The time has arrived to turn from the crunch of career, GRD tasks and holiday hubbub long enough to chat with you about the Europa magazine. I would like to briefly share some of my reflections on the prior twelve months, as well as some insight into my editorial philosophy as we move ahead in 1991.

One question I frequently find myself asking is, "Why do I do this?" The pay is lousy. When things go wrong it ruins my whole disposition for days at a time. Even when things go right I chafe that they could have been better. Or more timely. And Europa never lets up. There is always another deadline looming beyond the one just completed.

The answer is multifold. First, I love the wargaming hobby and, of course, my main obsession, Europa. As a result, most time spent editing the magazine and answering rules questions and so forth doesn't feel like work at all. Secondly, there is the excitement of being involved with the movers and shakers not only of Europa, but the general wargaming community. I've had the pleasure of sharing breakfast with Don Greenwood, eaten Chinese with Frank Chadwick and chatted with Europa editing pioneers Bill Stone and Gary Stagliano over a beer.

But perhaps most satisfying of all is the appreciation shown for my modest efforts by the Europa community. Sample a brief note received just today from Canadian reader Brent Harvey: "I would like to extend my compliments to yourself and all those other dedicated souls who make Europa such an excellent magazine. I have been hooked on Europa for nearly sixteen years now, and eagerly await each new issue of your magazine.

As a purely solitaire gamer, I find the magazine invaluable in that it provides other opinions, strategies and ideas that my lack of live opponents cannot. I truly hope that the legions of Europa fans can continue to make this all a viable endeavor for a long time to come." As one can see, your heartfelt support is the currency in which I am most richly rewarded.

In return I will endeavor to improve the Europa magazine with each new issue. This is, of course, impossible. But I can point to some tangible strides achieved over the past twelve months.

When last we pondered this topic in TEM #11 our page count stood at 44. A quick flip to the back of this issue reveals we are now up to 48 pages, approximately a 10% increase. Furthermore, while by no means as polished as we can and will become, our layout has become much more professional in appearance. The small hurdles such as making the columns come out even across the bottom of each page are mostly behind us. Do we always win? No way time and logistical constraints prevent us from reaching perfection. But on balance we are moving forward.

Let's turn now to content. Last year I announced that there was ample grist for the mill. I am pleased to report that this situation remains unchanged; in fact, there is more material than we can print. Although it's unfortunate that a number of submissions must now be rejected, on the whole this is a positive development, as it improves the quality and diversity of our articles.

In 1990 I challenged readers to step forward with material for the magazine. This response was quite gratifyingly followed by such fine submissions as a Narvik commentary from Kevin Boylan, the Enter Rommel scenario from Frank Watson and a wealth of other material which has already graced these pages or is still pending publication.

I would like to issue this challenge again for 1991: here is a personal invitation to contribute to the Europa magazine. We're still waiting for articles on "The Panther Line," the "Wallonien Legion," and the reality that lies behind those mysterious river flotilla counters. There are still endless tactical and strategic plans and ploys to be revealed.

And I know that there are many half-developed scenarios just waiting for that last ounce of inspiration to reach completion. While we do have several scenarios under development, this is one area where there is no such thing as too much or too many. For additional insight into pending articles for future issues, see "Upcoming Attractions" on page 40.

A final philosophical point: the one ingredient which I intend to seek out and pour most lavishly into the editorial pot is fun. Now granted, fun for Europa fans is just a little different than, say, watching a sit-com or playing golf is for "normal" folks. A well done OB, a stimulating bit of history and an exceptionally clever gambit all serve to please the Europaphile to varying degrees. But if all this becomes too pretentious or dry, then I must have missed the editorial mark.

Another Volunteer

One of the Europa faithful who clearly distinguished himself over the course of the last year is Mark Pitcavage. Mark made himself known to GRID by sending us a rather caustic 7-page letter pointing out areas where the magazine needed improvement. He cited a lack of articles on the actual play of Europa games as a particular weakness.

After sharing his thoughtful critique with Winston Hamilton and John Astell, we decided to triple-team him and coerce him to put his keyboard where his mouth was (no small accomplishment). We invited him to become part of the solution to the "play article" problem.

Well, he took up our gauntlet and has since provided the magazine with a steady stream of excellent strategy articles, always prepared with an appealing twist of wit. (Mark insists that one sure- fire way to sell more issues of TEM is to blazon his name on each and every cover.)

Furthermore, Mr. Pitcavage was recently contacted by the folks at Decision Games who publish Fire and Movement and asked to review both Balkan Front and Second Front (which rumor has it will be a cover article) for that venerable publication. They have also asked him to write periodic Europa columns for Moves magazine. Congratulations, Mark.

It also turns out that Mark knows publishing as well as Europa, being at one time or another an editor, proofreader and typist. He is familiar with most desktop publishing software and hardware platforms (that's fancy talk for "computers"). To top it all off, Mark is a graduate student at Ohio State University, majoring in military history.

With all this expertise and vision at his disposal, it was inevitable that over time we would try to wrangle Mark into some GRD KP duty. Since he is still young and idealistic, Mark has not yet learned never to volunteer. Accordingly, he has agreed to provide some much-needed assistance in editing this magazine, and has been assigned the title of Contributing Editor. I am sure that TEM will benefit greatly from his further involvement.

Price Hike

In issue #13 I offered readers a modified set of "War in the Desert" rules, specially cut and pasted to create an independent Torch rules set. In the same column I also advanced a similar offer for a specially created Kasserine Crisis rules and chart set. The price for each of these offerings was $1.

Unfortunately, this was done without prior knowledge of what the actual mailing costs would be. It turns out that with heavy card stock charts and the recent postal rate increase, I'm losing my lunch money on every request. I have suffered in silence for a long while because I thought that the flow of requests for these would end. On the contrary, in recent days the demand has actually picked up.

Accordingly, I must announce that future orders for either of these rules sets must be accompanied by $2 for postage and handling.

While we are on the topic of financial matters, please use some common sense when sending in requests for errata sheets. My favorite was the guy who asked for all 14 sheets, but enclosed a 3x5 envelope with only one stamp affixed for the return mailing. Come on, troops! Provide a large envelope and put on one stamp for every increment of 5 sheets requested. For instance, if you want 7 errata sheets, put on two stamps.

And while I'm whining and nagging, there are still a few misbegotten souls out there sending in requests for various and sundry information without including a self- addressed stamped envelope at all. Shame, shame, shame!

Even Less is Better Still

One goal of the Second Front playtest has been to streamline the core rules of the Europa game system. As pointed out by Jay Kaufman in this issue's EXchange the Balkan Front rules, the little brother to the Second Front rules, have already taken some strides in the right direction. There will never be a better time to step forward with a brilliant idea than now.

So if you have identified areas where the existing core rules for Europa can be streamlined, simplified, or maybe even eliminated, send your ideas to me care of E-Z Rules, P.O. Box 2431, Opelika AL, 36801. The ideas which I feel merit further consideration will be passed on to John Astell.

Let me illustrate the kind of input I am looking for by sharing my own best idea of the week: When laying out the counters, put a supported indicator in the upper left hand corner of all cadres. This is a simple change to the counters which won't obsolete any previous counters or change any previous rules. So what good does this do; how does this streamline or simplify the core Europa rules set? Well, referencing Balkan Front Rule 11 - Support, the #4 item, "All cadres" can be eliminated, as they are now covered under the next entry, "All nondivisional units with the supported indicator in the upper left corners of their counters." Furthermore, the last sentence of the rule can be rewritten as, "Note that non-divisional units marked with support indicators do not provide support to any unit stacked with them."

There are practical benefits of this in play. I've overrun many a stack in my day because my opponent forgot that a cadre did not support the units stacked with it. Having a visual reminder of this in the form of a supported indicator on the counter, rather than having to remember a small phrase in a large rule book, might improve play in this regard.

Yes, this is a small thing. But let me try another one on you. This idea originated with Bobby Bryant in an old issue of ETO: Print the intrinsic AA strength of a unit right on its counter. To see what effect this has on the rules, let's turn again to Balkan Front. Printing the intrinsic AA strength of 1 right on each full-strength Axis c/m division and c/m headquarters allows the deletion of the entire first paragraph of rule 22A1. In its place add back two sentences: "An intrinsic AA unit is any unit without the AA unit type symbol which has an AA strength printed in the upper left corner of its counter. This intrinsic AA is light AA."

In BF it isn't hard to remember the units having intrinsic AA, but look at SE rule 22A1 and the usefulness of this suggestion begins to shine clear. Now consider all the further candidates for intrinsic AA which will appear in Grand Europa, and one sees that it will be very difficult to keep track of just which units possess intrinsic AA. Marking the counters and using the simple wording given above can streamline a long and hard-to- remember rule.

I'm confident there are plenty of ideas out there to fine-tune the presentation of the Europa system. These changes can be as insignificant as modifying only one word. Consider this small modification mentioned by Roy Lane elsewhere in this issue. SE rule 7A4 reads: "A player must spend 1 resource point for every 10 (or fraction thereof) RE increase over the normal rail capacity of a rail net. The resource point is spent in the player's initial phase and must be in any un- isolated rail hex on the net."

What this means in practical terms is that players abiding by the letter of the rules as written must determine IN ADVANCE of their movement phase ALL the units and resource points which will be moved by rail that turn. This is a real pain in the ass, consuming needless time and energy. Now I'm here to tell you that this isn't how most people play the game; in fact, I have yet to find anyone who does play this rule as written.

In the real world it is stipulated that RPs may be spent to increase rail capacity in the MOVEMENT phase, as the turn unfolds. This doesn't favor one side or the other, and appears imminently reasonable for a game dealing in two- week turns. So why not just change the word "initial" to "movement" in the second sentence above, and formally legalize this bootleg gentlemen's agreement?

I think the above covers what is sought. We are not trying to add layers of chrome or redesign the game, just make it slicker. Here's your chance to speak up.

Slick Tricks and Trucks