In your Inside Europa last issue, you said that USAAF P-39D counters cover models D and G together. But, these models are actually very different, and you list P-38Gs on the OB, but no Ds. What gives?

Sorry, my typo. I meant the P-47Ds covered models D and G, which are similar.

What's OFFICIAL Europa? The magazine has so many rules suggestions, variants, additional counters, etc., that I got confused trying to figure out what rules I'm supposed to be using. Help!

Don't let all the Europa - talk mix you up. The published games, together with the published errata sheets, are official Europa, and nothing else is. If it's not in the rules of a game or on the errata sheet, it's not official, and you don't have to bother with it if you don't want to. Supplementing this is the semiofficial "Rules Court", which appears regularly in this magazine. "Rules Court" is based on rules questions players send in - it's the answer you'd get if you wrote in with that question. It mostly clarifies ambiguities and resolves mistaken impressions of how the rules work. Rick Gayler does an excellent job in answering the questions, and he regularly hits me with the really hard ones (yeah, thanks a lot, Rick). If you have a rules problem that's been covered in the court, you can use the answer.

However, "Rules Court' isn't fully official, as it isn't guaranteed to be completely right all the time - at least, I know that I occasionally gave the wrong answer when I answered rules questions. Also, some answers involve subtle interpretations, which may change after further thought and experimentation. The important material in "Rules Court" will eventually make its way into the official errata sheets. In the meantime, the verdicts of the court serve as a guide to rules questions, but you're not required to use them when playing the games.

The only other semiofficial material is my "Rails through the Russiasu article in TEN 7. This addresses a problem area in Scorched Earth's rule on upgrading roads to railroads. It isn't completely official, for two reasons:

1) It hasn't been tested thoroughly enough. Although it should work, there possibly may be a problem or two lurking in it - which will be discovered through repeated play.

2) It's a somewhat messy fix to the problem, introducing more rules and counters.

Do we really need to add 27 0-6 German railroad engineer battalions to the game? I hope that I can think of a better fix here. (Currently, I think it may be possible to cut the battalions. The basic problem is that the German's don't have enough higher headquarters to absorb all the battalions at the start of the game. I hesitate to make up fictitious regiments to absorb the extra battalions, as this plays needless games with the otherwise sound historical research. However, we might be able to get around this by backdating the three German railroad engineer brigades to the start of the game and cutting the battalions. Although this is a small historical distortion, as the brigades don't exist in June 1941, it may be acceptable.)

Everything else is unofficial. The magazine is on the cutting edge of Europa, giving you the latest news, speculations, and aspirations in the series. You've seen and will continue to see many experimental rules, variants, suggestions, and second guessing in the pages of TEN. It's there for your information and enjoyment. If you like to tinker with your games (many do, and there are no rules police to arrest you if you modify the rules to suit yourself), or if you see something you particularly like, go ahead and use it. If you want to play by the official rules, stick to the published games and errata sheets.

In War in the Desert, how is it possible that an Italian tank division has far greater strength and is much more economical to supply in combat than the British? An attack strength of 7 with 2 REs yields 3.5 attack strength per RE for an Italian armored division, while a British armored division at 3 REs and a strength of 8 yields a paltry 2.6 attack strength per RE. (The mighty Panzers, at 2 REs and strength 9, yield 4.5.) I thought the British would be better than the Italians, not worse.

In the early stages of World War II, the British operated under an erroneous theory of armored warfare, while lacking sufficient resources and experience in their armored forces. In the 1930s, the British Army favored the idea of all-armor tank formations: large armored formations should consist of little more (or, extremely, nothing more) than tanks, which would sweep the enemy from the field. While the British didn't field tank-only armored divisions, they did form tank-heavy divisions.

WWII showed the all-armor theory to be wrong. Instead, the combined arms approach was proven to be the best use of armored forces: the tanks needed to be supported by sufficient motorized infantry and artillery to achieve their full abilities. Without proper support, the tanks would be at a disadvantage in situations requiring infantry or artillery. The British armored forces learned these lessons the hard way - through battle against the Germans.

In the desert, the British armored divisions initially were organized around two armored brigades and one support group, with the following battalion totals: 6 armored, 2 motorized infantry, 1 artillery, 1 combined AA/antitank, and 2/3 engineer. At full strength, the division had 340 tanks, although British production wasn't able to provide enough tanks to equip new units and replace losses, especially with newer models possessing heavier armor and armament. In action, the armored division had far too many tanks and far too little infantry and artillery to operate effectively. This formula, as all nations that used tank-heavy formations found, led to excessive tank losses in combat.

As the British battled the Germans and gained bitter experience, they reorganized their armored divisions for greater effectiveness. By the time of the Battle of El Alamein, the British armored division had become a well-balanced combined arms formation. Based around one armored brigade, one infantry brigade, and the divisional artillery HQ, the division had these battalions totals: 3 armored, 1 armored car, 4 motorized infantry, 3 artillery, 1 antitank, 1 AA, and 1 engineer. At full strength, the division had 172 tanks (including 164 Shermans) plus 14 AA tanks. With the U.S. in the war, Britain's need for many, high-quality tanks was being met with American Shermans, perhaps the best all-around tank sent to Africa.

Europa shows this evolution of British armor in War in the Desert and Western Desert. The British do start off with 3-RE armored divisions averaging only 2.6 attack strength points per RE. They end up, however, with 2-RE divisions averaging 4 attack strength points per RE, a substantial improvement.

As for the Italians, they have a number of problems with their armored forces, particularly with low production rates and undersized tanks. Their organization, on the other hand, was a fairly sound combined arms approach. With one tank regiment, one motorized infantry regiment, and one artillery regiment, an Italian armored division typically fielded these battalions: 3 tank, 2 motorized infantry, 1 weapons (a mix of AA, mortars, and machine guns), 3 artillery, 1 AA, and 1 antitank. With around 190 tanks, it was a reasonable formation, worth its 3.5 attack strength points per RE.

In Fire in the East/Scorched Earth, why don't German assault gun battalions have full ATEC from the start of the game?

German assault guns were armed with low-velocity guns until the spring of 1942. These guns were good at firing high explosive rounds, which made them effective direct fire weapons against soft targets. Although they could fire armor piercing rounds, their low-velocity guns made them less effective against tanks than high-velocity tank and antitank guns. In 1942, assault guns armed with high velocity guns become available, making them highly effective tank killers.

Why do the Russians gain strength just by converting a regular unit into a Guards unit? Soviet Guards units are no different from regular units in most cases.

Actually, the Guards are different from the regulars. They tend to have more and better men, equipment, and replacements than the regulars. While they weren't substantially better than the regulars, they have enough of an edge to be rated slightly higher.

Why do 4-3-8 Tiger battalions have split attack and defense strengths? Whenever a Tiger tank showed up on the battlefield, the Allied troops yelled for help!

Tank-only formations are good at taking ground rapidly, but poor at holding it on the defense. To hold the ground, you really need infantry present, and some artillery never hurts - combined arms again! In Europa, this deficiency is reflected in the defense ratings of tank-only and tank-heavy units, hence 2-1-10 Panzer battalions, 3-2-8 tank brigades, and so on. Ignoring their "mobile pillbox" aspect, the Tigers would rate, 4-2-8, but I boosted them to 4-3-8 to cover their defensive abilities. I think 4-8 would overrate them defensively.

Why can't a divisional unit use its own organic engineer capabilities to build fortifications?

This may surprise you, but it can and it does. You don't see this directly, as it's built into the way Europa works. The Europa combat system assumes that units build field fortifications whenever they can - which is essentially all the time. Troops can dig in very quickly on their own, and the divisional engineers can help out by building bunkers, antitank ditches, weapons pits, and so on. At the time scales we're dealing with in Europa, field fortifications need not be considered separately and instead are intrinsic to the system.

Other types of fortifications are another case. An Europa fort represents much more than just field fortifications. It involves substantial augmentation of the defensive abilities of the local terrain, involving an appreciable expenditure of resources.

Divisional engineers aren't up to this task. In particular, divisional engineers have their hands full performing their usual tasks, such as building field fortifications, repairing and maintaining the local roads, and so on. They haven't the time nor sufficient equipment or manpower to take on a new, big task such as building an Europa-level fort. Instead, you have to bring in the construction troops.

Many early Europa games gave exact placements, hex by hex, for the units at the start of the games. Recent games no longer do this. Why?

In part to save both of us time, and in part because exact placement is somewhat meaningless. It takes me a lot of research time to pin down the precise starting locations of all the important units, and it takes a lot of typing time simply to enter this information correctly. It takes you a lot of time to set up units using exact placements -- much more than sorting and placing them according to their assignment in higher headquarters.

My time's limited, and I suspect yours is, too, so we should only spend the time here if it's worthwhile. But, is it? I don't think so. For historical interest, it's fun to have a snapshot of the exact dispositions at the start of the campaign. Beyond this, exact placement has at best a meaningless impact on play and at worst a harmful one. It's meaningless in that the first time you move a unit a single hex you've already broken the precision of the exact placement.

Also, Europa gives you command of the armies and allows you to conduct the campaign as you see fit, within historical guidelines. It doesn't force you to move the forces exactly as your historical counterparts did - you're playing a game, not staging a reenactment. Why should you be forced to deploy your forces exactly as your historical counterparts did? Instead, it makes sense to me to allow you to deploy your forces as you want, within historical guidelines.

Exact placement can actually harm the playing of the games, in some cases. The reason for this is that it can give the attacker an unfair advantage over the defender. Armies not engaged in military operations tend to keep their forces spread out, for a variety of reasons (such as not wanting to disrupt the civilian economy). When operations begin, both sides quickly implement their attack or defense plans. The attacker crosses the border, moving along pre-planned routes with specific goals in mind.The defender concentrates his frontier forces and brings up defensive reserves and counterattack forces. This goes on simultaneously in reality, but Europa abstracts reality through sequential movement.

Allowing the attacker to pour across while the defender is stuck in his peacetime positions until the next player turn isn't always correct. Sometimes, it captures the surprise attack correctly, sometimes not. In Fire in the East/Scorched Earth, it doesn't.

The Soviet forces are spread out on 22 June 1941, with rarely more than a division per hex. If the game forced these placements, we'd have a game more resembling Pacman than Barbarossa - feldgrau stacks munching on (overrunning) all Soviets within reach. Despite the surprise the Germans did achieve at the start of the campaign, it wasn't of Pacman magnitude.

Instead, the Soviet field forces reacted as best they could, with the frontier forces failing back under attack and local reserves being rushed forward to stiffen up the front line. While the Germans broke through at important points, which lead to the pocketing and subsequent destruction of major Soviet forces, they did have to break through, and not simply march forward in triumph. The deployment rules in FITE/SE attempt to recreate these conditions, by allowing the Soviets to deploy their frontier forces in a reasonable defensive line, which the Germans then smash as best they can.

You had unkind words for Manteuffel in a recent column, yet his Panzer Battles is one of my favorite books on WWII. Why are you down on him?

Actually, Manteuffel's Panzer Battles is one of my favorites, too. He gives a very interesting account of his experiences in the war, and he does it entertainingly. However, his book is by no means impartial, nor is it always accurate, especially about his enemies. This is also the case for the books by the other German generals, such as Guderian's Panzer Leader and Manstein's Lost Victories. Their books give many useful insights on the war, particularly concerning German military operations. However, the books lack objectivity in many areas, such as:

• 1) Hitler and the Nazis. With Hitler dead and the Nazis discredited after the war, they got blamed for all the mistakes in the war, by the generals and by many other Germans. While Hitler was responsible for a large share of the blunders, the generals weren't blameless themselves.

• 2) The Soviets. The Soviets, particularly the Communists, are often portrayed as inhuman beings resorting to measures outside civilized behavior. This view, tinged with Nazi racial propaganda and fear of Communism, helps justify the atrocities perpetuated by the Germans themselves in the USSR. Also, the books foster the false image of noble German warriors going down to defeat solely due to the mass attacks of Slavic and Asiatic hordes. This hides the fact that the German generals themselves were defeated in the field by their Soviet counterparts, both strategically and, by the end of the war, operationally.

• 3) War Crimes. Many German generals, particularly those on the Eastern front, were involved in war crimes, either actively endorsing them or passively condoning them. The books try to rehabilitate the reputation of the German Army by minimizing the atrocities and by implying that only a few fanatics were responsible for them.

The books aren't all bad, and they contain lots of useful material, not only about the Germans but also occasionally about enemy operations. For example, Manteuffel's comments about how poorly the British handled their armored forces in the desert campaigns are very good. It's just that you can't trust everything he says, particularly concerning the Soviets, as being accurate all the time.

When the German player breaks through my lines, he often sends weak, motorized AA and antitank units out by themselves to cut railroads and block supply lines. These are support units, which wouldn't do that under real conditions. Shouldn't there be a rule preventing this?

No! What's going on are several things, all good:

• 1) Breakthroughs. An enemy breakthrough is a very disruptive event for the defenders, causing all sorts of confusion as enemy units fanned out. If anything, the disruptiveness of breakthroughs are understated, and I don't want to further limit their effectiveness.
• 2) Defense in Depth. You really shouldn't have all your front line forces right on the front line itself. Instead, have divisions (units with ZOCs) one or two hexes behind the line, covering the area with ZOCs. This way, even if your front line is pierced, the exploiting forces are slowed down as they try to push through the ZOCs. If done well, then there will be fewer targets of opportunity for the "support" units to grab. And, yes, I've heard the argument that no one has enough forces to do this well everywhere, but that's part of the fortunes of war. You do your best - if the enemy breaks through in a weak sector, you take your lumps and try to do better next time.
• 3) Reserves. Despite the claims of some, Europa does reward those who maintain reserves. Among other things, reserves limit the damage done by breakthroughs. The enemy's weak motorized units will be less effective exploiting into your rear area if you have reserve forces guarding key points there. Again, sure, no one has enough forces to maintain reserves everywhere - fortunes of war. But, do you maintain reserves anywhere? What, no reserves, no defense in depth, and a front line which can be pierced by enemy motorized forces? Maybe you'd better check your playing style instead of the rules!

By the way, I believe the rules should encourage active player involvement, not passive, where possible, and this area is a case in point. The rules allow players to take active measures to limit breakthroughs, such as building a defense in depth and maintaining reserves. This is much better (and more accurate) than rules that passively reward players, such as limiting the exploitation abilities of enemy units.

All the above is fine concerning breakthroughs, but you're ignoring my point about SUPPORT UNITS. No way is a bunch of 37mm antitank guns towed by trucks going to drive off by itself into the enemy rear areas!

Europa shows, as it must, the formal order of battle organizations of the combatants' armies. However, most WWII armies would reorganize their forces into temporary tactical groupings, tailored to the task at hand - task forces, Kampfgruppen, Raggruppamenti, and so on. This is far beyond the abilities of Europa to show directly, as we'd have to let units break down into battalions and companies and then reassemble into mixed-arms battle groups. Instead, this goes on indirectly in Europa, with the game system assuming the units stacked together in a hex form the proper tactical groupings as needed. The only time it seems odd is when a small unit goes off by itself. Sure, a motorized antitank battalion is unlikely to drive 160 miles forward to seize a rail junction by itself. However, it is reasonable that a battalion-sized battle group could and would do so - say, a scratch force of a motorized infantry company, an antitank gun battery, and a recon or machine gun company. Since this level of breakdown is beyond the scope of Europa, letting the motorized antitank battalion stand in for such a battle group works fine.

That's all for now. I'll be back next time with a whole new show!

More Inside Europa

Evolution, Revolution, or Stasis
Marching Rates Rebuttal
Europa Q&A