C. Curry

I noted in an old issue of TEN that back issues of Nuts & Bolts were available at that time. Are they still available? On what subjects? I might be interested in any you had left if I had some idea of what was covered in which issue.

[I'll cover this next issue. - RG]

I would also like to comment on what I have been reading about Second Front. SF sounds like it may be somewhat top-heavy, in that most of the activity will take place on the northern part of the maps later in the game. Unless the Allied player opts for an early invasion of France in 1943, it doesn't appear much can happen at the beginning of the game besides fighting in Italy. I read somewhere that the Balkans, post-1941, will be done as a separate module sometime later, so what will keep things interesting in 1943 if no early invasion is made in France? I also don't understand how the East Front campaign can be closed out without some involvement in southeast Europe.

What I am getting at is that there will be a bit of a "black hole" in the system until southeast Europe, 1942-45, is put into the system. I realize Second Front is probably monstrous enough, and the complicated Balkan involvements would mean delaying publication of that game. I do, however, think you should consider filling this gap.

GRD is still servicing orders for back issues of Nuts & Bolts. Write to GRD as explained on page 7 of this issue. As for the Balkans, 1942-45, how about sending in a scenario? - RG

Victor Hauser

I've read several articles in TEM and ETO over the past year discussing the pros and cons of increasing the movement capabilities for Europa ground units, most notably Duane Romfoe's. In my opinion, the movement abilities of ground units are secondary to logistical considerations.

Thus, it makes little sense to me to propose a "more historical" (i.e., realistic) movement system so long as the logistics system remains so highly abstracted. The current logistics system on the East Front allows for an infinite number of supply trains to supply an infinite number of ground units instantaneously at any given point along any given friendly rail (of the correct gauge). Thus, to me, the net real effect of increasing groundunit movement rates is to increase the rate at which supplies are "beamed" forward, and I don't think that makes sense.

If a logistics system were to be developed whereby the actual supplies were required to be physically moved from depot to depot as an army advanced, thereby straining the transportation net of the advancing army, then the actual movement rates of the ground units themselves would be commensurately less important. But until such time, if ever, as a major overhaul of the logistics system manifests itself, I remain satisfied that the current Europa ground movement system more accurately models the rate at which supplies could keep pace with an advancing army.

Therefore, I'm in no big hurry to speed up ground movement rates and I remain satisfied with the current state of the Europa art.

Ray Kanarr

There's always been controversy regarding the Europa air system, and a variety of fixes have been suggested, but it seems that there is still a lot of dissatisfaction with it, and John Astell is now trying to do something to cut down on the number of air counters, airfields are getting bigger, and so forth.

Has anyone suggested chucking the entire air system as it now stands, and substituting a new system? After all, with the Collectors' Series of games just starting, only Balkan Front would be affected. I don't know exactly what form such a system might take (and for me, someone who hates abstracted systems, to suggest this seems kind of weird), although some sort of system using markers for the historical air force groups (the kampfgruppes, bombardment groups, tac air wings, etc.), which would stay in their base hexes (and could be bombed there at any time, as the markers wouldn't move), and ranged bombing/ combat points (which could intercept, interdict, harass, bomb, etc.) might be a beginning.

I don't want to lose the flavor of the present system, with its various makes and models of aircraft, and multiplicity of possible missions (although my current reading on German aircraft indicates that there should be a lot more "mixed" aircraft units, because although the Germans did assembly-line produce a lot of their aircraft designs, quite a few preproduction aircraft saw front-line service), but there seems to be a general consensus that the currpnt system is, or is becoming, awkward and unwieldy. Are there any other ideas regarding a new (versus revamped) air system for Europa out there in Europa-land?

Frank Watson

I just got Issue #15 and it looks real good. I'd like to be the first (hopefully) to point out that, no matter what the designer's notes to "Enter Rommel" say, the British did not historically hold Halfaya Pass at the end of the scenario. What was this guy (I) thinking of? I certainly don't know. A big "oops!" on that one. (Ditto! - RG)

John Astell's piece on the "Battle of Heligoland Bight" in Europa #14 didn't send me scrambling to make a new Wellington counter, but it did make me reach for a calculator. Of the 1296 die permutations of the German interceptors' attack, 700 (54%) eliminate the Wellington, 386 (29.8%) abort it, and 150 (11.6%) return it. The British complete their mission only 4.6% of the time.

With that in mind, but retaining the perspective of Europa, why does the Europa R.A.F. ever fly the mission? I thought a while and came up with several hypothetical reasons.

(A) The British did not fully understand the patrol and interception rules and thought it possible that the mission would be undetected on its approach. This corresponds with the historical fact that the British did not know the Germans had effective radar.

(B) The British had wrongly estimated the defense strength of the Wellington, the attack strength of the German fighters, or the distribution of results on the air CRT. This doesn't really work in Europa, since the true strengths and CRT are rather obvious.

(C) The British wanted to test the mechanics of launching an attack on Germany proper. This corresponds with the terminology used by the R.A.F. in describing the raid as a "reconnaissance-in-force."

I'm not sure what all this means, but it makes for interesting thought.

Russ Jennings

I've been following along as you discuss your next "reissues" of games and can't help but be curious about Narvik. After all, next to Fall of France it is the longest in the tooth of all the games already out, and it is unique to say the least. How much "updating" are you going to do? Will we see Armor Effects? Will airfields still be printed on the map or will each city become an airbase as in the rest of Europa? I worry that some of the special flavor of the game will disappear in the "mix." (Where else will you ever see a German commander weep because a COMPANY of motorcycles, mot- infantry, and flak got sunk in transit?

Need I say that I don't own a copy of any of the Russian Front games? I am happily stuck in the 1940- 41 time frame, watching the emergence of the various technologies and the struggles to both use and understand them. Not only is the gun versus the tank one of these equations, but the plane versus the ship is even more important!

Which brings me to the next point, a naval system. When is some serious work going to be put into one? Talk of a "Med" game without a sea system is pointless. I'd go so far as to say it is more important than any reissue and, (dare I say it?) Second Front. The Malta situation as it exists in today's rules is very unrealistic. Missing are the natural reasons for the British to do such things as garrison Cyprus or Tel Aviv.

The single strongest strength that the Italians have is currently denied them. I think the naval rules need to be addressed and the sooner the better. As a longtime collector of GDW games, I can look at the existing ship counters and see that they were designed logically and with a Coral Sea/Midway/Indian Ocean type of game system in mind. Why not just bite the bullet and put out a set of rules that will at least allow us to explore the effects that sea power will have on the land game?

Finally, since Winston is always crowing about his opening move in Narvik, dare you publish it, or one that is almost as good? Unlike some others he has spoken with, I see it as very difficult for the Allies to win. It does remain, however, a finely-balanced game in which both sides have to put every asset they own to use every turn.

Much of Winston's opening strategy for Narvik was revealed in TEN #3. As for the development and playtesting of an Europa naval system, let us know what you think of Supermarina. - RG

Randy L. R. Moffat

I would like to respond to Cpt. Christie's letter from "EXchange #16."

First, I'd like to point out that the exact reasons Cpt. Christie lists for why 9-10 panzer brigades (SS, to be exact) are not reduced to cadres are the exact reasons that they should be.

As Balkan Front has shown, these are minidivisions with the maintenance, logistics, support, etc. that make them supported units and should allow them to retain a cadre presence when they take losses. History has shown that even when down to just a few tanks and a portion of their personnel, they operated as a functioning unit, performing fire brigade (Kampfgruppe) duties.

Additionally, panzer troops, airborne forces, and other elite formations had a very high cohesiveness, even when reduced and supposedly "eliminated." Even when badly hurt, they fought on tenaciously and even suicidally. If you consider the Crete Campaign, where the German airborne landed and took some 30% casualties, this would technically eliminate the airborne regiments. However, as I stated above, they fought past what normal units would have fought in order to accomplish their mission. This could be modelled in the game by giving certain elite regiments or brigades a cadre strength, and I think the SS panzer brigades would qualify for this benefit.

As for the Ba.65's, they are obviously not the same as the Ju87's, but what Ruhismonger really wanted to know was what became of the older aircraft upon conversion. Cpt. Christie points out that they basically all had been lost by the time of the conversion. I would recommend that this unit not be replacable upon elimination, and that the Ju87 should be received as a reinforcement instead. Why penalize the Italians for good play or good luck? In Grand Europa the Italians will go through the air replacement step like everyone else (as in Scorched Earth), so hopefully this will settle the problem.