From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:44 GMT Subject: Pacific War I have Pacific War, and it's an interesting game. It has a lot of touches that I like...submarine task forces menacing the Japanese merchant fleets...varying levels of air training...good ship silhouettes...my old base in Japan included as a target for strategic bombing. It also had good color with the NZ, Aussie, and French forces. The production system for air training was a good touch that put the Japanese in their historic corner of having to yank untrained pilots and send them out as Kamikazes. The Doolittle Raid was a factor, and strategic initiative was an important issue and good touch, in which side could set the agenda for debate. The Tirpitz could make a guest appearance, which was good for a laugh. One problem with Pac War was that the British OB was a mess. HMS Victorious did not make her historic South Pacific tour of 1943. Best, DHL From: Rich Velay Subject: GURU:SF: l-o-n-g Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:09:39 PST Hi everyone. Some more SF stuff for your enjoyment and elucidation. Note that for the original poster's, some of these answers may be different than what you yourself have received. To you guys, note that this post supercedes any previous answers you may have seen. That's what you get for rushing me! 8^) <--- in case it isn't clear, I wear glasses. :) Leaving GE mode and entering GURU mode... >** If a TF is sitting in a coastal hex whilst a landing is >continuing then how is an anti-naval patrol air unit >supposed to make contact with it becuase the TF can start >each naval step as night - when anti naval patrol attacks >cant be made, and they may only attempt contact when a TF >enters or starts a step in a hex. Logically, of course, >they should be able to delay attempting contact until the >night movement points are used and day arrives, but we cant >see anything in the rules or erratas or mags about this. Let's clear up this "claiming night status" interpretation, before it becomes a problem. This may have been answered differently in the past, but the following is how things are. Rule 34A4 is very specific about "*Movement* at night". Your NG must be expending MPs to be considered moving at night, simply sitting in a hex, without moving and/or expending MPs, is not enough. So your TF sitting in a coastal hex may not be considered as "moving at night" at all; not for Danger zones, not for CD or naval combat, nor for naval patrol bombing missions. In cases where the NG is expending MPs without moving, eg disembarking cargo or preparing to fire NGS, the NG may not be considered "moving at night" since it is still not moving, ie leaving the hex it occupies. Please keep in mind what is being simulated here; the naval rules and naval MPs are, in effect, tracking *Time* more than distance. Just because a NG is spending 10 MPs (or 1/3 X amount of time) in the hex at night, it is still expending 20 MPs (or 2/3 X amount of time) in the hex in daylight. Obviously the planes on naval patrol missions search for and possibly find the NG during the daylight portion of the naval movement step, the CD fires at adjacent NGs during the daylight portion of the naval movement step, the subs/MTBs/what not that make up a Danger Zone sortie during the daylight portion of the naval movement step. As an option, if you wish to bother, you could allow NGs that will be moving *out* of a danger zone to declare that their first 10 MPs spent will be at night, therby allowing them to gain the -1 DRM for danger zone contact during that naval movement step. Note that they *must* leave the danger zone to benefit from this. >** Can the Italian fleet avoid paying the RP cost by paying >it once to go to sea then staying at sea all the time ? Sure, but they will be sunk for failing to replenish! That's if you use Advanced Rule 43G. Otherwise, using basic game rules, yes they can avoid paying the one resource point cost. However, in either case, they will likely be putting themselves at risk as to danger zones, naval patrol bombing and/or naval "interception". If using the basic replenishment rule, 34B, then you could, as an option, assume that the TF in question had to *get* to a "Friendly owned functioning naval base" and get out of it again, to remain "on station". Thus, an Axis TF would have to pay the one resource point each time it replenishes, even if it doesn't physically enter and leave a port. >** The six turns that Allied TF's can provide NGS, is it 6 >player turns or 6 game turns ? ie. if it fires in Allied >turn to support a landing and then in Axis turn to help >defense it counts as 1 or 2 ? Six "player turns", ie each Allied TF can fire NGS a total of six times a year; regarless of whether those firings happen in the Allied or Axis player turn. On a related matter, note that a TF must prepare to fire NGS again, after it has fired NGS, in addition to the two conditions listed in Rule 33A, ie having moved or participated in naval combat. >** Do all naval units individually keep track of how many >MP's theyve used, and is it accross Naval phases or player >turns ? Eg. had 28 left at end of first phase and wanted to >unload in port, so only costs first 2 from next phase ? If >so then this makes it a nightmare of keeping track for all >those NTP's and LC's but if not then theyre losing MP's >which are vital. You may expend MPs to perform a task, such as disembarking ground units, for example, over the course of multiple naval movement steps (although not movement phases). Use status markers on each naval unit or naval group, as appropriate, to keep track of situations, like the one you describe above, where a naval unit or group may have spent some of the MPs needed for an action in a previous naval movement step. As you point out, this can rapidly become a playability problem if employed rigorously. As an optional house rule, you can simply not allow MP carry over between naval movement steps; while solving the playability problem, it does penalize the naval units/groups by forcing them to "lose" MPs if they have any remaining in a naval movement step. >** Does a c/m unit which lands on a beach in the >exploitation phase have any MP's left to move ? how about >if it lands during normal movement phase ? if using the >optional rule on MP's being used depending on how many >steps in transit and only paying to disembark. What about >disemabarking in a port ? Whether or not a unit will have any MPS left or not after naval movement depends on a number of factors. Perhaps some examples will help: Using basic game rules, and a C/M unit with 10 printed MPs. If the unit embarked at a port in the exploitation phase, it will pay 2 MPs to do so (1 MP to embark, x2 for C/M unit), will pay 4 MPs to disembark (1 mp to disembark, x2 for C/M unit, x2 for non-amphibious unit to a beach) and will thus have 4 MPs remaining to expend during the exploitation phase. If embarked at a beach, the unit wil pay 4 MPs to embark (1 MP, x2 for C/M, x2 for non-amphibious unit froma beach) and the same 4 MPs to disembark, leaving it with 2 MPs to expend. If the unit embarked during any previous movement or exploitation phase, then it would only pay to disembark during this phase, paying 4 MPs to do so, and would thus have 6 MPs to expend. Having moved by naval transport during a movement phase does not affect movement capabilities during the following exploitation phase; thus the unit would have 10 MPs to spend in the exploitation phase following a movement phase in which it used naval transport. If using Optional Rule 44G2... Regardless of when the unit embarked, it will pay 2 MPs (being C/M) for each naval movement step at sea during the expoitation phase. Let us suppose that the unit begins the expoitation phase loaded upon an LC in a friendly beach hex. It will cost the LC 90 MPs to disembark the unit so our unit will have been at sea for a minimum of three naval movement steps; thus it will pay 6 MPs for the time spent on the LC, and will pay a further 4 MPs to disembark, for a total of 10 MPs. Thus it will have no MPs to expend during this exploitation phase for ground movement. Since this example is the most favorable possible situation for a C/M unit disembarking on a beach during the expoitation phase, it may be useful to simply understand the optional rule as requiring a C/M unit to pay ALL of its MPs to disembark on a beach in an expoitation phase; this is the effect of the rule in practice. When using the basic rules, and disembarking at a friendly owned port with sufficient capacity: the unit, if embarking at a port during the exploitation phase, will pay 2 MPs to embark and 2 MPs to disembark (1 mp, x2 for C/M unit) for a total of 4 MPs, and will thus have 6 MPs to expend during exploitation ground movement. If using Optional Rule 44G when embarking at a port: the unit will pay nothing to embark, 2 MPs per naval movement step at sea, and 2 MPs (1 mp, x2 for C/M unit) to disembark. If it began the exploitation phase loaded on a NT in a friendly port, then the NT would spend a minimum of 30 MPs to disembark the unit, or one naval movement step. Thus the ground unit will pay 2 MPs for the one naval movement step at sea, and 2 MPs to disembark; leaving it with 6 MPs to expend for ground movement. >** Does the Sicilian Garrison activate when allied units >land on Calabria ? Using the new fix for the Straits of Messina means that Sicily and Calabria are adjacent, since ground units (albeit only Axis ones) can move directly from Sicily to Calabria; therefore Allied units in Calabria would activate the Sicily Garrison on the Axis player turn following the Allied player turn in which Allied units first entered Calabria. Note, however, that Sardinia and Corsica, for example, are *not* adjacent, for the purposes of garrison activation. >** All allied units making amphibious landings are isolated >in their first combat phase so any losses dont receive >special replacements ? and it counts against Allied >disastrous Operations for VP's ? No, to both questions. The units making an amphibious landing will *normally* be isolated after disembarking in the enemy owned beach. And if isolated, follow all normal game rules associated with being isolated. But... Note that there are cases where a unit could make an amphibious landing adjacent to friendly units, for example, and thus be able to trace an LOC *through* those friendly units to a regular source of supply. The unit checks isolation at the beginning of the combat phase following the amphibious landing. The fact that it got to that hex by naval transport, even amphibious transport, doesn't, in itself, affect its isolation status. All that is required is that it be able to trace either an overland supply line, of unlimited length, to a friendly regular source of supply if using the basic rules, or an LOC if using optional Rule 44B1 and 44B1a. On a related topic, units lost while being transported by NT/LC may or may not be isolated; again it depends upon their status at the time of the last isolation check, and not simply that they are aboard an NT/LC. If our invading units mentioned above were not isolated during the initial phase, then they will not be isolated during the following movement phase, and if eliminated by reason of their NT/LC being sunk/damaged, would generate special replacements. If they began the initial phase isolated, then they would be isolated during the movement phase, and if sunk, would not generate special replacements. One last note, for general interest; if our invading units were aboard an NT/LC and isolated in the initial phase, they would also be unsupplied, U-1'd and have their attack factor halved, in addition to any other modifiers, when making their amphibious assault. Note that it is impossible for a unit aboard an NT/LC to be in supply if it is isolated; if able to trace to a regular supply line, it would not be isolated, and there is no way for a unit aboard an NT/LC to trace to a special source of supply. Whew, are my fingers tired! Hope this helps. I also want to thank everyone who has sent in questions or simply commented on this email Rules Court. Your feedback and kind words of support have been very encouraging, and are appreciated. Thanks for the posts! late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:57:17 +0100 From: cloister@dircon.co.uk (Perry de Havilland) Subject: Re: Invading Ireland In response to some comments of mine, Dave Lippman wrote: >I tend to agree that a British 1940 invasion of Ireland would have >been a pretty counter-productive exercise. Granted the Irish army would >have fallen in fairly swift order, the British were in no position to >invade or occupy Eire in 1940. >First, they needed most of their surviving post-Dunkirk firepower to >stave off Nazi invasion. Actually, this idea was floated in Cabinet several times in 1942 and again in 1943 (I'm doing this from memory, but I'm fairly sure of the date. If I find out otherwise, I will re-post). Nazi invasion was not really a threat by then. >Second, there wasn't really enough surviving post-Dunkirk firepower >in the British isles for the kind of concerted assault on Ireland (even >presuming that amphibious assets used on Operation Menace were instead >assigned to Ireland). It would not have been an amphib operation. It would have taken the form of two divisions reserve divisions plus some support units rolling across the border from Ulster. Beaufighters etc would have made a German reaction a fairly hair raising prospect (for the Germans). Pretty simple op really. >Third, as mentioned, the move would have resulted in a massive >Nazi-supplied guerrilla warfare by proven experts on the subject. I think you rather misunderstand what the British intentions were. The idea was occupy a couple of ports (I cannot for the life of me remember which two). They had no intention of occupying the whole country. The two ports in question had been ports at which the RN had retained treaty rights until (I think) 1936, when the damn govt. of the time abandoned the ports and the RN's rights to use them as part of a defence restructuring programme. Secondly, whilst this move would no doubt have provoked an upsurge in the *Irish Problem*, do not overestimate the likely scale of it or the ability of the British to deal with in within the context of a wartime situation. A problem? Yes, but a manageable one, I suspect. >Fourth, as mentioned, it would have had a serious impact on American >public opinion, backing Charles Lindbergh and his America-firsters. In 1940, probably. In 1942/43, I am not so sure. Actually, one of the things that surprised me about this whole thing was that the American govt. was well aware of the British discussions (they had been assisting the Brits in pressuring the Irish govt. to grant a renewal of basing rights for the ports whose names I cannot for the life of me remember). The American attitude seems to have been that provided the British actions were limited in scope, (i.e. long term occupation was confined to the historic treaty ports) this was something they could live with, even if they were not exactly jumping for joy at the prospect. No doubt a few official grimaces would have statements of regret would have been required, to which the Brits would have replied with some platitudes. At least that was the general idea. If this seems remarkable, one must view it within the context of the times. The USA was already an active belligerent. What's more, Anglo-American shipping was starting to take a real hammering from the U-boat efforts. If it came to a choice between Irish sensibilities and the prospect of Britain being brought to its knees, I think the lack of outright American opposition to this idea is easier to understand. If this thread sparks enough interest, I will spend the time to refresh my poor brain with the details (I have read a couple books on the subject, one of which is somewhere in this disaster area of a study of mine (i.e. hard to find). The other is in the Chelsea library, which is just around the corner from me. It's already well past midnight here, so I will look it up tomorrow if I have the time and anyone gives a hoot). >Not one of Churchill's better ideas, and it was squelched, but one >of the things you can do with a wargame is find out how it might have >gone, replete with German intervention forces coming by air and sea. >By the way, at the time, the Irish were extremely frightened that >their neutrality would be violated by one side or the other. Friends of >mine who grew up in Ireland at the time vividly recall that Eamon De >Valera called up 16-year-olds into home defence brigades. The country was >also a hotbed of espionage, even though the numbers involved were far >less than the capacity of Candlestick Park, and the only casualty was a >German spy who died of a heart attack while in captivity after the war >was over. > And quite right they were to be nervous. Fortunately for them, it was the advent of longer range ASW aircraft (operating out of Ulster) that was probably the clincher in talking Winston out of doing it. As it was, Coastal Command overflew Donegal as a semi-official matter of policy (incidentally, the Europa rules should reflect this fact) Was it a bad idea? Certainly in retrospect, the additional Irish ports/ airfields would have been useful during the Battle of the Atlantic, but essential? Historically speaking, obviously not, or I'd be sending this post in German ;-) Regards, Perry ...- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 20:32:41 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Another monster GE rant The only problem I have with the many mansions approach is the development time needed for each of these detailed modules to make sure that they don't distort the play of the game. This is not necessarily John Astell's time, but I shudder to think of some of the player created nightmares (4 types of snow!) that I've seen out there and believe that such modules should be widely disseminated for review. Jason Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 21:21:53 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re: GE options Rich, While you and I debating which 'flavor' of Europa should become "Official" is an exercise on the same level as debating whether smooth or chunky peanut butter is better, or how many panzergrenadiers can dance on the head of a pin, I would like to ask you the following: 1) with regard to your concerns, these are valid for how you perceive the game would be enjoyable for you; this is why I suggested GR/D look at the option of farming out materials for more 'tangential' [to some players] aspects of the game to volunteers. Isn't the purpose of Europa [& GR/D] to make money so that Glory, WW I, etc. can be produced for those that enjoy playing in these arenas? And isn't the most likely way for this to occur to make the system modular enough to appeal to the broadest spectrum of tastes? In this way, production of the 'streamlined, land-focussed' game is not held up by items that some people are not interested in, but those items are still committed to. If I thought that there was no commitment to the continued evolution [including continued evolution of complexity] of Europa, as a system, I'd either drop out now, or at least put most of my effort into personally customizing the system. I have some concern regarding the Collector's Edition of Narvik in this respect, as this will now mean that we will be perpetuating three separate time schemes: 3-day [FtF], 4-day [Narvik], and 2-week [most]. I don't think that we are really that far apart on this issue, I think that its mainly a matter of how, when, and in what form "official" materials are produced. 2) If the outcome of an entire two-year game in progress hangs on a single die-roll, perhaps the system needs some adjustment to reduce the impact of the event, not constrain the system so that the event didn't [or wouldn't] have had ANY impact. 3) Please provide some scholarly back-up for your assertion that a Nazi-Polish Pact was as likely [or as unlikely] to occur as the historical Nazi-Soviet Pact. In addition to a history of secret pacts [as when the Soviets conspired with the Germans to circumvent the Versailles Treaty in matters of armor and air], and a mutual admiration of one thuggish despot for another, the Nazis and Soviets had at least one other thing in common, an intense dislike for an independent Polish State that both had avowed designs upon; what sort of commonality did Nazi Germany and Poland have? Keep on Truckin' Ray Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 20:54:12 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: Second Front end game I left out SE Theater from CoT as it's just too trouble for the effect of its inclusion what with Tito's partisans, Bulgarians and other missing counters to include Nazi symps like the Serbian Volunteer Korps. Frankly I've always viewed the Balkan Axis as a Chimera with little to recommened it other than the short distances to Austria. But the incredibly poor transportation network and rugged terrain make it a nightmare to attack through. I'd urge that anybody playing CoT take detailed notes and share them with us as I'd like to see what conclusions can be drawn from it as it stresses the Europa system as does little else. Based on a game played by Eric Pierce and Art Goodwin it seems to be a walkover for the Soviets. One particular complaint was the air replacements for the VVS seem to be way high. As I swagged them myself I have no problem with cutting them in half as Soviet air units were frequently aborted in Europa terms in reality and they shouldn't be able to be instantly replace every loss every single turn without exhausting their Air RPs. Air RPs in general may well be too high in SF as well, but I'm not yet certian of that as I haven't played it myself. What impressions have those of you who have played it formed? Jason Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 22:25:52 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: Re: Second Front end game Jason, Another reason to include the Balkans in detail is to examine the Axis options there from 1943-45, at least. I was recently involved in a game of SF with an Allied Landing in Brittany in 1943 [they DID manage to secure a Major Port]. One of the home brew rules was related to the SE Front and the ability of the Germans to extract relatively good, useable units [including Political Police, wonderful for propping up the morale of the units holding the line of the Seine] in exchange for a carload of trash, including most of the Italian reinforcements. How 'realistic' was this? Who the F--- knows! But a better assessment could have been made if we had some of that good old Europa research to base decisions on, rather than our own mad scrambling through our minds and a few reference works. Ray Date: 11 Mar 96 21:39:50 EST From: Carl Rugenstein <74037.766@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Computers and Europa Peter, I was intrigued by your note regarding Europa and Stalingrad. I too had visions of Europa being done much like Stalingrad. One thing I found when playtesting Stalingrad that struck me very strange was that many of the other playtesters knew of Europa, but for numerous reasons had no wish to tackle the Europa series. It seems to me that most Europa gamers would probably love Stalingrad. If they gave it a chance I'd think the opposite would also be true. I'm probably rambling but the point I'm trying to get to is that I think the computer is perhaps an answer on how to bring new life into the series. Winston has mentioned several times that the Europa community is not growing. I'm willing to make a bet that it would grow significantly if it was associated with computer playability of some sort. Forget the AI. PBEM or modem play would be the future. During the test I played 11 PBEM games with different folks and all of us agreed that the play was extremely exciting as well as fun. Most of us felt it was as good or better than face to face. With the flavor Europa has to offer there is no doubt in my mind it would be very popular. A 20+ year Europa Lover From: Jeff White Subject: Re: Second Front end game Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 21:03:44 -0600 (CST) Jason Long Said: > > I left out SE Theater from CoT as it's just too trouble for the effect of > its inclusion what with Tito's partisans, Bulgarians and other missing > counters to include Nazi symps like the Serbian Volunteer Korps. > Frankly I've always viewed the Balkan Axis as a Chimera with little to > recommened it other than the short distances to Austria. But the incredibly > poor transportation network and rugged terrain make it a nightmare to > attack through. I'd like to see Slovenia, (original Croatia, minus Bosnia) and Hungary (I assume it's part of the Eastern front) in play. Greece and the rest of the SouthEast doesn't do anything for me. Slovenia and Croatia in play means that the German player has to guard Italy a bit better. When I was playing (for a while) on the German side, it was widely felt that Italy can only go so bad, due to the Alps. Getting Slovenia and Croatia in play means the Germans have to be careful, lest the Allies link up, or Clark takes the back door through Lubiana, and around. It also means that they want to hold the Allies out of the Po, to prevent the lines from getting stretched out. Perhaps some fractional part of the SouthEast OB could enter play with some minor rule changes to go along with it. I'm low on knowledge on the SE theatre, so any of the Europa experts want to take a wack at it? > I'd urge that anybody playing CoT take detailed notes and share them with > us as I'd like to see > what conclusions can be drawn from it as it stresses the Europa system as > does little else. Based on a game played by Eric Pierce and Art Goodwin > it seems to be a walkover for the Soviets. One particular complaint was We've discussed this. We plan on keeping war diaries on each side. > the air replacements for the VVS seem to be way high. As I swagged them > myself I have no problem with cutting them in half as Soviet air units were > frequently aborted in Europa terms in reality and they shouldn't be able > to be instantly replace every loss every single turn without exhausting > their Air RPs. > Air RPs in general may well be too high in SF as well, but I'm not yet > certian of that as I haven't played it myself. What impressions have those > of you who have played it formed? The Western Allied Air RP rate seems about right, maybe +/- 10%, but why split hairs. I looked at the Soviet ARP numbers and they did seem big. Did they have that much production of airframes and aircrews? It was very hard to keep the German Air force down without a concerted effort to go after them. The couple of times we did go after them, it was pretty bad on the Luftwaffe. They really got hammered early on with Naval intercepts. We pretty much counted on the Strat airforce to contain them, which it did. They also ended up with two choices, fly and die, or hide and live. I think fly and die is a better option with the ARP system, as hide and live doesn't help things. What if the Luftwaffe sort gives up in the West after mid '44 and gives the Soviets a hard time? They might make more of a difference there. -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY jwhite@ghq.com "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 21:35:14 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: re:GE:Italy in my experience VPs only matter when they are back by rules that punish players in ways that effect the game they're playing, like losing all inf RPs if x action occurs. hard and fast prohibitions will just be broken outright. Frankly I look to the rules to keep much of this stuff under control so the Italians can't put twenty divisons in the desert because they can't be supplied, etc. Jason Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 21:56:37 -0500 From: Ray Kanarr Subject: SouthEast Front [was:Second Front end game] On 3/10/96, Jeff White said: >I noticed that the SouthEast theatre again is not included. >This was a bit depressing in our Second Front game as I >couldn't take the back door around the South into >Germany. Any news when an OB might appear for 43-45 >for the Balkans? This is what I'd like to see come up near the top of the list for Europa, complete with the partisan war 1941-45, and this would go a far way to showing how elegantly Europa can handle political events. Ray Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 21:13:19 -36000 From: Jason Long Subject: Re: GE:Italy It seems to me that we need to cater to both multi-player teams and single individuals playing each side. Don't boggle at me like that I know a couple of guys who've actually played Campaign for North Africa to completion so I'm willing to bet that people will try GE in a similar vein. Players should not be allowed to change occupation policies. The Nazis and Soviets were thugs and shouldn't be allowed to forget it. Players are going to fantasize about Barbarossa being mounted by the Liberal Democratic Germans with not Soviet partisan activity, but I see no reason to encourage such sick imaginings in any way via the rules. jason From: NASU002.USAP@iac.org.nz (Public Affairs Officer) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:57 GMT Subject: Re: Invading Ireland Dear Perry: From what you wrote, I thought the plan was broached in 1940 vice 1942/1943. Naturally, if this was dreamed up in 1942/43, the situation would be closer to what you describe than I describe. I recall that there was talk of seizing the treaty ports in 1940. Of course, if the Allies tried it in the time frame you describe, it would have been mostly an exercise in logistics. When Adolf Hitler committed suicide in 1945, Ireland's Eamon de Valera paid a condolence call on the German Ambassador to Ireland, commisserating with him on the demise of Germany's leader. More wierdly, De Valera's ambassador to Germany bore letters patent from the man who was then King of Ireland, George VI. Bizarre. Best, DHL Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 20:37:47 -0800 From: bstone@sub.sonic.net (Bill Stone) Subject: Re: Invading Ireland Background on the Treaty Ports, quoting from Carroll, Joseph T. IRELAND IN THE WAR YEARS, 1939-1945. Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1975: ------------- The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6 December 1921 laid down in Article Six that until the Irish Free State undertook her own coastal defense, 'the defense by sea of Great Britain and Ireland shall be undertaken by His Majesty's Imperial Forces'. Article Seven stated that the government of the Irish Free State shall afford to his Majesty's Imperial Forces: (a) In time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are undertaken in the Annex hereto, or such facilities as may from time to time be agreed between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State; and (b) In time of war or strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for defense of aforesaid. The facilities referred to were at Cobh (then known as Queenstown) in Cork Harbor on the south coast, Berehaven in Bantry Bay on the south-west coast and at Lough Swilly on the extreme north in Co Donegal. These had all been used by the Royal Navy during World War I, and the anti-submarine war had been largely conducted from Queenstown, but their main value was as deep-water anchorages and they were by no means fully equipped naval bases. By 1939 the shore installations were regarded as primitive and totally inadequate for a modern fleet. The coastal guns in the defensive batteries were in reasonable working order but rather old. Up to 1938 small British military maintenance parties occupied the various forts, but in that year a new Anglo-Irish Agreement was concluded whereby the British government unconditionally handed over the forts and harbors to the Irish government thus abrogating Articles Six and Seven of the 1921 Treaty. ---------------------------- Bill Stone Santa Rosa, CA bstone@sonic.net World War II Web Site: http://www.sonic.net/~bstone ---------------------------- From: Rich Velay Subject: GURU Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:04:33 PST Hi everyone. For those new to this mailer, who may be wondering about the stuff listed as GURU in the subject line, here's what gives. I am the new Europa Rules Court Editor, or jr poohbah, as I like to think of myself. I have decided to experiment with email responses to rules questions through the mailer; things have worked out pretty good so far. For those of you able to read this, email Q&A will get you a much faster response than sending in questions to GR/D and having them send them to me. Also, please don't send questions to Rick Gayler at the old Rules Court Address, he is trying to get some rest and will just forward them to GR/D who will forward them to me... All I ask is that you make your questions easy for me to find and play with; use GURU: as the subject line so I can grab the questions out. What I say as the GURU is as official as it gets, with the caveat that John Astell can always overrule the Judge; he is after all the Supreme Court of Europa.So when you see GURU in the subject line, this is the Rules Court Judge making a ruling. Now I have some opinions of my own and post them from time to time. When you *don't* see the GURU, it is just me talking, and you can agree, disagree or ignore as your fancy strikes you. So for you new additions, please feel free to send your questions to me through email. Not that I have not been sending personal answers, I just strip off any identifying bits and post the questions and answers to Lysator in general. This was what people preferred; with my bare bones system, one reply is all I can manage, and for now that reply goes to Lysator for all to see and (hopefully) enjoy. Looking forward to more work. late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:04:36 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: Second Front end game >Air RPs in general may well be too high in SF as well, but I'm not yet >certian of that as I haven't played it myself. What impressions have those >of you who have played it formed? In my experience, the germans can ALWAYS recover their losses for the fighter force every turn, though it might be at the price of the bombers. As long as the germans have fighters, they make attacks more uncertain (as the expected ground support don't show up) and remove quite a few good fighter-bombers from the bomber role. When I played the game (solitaire), I found it quite pointless to try to hurt the luftwaffe, as they could take anything you could throw at them, and still pop up a new air force the next turn. What really bothers me is the fact that the well-documented poor quality of most of the german fighter pilots is in no way represented in the game, though. Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:08:28 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Airdrop rules I once made some calculations on the Assault on Crete scenario for BF and found out that the historical landings had a less than 5% cance of achieving the HISTORICAL results. What really bothers me with the rules for airdrop is this: When a transport is hit by FLAK (R or A), it returns to the base with the cargo. Since most airborne units require two transports to drop, there's a MAJOR chance this will happen, even with just 1 or 2 points of AA. My question is: has this ever happened? Is there ANY occasion in the history of the parachute when the transports return to base without letting the soldiers jump because of flak? I think not. I think that, in this particular instance, the load shouldn't be returned, but rather have additional modifiers for the disruption roll. +1 for any R and +2 for any A seems about right. Has anybody else an opinion on this? (as a diversion to the SF pie-throwing:-) Mvh Elias Nordling o-noreli@jmk.su.se From: Stefan Farrelly Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:47:36 +0000 Subject: Re: Second Front end game My brother and I have played many SF scenarios and weve never had a problem with not enough Air RP's, despite in one game deliberatly trying to hit the Axis air to see if we coould impact their RP's long term. No good. Consequently we think the Air RP's are too generous for all sides. Stefan Farrelly Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 07:50:10 -0600 From: conrad alan b Subject: Re: Sealion possibilities On Sun, 10 Mar 1996, James B. Byrne wrote: > John M. Astell wrote: > > > This whole scenario, however, depends upon the Royal Navy being able to > > operate in the Channel without taking devastating losses. > > And here is another of the great 'what if's in any European WWII game. If the RN and RAF > successfully defend the UK from invasion and are smashed in the process, what will be the > effect on the strategic war in the Atlantic? Will the RN have the strength or the will to > chase and destroy the Bismark? Will Germany be embodened to sent more frequent sorties of > surface raiders into the Altantic? Will the U-Boot force exceed the historic rate of > sinkings? Will the loss of RN light surface units and their irreplacable crews reduce the > effectiveness of the convoy system? Will this in turn result in a reduction of British > industrial output? The capacity to field and provide for an army in the dessert? > Good questions. However remember that there is a balancing factor to the rest of the U-Boat war. All of the German light naval production has to go into landing craft and anything else to try to keep the army in England alive. Just using all the Rhine river barges for the invasion has a real negative economic effect on German production too. The German navy has a limited number of trained seamen to draw for crews also. So the U-Boast arm will be very limited for some time. AlanConrad Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 07:57:23 -0600 From: conrad alan b Subject: Re: Sealion etc. On Mon, 11 Mar 1996 j.broshot@genie.com wrote: > On March 10, 1996, Jim Byrne posted a long rebuttal to John Astell > concerning the after effects of SEALION in which he set out a lengthy > dissertation on the effects on a Great Britain which has successfully > defended its shores from a German invasion. > BUT what about the effects on the Germans? > I regret being redundant BUT in referring again to C. S. Forester's > short story "If Hitler Had Invaded England" we find the following > conclusions concerning Germany after the defeat of SEALION: > 1. "enormous losses" to the Luftwaffe; which leads to > 2. British air superiority which allows an successful invasion of > Norway in 1941 and the loss of Norwegian and Swedish iron ore to the > German military machine; Opps I answered the last message before I realized it had already gotten answered. However to rebut Mr. Broshot, in any invasion scenario the RAF is going to be more greatly damaged than the Lufftwaffe, so there will be no British air superiority for some time. Alan Conrad Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:05:10 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: GE:Italy Players are >going to fantasize about Barbarossa being mounted by the Liberal >Democratic Germans with not Soviet partisan activity... I don't think it would have made much difference as far as partisans go if the Nazis had been better guests. Postwar history seems to show that invading someone else's country, for whatever your ostensible reason is going to stir up patriotic feelings, &c...Also, the Soviets were good at provoking the Germans into atrocities in those areas where they had behaved themselves or in which they had some popular support. So, it seems best to just go along with that, rather than trying to figure out if it would make any difference if the Nazis are nice guys- there's just no evidence to base even guesswork on, so it would be difficult to devise any kind of system worthy of Europa. Not to flog a dead horse again, but Hitler Germany wouldn't have invaded the USSR to save the Russian people from Bolshevism- Hitler didn't give a damn about the Russian people and actually said that Bolshevism was good for the Russians, as they required exceptionally harsh discipline to get them to accomplish anything (his opinion) The only occupational policies I'm interested in playing around with are in the Balkans, where the two main Axis countries had conflicting interests. But if even 51% of the players wanted to just leave it as historical, I'd be more than happy to go along with that. Christ, I'm starting to sound pretty conservative lately. SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:05:03 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: GE options >Myself, I am not too interested in having a lot of political >choice. I argue for this position: there are a great many players disinterested in the political aspect and would rather be generals and on the other hand we have another camp which relishes in production decisions, diplomacy, &c. Since I'm thinking Grand Europa has to be a team game (I think one guy could play it solitaire, but I don't think two or even three people could tackle it and really have any fun) then there's a place for both kinds of Euro-maniacs at the game table- the politicos can decide when to go to war and whether to build 2 Panzer divisions or 1 air unit and 1 infantry division. Some well-crafted and generally agreeable rules can handle these aspects. The Generals can take the situation as it comes and play the war out without having to deal with any paperwork or having to worry about gaming really absurd situations (Britain and Germany fight Russia and Italy with jet propelled helium zeppelins firing V1 rockets or whatever) >Really, I don't see a great need for many political rules at >all. Neither do I, and I appreciated your suggestions, which run parrallel to my own thinking (see Mr. Byrne's earlier post) >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? I really think production of ground units ought to be on a timetable with some lag time as appropriate (forming/full). Maybe air units would also benefit from such a system. As to aircraft, I'd lobby for allowing some ahistorical but interesting planes (BV.155 German carrier fighters, the American "Moonbat" and others) just for spice. Of course you could stick to strictly historical planes and others could be introduced as variants published in the Europa Magazine. Aircraft counters should be provided to allow some flexibility in choosing between Typhoons and Tornados or whatever, but I'm not sure that anyone has advocated total freedom by the players in this area. It would require an almost insane number of counters. Steve P. "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:05:17 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Second Front end game I finally got a chance to peruse at length CoT. I'm comparing the OBs with Dave Berry's old "Zitadelle" OBs, which formed the basis of our own game played this past summer and fall. You've done some really great work here. >I'd urge that anybody playing CoT take detailed notes and share them with >us as I'd like to see >what conclusions can be drawn from it as it stresses the Europa system as >does little else. Before CoT came out, our group in Oregon put together SE and SF, making some educated guesses on air replacement points and lashing together the OBs as best as possible. I intended to take copious notes, but I was the organization man and ended up doing more OB work as well as being the German team quartermaster general, being the only one inclined to track RPs, &c... Based on a game played by Eric Pierce and Art Goodwin >it seems to be a walkover for the Soviets. The Soviets have far too easy a time of it. I would recommend utilizing HQ rules which require expenditure of RPs to get attack supply. I plan to use the ones by David Berry, which were published in an old ETO zine (#87 I think from 1988 or so) with some modifications if we pull off another hugemungous Grand Europa scenario. We started in April, 1943- which might have been a big mistake, because as soon as the mud dried up in May, the Russians launched massive all out offensives which blew the Axis line completely to pieces, throwing them back across the Dnepr in a month and a half. The Germans were only able to keep the Red Army out of Roumania by launching their own offensive on the joint between two Soviet commands around Poltava- using the cream of the German armour to annihilate well over 500 points of Russian infantry, artillery and engineers in the subsequent month and a half. The Soviets in the north were extremely timid and didn't accomplish anything except to break the leaguer around Leningrad- the Germans by that time had built a NODL in forts back in Latvia. A reason we started in April was that we wanted to see if the Germans could get anything out of Tunisia- ironically, most of what was successfully extracted was Italian (!) The Germans got out some valuable infantry units by airlifting them. If anybody tries a game like this, try using Lampedusa and Pantelleria as fighter bases. One particular complaint was >the air replacements for the VVS seem to be way high. As I swagged them >myself I have no problem with cutting them in half as Soviet air units were >frequently aborted in Europa terms in reality and they shouldn't be able >to be instantly replace every loss every single turn without exhausting >their Air RPs. That's about how it worked out for all sides in our game- we simply guessed and doubled the SF air RPs and gave the Soviets half again as many as that. As to an air OB, we assumed that the German air force would remain the same size, but simply change out old planes for new in existing air units, while the Soviets would grow by a low rate of 5%, allowing them to both change out old equipment and also add some new units. >Air RPs in general may well be too high in SF as well, but I'm not yet >certian of that as I haven't played it myself. What impressions have those >of you who have played it formed? Damn- we as the Germans had been hoarding out aircraft and after an air cycle went by, we realized we had available about four times as many air RPs as we used. Maybe we just played a good game (the Luftwaffe was practically non-existant in Italy and France, and consequently enjoyed tremendous success over Russia) or maybe we just got lucky and should have statistically had more losses. But we still thought the air RPs are too generous for everybody (except the Americans, maybe) Steve P "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:05:30 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: GE options 3) Please provide some scholarly back-up for your assertion that a Nazi-Polish Pact was as likely [or as unlikely] to occur as the historical Nazi-Soviet Pact. The Germans did approach Poland about an alliance against Russia, promising Poland big swaths of Russian territory. The Poles were more interested in maintaining freedom of action and demurred. Goering undertook a special diplomatic mission in 1935 in this regard. Marshall Pilsudski was interested but insisted on a German guarentee of non-interference in Danzig. I believe a relevant source is a memo by Lt. Gen. Schindler, German military attache in Warsaw, 22 Feb 1935 (BA, Beck Papers, NL.28/1) "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:43:25 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: re:GE:Italy >Unless you construct VPs in a way as to make the Italian moves robotic >anyway, ANY Italian player will still behave in a way that is more rational >than his original counterparts. What a horror that would be!- Italy allowed to be played intelligently? Such notions must be suppressed. I agree with the idea of putting constraints on their actions or use by the Axis, and certain historical options seem to be their best use (invading Greece successfully would be good for the Axis- rather than have the Allies get in their as in WW1) But do they have to be forced to attack across the Alps? SP "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:49:38 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: R&D (was Yahtzee and Europa) >I think that R&D issues should be completely out of the hands of the >players. Just add a little bit of randomness and that's it. I can see >your point about assigning priorities (I happen to work in an R&D place and >we take input from the field), but I don't think I want to do it. I think that some randomness would also work just fine. My way would require player interest- again, I'm startng to get the distinct impression it would be best for GRD to start out with the simplest methods to tackle each of these problems and then offer additional material and modules later on. A good springboard would be to simply do as you suggest and add a little randomness to aircraft appearances. It would add some uncertainty. >I knew about the Me-262's engines, but I really thought the Heinkel jobber >would have been ready MUCH sooner. Oh, well. You learn something new >every day. It did fly pretty early on, and the engines were better (Heinkel, however was out of favor at the time in the RLM- and I'm not sure we want to try to figure out how to represent *that* in a game!- this point really lends a lot of weight to your idea of adding some randomness rather than outright player decisions...) Steve P. "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Subject: Airdrop rules (fwd) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:42:03 -0500 (EST) Hi All, Elias asks: > > What really bothers me with the rules for airdrop is this: > When a transport is hit by FLAK (R or A), it returns to the base with the > cargo. Since most airborne units require two transports to drop, there's a > MAJOR chance this will happen, even with just 1 or 2 points of AA. > > My question is: has this ever happened? Is there ANY occasion in the > history of the parachute when the transports return to base without letting > the soldiers jump because of flak? I think not. According to the UK official history, "The Mediterranean and the Middle East", Volume 5, this happened in Sicily. In fact there were so many problems with missdrops, flak from both sides, and planes returning with their cargo that plans were eventually changed to cancel further air drops. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:07:57 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: GE politics > For my part, I agree with what I percieve as the general consensus, that these >factors should be beyond the control of the players. The player's in GE should >represent the top levels of military establishment in their respective nations, >not the national leaders and governments of those nations. I wholly and vigorously disagree. It seems fairly obvious that players "represent" both and neither-if they can be said to represent some specific level of command. If you're going to have GE at all (and some pundits are saying that it should be forgotten about) then some of the top level decisions are going to have to be left in the hands of the players. I see a lot of flat assertions that aren't backed up by any kind of evidence- one is that "It is the concensus that players represent military commanders only" - well, it's not a concensus at all. It's probably 60%, but I've seen just as many messages supporting some player political decisisions as I see this assertion being bandied that "everyone agrees the players are Red Army soldiers and not Stalin" The second is that if any significant political decisions are left up to the players then the game will become some bizarre representation of a Newt Gingrich dreamworld. Irish-Hungarian alliances! Soviets invade Afghanistan holding box! Come on! Where has any Europa player in any forum at any time ever suggested doing stuff like that? Give us all some credit for being knowledgable about the period, the politics and the situation in general! Thanks you, Steve Phillips, the Europa Heretic. PS: I'm only 29 and I keep hearing about how the wargame hobby is fading away because "kids these days are a bunch of idiots that don't understand history" That's untrue. What's happened is, none of us can find jobs that pay enough money to be able to justify paying $125 for a board game. I mean think about it. "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:08:25 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: Another monster GE rant >The only problem I have with the many mansions approach is the development >time needed for each of these detailed modules to make sure that they >don't distort the play of the game. This is not necessarily John Astell's >time, but I shudder to think of some of the player created nightmares (4 >types of snow!) that I've seen out there and believe that such modules >should be widely disseminated for review. Why not take an informal vote? I don't want to see 4 types of schnee either. It strikes me that a great many of the ideas bandied around (like 4 types of snow) are things that would be better developed by players themselves and then distributed via fora like this or the magazine. I cull many ideas from such sources for the various Europa games I've played -scenarios, rules twists, &c...that are great on their own, but GRD can't use every single great idea, whatever its merit, in GE. Should I retrench and suggest that GE perhaps be approached like Advanced Squad Leader (except without redesigning the entire system!!!) A pretty binder and basic rules that stitch the maps and counters together with an elegantly simple production system...then start canvassing all those great ideas to create modules like "Strategic Air War"? I know the volume on this topic is massive- I've hardly had time to follow it, but I'd imagine any lurking GRD people (Mr. Astell) are interested in distilling these kinds of ideas down to something they can actually use. Steve P. "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:12:37 -0800 From: zaius@teleport.com (Steve) Subject: Re: GE politics >directives, mandates, and orders would be its output. For example, during the >winter of 1940-41, the Italians are much more successful in Greece than their >historical counterparts. This is an input to the system. A resultant output >might be a directive to the Wehrmacht to attack the Soviet Union in early May >41, rather than late June.... OK- anyone want to design a flow chart that will handle every possible permutation of every historical campaign in WW2 and it's influence on every other Great Power- and minor? I hate to sound increasingly strident, but I don't understand this constant attempt to hang onto the notion of Grand Europa being nothing more than a stringing together of historical battles that might just happen in a different month. Do the Germans get to lose the war in 1943? or do the Russians have to sit around along the Dnepr until April 1945? Steve P., the Europa heretic... "burn the witch!" "Freedom is always against the law." -J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Subject: Re: Another monster GE rant Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:40:30 -0800 From: Ross Hagglund > Should I retrench and suggest that GE perhaps be approached like Advanced > Squad Leader (except without redesigning the entire system!!!) A pretty > binder and basic rules that stitch the maps and counters together with an > elegantly simple production system...then start canvassing all those great > ideas to create modules like "Strategic Air War"? This sounds very appealing. If a basic set of rules to handle individual areas of the GE could be designed, each with a "20,000 foot" perspective. Then players could pick and choose which areas they would like to "zoom in on" and buy those modules. This would take some playtesting to insure that the abstracted version played similarly to the detailed version. Would it make sense to also abstract the current ground/air combat systems to a less detailed level? I like the pretty binder too ;) Ross (ross@informix.com)