hi, I'm with Rich on the computer issue. Although computers might make fine play aids, Europa is a paper wargame and should fundamentally remain a paper wargame. My computer is much too heavy to move next to the game, and my wife uses it to work in any case. Also, the computer only knows what you tell it. Telling it what it needs to know would probably be much more tedious then looking in some big fat rule book and rolling a die to see how Lichtenstein responds to a German invasion of Cyprus. Good political rules for Europa, which would ask us to keep track of the reactions of countries to important events in the game, might be a little lengthy but would probably not be difficult. (Difficult to write, but not to use.) The discussion about French collapse is a case in point. Nobody's talking about rules that are hard to implement, or slow down play. It seems like were talking about how to simulate a complex historical event in a simple way. I don't see why the same can't be done for other countries' reactions to major events. This would be a burden on the designer, but not on the player. In fact, it should make play much more interesting. Putting the supply system on the computer seems to me to be far too much bother unless the entire game is on the computer. I really don't want to keep the computer informed of game events so that it knows how to handle the supply situation. I'd much rather do that with displays. Likewise for the naval system. If someone wants to put Europa on a computer in its entierty, then that's a different story. But, then why keep the Europa system. It's not designed for computers, but for tabletops. There are many things that a computer can do, such as handle limited intelligence, that it's hard to do with a tabletop game and thus are not treated in Europa. Of course, one can use all of the information in Europa, but one would want a different game. Best Wishes, Keith From: Rich Velay Subject: GE or cloud cookoo land? Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:14:33 PST Hi Steven. >I am writing regarding the notion that Grand Europa will >not involve the players in grand strategic decisions. >Usually some caustic remark is made that Europa is not a " >Third Reich' or 'World In Flames' on steroids." Well, those >games are extremely generic and large scale-low detail >games. Europa is much more highly detailed but deals with >precisely the same subject matter. I disagree. The subject matter of a 3dR or WIF is Strategic level representation of WW II; Europa is "a series of comprehensive divion-level games of World War II in Europe and North Africa." While all are about WW II, so is ASL and War at Sea, surely no one would confuse those games with Europa. The fact that WIF covers all of WW II in Europe and N.Afr. doesn't mean it has anything more than *that*, in common with Europa. IMO, to look to a Strategic level game to provide insight into what should go into an Operational level game is just apples and oranges; it is the scale that is important. Again in my opinion, and perhaps *only* IMO, using political rules appropriate to WIF in Europa is as unworkable as using the combat system from ASL in Europa. The fact that they're "all" WW II doen't mean a thing. >I have made study of the politics and diplomacy in WW2 my >primary focus and I feel that I know enough about what >motivated, say Hitler to feel confident that I can play >that role in a large wargame. Thats fine; all I have said is that I hope that wargame is not GE. I don't want to play that role in Europa, I believe it is more appropriate for a Strategic level game. You appear to disagree with me on that. Problem solved. >General Staffs did not run WW2- particularly in the >dictatorships of Germany and the USSR. This is debatable. While the leaders of these two nations may have been more involved with low level planning and operations than some other leaders, it was still the Military leadership that ran the fighting, if not the "war". One of the reasons the Germans lost was the manner in which Hitler involved himself too often in minor "counter pushing", one of the reasons the USSR won is that Stalin stopped doing that very thing. But we disagree on the fundamental thing; you see yourself as a national leader in the game, I see myself as the Chief of General Staff, or a theatre commander. We are unlikely to agree on much else from that starting point... >Hitler was not merely meddlesome as someone pointed out >here- he was the heart and mastermind of the German war >effort He was also not a moron.=, requiring 'idiot rules' >to reflect his bad decisions. Players will make bad >decisions of their own, so in my mind hindsight is no more >of a factor in playing a recreation of WW2 than it was for >the strategists of the French General Staff in the 1920's, >assuming their perfect hindsight would win them the next >war with Germany. Again our difference is a fundamental one; you want to, as much as possible, play your WW II, I want to play my WW II. They seem to be different. With perfect hindsight and no strategic limitations, there is no game. Were I Germany, under those conditions, I'd just sue for peace and get Coca-Cola and General Motors set up in the Rhur as quickly as possible. Shouldn't no war losses, no war damage and no war crimes be enough for a decisive victory? >I respect the views of those who want to leave politics out >of the game, Leave politics *largely* out of the game, as little politics as needed was what I said, I think. There is a difference... >but must we all adhere to that view? I will >continue to advocate a head-on approach to the addressing >of political decisions, options, &c. in any Grand Europa. Of course you don't have to adhere to that view, no more than I have to adhere to yours. My opinion is just that, my opinion. If someone agrees with it, great. If someone else doesn't, well that's great too! I'm sure I'm no more of an expert than most, and less of an expert than many. And I will continue to hope that we can dispense with most of the political and economic detail and get on with the combat phase! :) late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From: Rich Velay Subject: GE or cloud cookoo land? Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:19:45 PST Hi Gary. Rich, please. My Dad, bless his soul, is Mr. Velay. :) >[...] They should have the choice of building Light XXs or >not. They know the costs and can see the benefits. >Similarly, if they are allowed to build (or not) airborne >and have a rule something like SF's "disastrous >operations," then something like Crete might well BE the >last AB operation. The question of what should be mandated and what should be player decision is the heart of the matter; these were simply examples. Putting *any* limitations on the players is to step onto the slippery slope; what is justifiable and needed to one Europophile may be odious "Idiot Rules" to another. I won't be making those decisions for others, but I can certainly state my case... >"Europa should have as little politics...as is >possible." ...and no less. How do you feel about the >already existing political rules for Finland (not the >cards, but the surrender rules), the Balkans, Italy, etc? >Are you willing to go a little further? A LOT further? Finnish surrender needs work, IMO. Balkans, a notoriously difficult region, works right now adequately for BF. Italy so far is just surrender, and that serves the needs of SF. Yep, I'm willing to go a little further. Nope, I'm not willing to go a lot further. (Good thing I'm not trying to sell *my* 32 map version of WW II here, eh? ) >Besides, what if France DOESN'T fall right away. If you >don't have an "idiot rule," France just MIGHT hold out >until the fall of 1940. Then what? What would happen in >Romania if Germany is still distracted? Will Italy still >come in? I can bet that even if they do, they won't mess >around with Greece if France is still around. What is the >POINT of playing the game if nothing you do can make any >changes? And what's the point of investing two or three years of real time to "discover" that Italy would have been better off staying neutral? Or to "discover" that Germany can't beat GB, the USSR and the USA? I'm not adverse to having options in the game, nor am I suggesting that we have to follow history slavishly. I am just worried that the more distance there is between Europa and WW II, the less value Europa has as any kind of a simulation. If the only historicall accuracy in the game is the starting forces and the map, what are we playing? WIF with a glandular condition, which as I've stated, I hope not to play. Or even give up a doube issue of the magazine to read about. But luckily for all concerned, I don't make editorial decisions either.... :) >"Give the gamer the historical situation in Sep '39 ..." >Absolutely. Though I think some way of tying FWTBT into >Europa would be nice, we don't need (want) that for the >main line. Once past 1939, though, I can see divergence. >Here are my choices for Must Happen: >1. German takes Austria, Czechoslovakia, Memel without war. Eliminates the need for "Blummenkreig" and "Peace in our Time", anyway. :) >2. All countries have their historical 1939-40 armies, >though they can make greater and greater changes for the >outlying years. Getting any two Europists to agree on what, for example, a no-war 1943 Italian Armored XX will look like, may be a bit of a trick. :) >3. Germany attacks Poland. Britain and France declare >war. I see the need for this, but others seem not to. Why not a Germany allied with the Poland of Pilduski, of the "Colonels", attacking the USSR in a crusade against Bolshevism? That was certainly just as likely (or unlikely, depending upon one's pre-existing biasis) as Germany allying with Communist Russia to crush Neo-Fascist, dictatorial Poland. >4. No peace after Poland Falls. This is gamey; if we are the Fuhrer, but not by necessity Hitler, why couldn't solving the "Polish Question" and enlisting the "rest" of the "free world" in destroying Godless communism be an option? Because with it, the game won't work. So we start imposing politico-military straightjackets on the players to ensure they play and enjoy the game? What kind of a historical framework is that? >5. Italy starts off neutral. >6. The US is "neutral," but helps the Allies more and >more. >7. The US enters the war on DEC I 41 +/- 2 months. Ending the game in an Allied decisive victory, for all intents and purposes. And just how do we get these paper Fuhrers to agree to make this most meglomaniacle of mistakes? And why do we force them to? Because without it there is no game. Without Germany declaring war on the US, Britain can't survive and once they fall, the USSR follows. And the Axis can't survive American belligerancy by any stretch of the imagination (without nuclear tipped V-4s, anyway.) So, we go down that slippery slope again and force the players to make decisions, for their "own good", while professing our comittment to allowing the players freedom of action. What difference does it make whether or not Yugoslavia signs the Tripartite Pact, if General Marshall and the doughboys are coming in on a 6 in 6 chance? >Other than that, though, I don't see a problem with more >variability. In fact, I would INSIST that certain decisions >not be required: 1. The Norway campaign basically means >that you can write off Sealion. Can't invade without a >navy, don't you know. 2. Attacking Russia (though Russia >should be allowed to attack, perhaps at the same times as >the US?). As I've indicated, IMO, if Britain, France, Poland and the US are all mandated enemies of Germany, the rest is just so much eye wash. The US could not have lost the war. Whomever they ally with, wins. It's that simple. I can hardly even imagine the Victory conditions that would be required to make us sane men attack with Germany, or Italy, or the USSR. What for instance, would contitute victory for Italy, if not simply surviving the war? I know that when playing competetive 3dR, I always just stay neutral as the Italians, and win a decisve victory. So we have to "encourage" Italy to get into the war, etc..... >"No player control over major production questions, " What >do you define as major? >1. Organization of the economy major >2. % assigned to military major >3. % to each service major >4. which factories will produce what major >5. When to changeover to new model aircraft major >6. What type of ground units to build major >7. Which units to refit and upgrade. iffy >8. Where to spend RPs. minor >Now, no one wants to mess with #1 and darn few with #2. >I'm more in the 4-5 range myself, while current rules are >in the 7-8 range. In a long game, some production might >make no sense. The classical example is the 5-7-6 >conversions in mid-43, but there are lots of others. If >the Germans abandon the Italians in Libya, then by mid-41 >or so, the Brits won't be needing to constantly raise tank >units and can spend more on airplanes and LCs. Well, I'm in the 8 range, myself. :) I'm all for allowing the Germans to switch to 2 battalion regiments any time they feel like it. Heck, let the French scrap their Series B Reserve divisons too. But what about something as simple as assuming that the French can put together a more effective armored XX, in '41, than the Soviets could in '42? All alterations assume facts in evidence, while we discount other facts in evidence, as it suits our needs. Who's to say that the French model of armored support in 1940, which the whole world employs now, would have been scrapped just because they lasted x turns longer? >"...no die rolls for technological breakthroughs..." I agree mostly, but would like to see a SLIGHT variation over the arrival times for new model aircraft. [...] Sure. Remember, one man's history is as good as any others. The only "truth" about WW II I am willing to accept is that the US won. Anything else is open to interpretation and "rival proofs". >"...no building all 20-10s ..." Well, I don't know. Would >it be so terrible to allow the players to break up existing >units and reorganize them more efficiently. Currently, >players will break down units to make Killer Wads, etc. >This just allows them to make more permanent changes to the >OOB. We'll have to see what the new FiTE/SE does. THe USSR >would be the obvious place to start work since it's a major >country yet essentially only fought one theatre/campaign. I assume that the new FitE/SE will follow the historical time frame for upgrades and conversions pretty much. Oh sure, you won't be tied to specific individual units, but then you never have been in Europa, not as far as unit designations go. OB says upgrade the 234 Aslt Gun II to a brigade? Here, do the 190, its in a city.... Besides, can you imagine the noodle controversy on GEnie if the Germans had 15 or 16 20-10s in '41!? :) >Anyway, I think GE should not really be considered Europa. >Rather, it should be the overarching economic and political >rules that will ALLOW but not force the various campaigns >to occur. Not sure how you reconcile "overarching" with "ALLOW but not force", but I digress. :) What you talk about is most probably what will appear. The fact that I may not be as happy with it as I might have been with another presentation will probably not interfere with anyone's digestion, but mine. I didn't like the change from SL to ASL, either, but I don't recal Don Greenwood calling me up about it. 8-0 late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 15:18:14 PST From: "Renaud.Gary" Subject: Yahtzee and Europa "...if we abandon control of the game to dice-rolling, ..." Like the pre-SF AA system, or SF's CD-vs-ship system? If we limit ourselves to six-sided dice, then we only need to be concerned with events that have a >16% chance of happening. I agree that we don't need die rolls for a bunch of long-shot events that should all work out in the wash: * The Luftwaffe agrees to the earlier jet engine designs * The USAAF realizes the need for high-altitude combat, giving the P-39 and P-40 turbos. * One more accident scuttles the B-17 program. and on and on. OTOP, there are some events that I think you should NOT take for granted as (not) happening at a certain date. Oh, heck, *I* don't know. A Renaud.Gary@Corona.Navy.Mil This graphic is |\ CompuServe: 73627,1114 a LOT smaller | \ _,,,---,,__ Genie: G.Renaud1 than a PGP key /,`.-'`' -. ;-;,---__ W: 909-273-5378 block __|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'==--' H: 714-750-9243 `-----''(_/--' `-'\_) DNRC Holder of Past Knowledge I CAN'T speak for this administration; I tell the truth. Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 23:35:39 +0100 From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Politics & other such criminal activities Steven Phillips (Dr. Zaius) wrote: >I am writing regarding the notion that Grand Europa will not involve the >>players in grand strategic decisions etc. > I fail to see any rational reason to assume that the >players of Europa will be unable to make intelligent decisions on the >level of >Stalin (or whomever). etc. >Players will make bad decisions of their own, so in my mind hindsight is >no more of a >factor in playing a recreation of WW2 than it was for the >strategists of the French >General Staff in the 1920's, assuming their >perfect hindsight would win them the next war with Germany. >I respect the views of those who want to leave politics out of the game, >but must we >all adhere to that view? >I will continue to advocate a head-on approach to the addressing of >political decisions, >options, &c. in any Grand Europa. > > >Steven Phillips. Yes, indeed. However, although I am very much in favour of players have broad strategic control over their actions, this makes sense only if there is a substantial body of political constraints within which decisions must be made. It is only the political context that gives meaning to ANY war (hence, any wargame). =46or example, the British and French governments clearly had no qualms abou= t moving into Norway to pre-empt any German moves and to cut off Swedish iron ore (the fact the Germans moved first is beside the point: Anglo-French intentions were quite clear. Likewise, it was principally practical rather than political considerations that lead to a decision to occupy areas of northern Sweden in support of an armed intervention in support of Finland. This suggests the Western Allies were quite capable of violating the neutrality of certain nations if it seemed expedient. That said, it would be fair to say that an uninvited pre-German invasion move into Belgium to occupy forward positions would have been politically unacceptable to both British and French public opinion, even if it makes a certain amount of military sense. Another example of how political restraints inhibited the Allies was Churchill's oft stated desire to reassert recently abandoned British treaty rights to operated from ports on the Irish Atlantic coast. Once it became clear that the Irish Republic was not going to accede to British requests for naval and airbase rights, the Prime Minister was inclined to use force. It was only after several very stormy Cabinet meetings was Winston was talked out sending the Army in to the Republic, a move that would have made eminent military sense, given the parlous state of the Battle of the Atlantic. This sort of thing should be allowed, but should carry some political cost (VP penalty?). And what about the various slightly-loony plans Anglo-French plans to attack the Soviets (bombing Baku etc.)? As for the political ramifications=8Ayikes! It makes spin. My point is that broad strategic choice makes eminent sense, but only within a realistic political framework. I don't see that as a problem, I see it as half the fun! I share Steve's desire for strategic command, provided the political ground-work is in place. Regards Perry ..._ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 23:38:31 +0100 From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Detail and detail Dave Lippman wrote: > Like some PR guys, I can see both sides to the equation here. > > I personally like to see individual counters for ships, replete with >silhouettes, but I know that's a strain on the art department (having had >to do layouts myself). > > I also know that a lot of players don't want to move around stacks >of warships, or squadrons of Lancasters on yet another raid on >Dusseldorf. > > I also know a lot of players would like to do just that. > > Can't we go both ways? Can't we have Naval Task Forces as individual >units (a la Second Front) for those who don't want them, and have >individual ships for those who do...two sets of rules, perhaps. > > One point...if we have ship counters, you can have task force >counters and holding boxes ,and limited intelligence in naval operations. > > The bottom line, I think, is that we want Europa to be a faithful >simulation of the dynamics of WW2 in Europe...but we also want players to >enjoy it. > To which I say 'amen'! Modularising the rules is the way to go. 'Roll your own' game in order to appeal to the interests of the players. This means a naval/aviation oriented crowd such the people play 'Europa' with can indeed have individual ships and more detailed simulations of the strategic air war. If that does not appeal to you, fine, stick to TFs and an abstracted Strat Air: there is nothing wrong with that either. Regards Perry ..._ From: Rich Velay Subject: Post WW I Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:16:01 PST >It would be interesting to see a pre-war game starting >after WWI during which time new counters arrive giving the >Axis an opportunity to start the war pre or post Sept 39' >with variable historical political factors - this may or >may not be appropriate for the scope of the game. --- >Stephen Balbach Hi Stephen. Like, Dec 1918, perhaps? :) And people wonder what I'm worried about! :) But seriously, a 38 invasion game vs the Czechs has much to recommend it, small armies on both sides, those great 0 A 1 1 / 6 "bomber fleets", Czech "Mech" divisions. Great colour, great atmosphere. I would expect a Czech invasion game to be pretty "sexy", if you know what I mean? "Peace in our Time", one of the great "lost" Europa titles. AOI got done, so why not this one too, eh? late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From: Rich Velay Subject: Mine dogs Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:18:03 PST IV) Mine dogs: isn't that rule 15.1.3.2.1.1 in FiTE, the "0-8" light anti-tank battalion that's only 1/2 ATEC? Ahh, proof that the GURU is needed. :) No, you are in error, sir. That was the PLATYTEST rule. Extensive post-production experience with the game has shown that there were problems with the FitE treatment of these units. Therefore the following should be used: (Replace all reference to Rule 15.1.3.2.1.1 with: SE Rule 14Z.a4.a.6 Soviet Mine Dog Units. During any combat phase, a prepared MDU (see Rule 37Q6b for an explanation of the difference between a "prepared" and an "unprepared" MDU) stacked with a Soviet Tank X may attempt an under-Panzer Molotov detonation attempt if adjacent to a non-Rumanian Axis Pz/Armored/Tank unit. (note: mice already got the Rumanians.) Roll one die on the Mine Dog Unit Success Table, applying all applicable modifiers. A result of "S" indicates that the Axis unit designated as the target of the MDUuPMd attempt is eliminated, or reduced to cadre, if it has a cadre. Any other result on the MDUST results in the Soviet Tank X being eliminated. Regardless of the MDUST result, the MDU is considered eliminated and removed from play. MDU may not be replaced. Jun 23, 1996 Errata It has been noted that the current MDU rules do not adequately cover all possible situations. Therefore, append the following to Rule 14Za4a6: When a prepared MDU is adjacent to a Goliath unit, no die roll on the MDUST is required, simply remove both the MDU *and* the Goliath unit from play; neither may be replaced. Counter Errata. Please note that the 6389 Militia MDU was inadvertantly printed in Winter-capable colours. This is an error. The unit should be printed in Naval Militia colours. Chart Errata Please note that one line of type is missing from the list of modifiers on the MDUST. There should be a 17th modifier immediately following the current final modifier. Please add the following to the MDUST: -1 if any MDU will roll an "F*" on the MDUST during the following player turn. Also, please delete the modifier refering to "Months with the letter "Q" in them". This modifier was was found to have an adverse effect upon play balance, and should not be used. RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:12:51 -0600 From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Q & A's > What do you think of this? Do people want to see the GURU stuff sent >out to or should I just email the answer direct to the questioner? For substantive questions, by all means send to all. - Bobby. Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:40:15 -0600 From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: GE options > The smaller individual games are truly on an operational >level and don't offer many strategic decisions. Grand Europa >will offer strategic decisions, unless those decisions are >somehow mandated by the rules. One of my longstanding concerns is that every game that comes out has only the minimal political (and naval) rules needed to make that particular game work. But there has been a universal promise-or-assumption that these will be fully implemented for Europa -- later. Unfortunately, the ground/air rules will have a quarter of a century's worth of playtesting, but the fully developed political (naval) rules will be released at the last minute. Why not publish these systems now in big linkup modules (The Blitz, The Med, etc.) and let us get a few years of debugging in on them while we're waiting for the Real Thing? BTW, if someone replies that SF did indeed publish the fully developed naval rules, I vote that we send them back to the factory for a retread. I can't imagine playing a Med scenario and having to do ten naval movement steps for each time I move-fight-exploit that handful of ground units actually active during the earlier parts of the campaign. Keep it simple! - Bobby. From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 14:50 GMT Subject: Options aweigh! I think we're forgetting a point here in this debate over how GE should look...the way the GE game goes, when consumers start playing it sometime in 2006, will vary from the historical WW2 one way or another. This will happen as soon as players start moving counters and rolling dice. The war will start going off in directions based on the various levels of expertise of the players. If we have a highly competent German player facing a mediocre British player (like me), Seelowe could be a successful operation, and we might see Wehrmacht troops controlling Britain (which to me is a personal nightmare, being half-British. My mother grew up in the Blitz and Nazi invasion was not an abstraction, it was a terror that kept her up at nights and reduced her to weeping). In a situation like that, what happens to the strategic direction of the war? Does the US bother to intervene? Does the Commonwealth fight on? How does Hitler re-rack his economy for Barbarossa? What benefits to the Germans gain from raiding British aircraft industry and scientific development (for proximity fuses, atomic research, radar, H2S, and Gee). The whole issue is extremely complicated...but that's precisely what happens when a project like GE is created. Si monumentem requiris, circumspice. This game is going to expand like a metastasizing cancer, and probably start getting out of control. Of course, this is part of the whole issue of gaming. Some gamers play to recreate or replay history, for education. (like me) Others play it to see how they could match their wiles against Rommel and Patton, and see if they can do better. I think this battle has been going on since Tactics II came out in 1958, and has yet to be resolved. My personal opinion, and I've said it again and again, is that there has to be room for all in the house. FWTBT gives us an option of invading Spain, for example. So a German player can go for it. Or he can decide that a battle in the Ukraine is easier to run than a climb over the Andalusian mountains. The real question may be...what are we trying to do with Europa? I think it can be both a realistic simulation of WW2 in Europe (replete with all the dynamics involved) and still be a competitive game for entertainment and an opportunity for games to explore the endless dream..."what if..." Not a great solution, I admit, not a definite answer, but a way to make people think. Above all, let's not get acrimonious here, and turn this into a slanging match, with people hurling brickbats. This is a game, remember? Cardboard counters? Dave Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand P.S. Seeing the German minor ally units for Spain and Portugal in FWTBT gave me the chilling awareness that John Astell, or one of his guys, has to sit down and figure out strength units for German minor ally units for Britain, the labor brigades that would have been drawn under Dr. Franz Six's plan (all men aged 16 to 45) and the SS brigades that would have been drawn from Sir Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts. They would have existed, but I just wrote an article on Lord Haw-Haw and the Blackshirts, and I never really found them amusing. From: Rich Velay Subject: GE options Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 18:00:59 PST Hi everyone. Hmmm, seems I have let my Europa hyperbole get the best of me again. Mea culpa. When you are not understood, it is because you have not been understandable... Jim. Raising strawmen? I never raised anything in my life! :) Perhaps I was. As far as GE goes, I guess I am just selfish and impatient. I would be willing to put up with years of political rules design, as long as the hardware is in my hands as soon as possible. I need a few more games to be complete, and heck, I'll make up the political rules myself, if I have to, as long as the maps and counters are present. The remaining components can be provided with little reference to economic, strategic or political rules; they can come later. LIke the Strat Air presentation in SF. I like it. I would not have wanted to wait another year for the game, just so there was four or five hundred extra air counters and an optional rule for their use, which I wouldn't. Is that unfair to people who want Strat Air. Maybe, but I am not losing sleep over it; if they had their way, I'd have to pay for those extra counters, design time and rules, whether I wanted them or not. And the naval system. That will no doubt be presented in at least two versions; TF and individual ships. Same thing as above. I would not have been happy to wait an extra year for SF just to get a couple of hundred naval counters, another new naval system and the option to use what I am using now. Again, perhaps that's unfair to the Naval fans out there. If so, thenI'm just being selfish again. And besides, the games will come out the way John designs them, without any regard for my personal preferences. As for the computer discussion, I may have left the wrong impression. I don't like computer wargames; that doesn't mean I think Europa shouldn't be done as a computer wargame. I just wouldn't buy it. I doubt if that will influence the manufacturer. I think computer support is a great idea, only wish I could afford Aide de Camp. The more of the political, economic and strategic stuff that can be computerized, the better. As long as its an option, and not a must have to play GE. I would not be happy with that. Doubt that wil come to pass so, no worries. Perhaps if I could get a three line batch file to run properly, I would be more enthused about computer Europa. late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 22:00:27 -0500 From: "James B. Byrne" Subject: Re: Politics & other such criminal activities Perry de Havilland wrote: > > Another example of how political restraints inhibited the Allies was > Churchill's oft stated desire to reassert recently abandoned British treaty > rights to operated from ports on the Irish Atlantic coast. Once it became > clear that the Irish Republic was not going to accede to British requests > for naval and airbase rights, the Prime Minister was inclined to use force. > It was only after several very stormy Cabinet meetings was Winston was > talked out sending the Army in to the Republic, a move that would have made > eminent military sense, given the parlous state of the Battle of the > Atlantic. This sort of thing should be allowed, but should carry some > political cost (VP penalty?). > I would suspect that the creation of a large, restive, and probably actively rebellious English speaking population within the home islands would probably had a serious effect on British warmaking capacity. Not to mention the effect on diplomatic relations with the USA that the outrage and revulsion from the large Irish ethnic population of the USofA would have caused. Methinks there was more of military sense in avoiding the whole issue. -- James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 23:24:51 -0600 (CST) From: Mark H Danley Subject: Re: GE Options Robert, I'm not sure I understand where quite where you are coming from. Will you and others who have comments elaborate? You say > I) Europa is clearly operational (or grand operational, if you will). In > each > individual game the player is cast in the role of a front commander - an > Eisenhower in SF; OKH or STAVKA in FiTE. In the smaller games/scenarios > the players are cast into even more limited roles. There were many things > beyond the control of these commanders. [If I want to be Roosevelt, > Churchill or Stalin, I'll play 3rd Reich] > II) Europa has difficulty imparting the political animus to the players. In the most basic sense, it already does impart the political animus to us. We're simulating war, which old Clausewitz said so famously is a continuation of politics. I > think that we're way ahead of ourselves discussing the Fall of France. It > is hard to motivate players in the Desert to mount Operation Exporter or > to > send troops to Greece. Victory points lack a certain panache, but they're > what we have. I certainly wouldn't want to be held hostage to a dice > based system. Well if we RETAIN our operational focus - as many seem to agree we should - what choice do we have for the larger realm of possibility? If we're operational commanders, then we have to be hostage to SOMETHING regarding the action at levels above and below operational. If we're playing an operational level game, then both strategic decisions and tactical decisions are out of our hands! So there I am, General Papagos playing Balkan Front, watching the Panzers overrun my ants in Thessaly. When and whether or not King George decide to skeddadle and the prime minister shoots himself is out of my control. Sure. I don't know what will happen. Well, whether or not the commander of the 3rd Army Corps in northern Epirus actually makes the right tactical decisions in a battle from one particular hex to another is beyond my control. I'm an _operational_, not tactical, commander - that's why we have a CRT! SOME things are random, deciding what is and what isn't random is what defines the scale of the game! The point is to detemine the realm of possibility, given certain circumstances. AT 3:1 odds unmodified, you have a one-in-six change of a EX. We all accept the premise of making such a statement because this is an operational, not tactical game. How is that not analagous to saying when such-and-such happens, France has a 1 in 6 change of doing "this"? It's a strategic activity out of our hands - the designer's job is to identify POSSIBILITY and quantify PROBABILITY, like he does with the tactical activity out of our hands, as represented through terrain effects and CRT. > > III) I'd like to see Europa retain its focus. If that means that individual > campaigns have less effect on the overall war (play) than were actually > ascribed to them, then so be it. I actually think that GE is a pipe-dream > in the early war years (prior to January 1942), since it would be next > to impossible to make the minour country reactions any more than a > crap-shoot. One of the "problems" with AWW is the random nature of > how the Norwegians/Swedes react. However, there should be some > flexibility given to the players. Yes I agree with you that we should have flexibility. But if the reactiond of minor countries in 1939 - 42 are "crapshoots" then the problem is an inaccurate simulation. Because historically the reactions were't crap shoots. Look at the actions and smaller powers' military and political leaders. (Some of those guys left memoirs - C.J. Hambro, the speaker of the Norwegian _Storting_ (parliament) in a book _I Saw it Happen in Norway_ really captures how these guys agonized about what they did. They agonized how to achieve their nation's objective, which in many cases was simply to maintain some semblence of the most basic attribute of nationhood, sovereignty. But, you could say, it seems like a crap shoot to me the operational commander, because it isn't up to _me_ a small power does in regards to entering the war or not. Well, why then is the randomness of Norwegian/Swede reaction a problem from the operational point of view then? What that randomness REPRESENTS is a quantification of a range of possible grand-strategic political actions under given circumstances, not a free for all. Just like a CRT is a quantification of a range of tactical actions under given circumstances > Guys? Mark Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 00:29:04 -0600 From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Political options. Mark said: > Yes I agree with you that we should have flexibility. But if the >reactiond of minor countries in 1939 - 42 are "crapshoots" then the >problem is an inaccurate simulation. This is another reason I'm skeptical about even the *possibility* of offering fully developed political rules, regardless of what we as individuals *want* to see included. The work involved in playtesting a system thoroughly probably increases exponentially with increasing complexity of the problem to be covered. When testing the CRT, you roll a few attacks and say "Hmmm, the Italians shouldn't be kicking the Greeks around like that. I wonder if it's the CRT, the terrain effects, or the unit strengths?" But when testing SF you have to try many, many things, individually and in combination. Balance of air power. Coastal defenses vs. landing craft. Danger zones vs. task forces. Strategic bombing effects on Axis supply. Replacement rates. Etc., etc., etc. The political rules will increment the testing requirement by a similar scaling factor -- or worse. A chart consulted in '43 may be modified by who's in the war and how the neutrals are leaning. But this is not simply the result of the last chart you consulted: it will depend on what the players did with the result. For example, say Turkey joins the Axis in '42. Will the 'Turkey Axis' modifier automatically influence the next political roll? No, because the Russians may have destroyed them by then. And whether Russia did that may depend on the balance of power created by earlier political decisions and *their* military outcomes. So you can't playtest the political rules just by playing the war without the fighting. And that means testing the political system will require you to *actually*play* a grand campaign all the way through. One play-through = one test of the political system. Suppose the political rules are simple enough that there are only ten points in the game at which one of six possible outcomes occurs, and, since modifiers depend on what's going on in the war, earlier outcomes influence later outcomes. Then your tree of possibilities has six to the tenth power possible outcomes. (Granted, the *final* decision still only has six, but the effects of the others may endure regardless, e.g. France may still be Vichyfied, whether the Levant allows Axis passage or not.) Six to the tenth is over 60 million possible political outcomes. Say we only want to playtest until we've exercised 1% of them: that's "only" 600,000 playthroughs of Europa. But ten occasions with six possible outcomes each is hardly what I would call a full-blown political system. Shucks, guys, that doesn't even allow each nation something to roll about. Granted, a campaign might involve hundreds of die rolls for tactical resolution, and each in some sense effects those of the next turn (since they determine who has what hex and how much strength is left on the map). But here the details don't usually matter, so long as the CRT and such systems provide a result that is "about right" on average (though we quail at the thought of a 1/6 DR on an amphibious invasion). But whether or not country X joins the war or allows passage to the Axis is not just another division in the dead pile, and players won't be amused to be playing through 96 turns of Europa only to have something really dorky come up because there was a flaw in the political system that made it through playtest. - Bobby. From: stefan Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:08:51 +0000 Subject: Re: GE options Everyone, Youre all nuts about having masses of options under Grand Europa. Impossible. As the general thread of the discussion has gone there are too many complexities involved to incorporate all these possibilities and I concur wholehartedly. However, there is a simple solution; Has anyone played Third Reich/Advanced Third Reich ?? This has a beautifully simple solution. There are several/many VARIANTS. You can only pick one for each side during a game (at random). eg. 1. Luftwaffe expands, bring forward arrival of FW190's, slightly more GA etc. 2. British more prepared for Armoured warfare - Arm XX's arrive much earlier 3. Luftwaffe Jets completed much earlier and mass produced - qute a few Me262's months before historical. 4. Spain is secretly more pro Allied, with little pressure she will allow US and Allied uints to enter to protect her from the Axis. 5. No pro Allied coup in Yugoslavia, she joins Axis as per Hungary/Rum etc. 6. Luftwaffe expands Airborne Corps, more Airborne divs available in 41/42. 7. Axis planned ahead for winters in Russia, all units winterized. 8. Japanese do woefully in Pacific, increased support from Commonwealth and US units in 42 on. (extra divs, air, naval etc.) 9. Any one Vichy colony in Africa becomes very pro Axis or Allied, will join with them on request. 10. Spain is more pro Axis, will alow Axis units to transit her territory to attack Gibraltar. 11. Russia better prepared, bring forward conversion to Arm Divs. (this was a particularly influential one) 12. Sweeden joins Axis. Swedish units available for campain in Russia only. 13. Turkey very pro Axis or Allied. As long as an Army is sent to her for protection from the other she will Ally and join them. (influential) 14. Italy better prepared. Bring forward her expansion of Armoured forces and development of new aircraft. (and give her some landing craft!) 15. Increased commitment from Axis allies - garrison forces for Rum/Hung etc. are released immediately. There were more but cant remember them. You get the general idea. If you picked any more than one variant the game would turn into a walkover for someone. Best just to pick one and see how WWII could have developed with these subtle changes. From masses of experience playing this before Europa I have to say it made the games very very interesting without being a walkover. Stefan Farrelly From: Anders Vastberg Subject: GE options Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 10:51:44 MET Have anyone played Pacific War by VG ? It is very fun operational game which do not use political rules and production rules (almost). Instead of a production system it uses a reinforcement table much like FIE, SE or any other Europa game. The only production system left is how long aircraft crews will remain on training. (The longer aircraft crews stay on training, the better aircraft units). I think this is the only way GE can work given the detail of the operational part of the game. /Anders -- || ~~~~ Anders Vastberg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ || ~~~~ Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden || ~~~~ INTERNET: av@irfu.se, Phone: (+46) 18-303673, Fax: (+46) 18-403100 || ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- || ~~~~ Anders Vastberg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ || ~~~~ Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden || ~~~~ INTERNET: av@irfu.se, Phone: (+46) 18-303673, Fax: (+46) 18-403100 || ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Rich Velay Subject: GURU:SF Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 01:59:27 PST Hi everyone. More SF stuff rolls in... >I am confused about the status of the Messina Straits. >Is the LC in the Straits acting as a ferry considered >to be at sea, in a port, or treated like a river >flotilla in a "Major River Hexside"? Lot's of people have been confused. An LC acting as a ferry (LCAF) must remain at sea throughout any player turn in which it acts as a ferry. Friendly player if to be used, for example, to allow attacks across a full sea hexside, or, to allow movement across same. Enemy player turn if it is used to, for example, allow units to trace supply across a major sea hexside. >If at sea, then can it only be attacked thru Naval >Patrol Bombing and only use its own AA strength? Is it >in a Danger Zone? Yes it may only be bombed through Naval Patrol Bombing; yes it may only use its own AA strength, *IF* it is the only friendly naval unit in the hex in question. Yes it is in a Axis danger zone. The LC would be checked for danger zone contact once per friendly naval movement step, since "it starts a friendly naval movement step at sea in a danger zone." (Rule 34F.) Therefore, any Axis LC set up in any hex of the Straits of Messina would have to roll 10 times each player turn for danger zone contact; once per friendly NMS. >If in port, then I presume that position AA in Messina >or Reggio can come into play. As above, it may not be in port and act as a LCAF, so land AA strength may not fire. BUT... per the supplemental errata posted here earlier, there is a quick fix for this situation which should be used: The Axis player (only) may treat either, or both, of the hexsides between Messina, and Reggio di Calabria and/or Villa san Giovanni, as narrow straits hexsides, provided he owns both hexes bordering such a hexside. For example, if the Axis player owns both Messina and Reggio di Calabria, he may treat the 26:3923/3823 hexside as a narrow straits. Please note that there is a more detailed, albeit more complex, LCAF system currently under investigation; more information will be presented when available. RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From: Rich Velay Subject: GE options Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 03:19:00 PST Hi everyone. Re: Strat air and Naval stuff. The fact that I like simple, less detailed systems for these things is as important as the fact that I like Kirk better than Picard; it is of no importance to anyone save myself. Had I known that my expressing an opinion on the matter would lead to controversy, I would not have expressed my opinion. Re. GE options. I have tried to make clear that I am worried about too much pointless detail creeping in, my posts have been about keeping politics simple in Europa. But I keep getting posts claiming that I am asking for *no* politics. sigh. I have tried to make clear that I am worried about a 3dR or WIF style series of random events or political instability or economic production system that *could* creep in, my posts have been about keeping this kind of thing to a minimum in Europa. But I keep getting posts claiming that I am asking for *no* variability in the game. sigh Since it appears that I am not able to communicate the difference between a rule for Rumanian surrender and a rule for Rumanian (to say nothing of American) belligerence, I give up. I get one post lambasting me for attacking things that aren't there, followed by a post listing 20 variations to economic, political and strategic events that can be tied into the game. I don't know how to handle post-civil war Spain but I am repelled by the idea of a two year game of Europa hanging on whether or not a die roll deciding the Loyalists won or not. I don't know how to handle minor country activation, but I know that a Polish-Nazi pact was at least as likely as a Nazi-Soviet one. I don't know how to handle the incredibly Byzantine and inefficient Nazi economy, but I know I don't want the opportunity of Speer arriving in 1938. Nor do I want to decide what Dusseldorf will produce this Economic Quarterly Interphase sub-impulse. I don't know how to handle the naval economic war, but I know that the Norwegian shipping delivered to GB after Narvik was *the* difference between survival and starvation for GB. Do we make *that* a die roll? But enough. There is some problem with my brain that leaves me unable to communicate the difference between "some" and "none"; so be it. My part in this discussion is neither helpful nor enjoyable, so I will leave it to others to discuss. My inability to communicate simple concepts adequately makes my participation unwise. I apologize for any distress that the expression of my opinions, or my use of hyperbole to make a point, may have caused. late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY