Why Master Europa?

Master Europa was conceived as an alternative rules system to the rules as written for the entire Europa game series. This was due to the innate urge most of us have to "Mess With The System" (MWTS). I wanted to create a system that was more realistic, and still remain playable. The core of the system design is, and remains, the work of GDW. When building on such a foundation, a sound structure is much easier to buil

I also wanted to start the design with a firm view of what the general system was to be, an operational level representation of the European Theater of Operations in the Second World War. Thus the design is complete for all of the modules in this system, with only minor specific details to be filled in. Learn this one, and you truly have learned all of the games in the system (the great promise of the Europa system

The guidelines for this project were simple.

1. Only minor changes in the existing counters or maps were allowed.
2. The basic look and feel of Europa would not be changed.
3. The rules would work in all editions of the games.
4. Realism was rated as important as play-ability, BUT if there was a dead heat play-ability would win out.

Who designed this system?

Master Europa did not spring from my head, pure and formed, but is the result of several years of research, play-testing, argument, debate, rages, and rewrites. First off, I was following a path blazed well by Frank Chadwick, Marc Miller, and Paul Banner with "DRANG NACH OSTEN", and later with the rest of the series that GDW produced. John Astell who took up the job at GDW, and has kept it going at GRD, with Winston Hamilton. They have created a system for folks like me to "mess with". T

My own "qualifications" for "MWTS" consist of having been a Europa gamer since the game first came out, involvement with play-testing (Fire in the East, Scorched Earth, and Winter War) and heading up Task Force Johnso

I also bring a military background, and a great deal of historical study to the project. Plus the required confidence to say "here try this".

No such project can be done by one person, and I have many to thank for their help. Joe Hayes, Charlie Meyers, Duane Romfoe, Dave Lentz, Dave Collins, Keith Martinson, Phil Anderson, Gary Stagliano, John Bleiweiss, Craig Crofoot, and many others have all contributed their time and ideas to this project. My thanks also go to all the members of the Waukesha, & Verona Wisconsin gaming groups for their efforts and comments.

A special thanks goes to Lisa Blake, who has become a very important part of the Master project, and keeps me working!

The credits belong not to me alone, but to all who helped. The blame for errors and omissions rests with me.

Basic Assumptions:

To divide the passage of time into "turns" is an immediate step away from reality. In reality both sides are moving and fighting at the same time throughout the area covered by the game. But, we must make do with the division to make the GAME wor

When thinking about a turn, and the 15 days it represents, consider these time scales for events (from Dupuy: Understanding War);

1. Duel = minutes, fought between individuals or single AFVs, for local objectives (that clump of trees, or the room at the top of the stairs).
2. Action = 1 to 24 hours, Fought by Squads to battalions for local objectives ( this hill, that block of the city).
3. Engagement = 1 to 5 Days, Fought by Companies to Divisions for tactical missions.
4. Battle = Days to Weeks, Fought by Corps to Field Armies for operational missions.
5. Campaign = Weeks to months, Fought by Field armies to Army Groups for Strategic objectives.
6. War = Months to years, fought by the entire nations forces for national goals.

In Master we deal with the levels Battle to War. We cannot influence the operations of the units below this level, and we cannot influence to set national objectives of the leadership of our nations. It is vital to realize this, since to allow "Hitler to be a nice guy" simply is not a reflection of the reality we are striving to represent.

If you wish to play such exercises, by all means do so, but don't look for a reliable gauge of the result (fiction writers of the world unite?).

The intent then is to create a simulation that provides you, the player, with as realistic a taste for the problems and planning encountered at the levels from Corps to Army Group/Theater level of command. The rules bring the effects of higher level HQs into play, and the counters and combat systems reflect operations at the lower level

General Rules

Rule 3 Unit classes

I have changed the class of units to more simply represent them to the player. Combat/Motorized has been changed to Motorized, since the branch (combat, combat support, or service support) of the unit is not really relevant to the games movement or transport rating

Rule 5 Zone of Control

Given the distance a full strength division could actually hold (with any reasonable success) a Zone of control is an indication of the Zone of Influence that the unit may exert. Thus a unit exerts more of an influence into the adjacent hexes than actually occupies them (patrols, artillery fire, and observation). This is a more realistic way of thinking about the

Rule 6 Movement

This was a major area of research, in fact it was the area that began this project. The maximum rate of movement now available is much closer to the historical norms. It is still LOW (slightly) for motorized units. The time portion of the calculations is 1 turn = 15 days of real tim

For example, a Panzer division can move 10 hexes, fight, to take a hex, and then move 10 more hexes in one turn. The is 21 hexes, or 525 Km; equaling a daily average rate of movement of 35 Km per day! (In miles this is 336 miles, and 22.4 miles per day

Consider the total amount of distance moved as a partial measure of the level of resistance that advancing force receives over the 15 days of operations.

Rule 7 Transportation lines

The rail network rules are designed to make a more realistic depiction of the operation of rail roads during the period. Trains (a train is an engine, and cars) would move from one district point to another, with the engine being switched at the boundary of the "division" or network it is assigned to.

The switch of the old Europa "roads" to minor rail lines reflects more accurately the true density of rails, and their use. The collectors series of maps {They are Beautiful, Buy the new issues of the games if only to get them!} makes a much more accurate survey of the transportation systems of the period (Kudos to Arthur Goodwin

Given the importance of rails to most armies in this war, the rail net will guide your campaigns as it did in the real war.

Rule 8 Stacking

The stacking rule is changed to reflect more accurately the unit density that was normal during the period. In some instances this is LESS than historically done, but rarely is it higher than possible (what could be done vs. what was done). When units were packed in tighter, it normally represents the historical units being at a reduced strength, where the game holds them to a standard strength overall.

Rule 9 Combat

The effects of combat are adjusted to align with guidelines set in US Army manuals for judging maneuvers, and operational analysis of historical outcomes of combats. The chance of success (taking the hex) is factored into the result as much as the chance of taking or inflicting losses.

The AR result is gone, since it is pointless when the attacker can move back during the exploitation phase.

The result NE is removed. I think we are all tired of this argument. In theory the NE meant that nothing has changed in the positions of the forces, and the losses are not significant enough to disable the units involved (yes, being killed is VERY significant to the guy what gets elected, but that is far below the level the game represents.

I have opted to reward all the time and trouble of an attack with something, maybe good, maybe bad, but something! We are judging the effect of the attack at the operational/strategic end of the spectrum. so a poorly conceived attack will make a bigger dent than if Capt. Van Gorza decides to attack a pillbox and it just doesn't get off the ground as an attack.

The effects of being unable to retreat should be viewed as being flanked by the attacker.

The most radical concept here is the German Combat Effectiveness Variable (CEV). This is based on the research done by Trevor Dupuy, and a good look at the German situation by 1944!. See Dupuy's books on the Quantified Judgment Method of Analysis (QJMA) for a more detailed review of this subject.

Rule 10 Armor & Antitank Effects

There is no change in concept here, but to clarify how I see it:

AEC represents the use of a force heavy in armor in an offensive manner. Yes, even AECD. AECD represents the use of armor in the counter-attack role rather than in the bunker and ambush ATEC method. ATEC then represents the defensive use of armor and antitank forces to stop an enemy advance.

These are slight differences, but critical in concept to how the rule works.

Rule 12 Logistics

The heart of military operations at the level the game represents is Logistics. The special supply system is based on tonnage's required and delivered to all the major combatants, the methods and means used by them to supply their front-line units, and the historical operations of forces at the level shown in the game cut off from supply for the duration represented in the game. (15 Days minimum!)

The effects of the first turn out of supply isolated are 'reduced' to allow the tactical choice to "attack OUT of here", or to assist a relief force to open a route for supplies. The effect is reduced to allow this, and thus seems to jump up radically for the next U level.

Supply is calculated at a rate of tonnage (daily) per division slice, multiplied by 15 days. The figure for supply is averaged for all nations, so there is some variance in exact totals of tonnage. however this variance is well within reason when the entire service and support rear area is factored into the exact number represented when a supply point is delivered to a combat unit.

The air forces are now finally brought into the logistics picture, with the provision for isolated airbases requiring supplies to operate at full capacity.

In the game, the Quartermaster Corps sets new standards in delivering the exact required tonnage's of the exact required types of supply to meet this figure {great job guys}. In effect the supply system is given this miracle, so you only have to worry about the delivery of tons of stuff.

The supply system now eliminates almost totally the utility of "Ants", by making them very ineffective (as they would have been in reality) for the cost of the units usually used as "ants". {Ants die like flies, which is a particularly ignominious way to go!} You can now calculate the tonnage for every unit in the game. Carefully note that "ship tons" , "Metric tons" , and "long tons", are all being mixed together here.

Rule 15 Partisans

This is a tricky area, the effects of the partisan campaigns varied greatly throughout Europe. I believe that the rules now show the effects, strengths and weaknesses of partisan operations, and reward the player who can coordinate their use with the main forces.

As Second Front dealt with the Partisans in the abstract, there are no counters in the game for the Partisan forces. A small module (Partisan) will be produced to provide you with counters for partisan operations (and the OSS, SOE, et. al. that ran about with them.

In lieu of that use the partisan markers from Scorched Earth if you have them. If you do not, Bands are 1-6 units, Groups are 3-6 units, HQs are 0-6 units. In 1943 2 HQs are received per theater when the air cycle happens (Jan, Mar, etc.). In 1944 this goes up to 1 per nation occupied by enemy forces on the 1st turn of every month.

Rules 18 - 22 Air rules

Airbases are considered to be what they were, grass fields (in the main). Thus the larger number that could be in an area, and the ease of building them (take a real good look at the typical W.W.II airbase and see if you still think concrete and bulldozers were essential). Type HB and SOME jets required the big runways, but this was not a major a deal for the countries who had them and so needed to have the bases to operate them.

The air system has been redone to eliminate the Air Zone of Patrol, as this is one of the most abused and misused rules in the Rules as written (RAW).

The entire air combat system is designed to allow texture (for the "air enthusiast") and yet speed play in the game.

The assumption here is that the air combats we do, represent the main effort of these units over the span of the 15 day turn. Each combat does not represent a single air combat, nor a single mission.

Also eliminated is the "damaged" air unit, at this level the air unit either accomplishes its mission, or not, and is either able to fly effectively or not. This also saves the time for rolling for each units repaired.

The air combat system is designed to save time, represent the effects of massed air combat, and show the impact of the types of aircraft in combat. The experience factors are vital to show that though the plane may be good, the pilot and his support elements may not be.

The close support rules add in a very interesting aspect, FOG IN WAR. You will not be sure of the attack odds in the planning stage, so you best send enough "stuff" to be sure (just like the real world!). Air units begin to be assigned to ensure both combat odds (TBFs) and air superiority (or at least parity) to get the bombs on target.

Last warning to you factor counters, the world is changing, so its time to start thinking like them folks with the uniforms and maps (grin).

I have chosen to delete the strategic air war. This is due to the desire to fully cover the subject in a module under development, rather than to "pack it in" to an appropriate module as GR/D decided to do. This is not a criticism of GR/D, just a choice I made while figuring the layout for Master. Do not use the German Home Strategic Air Option.

Rule 23 Naval rules

The naval rules in Western Front - Invasion are a mixture of the full Master naval system and the system Second Front supports with its counter mix. This is due to the nature of the naval activity in the course of the game by Navies. The Fuel shortages represent the actual situation faced by the Italian and German navies in the period covered by the game.

Each NTP represents 5,625 tons of cargo delivery capacity, NOT an individual ship.

The naval mine rule is deliberately left out, since the capability to sweep mines as needed was never a problem for the Allies during the period covered by the game.

The same for the "danger zones", by the period covered in this game the threat of effective Axis naval operations was limited to a "death of Glory" run by the Italian Navy in 43. Once the Regia Marina has been surrendered the Naval role becomes gunfire support and cargo delivery in these theaters.

Rule 37 Field fortifications

The basis for the ratings is derived from US Army FM 31-50 (Mar 1964), Chapter 2 section I, page 8.

"5. Types of Fortified areas. A fortified area is one containing numerous defensive works. These may include fortified weapon emplacements, or bunkers, protected shelters, reinforced natural or manmade caves, entrenchment's, and obstacles. Depending on its location, extent, and depth, a fortified area and its ports may be classified as follows:

1. Fortified Locality {ME level 1}. A grouping or defensive works about a single location, either without regard to any other defensive system, or as part of a large defensive system.

2. Fortified Position {ME level 2}. A series of strongly organized localities disposed in width and depth in such a manner as to be mutually supporting. Exceptionally, it may be a single, strongly organized locality.

3. Fortified Belt {ME level 3}. A linear grouping of fortified positions.

4. Fortified Zone {ME level 4}. A system of fortified positions extending laterally and in depth, normally consisting of two or more fortified belts."

The Field fortifications in the game represent these levels, and thus avoid the need to discuss if there are "portable pillboxes" or sufficient mines to create an area. The point is that the result of the works causes this level of benefit to the defending force.

I recommend that you use the fortification markers provided with the game, dividing them into four groups, and marking them 1 - 4 to show a level of fortification.

The removal of unoccupied fortifications shows the normal reuse of construction materials & mines that occurs when a friendly position becomes a rear area one. The requirement also places limitations on players having a "more realistic" theory of defense. (Such as Germans building a 5 hex thick-solid wall of fortifications along the Polish border while the army is fighting around Moscow!) In the real world, commanders requesting permission to establish fortified areas to the far rear suffer career consequences.

Rule 39 Victory conditions

As the rule says, you decide how the game went based on the situation at the end of the game. Breathes there a gamer with soul so dead, that to himself hath not said "yeah, but I did better then the real guys did!"

Use the historical outcome as your guide, and have a good long discussion (munchies and beverages are essential at this point) concerning how the outcome should be rated.

Master Europa Website: http://discover-net.net/~swcectj/

Related

Interview: Tom Johnson, Master Europa Designer
Rules Review: Master Europa (WWII)