Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 15:53:17 -0500 (EST) From: Edward K Nam Subject: Balkan Front question The Balkan Campaign OB state the Yugoslavia invasion forces (2nd Army and 1st Panzer Group) are received "when Germany intervenes, only if Yugoslavia has joined the Allies." I read this to mean that if Yugoslavia is neutral when Germany intervenes, only the German 12th Army is available. Can Germany invade Yugoslavia after it intervenes even if Yugoslavia was neutral during the Axis initial phase in which Germany intervenes? If they can invade, does Germany then receive the 2nd Army and 1st Panzer Group? I don't see any indication of such in the rules. If the extra forces are not received upon invading Yugoslavia, an effective invasion seems like it would be extremely unlikely (though I confess I haven't tried it). If Germany cannot invade Yugoslavia if they are neutral upon German intervension, taking Athens looks to be very difficult, since any forces near Athens would have to be supplied by NTP or air transport. I figure that after taking Thessalonika, the Axis could transport around 20 REs of supply to units attacking Athens. 20 German REs should be around 60 combat strength points. The Luftwaffe can probably muster a tactical bombing strength of around 30. So, we're looking at a total attacker strength of around 90. I'm guessing that the Allies could defend Athens with a strength of around 40. Well, maybe it is possible. Thanks, Ed Date: Fri, 9 Feb 96 16:58:05 EST From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: re:Balkan Front question I don't have the rulebook with me, but I looked the other night regarding this and other recent BF postings. To the best of my recollection, here's how I interpreted the Yugoslavian intervention rule (which pretty much matches how we've played it ): The Axis can pressure Yugoslavia in any Axis initial phase. They intervene on the first clear weather turn. In the game, a reasonable course of action therefore, is for the Germans to pressure the Yugoslavs on the first clear weather turn (they get to roll for the weather first). After the pressure: If Yugoslavia is a pro-Allied neutral (historical result) then Germany can invade. If Yugoslavia goes Allied then Germany can invade. If Yugoslavia remains purely neutral then Germany cannot invade. The rules specifically state that nobody can invade a neutral country. The German effort against Greece becomes particularly screwed up. If Yugoslavia is a pro-Axis neutral then the Germans cannot enter Yugoslavia but they CAN trace supply through Yugoslavia rail lines. They only get the "anti-Greek" intervention forces. Since you can pressure the Yugos and intervene in the same turn the Yugos cannot mobilize anybody before you invade. If you never pressure the Yugoslavs they will certainly remain neutral and the German invasion of Greece will assume aforementioned screwed up status. I do NOT swear this is the right way to interpret the rule, but: Neutral Yugoslavia is and should be a nightmare for the German player. OKW (or OKH, I can't keep them straight) was scared stiff of a neutral Yugoslavia that wouldn't let the Germans use their rail lines because Hitler had disallowed any invasion of a neutral Yugoslavia. Only when the coup put a pro-Allied government in power did Hitler fly off the handle and vow to punish the Slavs, much to the relief of the Wehrmacht's planners. Hope I'm not misleading you, Frank Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 00:28:47 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen Balbach Subject: Re: Balkan Front question (fwd) On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Stephen Balbach wrote: > The Balkan Campaign OB state the Yugoslavia invasion forces (2nd Army and > 1st Panzer Group) are received "when Germany intervenes, only if Yugoslavia > has joined the Allies." I read this to mean that if Yugoslavia is neutral > when Germany intervenes, only the German 12th Army is available. Can Germany > invade Yugoslavia after it intervenes even if Yugoslavia was neutral during > the Axis initial phase in which Germany intervenes? Actually, the 2nd Army and 1st Panzer division are received even if Yugoslavia decides to remain neutral, provided Slovenia and Croatia side with the Axis, according to the secret Bonn protocol of 1994... > If they can invade, does Germany then receive the 2nd Army and 1st Panzer > Group? I don't see any indication of such in the rules. If the extra forces > are not received upon invading Yugoslavia, an effective invasion seems like > it would be extremely unlikely (though I confess I haven't tried it). The advanced support for the Invasion has already begun: BONN, Feb 9 (Reuter) - The German parliament voted on Friday to widen the mandate of German Tornado fighters flying over ex-Yugoslavia to let them back the U.N. peace mission in the Serb-occupied Croatian region of Eastern Slavonia. A large number of votes from the opposition Social Democrats and Greens ensured that the government had a comfortable majority. The move is the latest milestone on Bonn's path towards accepting more responsibility for European security. Germany is contributing 4,000 soldiers to the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Bosnia in Bonn's boldest post-war military mission, and had already put its Tornados at that force's disposal to help guarantee the troops' safety. The United Nations asked Bonn to extend this air cover to East Slavonia after the U.N. Security Council last month approved the sending of 5,000 peacekeepers to oversee the implementation of a peace deal in the region. The fertile and oil-rich land provides Croatia's only access to the Danube. Under the Dayton peace deal, rebel Serbs who control the area are committed to demilitarising it and returning it to Zagreb's control. > If Germany cannot invade Yugoslavia if they are neutral upon German > intervension, taking Athens looks to be very difficult, since any forces > near Athens would have to be supplied by NTP or air transport. I figure > that after taking Thessalonika, the Axis could transport around 20 REs of > supply to units attacking Athens. 20 German REs should be around 60 combat > strength points. The Luftwaffe can probably muster a tactical bombing strength > of around 30. So, we're looking at a total attacker strength of around 90. > I'm guessing that the Allies could defend Athens with a strength of around 40. > Well, maybe it is possible. This is wrong. According to the plan, Athens will distracted by saber-rattling from Ankara over the Cypres issue, and will not expect an attack from the direction of Yugloslavia and Macedonia. Oh, wait, you were talking about World War II --- nevermind. /dt From: JAMug@aol.com Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 22:20:59 -0500 Subject: Sub SUBSCRIBE From: Roberth Lundin Subject: AWW Question: Missing page in the rulebook! Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:28:42 +-100 I started to play several campaigns alone, just to see how the game = system have changed since i played it last(FitE, SE, WD, Torch, Fall of = France, Their Finest Hour). When i discovered to my surprise that page 3 is replaced by a page from = the Order of Battle. Quite irritating. How do you get hold of this page? Robbox Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 9:08:58 EST From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: A Summer War playtest report The size of the Message Text is 6438(> 6K), So it is kept in the First Attachment The following was included as an attachement. Please use UUDECODE to retrieve it. The original file name was 'mailman.txt'. begin 666 mailman.txt M22!T:&]U9VAT('-O;64@;V8@>6]U(&UI9VAT(&9I;F0@=&AI2!T;R`-"G)E:6YF;W)C96UE;G1S(&%N9"!R M97!L86-E;65N=',I(&)U="!2:6-K(&1E8VED960@:&ES(&-O;G-I2!B860@#0ID:6-E('=E0T*;&%T97-T('!L87ET97-T+B!)9B!Y;W4@87)E(&QI:V4@ M;64L('1H92!L87-T(#$P)2!O9B!T:&4@;6%G87II;F4@86QW87ES#0IT86ME M6)E(&-O;'5M;B!S:&EF="!A MFAY9V]R&5S+B!);B!+87)E;&EA(%-O M=FEE=',-"G)I&5S(&%N9"!S;R!G970@;F\@5E!S(&9O2!0;VEN=',@/2`K-3,@+38P(#T@+32!3;W9I970@87-S875L="!T86-T M:6-S+B!"860@<&QA>2!A:61S(&)A9"!L=6-K+@T*#0HR+B!4:&4@4V]V:65T M2!T:&5I"!T M:&ES(&-O=6QD(&%L;&]W(&%L;"`W=&@@07)M>2!U;FET6UE;G0@>F]N92!S:6UI;&%R('1O('1H92!&:6YN2!R M97!L86-E;65N="!P;VEN=',@861D960@=&\@6)E#0ID96QA>2!T:&4@4V]V:65T('=I=&ADF%V;V1S M:R!S;R!H87)D('1O('1A:V4@86YD('1H92!64',@2`-"G=E M:6=H960-"F]N('1H92!I2!A;'-O+"`-"G-O#0IT:&%T(&)Y($IU;"!)(&UO=F5M96YT('!H87-E M(&ET('=A2!F97<@:&5X97,@9F]R('1H92!"86QT:6,@1FQE M970@=&\@;&%N9`T*=6YI=',@:6XZ(&]N;'D@82!F97<@"!B971W965N(`T*2V]T:V$- M"F%N9"!6:6EP=7)I+B!)(&AA9"!A($9I;FYI6]N92`-"F)U=`T*87)T M:6QL97)Y(&AA;'9E9"P@97-P96-I86QL>2!I9B!A;'-O(&-O;G1A:6YI;F<@ M82!F;W)T+B!.;W1I;F<@=&AI6EN9W,@ M=&AE(%-O=FEE=',@=V5N="!A9G1E Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 11:19:35 +0100 Subject: A Summer War playtest report (Text format) Do not send uudecoded files to this list. Not many people are able to decode and view such files. Here is the report in a more readable format. /Mats Persson, list admin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought some of you might find this playtest report from Rick Gayler interesting. It was one of our lasts tests of the "A Summer War" scenario for TEM 46. The Russians are attacking the Finns (and some conditional German reinforcements) Jun I through Jul II 1944. VKT is a Finnish backup defense line. As a result of this we made a few tweaks here and there (mainly to reinforcements and replacements) but Rick decided his consistently bad dice were a big part of the Finnish victory. Other playtests have ended in a Soviet victory. ************* Original Message Follows*************** Don't know if it is too late, but here are results and impressions from my latest playtest. If you are like me, the last 10% of the magazine always takes the longest, so maybe there is a little time left. Finns won a decisive victory with VP total of -7. Jun I: Soviet attacks kill only 5 points of Finns with DE and two DRs. Invaded behind Finnish division in 47 row, preventing 2-6 cadre. Jun II: Finns sign the Pact right off. [My impression is 15 VPs isn't much of a deterent. Maybe column shift as originally proposed is the way to go.] Finns replace the lost 5-6 division and transfer one 6-6 XX and the 1-6* II from Karelia. Soviets have a terrible turn on the isthmus with four 2:1 attacks coming up AH, NE, NE, EX. Fleet was away landing a division between Kotka and Viipuri. EX at Medvezhygorsk. DR and NE along Svir. Jul I: Finnish armored division and friends crush invasion near Kotka. Soviets change tactics to three 3:1 attacks vs. four 2:1 attacks with fleet back supporting the coastal thrust. Get another NE, but push adjacent to Viipuri. Heavy fighting in Karelia, but no losses with all DRs or NEs. Jul II: Soviets attack Viipuri at 3:1 (83:22; everything each side could muster) and you guessed it - another NE. Several attacks further east cadre the 122nd Inf XX and push the Finns back a few hexes. In Karelia Soviets risk a 3:1 (-2) attack with the reward of taking Ilomatsi, but roll an AH. Fighting sputters along the Svir Front with no important Soviet progress. Wrap-up: Soviets hold only 3 VKT hexes and so get no VPs for this. [Maybe 10 VPs per VKT hex is better than all or nothing.] Only geographical objective the Soviets hold is Medvezhygorsk. Victory Points = +53 -60 = -7. Final thoughts: 1. I need to improve my Soviet assault tactics. Bad play aids bad luck. 2. The Soviets have to deploy their naval brigades in ZOC per deployment instructions. Since the 7th Army can't move Jun I this means they are still in ZOCs (probably) Jun II. This means it is Jul I before they can plan an amphibious landing and Jul II before they can conduct it - the very last turn of the game. This isn't right, as Soviets made an amphibious landing on Ladoga coast Jun II turn. To fix this could allow all 7th Army units a two hex deployment zone similar to the Finns. This way the Soviets can plan an amphib landing for the Jun II turn, putting a lot more pressure on Svir Line. 3. Maybe it's just me, but I shuttled the two 2-6 Aslt Eng Xs, a couple of AA units, the naval brigades, a rocket artillery, and a 4-6 Rifle XX from 7th Army front to Lgrad Front. Didn't feel right that I should be doing this but seemed to make sense at the time. Question: How accurate is Soviet OB? I realize this is the $60,000 question and I don't have the answer. Non-divs other than c/m are ???. Reviewing my dab of source material, we may need another couple of Soviet Rifle XXs showing up at Lgrad as reinforcements or perhaps 3 infantry replacement points added to replacements Jul I. Or maybe delay the Soviet withdrawal until Jul II turn or spread over both Jul I and Jul II turns. Meanwhile, with Petrozavodsk so hard to take and the VPs so heavily weighed on the isthmus, it seems to make sense for the Soviets to send their best units to Lgrad. Of course, the Soviets can score some points killing Finns in Karelia I guess. But I made the Jul I withdrawal out of 7th Army also, so that by Jul I movement phase it was at about half its original strength... 4. Note that SE formating of Brewster Buffalos is F2-A. Subbing a Fw190F for the Me109G is a _big_ difference in this little contest. Soviets lost 10 VPs from aircraft shot down to Axis 4 VPs. Several concentrated raids on Axis airfields only resulted in Aborts with quick repair in every case. 5. There is one very important rule in SE that has a big bearing on this scenario: it is in the amphibious landing section and says "Due to coast defenses not directly shown in the game, Soviet units may not conduct amp landings in or adjacent to Axis coastal ports." I'm paraphrasing a little, but that is close. This leaves very few hexes for the Baltic Fleet to land units in: only a few right behind the 1939 border and one hex between Kotka and Viipuri. I had a Finnish 6-6 division in the intermittent lake hex in the 46 row; the strongest Soviet attack force is 15.75 (Fleet [9.5], 5-6 Gd XX [1.25: quartered for amp landing and terrain] and max air [5] = 15.75). This means best odds Jun I invasion are only 2:1 (-1) with no retreat. This isn't very compelling. Maybe we need incremental dice... 6. The intermittent lake hexes are really tough to crack, with everyone but artillery halved, especially if also containing a fort. Noting this from my first playing I made them the cornerstones of my Finnish defense this time with good results. 7. Using the GE terrain effects table leads to a few questions. Should GS be halved against forest hexes as shown? This is part of the overall SF air system and might not be appropriate to stick in just this one piece for the scenario. Also there is a rather important terrain note in the AWW errata sheet covering the "bridged strait" hexside (4614/4714). Going strictly by the GE TEC one can't attack across this hexside. 8. In both playings the Soviets went after the rail line from Karelia to the isthmus in a big way Jun II, with good success. However, after seeing only two measly units even try to move west this last playing, I probably would not do this again, but rather either go after the Finnish bombers on the ground or get the odds up in the attacks along the 47 row. All for Now. Rick Date: 23 Feb 1996 08:55:58 U From: "Merrill, Robert C" Subject: RE: A Summer War I enjoyed reading the "A Summer War" playtest summary. Now for the dumb question: What is "A Summer War"? It appears to be a SE scenario. Bob Date: Fri, 23 Feb 96 12:59:06 EST From: "Frank E. Watson" Subject: A Summer War & UUDECODE >> Do not send uudecoded files to this list. The A Summer War playtest report was not UUDECODED. It was straight text. (I wouldn't know how to encode a file if I wanted to!) It was rather long e-mail however, and I think GENIE and some other online services may automatically encode long e-mails to save space. As I understand it, UUDECODE is a program that can be downloaded from many places (including, I feel sure, GENIE) that will uncode these messages. Don't ask me how it works, I've never had to use it. On WWW an improved version (UUDEVIEW) can be found at: http://www.uni-frankfurt.de/~fp/uudeview/ Sorry for any inconvenience, Frank From: m.royer3@genie.com Date: Sat, 24 Feb 96 14:48:00 UTC 0000 Subject: Hello Hello, I'm new to this discussion area. I've been posting on GEnie for some time now and look forward to more interesting Europa discussion here. My local gaming group has been playtesting "The Sino-Japanese Conflict" which is a future GR/D game of their Glory series and covers the action in China from 1937 to 1941. I have been posting (somewhat long winded) battle reports on GEnie. If anybody is interested, I can forward them here. Let me know. -Mark Royer From: m.royer3@genie.com Date: Sat, 24 Feb 96 19:53:00 UTC 0000 Subject: Sino-Japanese Conflict Playtes Battle Report - Sino-Japanese Conflict Jul II 37 Japanese Player Turn In the wake of a month of failed diplomatic efforts following the "Marco Polo Bridge Incident", restless Japanese military commanders led their forces across the northern Chinese border from Manchukuo and Inner Mongolia. Despite mud weather conditions, the immediate Japanese goal was the conquest and control of the multi-hex cities of Peiping (Beijing) and Tientsin which were defended by units of Sung Che-yuan's 29th Chinese Army. Sung, head of the North China Military Council, announced that the attacks were sudden and unprovoked. Sweeping down the major coastal railway from Manchukuo, the Japanese 20th Division of the Army of Korea and supporting units overran the Tientsin Security Force and defeated the Chinese 38th division in combat to secure the entire city. Additional forces were transportedby sea from Japan to stabilize control of the city and its environs. Meanwhile, elements of the Japanese Kwantung army moved on Peiping from the Inner Mongolian province of Jehol. Sakai brigade overran a mutinous puppet brigade in Tungchow (who had turned on their Japanese leadership and murdered hundreds of Japanese nationals in the city), to clear the railway to Peiping. Suzuki brigade and the Kungchuling Mixed Mechanized brigade then assaulted Peiping taking half of the city. With the city surrounded, isolated pockets of resistance from the Chinese 37th division continued to battle the aggressors. In central China, Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) marines based at the International Concession in Shanghai, occupied key points throughout the city beyond the concession limits. Charging the Japanese with wanton destruction of factories and rail lines in Shanghai, the Chinese Nationalist government appealed to the west for support. The fledgling Chinese Air Force (CAF) immediately took to the air in defense of weak peace preservation units garrisoning Shanghai. In the first air combat of its short history, CAF Hawk II, Hawk III, and Mxd F escorts engaged Japanese interceptors (A4N1 and Mxd F) from carrier Kaga and a local airbase in the International Concession. Major air battles ensued and despite a the IJN's vast fighter pilot superiority over the CAF, two air units were eliminated on each side; the Mxd F Chinese unit being the only survivor. Madame Chiang Kai-shek, charged with the duty of administering the CAF, attributed the initial Chinese success to the recent acquisition of American advisor Col. Claire Lee Chennault (and to extremely luckydice). The battle left the CAF with temporary air-superiority over the Shanghai region. Meanwhile, Japanese attack bombers from carriers Ryojo and Hosho slipped behind the CAF fighters and bombed the rail line from Nanking to Shanghai, thus isolating Shanghai from the 10 divisions of elite German-trained "Generalissimo's Own" operating in the Nanking area. Jul II 37 Chinese Player Turn Facing an all out Japanese assault in the north and agitation in central China, the Nationalist Government (the KMT) resolved to resist the onslaught. Since the bulk of the KMT's Central Army was in central China, the defense of the north fell to a plethora of weak provincial armies. Rushing to defensive lines along the Yungting river, just south of Peiping and Tientsin, were units of the Hopei Provincial Army, the exiled Manchurian Army (exiled from Manchuria in 1932 during the Japanese takeover), and several other minor warlord armies. The KMT also railedseveral Central Army units northward, including four artillery regiments, to support the northern theatre. In central China, hoping to avoid the spread of fighting, the Chinese Central Army cautiously advanced units towards Shanghai. Thecity was modestly reinforced while the bulk of units in the area remained at arms length from city limits. The elite Generalissimo's Own railed as far as the rail line break, and moved overland into the break hex (mud preventing their arrival in the Shanghai area). Engineers, meanwhile, tried to hastily repair the rail, but couldn't finish the job in time. In an effort to bring more units to bear on the front, massive river junk expeditions to the interior provinces were launched to bring those warlord armies forward. Aug I 37 Japanese Player Turn In the north, Japanese forces converged on Peiping to wipe out residual resistance in the city. Reinforcements, including elements of the 5th Division, were brought in from Japan to secure the two cities (Peiping and Tientsin) and the rail line connecting them. A single cross-Yungting river attack was executed forcing the retreat of 12th Hopei Provincial Division thus giving the Japanese an early bridgehead. The IJN marines in Shanghai, prevented from expanding their area of operation by diplomatic mandate from Tokyo, continued to wreak havoc within the city proper. Meanwhile, carrier attack bombers (D1A1s and Mxd A) continued to bomb the rail line from Nanking scoring another hit. Nell (G3M2s) long range bombers flying from Taihoku, Formosa, ran terror bombing missions against the KMT capitol in Nanking but failed to unnerve the government. Aug I 37 Chinese Player Turn Still hoping to resolve the latest "incident" with Japan through diplomatic channels, the Chinese Central Army gingerly advanced yet more units into the Shanghai area. Keeping fair distance from the city proper, the Chinese are being careful not to touch off further aggression in Central China. Not being naive, though, the Chinese disassemble what remains of their Shanghai industrial base for transportation to the interior. Not taking any chances, factories in other coastal cities such as Tsingtao and Canton are also sent enroute to the deep interior of China. The Soviet leader, Josef Stalin watches the proceedings very closely. Politically, blows dealt by the Japanese in the north have become destabilizing, putting the KMT government ever closer to collapse. The KMT propaganda machine scrambles to ameliorate the trend. Meanwhile in the North, a variety of provincial army units continue to form defensive lines along east-west rivers in anticipation of a southward Japanese strike. Supplies and additional units are railed into the area. In the far northern Inner Mongolian province of Chahar, Chinese units watch as menacing Mongolian units, in Japanese employ, accumulate in northern Chahar. Aug II 37 Japanese Player Turn Without pause, fresh reinforcements from Japan are thrown into action. The 6th and 10th divisions are assigned one each to the two south-going railways (the Tsinpu RR from Tientsin to Nanking and the Pinghan RR from Peiping to Hankow). Units in the cross-Yungting River bridgehead move to threaten the flank of the Pinghan railroad. Simultaneously, mechanized units of the Kwantung army gather in Peiping (Beijing) and assault northward into the Nankow pass towards the flank of Chinese forces defending Shansi Province and Inner Mongolia. Mongolian and Manchukuoen forces, largely cavalry, combine to assault from north Chahar. Bombing missions from northern airbases and aircraft carriers stationed off of Central China combine to damage two more critical rail hexes. Also, a Chinese bomber unit (the Northrup Gamma 2E) has been destroyed at its airbase in Tsinan. Three successful attacks capture three rail hexes. Dispite the vast superiority of individual Japanese units, the mud combined with numerous quantities of low quality provincial units to slows the Japanese onslaught. The civil government in Tokyo has still refused tolift its prohibition on Central China operations. Wrestless Japanese naval marines (SNLF) watch idly as army generals reap the glory of battle in the North. Noting the mass of Chinese troops quietly assembling about 20 miles from the city limits, the SNLF decide to consolidate their forces around the International Concession in Shanghai. Aug II 37 Chinese Player Turn Suddenly, giving up faith in his diplomatic negotiators, Chiang Kai-shek orders the Central Army to occupy Shanghai en-masse. Ten divisions occupy 5 of the 7 city hexes. Further, several units occupy the mouth of the Whangpoo river (which runs to Shanghai) and the port of Woosung, thereby isolating the SNLF marines in the International Concession from Japan. Supplies are railed into the area making it clear that the Chinese plan to fight for every inch of Shanghai. Dozens of additional divisions take up supporting positions around the city as additional interior provincialarmies are transported by river-junk down the Yangtze to the area. Chinese bombers attack the Japanese river flotilla stationed in the Whangpoo river along the International Concession. The Chinese airmen fail to hit the ships and, due to inexperience in setting sights, bombs hit the bund along the river in the concession killing hundreds of civilians including many American and British citizens. Japanese AA downed the Mxd B air unit during the raids. In the north, the provincial armies retreat into a "defense in depth" covering the southward Pinghan and Tsinpu railways for hundreds of miles south of the front lines. A policy of scorched earth is practiced as the Chinese destroy every rail line and bridge as they pull back. This clearly indicates a new tactic designed to slow the Japanese southward advance using space as an ally rather than making a futile attempt to stop the onslaught with a rigid front line. Meanwhile, three large divisions of the Communist 8th Route Army have marched over three hundred miles from their remote western SKN base in Yenan to take up positions in central Shansi Province. Their intentions are still a mystery. From: m.royer3@genie.com Date: Sat, 24 Feb 96 21:13:00 UTC 0000 Subject: Sino-Japanese Conflict Rich V. How did you know the rating of a Chinese division? In fact, the provincial divisions of the various warlord armies, which make up the majority of Chinese forces, are rated at 1-4 Inf XX and are unsupported and have a reduced ZOC. The standard Nationalist divisions of the Central Army weigh in at 3-5* Inf XX, and the elite German-trained "Generalissimo's Own" rate out at 4-6 Inf XX. The Communists, arguably the best disciplined at the time but sorely lacking in equipment, have three large divisions which rate 7-5 Inf XX, but are unsupported and have reduced ZOCs. On the other hand, the early war square Japanese divisions are 10-6 Inf XX. Later, as the Japanese convert to the triangular three regiment form, the divisions rate about 7-6. Keith P. GEnie, it seems to me, has been waning in terms of volume of discussion. There is still a significant level of discussion, but it seem fewer and fewer contributors write regularly. I suspect dissatisfaction with GEnie in general has contributed. Thanks for the welcome, -Mark R. From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Subject: Sino-Japanese Conflict Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 16:35:30 -0500 (EST) Thanks for the amusing playtest report, Mark. So, what do the political rules of this game look like? Also, what is the map scale and how many maps are there? Is the naval system more detailed than the Second Front system? Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From: m.royer3@genie.com Date: Sat, 24 Feb 96 21:24:00 UTC 0000 Subject: Hi Jeff. Jeff, Great to see you here! No, I'm not bailing from GEnie, not yet anyways. As long as there is good discussion there I'll stick with it. I'd prefer to see all Europa electronic discussion centralized regardless of the venue, but alas, that's not likely. -Mark R. Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 19:19:58 -0600 From: bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) Subject: Re: Sino-Japanese Conflict Playtes >Battle Report - Sino-Japanese Conflict I, for one, don't care to see unrelated material coming via the Europa list. Bobby. From: m.royer3@genie.com Date: Sun, 25 Feb 96 11:51:00 UTC 0000 Subject: SJC Playtest Bobby, The Sino-Japanese Conflict is "Europa" in all but geographic continent. It uses the Second Front ground, air, and naval combat system. Units are rated compatably with Europaand the map and time scales are the same as Europa. I like to think of "Europa" in the more broad sense as a WW2 game system rather than just a continent. Thus, in these terms I tend to consider SJC an Europa game (technically I, or course, realize that it is part of the Glory series). But, I respect your opinion, and if people feel that the topic is not appropriate for an Europa list, I will desist from posting such material here. Keith, SJC is played on four full and and two half sized standard Europa maps scaled at 16 mile hexes using Europa terrain. THe game is played in 2 week game turns. Currently, its naval system is identical to Second Front, except with the addition of river flotillas and river transports. I think that this naval system is too complex for the game and it probably will eventually be stripped out for something simpler, since the game is by far land-based. Regarding political rules, there are a couple. Japanese victory is achieved by forcing the collapse of the Nationalist Government (the KMT) which can be achieved by the accumulation of a variety of events including both political and military action. The Japanese player can set up a variety of puppet governments which undermine the KMT stability. The Chinese army is far from unified. It is more of a loose coalition of warlord provincial armies with various allegiances to the KMT (including the communists). The Chinese player must keep the warlords in line and form a cohesive front against the Japanese invaders. This can include warlord pay-offs and decisions as to whether to respect their "autonomous" territory vs. the need to use it in persuit of defense against Japanese. Warlord armies, in the extreme, can go puppet and join the Japanese. At the start of the game, the Japanese player is limited in the scope of action he may engage in, reflecting Tokyo's effort to limit the "China Incident" and prevent it from becoming a full scale war. This, of course, fails and the battle erupts into a theater wide war. Generally, those are the major political effects shown in the game. Sincerely, -Mark R. From: Rich Velay Subject: Second Front Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 06:04:39 PST Hi all. (if this makes it to all, I'm in unfamiliar territory here) I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who is playing, or has played, SF. I am interested in hearing a couple of things, a: how is play balance, who wins and why, and b: what rules are a problem, who isn't understanding what and what needs to be done about it. I've started 9 games of the campaign, 43, so far and have some definite ideas of my own about the game, but have only limited competition here so don't know if my experience is typical or not. I have also played a bit of the 44 start scenario, but am mostly interested in other Europist's experiences with the 43 action in the Med. How long do the Italians hold out? What kind of VP losses are the Allies racking up through "Disastrous Operations"? What can be done about the islands, like Sardinia and Corsica? Anyway, you get the picture; I would be very interested to hear from anyone, regardless of the time they have in on the game, as long as they have tried it, even solo. Thanks a bunch. late/R RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Subject: Re: Sino-Japanese Conflict Playtes (fwd) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 13:16:03 -0500 (EST) > > >Battle Report - Sino-Japanese Conflict > > I, for one, don't care to see unrelated material coming via the Europa list. > > Bobby. > > I agree that we shouldn't post material unrelated to Europa to this list, but it seems to me that the forthcoming Glory series is related to Europa. As a Europa player (whenever I can find the time, alas), my interest in the game on the Sino-Japanese conflict is definitely perked. There is occasional historical discussion on this list, related to Europa. I'm happy to see this too; after all Europa is a game for people who are fanatics about historical detail. The recent post on Germany's current involvement in the former Yugoslavia was, I think, stretching the envelope of what should be on this list. But, I think that there is not so much volume on this list for us to be too worried about carefully defining what is related to Europa yet. Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario, Canada From: pardue@hilda.mast.QueensU.CA (Keith Pardue) Subject: Second Front Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 13:37:22 -0500 (EST) Hi, Rich Velay asked about people's Second Front experiences. I have only played a few turns of the Italy scenario. I played the Axis. I evacuated Sicily as quickly as possible, destroying as much infrastructure as possible on the way. It seemed to me that Sicily was a death trap. The Allies landed in Sicily on the first turn, suffering some naval losses to coastal gunnery. No losses for disasterous operations here. Sardinia, though, was a disaster. The main Allied landing was inside my danger zone and they lost alot of transports. They also landed airborne units inland which I counterattacked and destroyed. I also counterattacked the beaches, bringing up the Italian fleet for NGS. (I lost some of the fleet to Allied airpower, but I was outside Allied Naval Interdiction range.) Since Allied naval losses were piling up, I decided to fight it agressively so as to get some excessive losses VPs. So, I made a big airstrike on the transports in Palermo harbour. I lost about half of my naval air, but it was worth it to sink some more transports, and cadre the armoured division on board. When we had to clean up the game, the Allies had not yet secured Sardinia, which I had reinforced with light units by air transport, and had just made a landing north of Naples with a TF by the beaches and a CG a few hexes back to give air cover. I was just about to send my fleet out to see if I could sneak past the TF and attack the CG. I don't think that my opponent was playing very well. It seemed to me that the VPs I was gaining for disasterous operations and that I was going to be gaining for his excessive naval losses were going to help me alot. My opponent felt that these VPs were still within an allowance that would not prevent the Allies from winning. I hope that this is useful information for your SF survey, Rich. Do the Axis typically rack up VPs for disasterous operations and excessive losses in your experience? Best Wishes, Keith Pardue Kingston, Ontario Canada From: m.royer3@genie.com Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 00:32:00 UTC 0000 Bobby, Thanks for your response and I'd like to commend your vigil. I too, do not want to wade through hordes of "unrelated" postings. Clearly, the issue boils down to a definition of related vs. unrelated and that definition is dependant upon the general consensus of the people posting on a list. This is why I asked if it were okay to post Glory material here before doing so. On GEnie, an ad-hoc consensus concluded that both Glory and WWI materials could be posted. I'm in agreement with Glory if it infact uses the Europa game system. With regards to WWI, I'm more dubious. I certainly hope that such postings would not cause anybody to withdraw their name from the list. Rich, Regarding the Second Front naval system, I think it is simply too complex and cumbersome in general and in particular for a land-based game like SJC. We played the southern theater of SF expecting a quick scenarioonly to find that the invasion of Sicily and southern Italy crawled along at about one game turn a night largely due to the endless counting of naval MP. -Mark R. From: Jeff White Subject: Re: Second Front Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 23:22:55 -0600 (CST) Rich Velay Said: > > Hi all. (if this makes it to all, I'm in unfamiliar territory here) > I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who is playing, or has played, SF. > I am interested in hearing a couple of things, a: how is play balance, who > wins and why, and b: what rules are a problem, who isn't understanding what > and what needs to be done about it. Our little group has been playing Second Front every Tuesday night since September 1994 (wow!). We had two abortative starts that went just a few months each. The current game has been going on since Jan 24, 1995. We've been playing the '43 scenario. The game is entering final throws. We're up to Feb I 45. Some of the rules have problems. Danger zones have problems specifically. Something needs to be done about that. > I've started 9 games of the campaign, 43, so far and have some > definite ideas of my own about the game, but have only limited competition > here so don't know if my experience is typical or not. I have also played a > bit of the 44 start scenario, but am mostly interested in other Europist's > experiences with the 43 action in the Med. > How long do the Italians hold out? What kind of VP losses are the > Allies racking up through "Disastrous Operations"? What can be done about the > islands, like Sardinia and Corsica? We (I've been the American commander) knocked the Italians out one month later than historical. The blow came without die rolling. We got the +2 on one turn (I think it was losses and 25+ RE's in Italy and a port). The clincher was an amphib assault right on Naples (taking it). We never suffered any disasterous losses in 43. A few points in 44 for some commando maneuvers. On the first turn we landed on the Western end of Sicily with the Americans and on the second turn we landed on the south western shore of Sardinia with the Brits. If anyone is interested, we have all of our "plans" in computer form and I could post them here. They might be useful for future players to see some good plans. We even have Excel spreadsheets of the RP tables (lots to keep track of for the Allied side). We did pull a stunt landing in Southern France on Jan II of 44 in the Med. The VP system is broken. I think. As I recall, with the terrain we had taken in Mar 44, if we took no more we would win. > Anyway, you get the picture; I would be very interested to hear from > anyone, regardless of the time they have in on the game, as long as they have > tried it, even solo. > Thanks a bunch. > late/R > RichV@Icebox.Iceonline.com > > Europa, tomorrow's games about yesterday, TODAY > -- Jeff White, ARS N0POY jwhite@ghq.com "I am Pentium of Borg. Arithmetic is irrelevant. Prepare to be approximated." Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 10:14:52 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: Sino-Japanese Conflict Playtes (fwd) >> >> >Battle Report - Sino-Japanese Conflict >> >> I, for one, don't care to see unrelated material coming via the Europa list. >> >> Bobby. >> >> > I agree that we shouldn't post material unrelated to Europa >to this list, but it seems to me that the forthcoming Glory series >is related to Europa. As a Europa player (whenever I can find the >time, alas), my interest in the game on the Sino-Japanese conflict >is definitely perked. > > There is occasional historical discussion on this list, >related to Europa. I'm happy to see this too; after all Europa >is a game for people who are fanatics about historical detail. >The recent post on Germany's current involvement in the former >Yugoslavia was, I think, stretching the envelope of what should >be on this list. > > But, I think that there is not so much volume on this >list for us to be too worried about carefully defining what is >related to Europa yet. I completely agree with this opinion. In addition, I wouldn't want to subscribe to separate lists just to get info on the WWI and Glory games. As stated above, the activity on this list really isn't much of a problem. Mvh Elias Nordling From: John Sloan Subject: Re: Second Front Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 09:04:17 GMT Rich Velay wrote on Sun, 25 Feb 96 14:04:39 GMT > Hi all. (if this makes it to all, I'm in unfamiliar territory here) > I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who is playing, or has played, SF. > I am interested in hearing a couple of things, a: how is play balance, who > wins and why, and b: what rules are a problem, who isn't understanding what > and what needs to be done about it. > I've started 9 games of the campaign, 43, so far and have some > definite ideas of my own about the game, but have only limited competition > here so don't know if my experience is typical or not. I have also played a > bit of the 44 start scenario, but am mostly interested in other Europist's > experiences with the 43 action in the Med. > How long do the Italians hold out? What kind of VP losses are the > Allies racking up through "Disastrous Operations"? What can be done about > the islands, like Sardinia and Corsica? In our one game, the Italians surrendered right on schedule, at the same time the did historically. [October I ?]. Anyway it didn't take much. The invasion of Sicily, and the British invasion in the south was enough. The Americans invaded north of Rome, since the Germans were defending Naples in strength. Lack of air cover mean that the navy suffered a bit, and we lost 80 points for disasterous operations for being 20 naval points down. However the beachhead survived, and as a result we got about 12 months head start on the march up the peninsula. [We reached the Po in spring '44, and had cleared Italy of axis units by the time the Germans surrendered in late '44]. On the western front, we invaded in Brittany, as Normandy was again stacked up with German units. The Germans stood and fought just outside Paris, and got mangled. By late 44 the allies were across the Rhine in several places [including a couple of hexes of the Ruhr]. > Anyway, you get the picture; I would be very interested to hear from > anyone, regardless of the time they have in on the game, as long as they > have tried it, even solo. General impression is that as long as the allies don't do anything stupid, they will win. They just need to make their advantage in troops and their overwhelming air superiority count. That and the ability to attack with every single unit they own lets them grind the Germans down. The Americans in particular can be blase about losses. By the end of the game I had nearly 100 replacement points still unused, and the Germans had given up trying to hurt me, instead concentrating on the more fragile British. [It gets to the stage where an exchange against the Germans is a victory for the Americans since they can replace it and the Germans cannot]. Just my impressions. John Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 12:39:34 +0100 From: o-noreli@jmk.su.se (Elias Nordling) Subject: Re: Second Front (long) > Hi all. (if this makes it to all, I'm in unfamiliar territory here) >I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who is playing, or has played, SF. >I am interested in hearing a couple of things, a: how is play balance, who >wins and why, and b: what rules are a problem, who isn't understanding what >and what needs to be done about it. I've only played it once, solitaire, but it really was an interesting game. It was a while ago, so I don't remember all the details. I chose a hard-med strategy for the allies. I started with invasions of Sardinia and Corsica, with the intent of capturing air and naval bases for a strike against southern France fast. Both invasions, especially the Corsican one, ran into trouble at first, but I still managed to get ashore between Marseille and Italy by September (I think). Since this area was guarded by the italians, they received enough losses to make them surrender. This meant that Marseille was handed over intact to the allies by defecting italians (I assumed the germans got no demolition try in this peculiar situation). The invasion soon bogged down in bad weather, hard terrain and tough german fortified lines. The potential release of the balkan garrison definitely scared me from entering Italy. Meanwhile, Italy was awfully thinly held by Germans. I parachuted Sicily and started preparing a land advance up Italy from there. At the same time, I did a major invasion somewhere north of rome (I don't remember exactly where, but there was a big port in the area - Civitaveccio? I think that was it. That invasion turned into a near disaster with great losses, as most of the german panzer force in the west ganged up on it. It finally held out until bad weather, but it was an awfully close call. The germans held them tight and built a line south of rome. The battle in southern France turned meatgrinder, with an one hex advance per turn (not forgetting the 6 week battle for Aix). In italy, the Civitaveccio beachhead managed to breakout after a long buildup and panzer withdrawals to the east. The germans estabilished a new line through Firenze. That area also turned into a one hex a turn meatgrinder. This left northern France thinly held. I planned to invade massively the first clear turn close to Calais. By the time the invasion landed (Jun I 44), the southern France beachhead had already hacked its way out. In Italy, a lucky attack managed to breakthrough into the Po valley by overrunning with a real killer stack in the exploitation phase. At the same time, I started advancing into Italy from France. The Released Baklan garrison was enough to form a good line in the alpes, though. The fighting terminally bogged down here. In France, the retreating panzers turned to fight as the allies were overextending themselves in pursuit. A major panzer battle across the entire central France erupted. In the end, The germans inflicted considerable losses on the allies, but a large part of the panzers got trapped. France was liberated about simultaneously from the north and south. The germans retreated to the Rhinewall, but it was awfully thinly held, and the allies would have time to assault it before bad weather. I quit playing here (sep I 44 I think). It is my estimate that the war would have ended before the end of 44. (Whew! I guess I DID remember all the details!) However, the allies would have lost on points! The VP penalties for naval losses (due to suicide operations by the italian fleet, air attacks, danger zones and even minesweeping!) and VP losses for disastrous operations (they weren't disastrous, they were in all cases successful!) were unrecoverable. The rules clarification about danger zones would have made a difference in my particular game (especially in Corsica). As I interpret the rules, all losses in a beachead without an open port is considered disastrous operations losses (since they aren't in regular supply). I found it very hard to avoid major VP penalties for this. Also, it annoys me a lot that you get no bonus whatsoever for ending the war early. In fact you lose points on it, since you get fewer victory count opportunities! If you would hold your troops just before the germans would surrender, you could gain a lot of extra points on it. This is fixable, you just get additional points for holding the map times the missed VP check opportunities, but it still annoys me. Mvh Elias Nordling From: m.royer3@genie.com Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 12:30:00 UTC 0000 Subject: FWTBT > (who has called it "the worst designed game in history"; high praise indeed!) Jeff, In what context was this disparaging remark uttered?!?!?! -Mark R. From: Roberth Lundin Subject: AWW: Western Intervention throu hostile Sweden! Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 13:59:31 +-100 A have run several solitaire runs with A Winter War. One case i used all optional rules and rolled for Wester Intervention = DEC II. Norway did support the intervention, but not Sweden. The first 5 rail hexes from Sweden into Finland are broken by Soviet Air = Force. What are the quickest way for the intervention force to reach Karelen?=20 AND How? The Rail line from Narwik to Finland is going through the hex which are = marked Boden. This hex contains a BIG Fortress. Sweden is not going to let any = near this fortress, for any reason. It is very unrealistic that the = Intervention would fight the Swedes for the Boden Fortress, most = probably would be that the Britts and French are stuck on Swedens = Territory for Months if they try. They can try to protect the Rail line = from Ski Jaegers if they can.=20 What are the thoughts about Western Intervention? I think they are = completly crasy and degenerate, as they are written. Robbox Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 09:13:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Steven C. Petras" Subject: Re: SJC Playtest On Sun, 25 Feb 1996 m.royer3@genie.com wrote: > Bobby, > The Sino-Japanese Conflict is "Europa" in all but geographic continent. It > uses the Second Front ground, air, and naval combat system. Units are rated > compatably with Europaand the map and time scales are the same as Europa. I > like to think of "Europa" in the more broad sense as a WW2 game system rather > than just a continent. Thus, in these terms I tend to consider SJC an Europa > game (technically I, or course, realize that it is part of the Glory series). > > But, I respect your opinion, and if people feel that the topic is not > appropriate for an Europa list, I will desist from posting such material here. > I think this is wrong. Please continue to post your playtest materials, this is a forum for all Europa info and I am curious about the progress of the Pacific expansions. > Currently, its naval system is identical to Second Front, except with > the addition of river flotillas and river transports. I think that this naval > system is too complex for the game and it probably will eventually be stripped > out for something simpler, since the game is by far land-based. I admit I don't have SF and that this campaign is land based, but when dealing with the Pacific War I would think that a complete Naval system would be a necessity. I've been curious about this ever since I heard that the PTO was being written into the system. Any clues as to how this is going to happen? Or isn't it, is the system only going to cover the land campaigns (after the invasions have occured)? Any info would be very much appreciated. Thanks for your time, Steve Petras stilgar@wam.umd.edu From: Mats Persson Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 15:27:31 +0100 Subject: Re: SJC Playtest Old messages to this list is stored a the Europa ftp-site. ftp://ftp.lysator.liu.se/pub/europa Also remember to send your message to this list to europa@lysator.liu.se /Mats Persson, list admin Forwarded message -------------------------------------------------------------------- Interesting story about the SJC Playtest. Sounds like a good slanging match, with plenty of cardboard bloodshed and action. I'm curious about the political side. Can the Sino-Japanese War expand to see Western or Soviet intervention on either side? Can the Japanese sink the USS Panay? Incidentally, if anybody cares, the International Concessions of Shanghai were interesting places. There were two: the French Concession, and the International Concession. The latter was run by a committee of British, American, Italian, and Japanese big boys, and guarded by the marines and gunboats of all of the above. When the Japanese overran the concession on Dec. 8th, 1941, they inherited a small collection of Italian and German expatriates who had formed their own branches of the Fascist and Nazi parties back home. The latter tried to attack Shanghai's small and ancient Jewish community, but the Japanese weren't supportive of extending the Final Solution to the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. A good account of that whole period is found in Desperate Voyagers, which was also called The Fugu Plan, about Japan's bizarre attempt to fill Manchuria with Jewish colonists, which was based on a complete misreading of Jewish history. In short, some top Japanese believed that what they read in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that Jews controlled America. The Japanese believed that if they filled Manchuria with Jews, they would make the Manchuko economy motor, and, given their presumed control of American and British media, give Japanese expansionism good press in the West. The Japanese planned to strictly control this "Jewish settlement" so that the Jews would not become a "threat" to Japan. The Japanese tossed this bizarre idea at American Jewish Congress president Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, who was infuriated by the plan's thinly-concealed anti-Semitism, lack of comprehension of Judaism, and cynical attempt to use Jews to gain international approval of aggression. Another side note to Shanghai during World War II was the presence of two antique Italian gunboats, part of the international patrol on the Yangtze River. They loyally served their Japanese ally in keeping order in Shanghai during the war, until Italy switched sides. Japanese marines promptly boarded the gunboats and turned them over to the Tenno. Under different names, they continued to defend Shanghai against Allied air attacks until war's end, when they were delivered up to the Allies. The reference to the Italian ships is in "Japanese Ships at the End of World War II," a study prepared by an IJN officer for the Allies of surviving vessels, which has recently been reprinted (with photos) by the US Naval Institute Press. Sincerely, David H. Lippman Public Affairs Officer US Naval Antarctic Support Unit Christchurch, New Zealand -