Fred Helfferich

In your last TEM I noticed the "bombers as transports" issue has flared up again. The problem is obvious and, it seems to me, so is the solution. Just let the qualifying bombers (He-111, etc.) have half or even only one third the transport capacity of T-type aircraft. This will make them rather cost-ineffective, quite apart from causing delays when they wing it into airfields with capacity of only one at double-range or longer (one RE will need two or three bombers, and only one will be able to fly back out of the base each subsequent turn).

So, you should be getting the proper behavior: Bombers will only be used, grudgingly, for emergency transport, and if you anticipate some major airlifts you will keep the transports on your payroll. Also, since the qualifying B-type bombers had quite a bit less seating space than the Ju-52 and other T-types, there is technical justification to boot (this does not apply to HB types, which should have full T capacity, but should be restricted to major airfields.

This is an old suggestion of mine. John Astell seems to agree, but apparently has never acted on it.

Since we are talking about aircraft anyway, what about giving the Ju-88 a "D" rating (may optionally fly as a type D unit). She was designed with dive-bombing capability and was often used in this way. Even the He-177 was supposed to be able to dive-bomb (one of the trouble spots in its design), but was, I believe, hardly ever used as such.

My infamous "underground railroad" still chugs along. The most ridiculous "ant" (positional AA) in an EZOC allows rail movement right through it, but even an army corps cannot do the same for road movement! Moreover, serious anomalies have often resulted from that rule in our Scorched Earth playings (units merrily railroading it out of a pocket, leaving just a puny regiment, or less, behind).

There should be some MP penalty for railroading through an EZOC and road movement should have the same benefit. Alternatively, as a minimum, only units from division size up (i.e., 3 REs with ZOC) should allow rail movement through an EZOC without penalty.

Finally, I very strongly endorse the suggestion in the last issue that intrinsic AA strength be placed on the counters.

You are quite right that your solution has at least tenuous official endorsement: The errata sheet for Fire in the East dated 10 July 1984 carried a prototype of the Scorched Earth "Bombers as Transports" rule under the heading "More Optional Rules. " This version stated "Its cargo capacity is half that of a type T air unit (that is, 1/2 RE of troops/resource points or 1 RE of supplies)." This solution seems the best answer. By the way, there were some other neat things on this particular incarnation of the errata, such as a German Free Deployment optional rule, so if you don't have a copy of the 10 July 1984 sheet, you might want to write me for one.

As for intrinsic AA strength appearing on the counters, this has run into difficulty where AA strength vies for position with a supported indicator. Not sure this will work. But it looks like supported indicators on cadres are in -- it so happens that John Astell wants to distinguish between supported and unsupported cadres in future releases (Soviet tank and motor cadres in the Jun II 41 OB are currently candidates for unsupported status). -RG

Frank Watson

Hey, great! Somebody liked "Enter Rommel." TEM #18 had nothing spectacular (no scenario, no module, no counter sheet), but overall I think it had the most professional look yet. The graphics of "Tunisian Thunder" were your best ever and the pipeline/pumping station graphic was good also. I like the return to the glossy cover. It is good to hear that you are having to turn away material. I always wonder if a slightly smaller font might allow you to include a little extra material.

Yes, I'm sure that it would. However, it would also make the text a little harder to read. GRD has made a conscious effort to use what we feel is a reader-friendly font size, as none of our eyes are getting any younger. Take a look at the Scorched Earth rules side by side with the Balkan Front set and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Perhaps more importantly, a "little extra material" would inevitably require us to devote a little extra time to produce each issue. As things now stand, the 48-page issue taxes our time resources. So we'll stick with the current typeface for now. -RG

Ray Kanarr

Of all the periodicals I receive or subscribe to about a dozen, running the gamut from The Economist to PC Magazine), Europa is the one I most look forward to. You've got good editorial style and content, and an open, engaging way of interacting with the audience.

Having said this, of course, now I'll drop in my 2 cents of criticism (about all it's worth). My own feeling is that it might be time to start shading into a more 'serious' look. I don't mean materially expensive changes, like glossy paper stock for the pages, but rather more of an 'attitude' change. The look of Europa is still very newsletter-like. The covers for #16 and #17 were not the greatest. While not even implying that Europa should strive for the same look, periodicals like Foreign Policy Review, using pretty much the same materials, have a much more 'serious' look than Europa. I would think that most Europans would say that this game is pretty serious stuff, with an initial economic investment running into hundreds of dollars, plus the time, space, effort, and energy investment.

The idea of getting as much info on the counters as possible, to cut down on rules length, is excellent.

We agree on two out of three tricks; that's not bad. Still I think that using single points of position AA as combat units (in terms of holding a frontline rail hex while other units bug out through it) is more sick than slick. A forlorn hope is one thing, but positional defense AA units were never, in anybody's military service, combat-effective units. I usually play (mostly solitaire) that zero-strength units in an enemy ZOC by themselves during the owning players turn are eliminated. The rationale for this, other than that it "fixes" the puffball rail guards, is that it represents probing attacks into rear areas through undefended sections of the front, surprising and obliterating such non-frontline units as positional AA, railroad artillery, 0-5 construction engineers, and other such silly frontline place-holders.

Howard Christie's article on Italian 3rd Alpine Division was good. I hope that this becomes a consistently running series on individual divisions. A small chart at the end of each such article, indicating the theater that the division was in at any particular time (in Europa terms) would be helpful. This was done for a series of articles on German divisions in Ken Fonarow's short-lived (3 issue) "Europa Gamers of Southern California Newsletter." Rathe's "Tunisian Thunder" exercise was excellent (there should be more of these, also), and the page layout was very well done, for a difficult set of elements.

With respect to Carleton Lum's article on AGC in the opening six months of FitEISE, a follow-up article from the Soviet side would be insightful, though I realize that these things are difficult to obtain. Lum's statement regarding the deployment of Soviet AT units (page 19, column 3, lines 9-12) brings up the question of what is the best use for these and other Soviet specialty units in the opening phase of the conflict. (I'm always at a loss as to the best use of Soviet AT units early on -- otherwise I'd consider doing an article on this myself. They usually end up in my cities as a further deterrent to Axis armor assaults.)

Also, consideration should be given in the opening phase, when Soviet armor is so crippled, to breaking down German armor and motorized divisions into unsupported regiments and headquarters, and shuffling these around (this could give Carleton the extra 'panzer division' he lacks by combining a motorized division HQ with some other non-divisional c/m units), at least in the June II - July I turns. Just a thought, as I think that divisional breakdowns are an underutilized resource in most games.

I very much enjoyed "The Iraq Petroleum Company" article by Frank Watson. I think that this type of article is both interesting and informative, and the sort of thing that sets Europa apart from any other game or system.

Mark Pitcavage's article on Plan Y was good, though I question a couple of his premises: (1) It seems that the Italian high command (corps-level and above) is much more adept at attacking into Yugoslavia than they were anywhere else. Could this really be the case? (2) In reference to the move mentioned on page 35, column 1, lines 41-55, how likely is it that the Hungarians would allow Italian movement through (or across) their area of operations? On reflection, the above two points would seem to be more of a design consideration of the game than of Mark's article, but I thought I would mention them anyway. (3) This is somewhat associated with point #2. On page 36, Experimental Rule #9, what is the real likelihood of Germany or Hungary allowing Italian units transit rights?

It would seem to me that Germany (in the form of the Fuhrer) would be as furious at an Italian incursion into Yugoslavia as history (in the form of historians) tells us he was at the invasion of Greece. Hungary would probably be paranoid and suspicious of Italian intentions (in and of themselves, and as a German cat's-paw). I think that much more research needs to be revealed regarding German, Italian, Balkan, Soviet and even British interests, foreign policy, and even domestic politics before we can begin to say what was or was not 'quite plausible' in this arena. Any ideas why Fall of France ranked low man on both the favored and production totem poles? I happen to be fascinated by the game myself -- it is my most well-used Europa title. It needs substantial revision at this point, but with its opportunities for integration into the system with the upcoming release of First to Fight and the recent appearance of the Supermarina module, I would have thought there would be substantial interest in the re-release of this title. I think that for the first time I am pretty much in agreement with the authors of the letters in "EXchange." So I will merely reply to your request for a fix to the bombers-as-transports problem.

It would seem that the only way that this can be resolved is to either have "base" counters (something that shows up in David Berry's scenarios), which are assigned to either fighter, bomber or transport groups along with some sort of mechanism for cross-training the aircrews; or divide up the group allowance into fighter, bomber and transport GAs, either untransferable among the three types, or with some sort of rule (the GAs to be transferred from transports to bombers are out of play for 6 turns, or whatever) to simulate the difficulties involved in having transport pilots switch to bombers, and bomber crews transport the deadweight of cargo, touch-and-go landings, and so forth.

Mark Pitcavage recently commented to me that the magazine looked "too desk-toppy. " (This probably has something to do with the fact that it is produced using desk-top software!) Mark's input should be beneficial in achieving the more "serious" look you describe.

There is a growing chorus of complaint about the prevalent use of positional AA for ahistorical and/or gamey purposes (witness Fred's letter above). The solution to this is to make the vast majority of positional AA intrinsic and leave each player with only enough mobile positional AA units to put together the occasional 17-point AA stack in a crucial city hex. This is the direction in which John Astell is currently moving the system.

How do top-notch Europa players deploy their Soviet units in the opening set-up of Scorched Earth? I'm extremely interested in this myself, and so I have just mailed out requests to a number of Europa luminaries to send in their favorite Soviet deployment for presentation in these pages. (Yes, you're on the guest list, Ray.) Can you imagine - the "John Astell Opening." Makes my mouth water, and should be a real draw for solitaire gamers, also; i.e., "playing FitE against the experts. " -RG

John M. Barnerman

As an avid gamer of FitE/SE/TU, may I suggest that the Soviet player be able to stack twice as much infantry and supporting brigades in a hex as the German player so as to give the Soviet player a more realistic force available for major offensives? To my mind, this will give the USSR a better chance to ensure a realistic result, particularly in the face of a more successful German player.

Also, a point I would suggest is that in Grand Europa (if it ever occurs) there ought to be a large force pool, particularly of division-sized units, so that a player can provide his forces with the elements that would be most suited to his position, e.g., if Germany is doing well, more 7-6 and 8-6 infantry divisions could be built, while a worse-off German could introduce 5-7-6 and 4-6-6 units earlier than the 0Bs. This could also give more scope to the Axis Allies and British formations which are often at a disadvantage for one reason or another... if the game situation required it.

I would also like to complement GRD and its employees for providing me, and all other Europa players, with an excellent magazine and a well thought-out game system.

The Soviets certainly didn't need any extra stacking benefits to propel Army Groups Center and South into full retreat during the 1943 scenario game played at Europafest II -RG

Capt. Robert Scogin

I have just returned from 7 1/2 months is Saudi Arabia/Kuwait and just wanted to touch base with the Europa community. First of all I wanted to check on the status of the Second Front playtest. My group and I had finished one full game of the '44 scenario and sent in the results prior to deploying to Southwest Asia. If the playtest is still going on we would like to start up again. I only received one playtest newsletter. Have there been any more?

Balkan Front was waiting for me when I got back. I had prepaid for it but it arrived after I had left. Looks great. Congratulations on a fine job. I also had issues #15 and 16 of the magazine waiting for me. I don't know how, but it seems to get better every issue. I'm going to resub immediately. Also I wanted to say that I am available for any PBM game that may start up.

There was only the one Second Front newsletter and in all probability there will be no further newsletters or public playtesting, since publication is now moving into the final design stages. And I am sure I speak for all Europa cardboard-pushers when I say that the job you did while away dwarfed any small achievements that were accomplished by GRD. -RG