Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 16:21:37 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
>consisely. Another good thing about 1/2 capable units is that they can be
>counted as neutrals, good for diluting down attacks so that ATEC doesn't
>kick in.
Charlie, I haven't seen FWTBT yet, but I don't think this is the standard
interpretation of the Europa AEC rules. ATEC, I believe, is based on
*capability* of the attacking units, not on actual *use*. Hence the
possibility for ATEC to come in to effect even where terrain disallows AECA.
You can, of course, dilute AECA by adding plain-o grunt infantry divisions
to the stack, but they tend not to have the kind of attack factors you could
hope for in these situations. (Thus, on the East Front, I have often used
huges stacks of C/M formations to attack fortresses and other positions that
required high combat odds, even when AECA would not contribute, though I
suspect that in the "real world" the ordinary sort of infantry divisions
would have been better equiped for the job.)
- Bobby.
From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 17:10:52 -0600 (CST)
>
> >consisely. Another good thing about 1/2 capable units is that they can be
> >counted as neutrals, good for diluting down attacks so that ATEC doesn't
> >kick in.
>
> Charlie, I haven't seen FWTBT yet, but I don't think this is the standard
> interpretation of the Europa AEC rules. ATEC, I believe, is based on
> *capability* of the attacking units, not on actual *use*. Hence the
> possibility for ATEC to come in to effect even where terrain disallows AECA.
Thats right but I still get to calculate my AEC counting 1/2 capable as
neutral even if terrain or weather does not allow AEC to be used.
-Charlie
--
Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com
Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 01:23:31 -0600 (CST)
Bobby D. Bryant Said:
>
> >consisely. Another good thing about 1/2 capable units is that they can be
> >counted as neutrals, good for diluting down attacks so that ATEC doesn't
> >kick in.
>
> Charlie, I haven't seen FWTBT yet, but I don't think this is the standard
> interpretation of the Europa AEC rules. ATEC, I believe, is based on
> *capability* of the attacking units, not on actual *use*. Hence the
> possibility for ATEC to come in to effect even where terrain disallows AECA.
With ATEC, the attach has to be 1/2 or over armor. Otherwise you get
just defensive armor. So, by counting a mechanized unit as a neutral
unit (at the owning players option) it can be used to "pollute" a stack
below half armor (too many neutrals for example). You can also do weird
things with some armor division break downs.
For example, smaller British armor divs (eg 8-7-10, 9-8-10) break
down into a tank brigade and a motorized brigade (larger divs break
down into tanks and mechanized inf). You can avoid nasty ATEC doing
various tricks like that.
Nasty bit is now in our Second Front game (Charlie is my co-commander),
the Boch infantry are now ATEC neutral.
While we're at it, here's a off topic question that came up into
tonights game. Say you have a port fortification in a full
hex city. Would siege artillery be quadrupled? (doubled for the
city, doubled again for the fortification)
>
> You can, of course, dilute AECA by adding plain-o grunt infantry divisions
> to the stack, but they tend not to have the kind of attack factors you could
> hope for in these situations. (Thus, on the East Front, I have often used
> huges stacks of C/M formations to attack fortresses and other positions that
> required high combat odds, even when AECA would not contribute, though I
> suspect that in the "real world" the ordinary sort of infantry divisions
> would have been better equiped for the job.)
You have to be careful about things like that. If you attack with
more than say 1/2 armor and you take losses (like an EX or HX)
you have to take 1/2 of the losses in armor. Same goes with like
1/7 eng.
I dunno, 14-8 American Infantry divisions (82nd and 101st) are not
too shabby. Neither are the 1st or 9th Infantry at an 11-8.
It's sorta humorous that the nastiest infantry unit in the game
is completely air mobile.
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 08:54:25 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
> From: "Witham, Tom G." <TGWITH@Inland.com>
>
> Having had it pointed out to me that units with the mechanized symbology
> added to their unit symbol allows for them to be considered neutral for AECA
> benefits I wondered why I had not seen this privilege in the rules. Now,
> granted that I indeed overlooked it somewhere, I did look last night into my
> For Whom The Bell Tolls rules and saw this information added to one of the
> charts on Unit Capabilities. I do not recall seeing this information in the
> main body of the rules which is or should be around rule 10. My question
> is... Is this the only place (the note on the chart) that this important
> information concerning treating mech symboled units as neutral is found or
> have I overlooked this information in the main body of the rules? If so
> where?
It is included in rules for calculating AEC/ATEC proportions, probably
as a paragraph of its own after the main rule. Just have a closer
look... Just maybe, the AEC/ATEC rules might be optional in FWtBT and
you should look among those rules, I don't remember.
/Johan
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 09:10:16 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
> From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
>
> You have to be careful about things like that. If you attack with
> more than say 1/2 armor and you take losses (like an EX or HX)
> you have to take 1/2 of the losses in armor. Same goes with like
> 1/7 eng.
This I know for sure 8-). If you don't _use_ your capability in an
attack you don't take any required losses! So attacking major cities
with armour is perfectly safe, at least from a required losses
perspective.
/Johan
From: pardue@hilda.mast.queensu.ca (Keith Pardue)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 13:02:56 -0500 (EST)
Hi everyone,
I'm new to this list and I'm terribly opinionated about
technical rules points, especially in my favourite games.
Soooo.... Jeff White writes in response to Bobby Bryant in response
to Charlie Anderson:
> Bobby D. Bryant Said:
> >
> > >consisely. Another good thing about 1/2 capable units is that they can be
> > >counted as neutrals, good for diluting down attacks so that ATEC doesn't
> > >kick in.
> >
> > Charlie, I haven't seen FWTBT yet, but I don't think this is the standard
> > interpretation of the Europa AEC rules. ATEC, I believe, is based on
> > *capability* of the attacking units, not on actual *use*. Hence the
> > possibility for ATEC to come in to effect even where terrain disallows AECA.
>
> With ATEC, the attach has to be 1/2 or over armor. Otherwise you get
> just defensive armor. So, by counting a mechanized unit as a neutral
> unit (at the owning players option) it can be used to "pollute" a stack
> below half armor (too many neutrals for example).....
I don't have a rulebook handy, but I remember studying this
point pretty carefully. ATEC is used long as it is possible for the
attacker to get at least 1/2 AECA, regardless of the actual choices
of the attacker. This makes a good deal of sense, lest light armored
units become more effective than their heavier counterparts against
antitank guns in good terrain!
Best Wishes,
Keith Pardue
Kingston, Ontario
Canada
From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:43:34 -0600 (CST)
>
> > From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
> >
> > You have to be careful about things like that. If you attack with
> > more than say 1/2 armor and you take losses (like an EX or HX)
> > you have to take 1/2 of the losses in armor. Same goes with like
> > 1/7 eng.
>
> This I know for sure 8-). If you don't _use_ your capability in an
> attack you don't take any required losses! So attacking major cities
> with armour is perfectly safe, at least from a required losses
> perspective.
>
> /Johan
>
Yeah, I'm pretty sure your right there. You only take required losses if
the units were used to get an attack bonus.
-Charlie
--
Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com
Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 13:31:26 -0800 (PST)
From: "J. Nelson" <attila@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
Actually, I beg to differ from the previous posts. I don't
have a rules book in front of me, but I feel pretty certain that when a
stack is over 1/2 AECA ( not neutral ), the attacker does not have the
option to declare his stack a non-armor one. Firstly, I don't think that
the rules are worded to allow this. Secondly, if that were allowed, it
would create a situation where a 16-10 Pz. div. could declare itself a
non-armor unit ( as in the crews of the vehicles all climbing out and
acting as infantry ) while retaining a very high offensive strength which
those units would simply not have if treated as infantry ( without their
vehicles, these units would *not* be as tough or efficient as they would
be with them ). I believe that the only option given to an attacker with
armor exists when a half-capable unit is attacking ( i.e.,
panzergrenadiers and mech. units ), in which case a unit which is
*half-capable* can be declared " neutral " at the owning player's option.
If I am right, then attacking cities or fortifications with armor units
( something which I regularly avoid ), especially hexes which have ATEC
capability, is a very bad idea ( due to attacker AECA being negated, and
the potential for the attacking armor taking critical losses ).
Of course, allowances should be made in the case of weakly held cities/
fortifications, or those with no ATEC capability.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 13:48:00 -0700
From: graham@ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
At 1:23 AM 13/12/95, Jeff White wrote:
>Bobby D. Bryant Said:
>>
>> >consisely. Another good thing about 1/2 capable units is that they can be
>> >counted as neutrals, good for diluting down attacks so that ATEC doesn't
>> >kick in.
>>
>> Charlie, I haven't seen FWTBT yet, but I don't think this is the standard
>> interpretation of the Europa AEC rules. ATEC, I believe, is based on
>> *capability* of the attacking units, not on actual *use*. Hence the
>> possibility for ATEC to come in to effect even where terrain disallows AECA.
>
>With ATEC, the attach has to be 1/2 or over armor. Otherwise you get
>just defensive armor. So, by counting a mechanized unit as a neutral
>unit (at the owning players option) it can be used to "pollute" a stack
>below half armor (too many neutrals for example). You can also do weird
>things with some armor division break downs.
Carefully reread the ATEC rules again. There's nothing requiring that
AECA be used. It states that if a stack is one-half or more armor
_capable_ then ATEC is effective against it.
There's nothing as to whether the capability is used, just whether it
could be used. Terrain and weather don't change this. Nor does your
decision to make it neutral.
It's solely whether, under ideal conditions, in clear terrain, maximizing
your AECA or AECD effects, your stack is one-half or more capable.
If you don't believe me, ask Frank Watson.
From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:30:27 -0600 (CST)
> Carefully reread the ATEC rules again. There's nothing requiring that
> AECA be used. It states that if a stack is one-half or more armor
> _capable_ then ATEC is effective against it.
Believe me, I will.
>
> There's nothing as to whether the capability is used, just whether it
> could be used. Terrain and weather don't change this. Nor does your
> decision to make it neutral.
I assume counting 1/2 AECA capable as neutral is effectively a dismounting
of the mechanized units, for use in situations when the vehicles would not
be effective.
-Charlie
--
Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com
Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:39:45 -0700
From: graham@ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
At 4:30 PM 13/12/95, Charles Anderson wrote:
>> There's nothing as to whether the capability is used, just whether it
>> could be used. Terrain and weather don't change this. Nor does your
>> decision to make it neutral.
>
>I assume counting 1/2 AECA capable as neutral is effectively a dismounting
>of the mechanized units, for use in situations when the vehicles would not
>be effective.
Over a two-week turn, how much effect does this have?
It doesn't matter. Since the mechanized unit _could_ use armor effects,
it counts.
---
Stephen Graham
graham@ee.washington.edu
graham@cs.washington.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 20:31:41 -0800
From: graham@ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
Following up, here's the exact rule from Second Front:
10.C.3 ATEC. ATEC is used only when the attacking units have (or are
capable of) 1/2 or more AECA. Note that ATEC is used if the attacking
units are capable of 1/2 or more AECA, even if the attacking units do
not (or cannot) use AECA. When the ATEC proportion is at least 1/7....
[snip]
Note that last complete sentence. "... even if the attacking units do not
use AECA...". This applies if, for instance, you treat your 1/2 AECA
capable Mechanized unit as neutral. You've chosen not to use AECA, but
you are capable of it. Therefore, ATEC may be used against you.
QED.
Stephen Graham
graham@ee.washington.edu
graham@cs.washington.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:22:38 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
> From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
>
> I assume counting 1/2 AECA capable as neutral is effectively a dismounting
> of the mechanized units, for use in situations when the vehicles would not
> be effective.
My guess is that this is fix, so that 1/2-capable units won't be worse
than neutral units in an all armour attack.
/Johan
From: pardue@hilda.mast.queensu.ca (Keith Pardue)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral (fwd)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:36:39 -0500 (EST)
Hi Everyone,
Here's another two cents on the 1/2 capable becoming neutral
rule.
Charlie Anderson writes:
> I assume counting 1/2 AECA capable as neutral is effectively a dismounting
> of the mechanized units, for use in situations when the vehicles would not
> be effective.
I think that you're mistaken Charlie. In the older GDW Europa games,
there was no rule allowing you to count 1/2 capable units as neutral. This
created the following odd situation. Say that you want to attack a hex in
clear terrain and good weather. You can make the attack with either an
armored division and a mechanized division, or a an armored division and
a motorised division. Since the mechanized division has only 1/2 AECA, it
would drag down the AECA to below Full. The motorized division, on the other
hand, would allow the attack to proceed with full AECA.
Pretty strange, don't you think? I believe that that is why the
rule allowing you to count 1/2 capable units as neutral was added; so that
1/2 capable units would not be *less effective* than neutral units.
Also, I don't think that counting a 1/2 capable unit as neutral
represents the unit's dismounting. Remember that mechanized units are
not the only half-capable units. Light armor units are also half-capable
in many games. Dismounting either type of unit would cause a loss of strength.
Compare, for example, with the rule on mechanization counters in Second Front.
Best Wishes,
Keith Pardue
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral (fwd)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:26:43 -0600 (CST)
Keith Pardue Said:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Here's another two cents on the 1/2 capable becoming neutral
> rule.
> Charlie Anderson writes:
>
> > I assume counting 1/2 AECA capable as neutral is effectively a dismounting
> > of the mechanized units, for use in situations when the vehicles would not
> > be effective.
>
> I think that you're mistaken Charlie. In the older GDW Europa games,
> there was no rule allowing you to count 1/2 capable units as neutral. This
> created the following odd situation. Say that you want to attack a hex in
> clear terrain and good weather. You can make the attack with either an
> armored division and a mechanized division, or a an armored division and
> a motorised division. Since the mechanized division has only 1/2 AECA, it
> would drag down the AECA to below Full. The motorized division, on the other
> hand, would allow the attack to proceed with full AECA.
>
> Pretty strange, don't you think? I believe that that is why the
> rule allowing you to count 1/2 capable units as neutral was added; so that
> 1/2 capable units would not be *less effective* than neutral units.
It's a new rule. I though Scorched Earth added that rule. It's
in Second Front.
>
> Also, I don't think that counting a 1/2 capable unit as neutral
> represents the unit's dismounting. Remember that mechanized units are
> not the only half-capable units. Light armor units are also half-capable
> in many games. Dismounting either type of unit would cause a loss of strength.
> Compare, for example, with the rule on mechanization counters in Second Front.
A mech divison is mostly infantry (motorized or what not) with some
(like a battalion) tanks. Most Mech divisions are weaker than
armor divisions. The generic Panzer division in '44 is a 16-10.
While the generic PanzerGren is a 11-10.
It's really a shame you can't fight on a truck movement counter
(and thus be neutral for AEC). The Americans would be devastating.
I've been thinking that American divs could be turned into mech divisions.
During the war, each infantry division had an anti-tank battalion
(1-2-10 mot AT II) and a tank battalion (2-1-10 Arm II) attached
on a semi-permanent basis. I'd think that you could do something
like this:
9-8 Inf XX
1-2-10 mot AT II
2-1-10 Arm II
1x Truck Counter
============
12-10 Mech XX
The brits get a similiar conversion in the optional OB for Second Front.
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Keith Pardue
>
>
>
>
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:30:06 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
>Keith Pardue Said:
>A mech divison is mostly infantry (motorized or what not) with some
>(like a battalion) tanks. Most Mech divisions are weaker than
>armor divisions. The generic Panzer division in '44 is a 16-10.
>While the generic PanzerGren is a 11-10.
Notice how much the series is designed to favor the Germans in this regard:
that "generic" Panzer division will have about two battalions of tanks, plus
maybe a couple of batteries of assault guns in its AT battalion. That would
probably be specified as "mechanized" instead of "armoured", in any other
army. And that's the just the TOE -- the "full strength" division in '44
would rarely have anything near the authorized allotment. A cadre might not
have any tanks at all! (One German general comments ironically that his
division had four tanks during a certain campaign -- including a command
vehicle with a dummy weapon -- but it was nevertheless a Panzer division.
And since it was a Panzer division, it gave licence to call the corps
headquarters a Panzer corps. Likewise, its army headquarters was a Panzer
army. All because of those four tanks. Of course, I'm not recommending that
we make the whole German army full AECA on this basis!)
But whatever handful of tanks is indeed present does in fact count for about
half of the strength of that generic division. (Look at the breakdown
chart.) That's why I feel like I'm "cheating" when I attack certain kinds of
positions with Panzer divisions instead of lowly 5-7-6 infantry divisions.
Odds of 9:1 at -4 for full ATEC are a better bet than 3:1 with no
modifications, but I'm not sure I'm entitled to such odds when attacking a
major city or fortress with tanks contributing so much of the attack factor.
>It's really a shame you can't fight on a truck movement counter
>(and thus be neutral for AEC). The Americans would be devastating.
I'm glad you said that; I had read the rules carelessly and didn't see that
the transport counters are used *only* in movement and exploitation phases.
(I think I'm getting interference from older games' rules.) I suppose the
rule was designed to keep the Americans from being *too* devastating. I've
yet to play, but I keep hearing that the Allies progress too rapidly under
the rules as written.
But notice that APC counters *are* used in combat phase, with the effect of
converting the unit to mechanized (plus a bonus to combat factor -- another
hint that counter strength for mechanized units has some extra muscle built
in, beyond the basic capabilities of the infantry). Unfortunately, the unit
must not have heavy equipment, so you can't build mechanized divisions this
way. See rule 14.J.3.
BTW, the two preceding paragraphs refer to SF.
- Bobby.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 08:34:55 +0100
From: peterlj@green.smab.se (Peter Ljungberg)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
Jeff White wrote:
> Peter Ljungberg Said:
> >
> > Stephen Graham wrote:
> >
> > >Following up, here's the exact rule from Second Front:
> >
> > >[snip]
> >
> > >Note that last complete sentence. "... even if the attacking units do not
> > >use AECA...". This applies if, for instance, you treat your 1/2 AECA
> > >capable Mechanized unit as neutral. You've chosen not to use AECA, but
> > >you are capable of it. Therefore, ATEC may be used against you.
> >
> > Note that this also means that if the attacker chooses not to use AECA, he is not required to take required losses, since the rule about losses talks about the usage of special abilities, not the capability itself.
> >
>
> I would disagree. Tanks are Tanks (I'll get to the half-capable in a sec).
> If you attack with tanks, you can get hit with AT guns. That's why
> armor divs have big numbers. If you have armor attacking a hex
> that for example has no AEC, you're over 1/2 armor and the defender is
> full ATEC, you're looking at a -4 or worse. If you're full
> armor, you're full armor. This makes sense and is realistic.
> It penalizess players for using units to do things they are ill suited
> to do.
I agree here, of course. ATEC is calculated on the capability.
[snip]
> > I carefully checked this before starting my final assault against an encircled Moscow containing hordes of NKVD. My engineers were useful by not being halved, but I didn't want to bleed them white by all the EX I was expecting. I had already taken too man
> > y engineer losses storming Minsk...
>
> I'd disagree here again. If you're using enough special units and
> are forced to take casualties, some of them have to be engineers.
> The guys doing the real work.
i) The rules do not agree with this (at least the way I interpreted them. Probably have to check again). As written, they talk about the USAGE of special abilities. From other parts of the rules, it is clear that this usage is a choice. So, if you choose not to use them, you don't have to take losses.
ii) Of course, one can also discuss this in 'reality' terms. The argument for not taking losses would then be that by choosing not to use the special abilities, the player has ordered his special troops not to expose themselves to the extra risks connected with their special abilities, but instead to participate in the attack to the same extent as other formations. Since in a normal attack there is no requirement to distribute losses among different types of units, then there should be no such obligation when no unit distinguishes itself by using special abilities. When using the abilities, on the other hand, the special units are more aggressive and more exposed than other units, which is why they should take their part of the losses.
iii) If the rules were written the other way around, i.e. that the special capability, not the usage, is the basis for losses, I would accept this as a realistic interpretation as well. It's a game, and one always has to decide how to describe reality.
Cheers
Peter
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 06:00:17 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral
What the heck, I'll toss in my 2 cents.
>i) The rules do not agree with this (at least the way I interpreted them.
>Probably have to check again). As written, they talk about the USAGE of
>special abilities. From other parts of the rules, it is clear that this
>usage is a choice. So, if you choose not to use them, you don't have to
take >losses.
I'm not sure if usage is really a choice. In the FWTBT rules, the latest
from GRD, for both AEC and eng modifiers, the rules go something like this,
"When [the AEC, eng, or ATEC proportion is a certain level], the die roll
modificaton is [+1, -1, or whatever]." Note the phrase is not "modification
can be," but instead is the more explicit, "modification is." This would
seem to indicate a lack of choice on the part of the player.
BTW, I agree with those folks who said that required losses don't apply
unless the modification is actually used. So, arm units attacking dot or
major cities can't use their AECA modifiers and thus can't be force to take
required losses no matter what their percentage of the attacking force.
Peter Rogers
Center for African Studies
427 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
32611
USA
phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science)
fax: (904) 392-2435
e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 06:16:37 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Re: Siege Art vs. City/Port Fort
>While we're at it, here's a off topic question that came up into
>tonights game. Say you have a port fortification in a full
>hex city. Would siege artillery be quadrupled? (doubled for the
>city, doubled again for the fortification)
I agree that's what the rules seems to say, but I don't like it. One
question is, are fortifications "terrain features?" If you look at note 3
on the bottom of the TEC (side which doesn't have the Fortifications Effects
Table), it says "Combat effects of terrain features are in addition to
regular hex and hexside effects." Interestingly, fortifications have their
own little table on the TEC and are NOT listed in the section on Features
which includes cities of various sorts.
Peter Rogers
Center for African Studies
427 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
32611
USA
phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science)
fax: (904) 392-2435
e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu
Date: 13 Dec 1995 07:06:38 -0600
From: "Merrill, Robert C" <merrill@txpcap.hou.xwh.bp.com>
Subject: Whither North Africa?
Hi! This is my first post, and I've subscribe to this mailing list for about
a week.
Does anyone know when GRD will release the new North Africa game? I had heard
that it was delayed until mid-January. Does anyone know for sure?
Bob Merrill
Bogota, Colombia
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 15:31:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Edward K Nam <ednam@umich.edu>
Subject: FitE strategy
Europa Fieldmarshalls!
I have a question about strategy. They are all assuming
good weather.
Offense:
I am playing the Germans in a FitE campaign game. This is the
first time playing this game for all of us and we are in the Jul II '41
turn. My German partner and I were debating the fine points of how and
when to eliminate pockets of resistance. We see three options.
1- Kill them as soon as possible so that you are not slowed down.
2- Wait till they are U-2 to kill them so that fewer units need to
be held back.
3- Isolate them with a minimum compliment and let them starve beyond U-4.
I realize that it is largely situation dependent, but what have
you found to the be the best solution when time was the major consideration?
(ie, the units were not sitting on a major line of communication, or
in a key airbase hex etc.)
What odds are too risky to attack with? In general I risk
a 1 in 6 chance of taking losses with German
Infantry, but not with armor. Am I playing too conservatively?
DEFENSE: (early game)
What is the best way to set up a Russian defense?
1- with weak overrunable units (4 or less strength points) with a depth
of 3 hexes, or
2- with weak overrunable units in the front and a STRONG secondary line or
3- A STRONG front line with a weak secondary line.
Any other options?
I think I'm beginning to think that the art of doing a Russian
defense is knowing when and how far back to retreat the front line.
Should they
1- retreat beyond the (supply) range of most of the German infantry?
2- retreat to the next defensible terrain line even if it is weaker in
strength points?
3- retreat sufficiently back to prepare a solid line prepared in the
manner of the previous question?
I will save my opinions, I would like to hear what people who have played
this game all the way through think. Historical commentary is also
greatly appreciated!
Thanks
-Ed
Subject: Re: FitE strategy
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 13:37:42 -0800
From: Rodney Holmes <rodney@ccsf.caltech.edu>
Hello all,
< I have a question about strategy. They are all assuming
< good weather.
<
< Offense:
< I am playing the Germans in a FitE campaign game. This is the
< first time playing this game for all of us and we are in the Jul II '41
< turn. My German partner and I were debating the fine points of how and
< when to eliminate pockets of resistance. We see three options.
< 1- Kill them as soon as possible so that you are not slowed down.
< 2- Wait till they are U-2 to kill them so that fewer units need to
< be held back.
< 3- Isolate them with a minimum compliment and let them starve beyond U-4.
< I realize that it is largely situation dependent, but what have
< you found to the be the best solution when time was the major consideration?
< (ie, the units were not sitting on a major line of communication, or
< in a key airbase hex etc.)
Kill them as soon as possible, if it is time critical. Other wise probably
starve them out if I can get away with it.
< What odds are too risky to attack with?
I can't think of any such odds. It depends what the stakes are.
< In general I risk a 1 in 6 chance of taking losses with German
< Infantry, but not with armor. Am I playing too conservatively?
In my opinion, yes. You have to get the Soviets off balance and keep them
that way. And sometimes you have to risk loses to do that. Remember time
is your enemy.
< DEFENSE: (early game)
< What is the best way to set up a Russian defense?
< 1- with weak overrunable units (4 or less strength points) with a depth
< of 3 hexes, or
< 2- with weak overrunable units in the front and a STRONG secondary line or
< 3- A STRONG front line with a weak secondary line.
< Any other options?
The second in my opinion but it depends on what you have. In the first I
just see the Germans killing hordes of Soviets and you not being able to
replace them fast enough. And in the third you won't have enough later
in the game to do anything.
< I think I'm beginning to think that the art of doing a Russian
< defense is knowing when and how far back to retreat the front line.
That's true, you only can throw your army away so many times. I think
it's two.
< Should they
< 1- retreat beyond the (supply) range of most of the German infantry?
< 2- retreat to the next defensible terrain line even if it is weaker in
< strength points?
< 3- retreat sufficiently back to prepare a solid line prepared in the
< manner of the previous question?
I'd say a mixture of the three depending on what you have to work with.
Later,
Rodney Holmes
From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: FitE strategy
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:33:48 -0600 (CST)
I say kill-em. Supply lines in FitE are too easy to disrupt because of the
distances between roads. Make sure you kill them isolated though, don't give
them anymore replacements than you absolutely have to.
-Charlie
--
Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com
Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 22:04:03 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Re: FitE strategy
Ed,
If you have FTP, pull this list's archive from
ftp.lysator.liu.se/pub/europa, and browse the older files there; someone
posted some pretty good tips way back then.
As for the following, some of it is my own advice and some of it comes
from years of gleaning the fanzines -- I don't have a clue who should get
credit for most of it.
>turn. My German partner and I were debating the fine points of how and
>when to eliminate pockets of resistance. We see three options.
I generally bypass them and screen them with junk divisions (anything,
German or allied, that doesn't have a cadre) -- unless it is an immediate
threat to supply, rail-regauging, or airbasing, in which cases it must be
eliminated immediately. But start picking off easy victims as soon as they
go U-2, so you can move your junk forward to repeat the process on the next
pocket.
This of course will not fit all situations: you have to balance the
threat they pose against stripping off too much of your strength to screen
them. You may occasionally have to leave some muscle behind for a turn or
two to break them up. But your overriding goals during the Barbarossa period
are to get as many of your quality units as far farward as possible as
quickly as possible, and to keep them in supply as best you can.
> What odds are too risky to attack with? In general I risk
It is even harder to give a one-solution-fits-all answer for this. I
generally won't risk anything worse than EX unless there are big benefits to
taking the hex (such as trapping a large pocket or penetrating the outer
defense of Lenningrad), but I suspect I play both sides too cautiously.
Taking risks with individual stacks may reduce your overall losses, but I
find it hard to bring myself to try it often.
> What is the best way to set up a Russian defense?
One popular solution is to deploy AA, AT, artillery, engineers, etc., as
far back as possible in hopes of escaping as many of them as possible --
you'll certainly be seeing a critical shortage of these for the first game
year. But doing so undoubtedly makes your front line more fragile.
> I think I'm beginning to think that the art of doing a Russian
>defense is knowing when and how far back to retreat the front line.
In open terrain, with Panzers in the vicinity, run like Hell! Better
yet, take a train! (And "in the vicinity" pretty much means "on the same
half of the map".) In open terrain without Panzers around, fall back fast
enough to keep most of your line disengaged, unless/until he spreads thin
enough that he can't get good odds on you without bunching up and exposing
himself to surrounds. Leave "volunteers" in major cities, fortresses, and
forest or swamp hexes on or adjacent to key supply lines.
In the North, do as much terrain hopping as you can, and leave units or
stacks behind in forest or swamp if they will slow him or his supply down
for even a turn or two. In the Valdai Hills and before Moskow, dig in and
prepare to die. (But start digging long before your front line falls back
this far.)
In general, you have nothing to gain from a "fair" fight. Especially
avoid letting your tanks get cut off: with low defense factors, low movement
factors, and no special ZOC movement aux Panzers, not one in ten will escape
even a shallow encirclement. Better to lose them in exchanges where their
attack factor can count. I generally pull out as many as possible as soon as
possible and bunch them in two groups, around Lenningrad and in the Valdai
Hills. Use them to block critical roads through the nasty terrain against
rogue exploiters until sufficient infantry arrives, then poise them behind
the infantry in hopes of a chance to bleed the invaders. When the Lenningrad
front stabilizes, move any survivors southward, but always deploy them
behind a strong line unless their mission justifies throwing them away. (A
popular option is to throw them at Finnland, but I find that this ties them
up at that critical moment when the first Panzers arrive at your still-weak
positions around Lenningrad and in the Valdai Hills. Even if their presence
only serves to inspire the Germans with caution, you will have used them
quite well.)
- Bobby.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 14:03:45 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: Re: Mountain hexsides
> > Here's a better problem. Right now I sit in a wooded rough hex, with
> > a mountain hexside between me and the Germans. (I'm the
Americans and
> > I've surrounded a Panzer Corps in La Speza in Italy. They're in a
port fort
> > having been surrounded for the last couple of months.) Anyway, if
the
> > Germans attack across that mountain hexside into the wooded rough,
are they
> > halved and -2 for mountain, or halved and -2 for mountain and -2 for
wooded
> > rough?
>
> If I'm not totally mistaken, terrain effects are cumulative which
> makes it attacker halved and -4 in total. I believe the entry on the
> TEC says 'As mountain' for mountain hexsides, which would remove
any
> doubt that the -2 should be used.
I checked the TEC last night and the 'As mountain' wording is for
movement not combat. For combat it just says 'Attacker halved (except
mountain),' so it should be a -2 modifier, not -4. Can't be -4 because
other units could be attacking over a non-mountain hexside.
Frank
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 23:08:07 -0600
From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant)
Subject: Encirclements.
Writing about the Eastern Front reminds me of the bad old days under DNO,
when the Panzers could trace supply virtually anywhere (no rail-gauge
rules), and one could therefore occasionally arrange -- or be the victim of
-- what can only be called strategic encirclements. Since then I've rarely
seen pockets of more than 10-15 divisions plus support. Not the sort of
thing one likes to loose, but apparently not so bad as some of the
historical ones. I'm curious: What are the biggest pockets you've seen in
the various games, and how did they come about? What is the worst close
call you've seen? (Exclude DNO/Unt, please!)
- Bobby.
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: Encirclements.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:44:20 -0600 (CST)
Bobby D. Bryant Said:
>
> Writing about the Eastern Front reminds me of the bad old days under DNO,
> when the Panzers could trace supply virtually anywhere (no rail-gauge
> rules), and one could therefore occasionally arrange -- or be the victim of
> -- what can only be called strategic encirclements. Since then I've rarely
> seen pockets of more than 10-15 divisions plus support. Not the sort of
> thing one likes to loose, but apparently not so bad as some of the
> historical ones. I'm curious: What are the biggest pockets you've seen in
> the various games, and how did they come about? What is the worst close
> call you've seen? (Exclude DNO/Unt, please!)
>
> - Bobby.
Oh well, that would have to be in our Second Front game in Italy.
The Germans were dug in in a fairly straight line south of along
Pisa-Firenza-Adriatic coast. I made a landing right on Venice with
multiple paratrooper attacks. Paratroopers attacked and beat
a 2-10 mot hv AA III guarding Verona, and other paratroopers took
out the various units between Verona and Venice. I then landed the
big armor and meched just east of Verona, plus units when into the Alps
towards Germany.
I think we also dropped a couple of commandos on the rail going from
France to Italy through the Alps, right next to Switzerland.
The next turn, the Germans are in major panic (we had invaded southern
France some time in the past, and there was fighting up in the French
Alps). The commandos and my landing took all of Italy ('cept the
Italians, natch) out of supply. This really slowed down the
retreat.
The next turn, I blasted across the Po and reached the Med, trapping
a HUGE number of Germans. I think the count was about 30 Infantry
divs, 10 or so Panzer/PanzerGrenadiers, and a whole slug of supporting
units. Technically, the pockect still exists. Some survivors made it
into a port fortifcation at La Speeza. It's this pretty big
overstack. Panzer Lehr, another Panzer Div and a Panzer Gren plus
flak and a couple other divs are stuck there.
I've got it surrounded now (one hex away to avoid getting smacked)
by forts and garrison type troops (American 4-5-4 Inf XX Grps)
and some ATEC.
This was and still is the worst disaster the Germans had in this
game.
Another amusing bit is that it precipitated before the landing
the biggest air battle I have yet seen. This invasion force was
up in England, and then we decided to bring Italy to a "conclusion".
So the big invasion fleet (with troops on transports, etc) moves
down to the Med, into the Adriatic and into a port I own, just south
of Venice. Producing the most telegraphed landing ever.
It's obvious I'm going to land the next turn somewhere, so the
Germans decide to attack the port with everything they can find (airforce
wise). I figure they'll try to (I put 17 pts of flak there).
There move starts. They call up the strat air force. I fly
30 fighters from far away as CAP over the port. The Germans attack
with about 50 aircraft. I muster about 60 fighters (30 on CAP and
about 30 intercepts).
I think about 12 aircraft made it through the fighter screen, and
then just 3 Fw190 fighters make it through the flak. None scored a
hit.
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 08:46:35 +0100
From: peterlj@smab.se (Peter Ljungberg)
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral, FiTE Strategy
Stephen Graham wrote:
>Following up, here's the exact rule from Second Front:
>[snip]
>Note that last complete sentence. "... even if the attacking units do not
>use AECA...". This applies if, for instance, you treat your 1/2 AECA
>capable Mechanized unit as neutral. You've chosen not to use AECA, but
>you are capable of it. Therefore, ATEC may be used against you.
Note that this also means that if the attacker chooses not to use AECA, he is not required to take required losses, since the rule about losses talks about the usage of special abilities, not the capability itself.
I carefully checked this before starting my final assault against an encircled Moscow containing hordes of NKVD. My engineers were useful by not being halved, but I didn't want to bleed them white by all the EX I was expecting. I had already taken too many engineer losses storming Minsk...
Regarding Russian Startegy in FiTE/SE:
I believe there is a difference in strategy between FiTE and SE. In FiTE the russian player might afford to trade units for space and time, while this is more debatable in SE (I`ve never played past May `43), since the German will then be able to resume offensive operations in `42 against a very weakened russian.
A good example is in the south, where the Soviets can create a NODL from the first game turn and be able to maintain this for quite some time, thanks to the screening effect of the Pripjet marshes. However, I have found that this line breaks about Aug I, resulting in large numbers of dead russians and quite a fast German advance. However, since Mud quite quickly sets in, it`s usually difficult for the Germans to get past Dnepropetrovsk, saving the Russians a couple of cities compared to the historical result.
However, when playing SE, I wpould think that it would be better for the russian to run, save his army and thus have a better situation in `42.
One vital think I believe is to keep the German infantry separated from the panzers. The German infantry does possess quite a punch, and can be used to grind down the russians while the panzers do the fancy moves. Kepp them separated and the panzers will start to worry about flanks and supply lines.
As a russian, don't stand and fight. In my ongoing game (I`m German), my opponent has fought bitterly for every inch of Russian soil. This worked well in holding me up in the south (for some time), and the North (temporarily), but was to no avail in the centre, where my panzers had Moscow encircled by Sep I. Since he didn`t retreat on the flanks, this gave my infantry the chance to catch up with him and slowly grind him down.
We`ve now finished Nov II `41, Murmansk is captured, Leningrad isolated, the and the german flag is flying on the Kremlin. I`m looking forward to 1942...
Peter
From: Jeff White <jwhite@naybob.ghq.com>
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral, FiTE Strategy
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:04:51 -0600 (CST)
Peter Ljungberg Said:
>
> Stephen Graham wrote:
>
> >Following up, here's the exact rule from Second Front:
>
> >[snip]
>
> >Note that last complete sentence. "... even if the attacking units do not
> >use AECA...". This applies if, for instance, you treat your 1/2 AECA
> >capable Mechanized unit as neutral. You've chosen not to use AECA, but
> >you are capable of it. Therefore, ATEC may be used against you.
>
> Note that this also means that if the attacker chooses not to use AECA, he is not required to take required losses, since the rule about losses talks about the usage of special abilities, not the capability itself.
>
I would disagree. Tanks are Tanks (I'll get to the half-capable in a sec).
If you attack with tanks, you can get hit with AT guns. That's why
armor divs have big numbers. If you have armor attacking a hex
that for example has no AEC, you're over 1/2 armor and the defender is
full ATEC, you're looking at a -4 or worse. If you're full
armor, you're full armor. This makes sense and is realistic.
It penalizess players for using units to do things they are ill suited
to do.
Half-capable units have the bit on optionally being neutral to fix a
small problem. Lets say a Mech Div and an Armor Div attack a hex.
That's a 1/2 armor attack (3 REs of full AECA for the Armor div,
1 1/2 REs of AECA for the mech and 1 1/2 non-capable). If I make
the same attack with an armor div and a motorized div, it would be
a full armor attack (3 REs of full AECA, 3 REs of neutrals that don't count).
So by letting the owning player decide how to use the mech division
is realistic and fair. (Also note a mech div is full AECD and
full ATEC). A mech division is usually a battalion of tanks
and two or three regiments of motorized/mechanized infantry. While
an armor division is much tank heavier. Half capable unit rule
is the only listed exception to the rule on attacking and figuring out
armor effects.
The half capable rule also covers assault engs who are 1/2 ATEC. That
rule prevent half-capable units from "polluting" stacks.
There's also some confusion between a light tank division and
a mech division. A light tank division would have smaller
tanks and/or armored cars. It's full AECA, 1/2 AECD and no ATEC.
Except British types, the Brits liked armored cars with big
guns, 76mm and I think even a 90mm, they're FULL/FULL/FULL.
> I carefully checked this before starting my final assault against an encircled Moscow containing hordes of NKVD. My engineers were useful by not being halved, but I didn't want to bleed them white by all the EX I was expecting. I had already taken too man
> y engineer losses storming Minsk...
I'd disagree here again. If you're using enough special units and
are forced to take casualties, some of them have to be engineers.
The guys doing the real work.
--
Jeff White, ARS N0POY
"I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated."
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:03:11 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Replying to list mails
When replying to mails on a mailing list, make sure not to send a copy
to list members. They will get the mail anyway...
/Johan
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 03:48:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Larry Woloshyn <woloshyn@io.org>
Subject: Re: FWTBT
I played the 'No Pasaran' version several times and it worked out
fairly well. I just got the new one (which has more and worse counter
errors than NP!) and it seems very similar after my first game. I wish
they had reprinted the excellent article from the magazine.
Larry
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 03:44:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Larry Woloshyn <woloshyn@io.org>
Subject: Re: RR units and rail gauge and More!
On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Peter Rogers wrote:
> For whatever reason, the designers decided to tone down this reguaging
> ability in FWTBT.
Duh, did they playtest this scenario?
> Also, you seem to be saying that you can overstack during the combat phase
> and use the overstacked units to make an attack as long as the stacking
> limits are followed at the end of the combat phase, either through combat
> losses, advance after combat, or elimination of the overstacked units.
> However, the rules are very explicit in stating that stacking limits do
> effect the quantity of troops which can attack out of hex during an overrun
> or regular combat.
No, I mean drop them on the target hex.
> The rules seem to indicate that quick construction can not be used for
> regauging. The section of quick construction, 14A1b, is a subset of the
> construction rules, while rail gauging, 14A3, is a seperate case (yeah, I
> played a lot of SPI games when I was younger, so sue me). In TEM #7, John
> Astell discusses quick construction/reguaging for FitE/SE, but explicitly
> states that both units must be RR eng.
I've seen it in print the other way around, ie. a non-RR eng can
help. Maybe I read too many Europa rules.
Larry
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 12:12:38 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Re: Mechanized As Neutral -Reply
Keith Pardue, in response to several earlier posts, wrote:
>#I don't have a rulebook handy, but I remember studying >this point
pretty carefully. ATEC is used long as it is >possible for the
attacker to get at least 1/2 AECA, >regardless of the actual choices
of the attacker. This >makes a good deal of sense, lest light armored
units >become more effective than their heavier counterparts >against
antitank guns in good terrain!
I believe that, if you read carefully, you'll find that this is
exactly correct, that it doesn't matter what the attacker says he is
doing, if the armor is there, its AEC is counted towards whether ATEC
is used or not.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 22:45 GMT
From: nicklaw@cix.compulink.co.uk (Nicholas Law)
Subject: Re: RR units and rail gauge
In-Reply-To: <199512091127.GAA21710@cutter.clas.ufl.edu>
Peter Rogers asked:
> Can the German RR art units move on unconverted
> Spanish rail lines? A strict reading of the rules would seem to
> indicate they can by making a strategic rail move and then
> spending 20 of their rail move points to jump from one gauge to
> the next.
I would agree that the German RR units could move onto the Iberian
guage by paying the 20 hexes cost, but first the Germans would
need to have to have rail capacity on the Iberian net -- which
they would have in the 'Operation Felix' scenario as Spain
declares for the Axis, but they might not have in the 'Invasion of
Spain' scenario if she remains neutral. If this is the case either
the Germans have to quickly capture some rail marshaling yards or
their reguaging railroad engineers have to get their shovels out...
Nick
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 9:29:31 EST
From: "Frank E. Watson" <FEWatson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM>
Subject: re:My Christmas Vacation
See you guys later. I'm out of my office (and away from mail) until after
New Years.
I apologize for the waste of bandwidth. I'm sure my schedule is of no
particular interest to you, but if there are some responses to my
messages posted I will seem like I'm rudely ignoring them for a long
time.
Happy Holidays,
Frank
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 13:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Witham, Tom G." <TGWITH@Inland.com>
Subject: Der Beverly Hillbillies
A friend and myself just finished playing the Europa Magazine scenario
"Lenningrad '41." He's new to Europa while I got my first experience back
in the Drang Nach Osten days. We used some of the rules from different
modules. We used Grand Europa weather charts and the air rules from For
Whom The Bell Tolls among other changes. Fire In The East needs these
changes as the system needs a little flair. Confident we had sufficiently
upgraded the module the game began.
My panzers went right for the throat. The forced setup leaves some
gaps in the Russian lines and at these seams my boys attacked. The going
went easy and as expected. Before long it seemed something like a dinner
plate could be filled with his dead units. Then I rounded the turn by that
big ugly lake just south west of Lenningrad. You know the one; it has all
those swamps and bogs just east of it, where Big Foot was probably born. My
opponent said he thought he heard the fat lady warming up. Things looked
good. Then, on the first roll for weather I choked a 6.
Everything stopped.
Rasputitsa ..(mud).. had descended on weather zone B. It's amazing
what happens during a mud turn in Russia. C/m units slow to a crawl.
Infantry moves a total of three hexes. And if you can catch up to the
retreating Russians you will have no AECA and all terrain effects on combat
will have an additional -2 added to them. It was paralysis. The fat lady
began to bellow, but for me, and within a few turns the game ended. The
main body of my infantry was still several hexes from Lenningrad. And
Lenningrad must be invested in order for you to win.
Should I look upon the games' outcome as expectable? Do any of you win
with the Germans in Lenningrad '41? Is mud as hopeless as it seems? Didn't
some prophet say..."Fear not,..when the mud is deepest the frost is just
ahead.?"
* * *
A couple of years ago a friend of mine and I decided to play the full
Fire In The East game. At the time he had the game and I didn't. I had
played DNO and Unentsheiden and had bought everything else from Case White
to Western Desert to Narvik. Then they began scrapping out the first
generation games in favor of the 'Collector Series.' I decided to hold off
on buying FITE. We began play.
The green German mobs began punching holes in my lines. A rather large
one opened up near Smolensk. Seeing Moscow and glory a few dozen hexes
away, what amounted to a panzer army went through the opening in my line.
He thought my heroic Red Army would then fall back with him. But I simply
closed the gap in my lines with any and all pieces I could find and now
Panzergruppe Guderian was cut off. He mused at this for a while. The he
said..."No problem, I'll simply flip a truck."
Having read only enough of the rules to get me reacclimated to Europa
play after a year or two off, and never having seen or heard of a truck unit
previously, I wondered what this meant. He then said.."That truck just
resupplied ALL of my units." I said "It did WHAT??" He said again that
that sole truck counter just resupplied all of his erstwhile cutoff units.
After finding the rule section on truck units and reading it, he had indeed
resupplied his units...
I've read my share on the Eastern Front. I've watched all the
documentaries on the Discovery Channel, Arts and Entertainment, The History
Channel and I've got a small library on WWII. There were no roving bands of
German vehicles with anything near the necessary supplies needed to
replenish entire Army sized formations. These "units" as represented by
trucks in the game, didn't exist in the Barbarossa Campaign nor did they
exist in North Africa. The Wehrmacht, throughout its opening offensive in
Russia, was always over reaching its supply trunk. And the motive power for
this supply trunk was provided mostly by horses! Some estimates place the
involvement of animals (draft horses), by Germany for the movement of
supplies, at 80%! This isn't to say that lots of trucks weren't used by the
Germans to move lots of supplies because they were. And we've all seen the
footage and photos of them too. They simply did not roam around loaded to
the rafters with supplies waiting to be used by some Army group that just
got cut off. Such a rule begs to be abused and harms an otherwise excellent
rules section on supply.
I could only muse at what such a formation of vehicles, trucks and
wagons, would look like. I mean: What had the designers truly "invented"
here?
I imagined seeing 20 thousand trucks all loaded 16 feet high like the
old jalopy was on the Beverly Hillbillies show. I Imagined seeing
thousands of these old jalopies with either Granny, Elli May, Jed or Jethro
driving them. Then, at last, the rule made sense to me.
Sung to the tune of The Beverly Hillbillies Show:
Vunce upon a time mine troops ver nearly dead.
Zee units all around me ver looking really Red
But sanks to funny rules I got ein piece of luck
'Cause in mine German pocket there happened to be a truck!
Supplies that is...
Meals on Wheels
I hope that either subsequent editions of the eastern front games get
rid of it or Grand Europa throws it out. Why? Cause I can't imagine the
Drysdales helping Elli May with all those jerry cans. Have a great
weekend.
From: caa@wavefront.com (Charles Anderson)
Subject: Re: Der Beverly Hillbillies
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 17:32:21 -0600 (CST)
I don't remember the flip a truck rule. I do remember using trucks to extend
my overland supply limit. If I remember correctly the truck was able to
move so many hexes offroad then overland supply could be counted from
there. It may have extended road supply too but it's been a while. The
truck counter had to be able to trace supply back to Germany though for this
to be effective. Is the flip a truck rule optional?
-Charlie
--
Charles Anderson - caa@wavefront.com
Disclaimer: They tell me disclaimers are useless, so here's mine: thhhppt...
Date: 15 Dec 1995 16:18:12 -0600
From: "Merrill, Robert C" <merrill@txpcap.hou.xwh.bp.com>
Subject: Alternative CRT
The recent discussions regarding neutral/half capable units sparked my
thinking.
I know that there have been several "alternative" combat results tables or
methods proposed to "correct" the perception that the combat system does not
inflict enough attacker casualties. One that I've heard about involves both
attacker and defender rolling 2D6 and apportioning casualties based on these
dice rolls. I think the system started in Canada.
Does anyone know this system (or recognise it from the poor description I've
provided)? If so, could he post the details of the system to this mailing
list or me? Does it involve any changes to the AEC calculations or required
losses?
Does anyone use alternative AEC calculations similar to those proposed by
Radey in the mid-1980's? Those calculations were based on the RE's of armour
in the attacking/defending force and not on proportions.
Thanks.
Bob in Bogota
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 07:54:16 -0500
From: progers@africa.ufl.edu (Peter Rogers)
Subject: Re: Alternative CRT
I think what Robert Merrill is looking for can be found in article by David
Hughes in Combined Arms #2 Jan/Feb 1994. It's not technically a Combat
Results *Table,* because the table itself is eliminated. Results, attrition
and movement after combat, are generated by comparing 2d6 rolls for both the
attacker and defender along with a whole host of modifiers for relative
strength, armor effects, terrain, weather, etc. Combined Arms is edited by
Flavio Carrillo at:
680 S. Federal St.
Chicago, IL 60605
>Obviously, then, you cannot change the CRT to be more 'realistic'
>unless you are willing to examine and change other aspects of the
>system, such as the replacement/reinforcement rates for all nations.
I agree with this statement completely. Many, if not most, elements of any
game design are interdependent. This is especially true for combat results
and replacements, which are the ying and yang of attrition.
However, this serves as a warning about the scale of the task, not a
prohibition against attempting it. I have some problems with the current
Europa combat system and its seeming inability to model attacker losses. In
this respect, I have read with interest the rules to Command magazine's
Proud Monster/Death and Destruction (PM/D&D). PM/D&D provides all German
and late war Soviet c/m XXs with four steps and mandates that at least one
step loss come from a c/m unit if one is involved in combat. Even at the
highest level odds, there is still a reasonable chance that the attacker
will suffer casualties.
Another problem seems to be in the area of non-combat attrition,
specifically mechanical losses by motorized formations at or near the end of
their supply lines. To me knowledge, the only attempt to model this has
been an optional rule in one of Frank Watson's North African scenarios for TEM.
Finally, I claim no originality in these obsevations. They have been made
most recently in a series of articles in TEM, starting with one by Flavio in
#38/39. While Flavio's comments were mostly general and theoretical,
Bradley Skeen has actually hammered out a rather comprehensive set of rules
modifications in an article in TEM #43/44 (he also includes rules for a
macro-attack supply system, exploitation combat, low odds overruns, and a
number of other items). They are aimed at FitE/SE which, in my present grad
student life style, I lack the time and space to play. However, I would be
very interested to hear from anyone who has tried Brad's rules package and
wants to comment on their experience.
Peter Rogers
Center for African Studies
427 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
32611
USA
phone: (904) 392-0262 (UF Political Science)
fax: (904) 392-2435
e-mail: progers@africa.ufl.edu
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 21:28:54 -0500
From: Ray Kanarr <RayK@smtp4.aw.com>
Subject: Alternative CRT -Reply
The problem with any alternative CRT, especially those specifically
designed to inflict attacker casualties, is that no one who has come
up with one knows what algorithm was used to determine what
percentage of the total number of individuals appear in any Europa
game as replacements/reinforcements. Without this knowledge, it is
impossible to design a 'new' CRT that doesn't, as time goes on, skew
the historical force levels more and more.
That some algorithm was used to determine a specific percentage of
the total number of replacements/reinforcements to appear in the
games is obvious from the fact that Europa does not, in any way,
account for the constant low-level attrition drain on the manpower
forces of all nations throughout the war. People died every day of
the war, whether there was combat on that front or not, and the CRT,
as noted, does not include attacker 'losses' at high odds.
Unless someone can prove otherwise, I believe that John Astell has
factored in a certain level of attrition losses into the
replacement/reinforcement rates, and this is really a case of 'just
because you don't see it don't mean it ain't really there.'
Obviously, then, you cannot change the CRT to be more 'realistic'
unless you are willing to examine and change other aspects of the
system, such as the replacement/reinforcement rates for all nations.
Ray
Date: 18 Dec 1995 13:29:47 -0600
From: "Merrill, Robert C" <merrill@txpcap.hou.xwh.bp.com>
Subject: RE: Alternative CRT
Thank you Peter, for providing the reference.
Ray Kanarr also replied:
>Obviously, then, you cannot change the CRT to be more 'realistic'
>unless you are willing to examine and change other aspects of the
>system, such as the replacement/reinforcement rates for all nations.
I tend to agree with you, however, one would expect (hope!?) that in Europa the
CRT would be divorced from replacement rates to a greater degree than in other
wargames. We use essentially the same CRT for all our games, and for our
"mini-scenarios", as well. Clearly the Germans will do the brunt of the
attacking in the early war years, and the bulk of the defending later on.
Where
do we change the formulae used to determine the replacement rates? What if we
are playing "Grand Europa" with a timid German and a bold Soviet? The German
replacement rate is predicated on how many attacks per turn, at what odds?
Bob in Bogota