From: Rich Velay Subject: GE:Italy Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 03:20:36 PST Hi everyone. What say we look at an issue that will no doubt be part of GE, Italian participation. Now, no doubt we require a mechanism for "encouraging" Italy to enter the war. What would such a mechanism look like, and how would it operate? I can imagine that this could be linked to Victory Points, but VP systems are notoriously difficult to play test and de-bug. Is there any other mechanism within GE to "encourage" Italy to fight that would not be too difficult to implement? Should Italy be forced to fight, as distinct from "encouraged"? Should Italy have to become an Axis if it enters the war? Could the Italian player choose to foin the Allies? Would there be a mechanism in place to allow for diplomacy? Would similar variability exist if Italy was not under the control of a player? Would initial set up, and/or limitations on pre-belligerence re-deployment be imposed? If attacking Greece, for example, is not mandated, would it be "encouraged", as opposed to say, invading Yugoslavia? Would there be mechanisms to allow for different occupation policies; could, for example, Italy promote Slovene and Croat independence movements without overt military action taking place? Montenegro? Kosovo? Dalmatia? Bosnia? What effect would Italian non-belligerence have upon Bulgaria? Hungary? What about Italian participation on the Allied side? Why would Italy send troops to the USSR to fight, and would this be mandated? Why would Italy send air units to bomb England and would this be mandated? Hopefully, a discussion of specifics will allow me to avoid the difficulties I encountered when discussing generalities. Perhaps if I better understand just what people do want to include, I will be better able to decide whether or not that approaches my vision of GE. late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From: Rich Velay Subject: GE:Italy Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 03:21:53 PST Hi everyone. Another thing needed for GE will be something covering Italian surrender. The SF system is fine for that game; is the system as presented there what people are looking for in GE? Will a record of RE losses be required throughout the game? Will the Italian player be required to accept the dictates of a surrender die roll, or will players be immune from system generated surrenders? Will a quarterly VP tally be maintained, and would this effect surrender die rolls? Will Major power surrender cover such things as collapse, switching sides, armistice, etc? Would the Allied players have to all agree before a particular surrender table event could be implemented? For example, if the USSR player did not want to accept Italian co-belligerence, would this influence or negate such a result? Would there be the possibility for coups occurring in major powers? Only un-played Major Powers? Could the US, for example, attempt to instigate a change of Italian government through diplomatic pressure? Upon surrender of a played Major Power, would a new player take over the country, or would the previous Italian, who presumably is privy to secret Axis information, simply become an Allied player? Would there be provisions mitigating against early surrender? For example, could Italy seize Tunisia, and then opt out of the war? Could the French player agree to this? The possibilities are seemingly endless; what should be included, and what excluded? What kind of criteria should be developed, and how would it be phrased, to allow us to agree on what constitutes the "looney" stuff, and what constitutes needed detail? I won't even try to give an example of either. :) late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From: m.royer3@genie.com Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 11:26:00 UTC 0000 Subject: China Playtest Sino-Japanese Conflict - Massachusetts Playtest Sep II 37 Japanese Player Turn With clear weather finally breaking throughout China, the Japanese begin their assaults in ernest in the North. No less than 10 attacks are lined up dispite the shortage of attack supply. Three main axis of advance are followed, the two southward going rail lines running from Peiping (Beijing) to Hankow and Tientsin to Nanking, and the northwest line from Peiping into Inner Mongolia. In an enveloping move, Japanese infantry and mechanized forces moving through the wheat fields of Hopei province encircle at least six Chinese provincial divisions and destroy the bulk of them,leaving only small pockets of resistance behind. Forces moving northwest from Peiping join with Mongolian, Manchukuo, and Kwantung army units coming south out of Mongolia and secure the ruined rail lines. Japanese construction units beginthe task of repairing the transportation system. In the north, the Japanese lost one regiment in combat against 11 infantry and 2 cavalry provincial Chinese divisions. In Central China a real slugfest has developed as four full Japanese divisions join the frey against at least two dozen Chinese divisions of their Central Army. The Japanese break out of their Woosung port bridgehead at the mouth of the Whangpoo River and assault the northeast corner of Shanghai. Supporting units from the beleagered Shanghai international concession strike eastward to participate in their own relief. In combat, three of the Chinese "elite" divisions are destroyed and the hex is taken, thereby joining with the SNLF units in the concession. A marked decrease in deep bombing was noted as both the Japanese Army and Navy air forces concentrated on ground support. Sep II 37 Chinese Player Turn With no reasonable counter attacks available, Chinese forces in the northand center re-arrange their defences in an effort to slow the onslaught until the winter weather takes hold. In the north, a variety of provincial and central army units take up positions along the Hoto river to defend the city of Shihkiachuang. The defensive line is built at arms length from the Japanese front line hoping to minimize overruns. In Central China, the Chinese attempt to stabilize the situation in Shanghai by optimizing the unit mix in the city. Meanwhile, they begin to form a second line along the Tayun Ho (the Grand Canal) which runs north-south and separates the Shanghai area from the rest of China, and particularly Nanking, the capital. -Mark R. Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 13:01:12 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: GE options > 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 would certainly like to try out this possibility, but if you don't, then don't do it! > 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. True, and I would like to play a GE-game with these premises. But if you don't then don't do it. > 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. Neither do I, but if somebody else wants to, then it's fine by me. > 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? We could make it either an optional scenario, a die roll or just ignore it. Even better, we could make it all three! No one's going to force you to roll a die to see if the war ends because of the second coming. It's obvious that everybody has his (and I safely assume not many women are going to play GE) own opinion about what GE should be like. So, to me, it's obvious that GE is going to have to be a multi-layered thing, where you can choose to play from strictly historical parameters, add some plausible historical what if's at will, or just start it off and roll for semi-random events. Rich doesn't want his playing spoiled by random events. Fine. I would like to at least be able to play out the war and have to adapt to things that could happen. That is fine too. I would also like to be able to play out the war from strictly historical conditions. Fine! Europa is big enough for everybody! Well, with the possible exception of those who wants to be able to link Europa with Glory... ;-) Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se Date: 8 Mar 1996 07:09:43 U From: "Merrill, Robert C" Subject: GE Options - Reprise In response to Mark Danley who wrote: >Robert, > I'm not sure I understand where quite where you are coming from. >Will you and others who have comments elaborate? and in response to >> II) Europa has difficulty imparting the political animus to the players. wrote: > 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. We aren't simulating war, we're playing toy soldiers. And the quote is, if I recall correctly since it's been over 20 years since I've read Clausewitz, that war is the continuation of politics BY OTHER MEANS. However, I may not have been clear enough in my previous posting, so I'll re-state it thusly: Europa excels in the painstaking detail of its maps, and more importantly, its OOB research. If we let the game stray too far from WWII as it happened we throw away the most important (to me!!) part. Indeed, and I'm probably in the minority, when I play Europa I don't play particularly competitively. Instead I try to repeat the historical flow of action with minour changes. Different strokes for different folks... In a real sense, despite external forces, political occurrences are random. Sure, there may be factors which make it more probable that one thing or another might happen, and the current, very limited, political rules account for this. But I bet the Germans were surprised when the coup occurred against King Michael, or when Iraq's uprising started. Bob From: Dave Humphreys Subject: Digest Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 07:17:19 -0800 I'm with George Diez. I just subscribed to this list, and I find it a bit overwhelming (though fascinating to read!). A digest format would be excellent. Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:31:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Roy Bottomley Subject: Re: Computers and Europa Have you looked at ASSIST as a PBeM aid. It knocks the spots of ADC and although I don't know europa well ASSIST copes well with monster games like World in Flames. Check out the Web page http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/redshift/assist.html Roy On 7 Mar 1996, Merrill, Robert C wrote: > 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 > Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 11:14:36 -0500 From: "James B. Byrne" Subject: Re: GE options Myself, I am not too interested in having a lot of political choice. What I am concerned about is that in the absence of a production system tied to resource control the army that you get may diverge considerably from what you need. The OB work in Europa draws considerable praise and is at the root of much that I find appealing about Europa. That said, I still see a problem with force feeding a player with combat units raised/converted on such and such a date when the game course varies considerably from the historical path upon which the re-inforcement schedule based. Really, I don't see a great need for many political rules at all. In one game of Stategy I (does that date me?) as the hypothetical German player I crushed the Hypothetical French army and offered an armistice on the following conditions: 1. 1 x Armoured corps FR 1 x Mech corps FR to be employed, maintained and replaced outside 'France' as I saw fit at France's expense 2. 50% of heavy metal production. 3. Demobilization of the bulk of the remaining french forces. 4. a few other items (it was a long time ago). Otherwise I would crush and occupy the entire country. This would remove France from the rest of the game and give me all resources but no troops. These conditions had no 'RULES' to support them. Each player negotiated based on what they felt was the best deal for them and agreed to honour the commitment (until the time came for payback!). Now if GE had victory points for keeping countries (regardless of original alignement) intact (the national government still rules) as opposed to occupied then that would provide a framework whereby the players could negotiate these things themselves (which is pretty much what is going to happen anyway I suspect). If GE confined itself to laying limits on what could and could not be exacted from any country (foreign military service - resource allocation, basing and transit rights, equipment transfers, perhaps even control or alliance of the country or associate minor neutral) then the players could provide the necesary variation and live with the consequences of their choices. The victory point bonuses and penalties would go to the player that controlled the country at the moment of their applicablity and would follow him to the end of the game. The only thing that really needs to be addressed definitively in GE is the production sequence. It is fine to say that the role of the player doesn't emcompass that area but this simply begs the question. How do we handle the need to vary the historical production of units to mesh with the different history of each game? We don't have any other choice but to either allow the players to control production, howerver obliquely. Or we force each game of GE into lockstep with the written course of WWII regardless of what events occur or don't occur in the player's particular circumstance. -- James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241 Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 11:30:37 -0500 From: "James B. Byrne" Subject: GE - Production, Politics and Problems Actually, it occured to me that Europa already has the basis for a sensible production system built in. If every country is given the capacity to produce resource, personell and equipment points at some general rate which can be added to by conquest or decreased by strategic warfare, and a time table is provided detailing when certain types of units are available to be built / upgraded then the player will have all of the control that I feel is necessary. Instead of receiving units after the initial mobilization, the player will debit his future replacement /resource /aircrew /equipment point income by the amount necessary to raise a new unit that he desires. All that would be needed would be a few extra units of each flavour to allow the player the otion of build a few more that that which historically happend and a limit on the amount of new units that can be raised concurrently. -- James B. Byrne mailto:byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca Hamilton, Ontario 905-561-1241 Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 11:18:43 -0600 (CST) From: Mark H Danley Subject: Re: GE:Italy On Fri, 8 Mar 1996, Rich Velay wrote: > Hi everyone. > What say we look at an issue that will no doubt be > part of GE, Italian participation. > Now, no doubt we require a mechanism for "encouraging" > Italy to enter the war. What would such a mechanism look > like, and how would it operate? > I can imagine that this could be linked to Victory > Points, but VP systems are notoriously difficult to play > test and de-bug. Is there any other mechanism within GE to > "encourage" Italy to fight that would not be too difficult > to implement? > Should Italy be forced to fight, as distinct from > "encouraged"? Since the decision whether or not to enter the war was a grand-strategic one, not an operational one, then that seems out of our hands as players, but someting we need to nevertheless portray, so that we can react to it as players. > Should Italy have to become an Axis if it enters the > war? Could the Italian player choose to foin the Allies? Many seem to agree on the necessity of leaving only operational military decisions to the players, so I don't think a GE as most - including myself - conceive it would allow the Italian player to actually choose sides. If Italy joined the Allies, it would likely be a result of the play, and not a direct decision of the player, much like occurrs in SF > Would there be a mechanism in place to allow for diplomacy? > Would similar variability exist if Italy was not under the > control of a player? Perhaps something similar to what we do already - identify the likely possibilities, and do our best to quantify probability. But I do understand the earlier comments on the difficulty of playtesting > Would initial set up, and/or limitations on > pre-belligerence re-deployment be imposed? > If attacking Greece, for example, is not mandated, would > it be "encouraged", as opposed to say, invading Yugoslavia? > Would there be mechanisms to allow for different > occupation policies; could, for example, Italy promote > Slovene and Croat independence movements without overt > military action taking place? Montenegro? Kosovo? > Dalmatia? Bosnia? > What effect would Italian non-belligerence have upon > Bulgaria? Hungary? What about Italian participation on the > Allied side? > Why would Italy send troops to the USSR to fight, and > would this be mandated? > Why would Italy send air units to bomb England and would > this be mandated? To answer these questions one would have to consider - what were Italy's grand strategic objectives in 1939 - 1945. I don't know a whole lot about twentieth-century Italian history, but it seems like most of Mussolini's decision's were based on what he thought would be the most expedient was of achieving self-aggrandizement, and the aggrandizement of Italy. The factors most limiting his choices were Italy's lack of preparation to fight a major war, which included tangibles like lack of natural resources, and lack of enthusiasm for fighting a long war. > > Hopefully, a discussion of specifics will allow me to > avoid the difficulties I encountered when discussing > generalities. Perhaps if I better understand just what > people do want to include, I will be better able to decide > whether or not that approaches my vision of GE. > late/R > > RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com > > Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY > Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:52:15 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: GE or cloud cookoo land? >>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. That's certainly a neat variant WW2- I think the Western powers would have stood aside and let them have at it. So that's really more of a Scorched Earth variant... ("We envy the Germans their Fuhrer"- Winston Chruchill) >>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. That's probably hard to beleive- although an Italian player/team should be allowed to make their own decision at exactly how to make their dramatic entrance. I've always found the Italian can conquer Greece in theory- but they certainly can't do it in the mud. So why not attack in summer 1941? >>6. The US is "neutral," but helps the Allies more and >>more. >>7. The US enters the war on DEC I 41 +/- 2 months. I would propose that (perhaps with a latitude of some sort) the US entry is more or less historical- the Japanese attack is beyond the scope of the game at whatever level players involve themselves. Any umpire or rules writer can argue very convincingly that Hitler (let's keep Hitler otherwise you're absolutely correct that there's no game) would come to the aid of Japan- remembering that he declared war on the USA when Germany's situation on the front line in the east was somewhat iffy. > 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? If Germany has destroyed the Soviet Union then the Germans have a chance to fight it out with the USA and UK and get a compromise peace (I don't beleive that 'unconditonal surrender' would have been the terms offered if the USSR hadn't shown that it was not going to go down the historical toilet) If Germany has conquered Britain, then US intervention is probably a moot point- where are they going to land? "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:51:38 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: GE or cloud cookoo land? > 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... > 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? Well, as far as GM and Coca-Cola go, that was one of Germany's reasons for fighting the war- to free themselves from international capital and make Germany self-sufficient. Then we get into the old debate where one camp says that Germany was doomed in 1938 and the other which says that Germany had a good chance of winning WW2. Someone may disagree with the latter point of view, but any WW2 game is based on that premise- what the hell point is there in playing a game you're going to lose? >>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... We're not so far apart here, in fact- I agree that as much as possible should be left out of the game, for simplicity's sake and to avoid debates on whether France would really fight to the last counter just because the Allied player decided it would. Steve P. "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:51:55 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Politics & other such criminal activities >>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 ..blah blah >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). Yes- I agree with you and with Rich V. (and someone else had something good to say about that...) I hope noone thought I am in favour of involving players in decisions that throw things too far out of whack (like Stauffenberg popping a cap in Hitler's ear in 1941 or some such Newt Gingrich fantasy) I'm for leaving the political figures themselves out of the picture or assuming they are the same bastards they were in real life (Churchill included) I'm just for allowing players to make those decisions that the leadership made regarding direction of military campaign. I am also in favour of giving players just enough (*just* enough) latitude in production to cope with ahistorical situations (say that heavy fighting erupts in Anatolia- the Italians may decide they need that one more mountain division...) >For example, the British and French governments clearly had no qualms about >moving into Norway ... 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. Right- maybe we all agree that a general outline of what can and can't be done is fair? The Allies can intervene in Scandinavia, Greece (as they did in WW1), maybe in Jugoslavia (providing their coup die roll is successful?) I mean to say that a relatively large number of variables can be dealt with simply- "Britain and/or France may intervene in Norway" then you roll for the Norwegian reaction - the Norwegians likely would have reacted as the Danes did with the Germans- no significant fighting, Allies occupy the country and then see what the Germans do about it (if anything) This particular example might require a little more research into what exact effects it would have had on Germany and a range of possible effects on Sweden (Sweden is pretty independent and I don't think they would have reacted favourable or demurrely to a British threat of invasion- do they enter into a co-belligerancy with Germany as did Finland?) Ahh... it's starting to get complex now, but maybe not so much that an umpire couldn't assign a range within a die roll could be made with Sweden taking as a result one of two or three possible levels of belligerency or submission. >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?). Sure- we are lucky in that the game does not deal with the sea war in so much detail (although I guess it could if naval miniatures afficienados wanted to come up with a strategic naval war...oh man!) >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. Well, having team play would make this easier- the Soviets would have their own interests and I think that in any GE game, Western Allies would think five or six times before forcing the Soviets into the German camp as an active Axis power. In fact, we should perhaps approach the situation giving Stalin credit for honesty- perhaps assume ahead of time that he's buying time to reorganize his forces and better his overall strategic position (keeping the Axis out of Finland- a mechanism for Finland coming under German influence, making the Sovierts constantly distrustful could easily be constructed.) >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. OK- what does Rich Velay think? "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 10:05:51 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: GE options > 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. Somewhere back there, someone suggested a modular approach- "here we have for $50 all the counters and rules you'd need to play out the entire strategic air war 1938-1946. Have a blast" But the Grand Europa basic rules/counters would only have an abstracted representation ala SecondFront...? GR/D might love this approach the best- they get to make some money off counters from those who want them...I myself want to play the air war but am not interested in the naval war- I am just fine with SF naval rules...but I see clearly that others think they stink. > I think computer support is a great idea, only wish I could afford >Aide de Camp. Not to mention those of us with Macintoshes- Aide-de-Camp don't work for us. Steve P. "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From: EuropaStag@aol.com Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 13:52:17 -0500 Subject: Hello Players? Looking for Europa Gamers withing driving distance of central CT I love to play AWinter War (I'm the designer) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 14:23:10 -0400 From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Computers and Europa >Have you looked at ASSIST as a PBeM aid. >It knocks the spots of ADC and although I don't know europa well ASSIST >copes well with monster games like World in Flames. >Check out the Web page >http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/redshift/assist.html BTW, ASSIST is for Windows computers: Assist runs under Microsoft windows, it has been tested under Windows 3.1, WFWG 3.11, WindowsNT and Windows 95. I haven't tried it, as I use a Mac by preference. Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 13:35:34 -0600 From: conrad alan b Subject: Re: Post WW I On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, Rich Velay wrote: > > >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 I agree that a Munich '38 start is a worthwile option to eventually shoot for. Alan Conrad Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 16:53:12 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re: Computers and Europa On 3/7/96, Bob Merrill stated: >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. A sentiment with which I wholeheartedly concur. To amplify on this, I don't know of anyone who has a computer, robot, or cyborg at home with whom they play Europa, so why should there be any expectation at all that Computerized [as opposed to 'Computer'] Europa should have AI of any sort? Sure, it would be a neat thing to have, since probably 90+% of all cardboard pushed around Europaland maps is done in solitaire games. But unless some Europa-phile out there who's won the lottery is willing to turn the winnings into AI research, there'll be no usable AI for Europa in this century, and probably not in the next. Look at what happened in the recent computer match against Kasparov; once he was able to intuitively divine the algorithms by which the computer played, it became a MUCH less formidible opponent. And Europa is a lot more complex than chess! >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. Basically, Computerized Europa would be a trade-off item, aimed at people without the space to lay out all those wonderful eye candy maps, or the time to do laborious historical setups. In exchange, they would lose the ability to see the whole sweep of the Soviet steppes at a single glance or take in the whole array of the Europa counter color palette at once. Additionally, Computerized Europa would handle most of the time-consuming scut work that currently makes each turn of the larger games such a marathon task, from doing all required set-ups in historical set-ups, to calculating all movement costs [including counting rail, air, or sea hexes for the various movement types], to calculating odds. All mechanical functions can be easily programmed, now that the memory/clock speed issues have essentially evaporated. But don't consign Computerized Europa to the dustbin of unrealistic expectations because it will not be able to do what no computer can do; don't ask it to think. Because there is just no way a computer is going to give a human being a run [or even a brisk walk] for their money in playing Europa. Something like play by email might be possible as a 2-player option, although that's a pretty big gulp to be sending over twisted pair. I don't think that network play is in the cards, you'd need to big a memory block to transfer all the data each segment of each turn. Ray Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 17:20:34 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re: Post WW I On 3/7/96, Rich Velay wrote: >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? The problem with Czech '38 is exactly what you were talking about, early alterations to history making for "Wacky Europa". Play can't realistically start before about 9/39 and give any hope of having a reasonable chance of reproducing something resembling history. This doesn't mean that the rules, maps, and OoB/OAs for European affairs from 1918 through 1938 shouldn't be available, so that those interested in exploring the history of alternate Earths could do so, just that it shouldn't be put forth as historical simulation. Ray Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 18:51:47 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re: Options aweigh! Excellent post Dave! That's part of the appeal and treasure of Europa, that it can be almost all things to almost all people, and has the breadth, scope, and flexibility to satisfy [within limits] the gamut from gamers to historians. Ray Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 19:58:09 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re: AREONAVAL Gary? >Many persons are devoting time to development of >Europa, myself included. There exists an organ for >publication of your ideas, called The Europa Magazine. >All official Europa stuff must have John's (God's) stamp of >approval tho! The issue is not that of the number of people working on development, per se, as I've always been aware that John is not absolutely the only person working on Europa [I did work on the reconciliation of the OB/OAs for FitE]. The issue is that no one who has the "official" power to do so has ever sat down, said "this is the sum of what we want Europa [Grand or otherwise] to be", decided the broad outlines of that, and then allocated the work to volunteers. It always seemed to me that both John and Winston have always been very, very wary of releasing their hands from control of any development aspects. They may have had experiences that make it perfectly correct to feel this way. That's information that I don't have. But the situation with Europa is one that could be relatively easily compartmentalized and those portions which aren't likely to be produced, given the constraints on the time of the current development staff, parcelled out. Things like the Strategic Air War, Strategic and "Tactical" [individual ship] Naval [including Atlantic convoys, submarines, etc.] warfare [after all some capital ships certainly had complements larger than some of the battalions we are already pushing around on the maps], overall [and especially the Balkans] partisan warfare, and so on. Of course all official Europa needs John's approval, there needs to be some oversight. But that oversight should not, by design or accident, be prohibitive of others in the community making contributions. This way, even if ONLY one of the projects given out to volunteers ends up in "official" Europa, then Europa is at least that far ahead. As far as the statement about TEM being an organ for the publication of ideas, there are many people out there with great things to contribute, and the time to make that contribution, who need the structure given by proactive leadership, rather than being vaguely told, "well, submit your ideas." Active solicitation in TEM of volunteers to do work on some of these areas [listed above] would go far to indicate that specific input, for specific results, was desirable, and that the official Europa leadership was reviewing all options for making Europa as broad-brushed and versatile as possible. Ray Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 18:52:35 -0400 From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Politics & other such criminal activities >"Britain and/or France may intervene in Norway" then you roll for the >Norwegian reaction - the Norwegians likely would have reacted as the Danes >did with the Germans- no significant fighting, Allies occupy the country >and then see what the Germans do about it (if anything) Nah, not a (significant) chance, the Norwegians will fight the Allies if they invade. The Norwegians had no reason to suspect that Germany was going to invade, so they're not about to welcome the Allies as saviors from the Nazis. Also, the Norwegian government would know that the Allies were invaded for their own purposes, with no consideration for Norway's interests. (The whole point of the invasion would have been to grab the Swedish iron mines and choke the German economy. Narvik was the ice-free port from which the iron ore was sent to Germany in winter; hence the Allied interest in seizing that point.) Finally, unless the Allies could occupy all of Norway quickly with overwhelming force (which was outside their plans), the Norwegian government would have had to take Germany's reaction into account: the Germans are going to intervene "on Norway's side" whether the Norwegians wanted them to or not, and the Royal Navy would not be able to block the Germans from crossing into southern Norway. Now, if Norway doesn't resist the invaders, the country isn't going to get its freedom back if the Germans win. All this means Norway is very likely to resist. Countries almost always resist unprovoked invasions, especially if the invasion is counter to the country's stragetic interests. About the only time a country won't resist is when it is a small country adjoining a great power that can apply overwhelming force anytime it wants -- and even in this case the invaded country might resist. Denmark caved in to Germany, and the Baltic States caved in the to the USSR, but that's about it. Even Finland, outmatched 50 times or more by the USSR, fought -- and Finland had no hope of winning as long as Stalin was willing to send troops in, and Stalin could raise an army that numbered more than Finland's entire population! Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 19:12:48 -0400 From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: 1938 >On Fri, 8 Mar 1996, Alan Conrad wrote: >I agree that a Munich '38 start is a worthwile option to eventually shoot >for. As far as I know, GRD still plans to do Czech 38 in some form eventually, if the designer still wants to. It's an interesting game, and the Czech Army can give the smallish German Army (fewer divisions and fewer panzers than in 1939) a hell of a fight, and can even repel them if they hold on long enough for the Soviet expeditionary force to talk or force its way through Poland or Romania. Yeah, the 38 Soviets are no prize, but 500 tanks and 500 aircraft can really bolster the Czechs. As for starting Europa in 1938, I have my doubts. Czech 38 only works when you neutralize France. (The game's premise is that France and Britain sold out Czechoslovakia at Munich, as they did historically, but that the Czechs decided to fight anyway.) If you have a France that's willing to fight, even reluctantly and proceeding at a slow, set-piece rate, Germany loses the war in 1938. The '38 Germans simply don't have the troops to simultaneously invade Czechoslovakia and to man the Westwall (which is only partially built at this time) in sufficient strength to hold off the French Army. So, Europa ends rather quickly with a 1938 starting date. Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 19:24:05 -0400 From: jastell@crossover.com (John M. Astell) Subject: Re: Computers and Europa >On 3-8-96, Ray Kanarr wrote: >To amplify on this, I don't know of anyone who has a computer, robot, >or cyborg at home with whom they play Europa, so why should there be >any expectation at all that Computerized [as opposed to 'Computer'] >Europa should have AI of any sort? Even more, the future belongs to the net, not to stand-along computers. Why bother with "AI" (a misnomer, as the algorithms that drive computer play have nothing to do with artificial intelligence) at all when you can have Real-I, by playing in an Internet Europa on the Web (or its successor)? A network savvy, computer-assisted Europa looks to be both practical (ignoring the likely $500,000+ price tag to implement and maintain the thing on the net) and tons of fun. From: Jay Steiger/Forte Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 11:30:11 -0500 Subject: Re: Post WW I Ray said >The problem with Czech '38 is exactly what you were talking about, >early alterations to history making for "Wacky Europa". Play can't >realistically start before about 9/39 and give any hope of having a >reasonable chance of reproducing something resembling history. >This doesn't mean that the rules, maps, and OoB/OAs for European >affairs from 1918 through 1938 shouldn't be available, so that those >interested in exploring the history of alternate Earths could do so, >just that it shouldn't be put forth as historical simulation. Bzzzzzzzzt! I'm sorry but that is incorrect sir! "Wacky Europa" sounds rather excessively subjective to me. I kind of like the "big tent" idea espoused by several contributors recently. There is room enough for a variety of games and play preferences/styles. Why should Europa be the exclusive realm of 1939-1945 with nothing else at all. Why was FWTBT done then? Spanish Torch and Gibraltar could have been handled in SF or WiD so these were the icing...the Spanish Civil War is the cake.I will agree that Peace in Our Time will probably not fit into GE (and neither will FWTBT), but so what. It sounds like a cool game. It probably won't cost too much and will be much quicker to set up and play than SF or FiTE. I personally don't have the space or time at the present to play SF. I hope to in the future, but right now I do like to see the occasional 1 mapper. The "Wacky Europa" idea would have knocked out AWW as well. The campaign could have been factored into FiTE with option rolls. If the war doesn't occur, the borders change, the Soviets don't learn the hard way that their army sucks, and the Finns are disinclined to assist the axis. Oh well, kinda boring to me, I'd rather game it. I'm all for the "focus" of Europa (as a subset of GR/D) being the reprint/revision of the older games with a future eye on some sort of WW2 Grand Europa rules (I probably will never play 1939 onward GE, but I like the idea of having the option, and I know that it is enormously popular with the Europa crowd. PiOT should not suddenly advance over Narvik and FiTE as the next Europa project. Neither, on the other hand, should it be dumped into the deadpile. I am all for Strat Air and Naval Europa because they expand the range of options. If you want TF's, cool! Play the game that way. If you want individual ships, cool! That will play as well. As long as I'm on the soapbox, the Great War and Glory systems are going to be great additions as well. I think that someday (rather long off) Glory will tie into Europa as an option. I think you better have a reeeeealy big wherehouse and about 50 or so players, but hey, who knows? I have seen teasers of the Phillipines Game, and it's going to be very very good. I have played March to Victory for the Great War system, and it is excellent (and fun too!). Both of these will ultimately strengthen, not weaken Europa by expanding and improving the basic system. If you don't like the games, don't buy them, but don't deny them to those of us who are interested!!! Enough for now... Soldiers Law #31 That flank attack you've been ignoring as a diversion...is really the main assault. Jay Steiger