In TEN #8 John Astell presented nine changes to "War in the Desert"/Western Desert ("Inside Europa"), eight of which he called optional. As a fan of the Desert games, I was happy to see these improvements. However, I felt that two of the options needed further development to make them suitable for competitive play, so I began a discussion with John resulting in amendments to these two. What follows are my comments on all the nine changes plus the amendments arrived at in correspondence with John.

Note: Several of the options require new counters, and facsimiles of the Axis counters appear on the inside back cover of TEN #9. Correction: the Italian assault engineer units should be battalions, not regiments, as per below:

Italian Armor

1. Lights. 7 x 0-8 Lt Tank II now start as 2 x 1-8 Lt Tank X, and 3 x 0-8 Lt Tank II reinforcements now appear as 1 Armor replacement point (RIP). Arrivederci to Special Rule 28A4 which read, "Italian light tank battalions must end each Axis movement and exploitation phase stacked with a nonlight tank unit."

2. Mediums. 1 x 1-6 Tank III now starts as 2 x 1-6 Tank II.

3. Reinforcements. 2 x 3-8 Arm Cadre arrive as 2 x 7-5-8 Arm XX

4. Breakdowns. The three armored divisions may break down into 1 x 4-2-8 Tank III and 1 x 2-10 Mot III each (with or without HQ).

Comments: The Allied player faces a new Axis setup, which adds some spice to the by-nowfamiliar opening turn. The Axis player gains 3 strength points with these changes, but 2 of these start in Egypt and will probably die on the first turn (Dec 1 40). Of course, they could lower the Allied player's combat odds and thereby increase the chance of an unfavorable result for the Allies. The other 1 begins the game on the Libyan side of the border where it may or may not be safe, depending on the audacity of the Allied player.

In terms of ZOCs, the Italians have one more ZOC-capable unit (two brigades added, one regiment deleted), but its chance of surviving Dec I 40 is remote. However, the breakdowns for the armored divisions allow greater ZOC potential and operational flexibility for the Axis forces. Note particularly the extra movement allowance of the Bersaglieri regiments (10 versus 8).

In terms of REs, the Italians have three REs less of light tank units than they used to have. This lowers the potential size of their AEC force considerably. What gave the 0-8 battalions (which players endearingly called "tankettes") their character was the way the Axis player would stack two of them with an artillery regiment for full AECA/half AECD or with an infantry division for 1/7 AEC. Heartless Axis players, on the other hand, would simply scrap tankettes in play for 1/8 armor RP each.

Although the Italians "lose" three REs of light tank units, they receive the equivalent of three extra armor RPs (two "rebuilds" and 1 RP). Furthermore, given the new breakdowns, an eliminated Italian armored division requires one armor and two infantry RPs to replace, whereas before it required two armor and one infantry RP. Overall, then the Axis player now fields a slightly improved - albeit smaller - Italian armored contingent.

I heartily recommend using these options. John has increased the accuracy of the OB, deleted a special rule (one less to remember), and made subtle and interesting changes to the Axis AEC force. One sees in this a master craftsman at work.

Prerequisites: Italian 101, 102

5. Motorization. The Axis player may motorize 5-8 Inf XX 102 by reducing his SMP total by 5; he may increase his SMP total by 5 by dernotorizing 5-8 Mot XX 101.

6. Breakdowns. The 101st and 102nd divisions may break down into three regiments each (with or without HQ). Note that they use motorized HQs even when in the guise of infantry divisions.

Comments: In TEN #7 I argued against making Trieste (101) and Trento (102) 3-RE divisions for several reasons ("Appeals Court"). John neatly pierced my main arguments by providing breakdown components (again, the master's touch).

With breakdowns, we don't need a special rule to call them 3 RE divisions, and they can use minor (2 RE) ports like Derna in the same fashion as Allied divisions. The added two REs (one per division) balances the subtracted three REs of light tanks mentioned above, and the increased flexibility provided by breakdowns offsets the bulkier size of these divisions in AEC, ATEC, and combat engineer calculations. All in all, this is an excellent option to add: it provides greater OB accuracy and does not cause problems with the game. Coincidentally, James Broshot in TEN #8 "EXchange" also suggested using breakdown counters for Trento and Trieste.

On the other hand, the motorization option as originally presented in TEN #8 falls short of its goal. John wanted to leave "the clemotorization decision up to the player." The key word here is decision. I discussed this option with Europa savant Bill Stone, and he convinced me that this decision should indeed be left up to the Axis player since, historically, it was a decision made in Libya, not in Rome. The Axis player, then, must decide whether to motorize the 102nd at the expense of 5 SMPs. Karl Gaarsoe in Nuts & Bolts #6 also equated Trento's missing trucks with 5 SMPs.

But 5 SMPs doesn't amount to much in the long haul. A player uses 1 SMP to move one step of supply one hex by road, and a smart Axis player will use naval transport to unload his steps of supply in ports as close to the front as possible. The Axis player starts with 15 SMPs, which may be used each turn. On turn 7 (Mar I 41) he receives 10 more (or 5 more if he motorizes the 102nd per John's option above). On turn 29 (Feb I 42) he receives yet another 10 more. (Western Desert lasts 52 turns.)

In short, the Axis player has enough SMPs that he will hardly miss 5. I would motorize the 102nd for 5 SMPs without hesitation; Bill Stone concurs. If we want to make dernotorization a player's decision, then we should make it a tough one - i.e., make both sides of the decision equally desirable. I therefore suggested to John that the Axis player should forfeit all 10 SMPs of Mar 1 41 to keep the 102nd motorized. (Even at that price I would probably choose motorization over the SMPs.) John did me one better:

"Your comments on demotorization cut to the point: whether it is worth it or not. I was very conservative with the 5 SMP gain for clemotorization, not wishing to make too radical an untested change. I was overcautious, as the gain is too little to be worth it. A 10 SMP gain, as you suggest, makes it more worthwhile.

"We can go one better by making Demotorization a 12 SMP gain. To do this, we need to introduce the loss and gain of SMPs due to players' actions in the game. (This will increase complexity, which may not be fully offset by what it brings to the game. Still, it's a . neat rule' and is one I'd use myself even though I might not want to require everyone to use it.)

Here is how I see things just might work out:

1) Whenever a player captures an enemy step of supply (by rolling a 5 or 6, per Rule 12D), the enemy player loses 1 SMP. (The capturing player doesn't gain any SMPs. Also, if a player eliminates but doesn't capture an enemy step per Rule 12D, the enemy player doesn't lose an SMP.)

2) Use "WitD" Advanced Rule 32C3, SMP Losses for loss of supply terminal.

3) Benghazi is an Axis supply terminal at the start of the game.

"Note that, given the historical course of events, the Axis player will start with 15 SMPs, drop to 12 SMPs on the fall of Benghazi, and then face the long supply haul from Tripoli to El Agheila. Cashing in the 102nd's trucks to pop up to 24 SMPs and get Rommel going may now be worth it."

I agree completely. What I've called option #5 should now read as follows:

When the Axis player receives an Italian 5-8 Mot XX (Feb I 41 and Sep I 41), he can take the Mot XX or he can take a 5-8 Inf XX and increase his SMP total by 12 SMPs. To implement this in the game:

a) Change the 5-8 Inf XX 102 received on Feb I 41 to 5-8 Mot XX 102.

b) Delete the Axis +10 SMP gain on Mar I 41 (see the Torch errata). c) Benghazi starts the game as an Axis supply terminal.

d) Use "WitD" Advanced Rule 32C3 (SMP Losses).

e) Have a 5-8 Inf XX 101 handy for the 5-8 Mot XX 101 on Sep I 41.

Furthermore, as icing on the cake, use John's suggestion above regarding SMP loss for supply step capture.

Fort Builders, Fort Busters

7. Guastatori Battalions. Add 1-8 AsIt Eng 11 11 G to the Italian 1942 Special Forces Pool (for use against Malta). Add 1-8 AsIt Eng 11 1G as a Nov 11 42 reinforcement (for use in Tunisia).

8. Piazzaforte Tripoli. Place a fort at Tripoli at the start (this change is mandatory, not optional).

9. Divisional Engineers. Drop Advanced Rule 32D3 (Divisional Engineers), use David Hughes' article on Allied construction and combat engineer units from TEN #6, and add a German 0-8 Eng III on Jul I 41 (which later converts to the 1-8 Eng III of Dec I 42). Also see the inside back cover of TEN #9 for facsimiles of the new Allied engineer units.

Comments: The new Guastatori battalions and the fort at Tripoli are delightful bits of research. However, before you go adding 1G to your Torch unit mix, John says: "It's now an open question whether the 1st Guastatori Battalion went to Tunisia along with the 1st Infantry Division. There's a possibility that it remained in Europe instead; I need to do more research here."

Note also that we should change Rule 27B3 (Amphibious Landing) so that the Italian first wave may contain 4 1/2 REs of ground units rather than 4 REs, else the new battalion in the 1942 Special Forces gets squeezed out. John agrees.

The last option, #9 above, as originally presented in TEN #8, is not entirely suitable for competitive play. John's decision to delete the Divisional Engineers rule and take up the slack with extra units deserves praise. That rule gave each side what amounted to an extra construction battalion. Option #9, however, gives the Axis player a combat engineer regiment. This not only increases the Axis construction force from 1 1/2 to 2 REs - a significant rise in a game where unrestricted fort building dominates play - but, worse, it doubles the fort-busting potential of the Axis forces.

In ETO #25 I discussed how the Axis player could break the fortress of Tobruk with the Italian 1-8 AsIt Eng II 31G. If we now put a German 0-8 Eng III into that equation along with four more non-engineer REs, Tobruk grows frailer yet. Part of the problem is the combat-effect weakness of Europa fortresses. Ken Kettering in ETO #44 and A. E. Goodwin in ETO #46 both suggested that fortresses should impart a -1 die mod in combination with halving the strength of all attackers except engineers, artillery, and heavy AA.

I support their view. Historically, the equivalent of six Allied brigades successfully defended Tobruk for eight months during 1941, repulsing one hasty and one major Axis attack. In the game, twelve Allied brigades can rarely do so well, let alone six. Europa fortresses could therefore benefit from a -1 dm.

John writes: "I've been looking at bringing fortresses in line with a logical progression of the fortifications rules. For a fortress, it would have all the effects of a fort (-1; no AEC) plus 'all-around' fortified hexsides (attacker halved except for the usual suspects; no AEC). This would give a -1 to fortresses in addition to their current effects. I've held off on this so far, as I didn't want to do this without checking its effect on the desert games. (I know it'll work elsewhere, and it's a definite improvement for FITE/SE.) You indicate that this will be an improvement here, too, which I'm glad to hear. Try it out the next time you play, and let me know how it works."

So I tried it in a solitaire game of Western Desert, and it worked excellently. Given that extra -1 dm, the Allies were able to hold Tobruk with six or seven brigades, which is what they did historically in 1941.

Even so, I proposed to John that we add a German 0-8 Cons II instead of a 0-8 Eng III to the Axis OB. John responded: "You make a good point that the new Axis engineer unit should be construction, not combat engineer. I agree, except that I think the unit still should be a regiment, and not a battalion."

As for the Allied engineers, David Hughes has done admirable research work, and players will enjoy the new brigades. The best of the Western Desert bunch is the British 1- 2-8 Eng X 8A, which not only has a greater strength than its 0-1-8 Cons X 8A predecessor, but it also exerts a ZOC and gives the Allied player some fort-busting potential of his own. The many new construction brigades also add to the Allied strength. Note: The 0- 1-4 Cons X 39 of Mar I 43 should probably be 0-1-5. David Hughes identifies it as "British" and says earlier in his article that he gave "British" units .. a movement rating of 5." Furthermore, he shows the 39th among the Fall of France units as a 0- 1-5.

More restrictions need to be placed on these Allied construction units, however. Before this option existed, the Allied player had a construction force of 1 1/2 REs throughout most of the game. With this option, he will have one combat and seven construction engineer REs by the end of 1941!

Two of the latter will possibly be destroyed from action in Greece, another two should be busy on the Matruh-Tobruk railroad, and three others may be building the Levant railroad (although no rule requires the Allied player to build it, and he gains little game advantage by doing so). That still leaves the 8A Eng X to shovel out all kinds of things, and the Allied player receives yet two more construction REs in the early part of 1942.

John says: "I still haven't fully integrated David Hughes' pioneers into the system, as this will take more time than I've yet found available. For now, modifying the Levant garrison rule may work here: The Allied garrison of the Levant must include 3 REs of construction units until the Levantine railroad is built."

Nevertheless, without some firmer restrictions, excessive fort building will sap the energy out of Western Desert. Note that Scorched Earth uses resource points to limit construction (and Second Front will too). Furthermore, combat in the Arctic requires resource points. In the desert, supply steps limit combat. Why not, then, also use supply steps to limit construction in the desert? I wrote an article in ETO #24 suggesting this. (Ideally, resource points will eventually replace supply steps in the desert for construction and attack purposes.) I suggested the following to John as a modification to my first idea.

1) Use SE Rule 14A1, Construction, for building forts and airfields in the desert (expend supply steps instead of resource points). Note that this rule also introduces temporary airfields to the Desert games.

2) Use SE Optional Rule 39132. This allows players to dismantle forts and airfields for partial recovery of resources. Players may also un- improve a fortress using this rule. This will demonstrate how the Allies neglected the defenses of Tobruk prior to the Gazala battle and why Tobruk fell so readily afterwards.

With these two rules I hoped to solve the problem in the simplest and most effective manner. I wanted to limit both fort construction and airfield construction.

By limiting airfield construction, I hoped to limit the number of Axis air units in Africa - for the reason that it was more difficult to supply Axis aircraft in Libya than in Sicily. The supply step cost for building airfields would represent this logistical support.

John responded, "Your rule introducing construction costs for forts and airfields is good in principle, but some points interfere:

1) In essence, the airfields you build in "WitD"/WD are temporary airfields, even if they seem more like permanent airfields. Temporary airfields function differently in this part of the world than they do elsewhere. The desert was a dry (obviously) place, with many flat and firm locations. These spots required minimal work to be built and maintained as airfields, as opposed to the much wetter, uneven, and more vegetated ground in Europe. In fact, some parts of the desert were so suitable as airfields that squadrons there could take off in 'line abreast' (an impressive sight) rather than one after another down a narrow runway. The net game effect is that temporary airfields are easily built in the desert and endure like permanent airfields elsewhere. Thus, there probably shouldn't be a supply or resource cost to build airfields here.

"While it was harder for the Axis to supply air units in Africa than in Sicily, this was rarely an important factor in the campaign. I'm not sure that imposing a cost on airfield construction is the right way to go here. The Luftwaffe had approximately one group of Ju 52 transports shuttling between Europe and Africa from some time in 1941 through 1942. It was primarily involved in hauling supplies, especially fuel, for the Luftwaffe in Africa, which often allowed the planes to fly even when the sea supply lanes were disrupted by the British. I don't give the players a Ju 52 air unit in the game for this, as I built it into the system (no Ju 52 but no Luftwaffe supply rules). This may be enough of that cost you're concerned about.

2) I think having to spend a step of supply in order to build a fort is too high a cost. Someday, we'll replace the supply point system with a resource point system that Europa will use overall, but the time to work this out once again exceeds what I have available at present. If you want to explore this area, then I suggest burning a supply step should allow you to build 2 forts.

(One of the reasons I didn't impose a cost on building forts is that I wanted to avoid having fractional uses of supply steps in the game.)

If you try out such a system, watch the early stages of the game carefully. The Allies often are very tight on supply in the early stages but often desperately need to fortify some positions, such as around Matruh, once Rommel gets going, or else face being bottled up in the Alamein line. Drawing down supply to build vital forts at this stage may make the Allies unable to attack as they did historically."

Rick Gayler has suggested introducing resource points to "WitD" on a separate schedule - i.e., without burning supply steps to create them. This could easily be accomplished, and it would not disrupt the "tight" Allied supply situation that concerns John. But I think John needn't worry.

During the first ten months of WD (Dec I 40 to Sep II 41), the Allies receive a total of 26 supply steps. Assuming the game follows history exactly, I estimate that the Allies will expend 25 of these as shown in chart below.:

-5 Wavell's Offensive, Dec I 40 to Feb I 41.
-3 Sent To Greece, Mar I to Apr I 41.
-1 Destroyed by Rommel, Apr I 41.
-11 Supply Tobruk, Apr II to Sep II 41.
-1 ForOperation Brevity, May II 41.
-3 To conquer Vichy Levant, Jun I to Jul I 41.
-1 For Operation Battleaxe, Jun II 41.

That leaves 1 step in reserve on Sep II, perhaps to cover the possibility of an airborne invasion of Malta or Cyprus. Note that during Oct and Nov 41 the Allies receive enough steps to keep Tobruk supplied and to simultaneously launch Operation Crusader. Furthermore, note that Tobruk drains off the largest percentage of Allied supply. Once Tobruk is relieved (which occurred Dec I 41), the Allies will have supply steps to spare.

Given these figures for the early stages of the game, one can see that John's concern for the Allied situation is not without merit. John fears that, by burning supply steps "to build vital forts at this stage," the Allies may be "unable to attack as they did historically."

But this assumes the 1 or 2 supply steps needed to improve Tobruk's fortress and fortify the Matruh area (for example) would necessarily reduce the number of Allied attacks. I argue that, to accumulate the supply steps for construction, the Allies can very easily

1) anticipate Rommel's advance and avoid losing a step destroyed in Cyrenaica,

2) delay the encirclement of Tobruk by one or two turns and thereby save 1 or 2 steps, and

3) conquer the Levant in a one- turn operation with only 1 or 2 steps.

In this way the Allies could still attack as much as they did historically, but they would save 3-5 supply steps. Of these, they could then use 1 or 2 for construction and still have extras in reserve. Then, after they relieve Tobruk (or the Axis capture it!), their supply step worries are over.

In other words, using supply steps for fort construction, even during the critical early stages of the game, will not tilt the game. Indeed, it will improve the game: it will limit fort construction and it will increase the players' decision- making. Introducing resource points on a separate schedule per Rick's suggestion will also limit construction, but it does not require the extra decision-making. And making decisions is what wargaming is all about. Good designers create rules and systems that leave the decisionmaking in the heads of the players.

If we introduce resource points separately, then players need only decide where and when to construct forts. But if we tie construction to supply steps, then players must decide where, when, and what to do with their supply steps: Shall I burn this supply step to construct forts? to attack? to provide general supply? to reduce the Malta status? (incidentally, Bill Stone as the Allied player uses this latter trick to strangle the Axis supply/reinforcement line to Africa.)

I therefore favor John's suggestion over Rick's because John's requires extra decision-making. Furthermore, I have seen W D games where both sides accumulated large supply step reserves during the same time they built numerous forts. It thus seems acceptable to require players to spend some of their supply step reserves for forts.

John's suggestion is "tidy" in that a 2 RE supply step can provide for two forts, which parallels SE where a one RE resource point can provide for one fort. However, John's suggestion - as he pointed out results in fractional uses of supply steps, which must be handled through new rules. I offer the following:

Rule 12D: (Addition.) A player may convert a supply step into two 1 RE construction points (CPs) at the start of his initial phase. He may move CPs during his movement phase using SMPs. It costs half the rate given for a supply step to move one CP. For example, it costs 1 SMP to move a CP two hexes by road. CPs may be captured or destroyed in the same way as supply steps.

Rule 14A: (Addition.) One CP must be spent in order to build a fort or improve a fortress. The construction unit building the item must be able to trace an overland supply line to the CP being used for construction. The CP is spent when the unit begins construction. If construction is not completed, for any reason, the CP is not recovered.

Now let's rewrite option #9 for "WitD" in its entirety:

a) Delete Rule 32D3 (Divisional Engineers).

b) Add a German Army 0-8 Cons III Afr as a Jul I 41 reinforcement.

c) Delete the German 1-8 Eng III Afr from the Dec I 42 reinforcements and instead convert the 0-8 Cons III to the 1-8 Eng III on this turn.

d) Use David Hughes' material on the pioneer groups from TEN #6.

e) Modify the Levant garrison rule (28B2) to include 3 REs of construction units for the first 36 turns following invasion.

f) Use the above additions to Rules 12D and 14A concerning cps.

Furthermore, give fortresses a -1 dm in addition to their other effects.

These nine new changes to "War in the Desert," as first presented by John Astell in TEN #8 and updated here, reflect the high quality of research and design that goes "inside Europa" games. Most of these changes John has wisely called options, so players may choose what they like and ignore the rest. I hope the comments and discussion above will be of use to Desert players making those choices. In my last solitaire game of Western Desert, I tried all of them and was very satisfied with the results.