Thomas Odend'hal

In regard to your request for minor additions and clarifications requiring no rules changes, such as printing AA factors on divisions and brigades that have an intrinsic AA capability, I have two suggestions:

(1) For Britain and any other country that has transport counters, why not back-print engineer, artillery, and antiaircraft brigades and regiments to show a motorized configuration. In addition, print some generic motorized infantry brigades and divisions to use for units which have been motorized by transport counters. This will reduce counter stacks by removing the transport counters and it will look much better than homemade counters, at least better than my homemade counters.

(2) For bombers that can be used as transports, why not print a small case "t" after the bomber code, as in Bt, NBt, or even HBt. With this, you don't have to look up which units can be used for transports as it will be printed on the counter.

Warren C. Wilson

I enjoyed Winston Hamilton's response to Mike Tonks concerning the latter's "Downer From Down Under" in Europa #17. Most of Winston's reply is right on the money (dare I use that word?). I cannot believe GRD is anything but a sinkhole for money because of the small market and insufficient capital to keep the whole series in production. This must truly be a labor of love.

Mr. Tonks has forgotten that not everybody has been into Europa for ten years. The publication of Balkan Front allowed some of us to obtain this title, in effect, for the first time. It's great that Mr. Tonks owns Merita-Merkur, but the rest of the world may be interested in buying the game also, other than on the collector's market. I would dearly love to obtain a Narvik, as I have the rest of the series, but will probably have to wait a long time to get this title. (Anyone out there willing to sell a used copy?)

I have been waiting for years for Europa to recognize the oceans (after all, Rommel was beaten by Admiral Cunningham, not Montgomery). Supermarina is a great start; it shows that GRD means business. Keep up the good work.

Unfortunately it has become impossible to obtain Narvik except at a collector's price. -RG

Alan Tibbetts

I've always wondered how those clever Germans could get a Ju87R to go so much further than the "B" model, while still carrying the same bomb load. Lucky for the allies that those same clever people didn't produce that long-range version in significant numbers.

According to my reference, Combat Aircraft of World War JtM by Elke Weal, the "R" model (actually a modified "B-2") didn't carry the full bomb load (500 kg for the "B-1" or 1000 kg for the "B-2"). Instead it carried a single 250 kg bomb to allow for additional fuel, including drop tanks. Could the next (final?) revision of air counters reflect this? Does the extended-range bombing rule make the Ju87R counter unnecessary in any case?

Steven Phillips

Since I first started playing these elaborate games I have developed a taste for the Grand Strategic. When I bought the first Europa game I was practically orgasmic when I saw that Fall of France was just one part of an interconnected series destined to recreate WW2 in its entirety. So needless to say, Grand Europa is the whole reason I've been playing these games, and while waiting for its completion I have been working on my own military-political monster game of a similar nature. Obviously, it isn't on the same ground as Europa, but people have a lot of fun with it. Perhaps a short discussion of what has been going on in Europe might provide a glimpse of what a wide open game of Grand Europa could look like.

The whole idea is to present WW2 worldwide in a PBM format with teams of players representing various politicians, generals, admirals, and ministers. Some players opt to run smaller countries by themselves.

We've got three games running now, at various stages of development. Game One is at March, 1940. Germany (I originally played "Hitler" in this game when it started) is allied to Slovakia, the Ukrainian Republic, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Finland. This is the Axis. They are currently at war with Britain, Greece and the USSR. The US is trying feverishly to get involved against Germany. The Italians got involved early with an invasion of Yugoslavia, and the Soviets invaded Turkey and German-controlled Poland, precipitating the Sadabaad Pact countries (Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq) to join the Axis, allowing Germany to send a Panzer corps through Syria to mop up the Suez Canal and expel the Allies from Egypt.

In the second game, Poland, the USSR and France attacked Germany on the first turn. Britain declared war on Germany, but the Commonwealth countries refused to fight in what was obviously a predatory war against Germany. France incurred a huge PR penalty by doing a Schlieffen Plan in reverse, trying to take the Ruhr by swinging through an uncooperative Belgium and Luxembourg. The Benelux countries promptly joined the Axis, and German naval units operating out of the Belgium Congo are shaping up to be a menace to British merchant shipping.

The third game just started and already Hitler has been assassinated by Polish or British agents (who can tell?) and replaced by Goring. Spain, Turkey and Romania have formed an association of nonaligned nations called the SAMBO Pact (Spain, Asia Minor, Balkan Organization). As you can see, some players comedic skills come to the forefront from the very start. Turkey has moved into Iraq, installed Raschid Ali, and presented the British with a fait accompli. World leaders have been informed by SAMBO that from now on they will have to deal with their organization in exchange for oil. Romania has been demanding territorial concessions from Bulgaria. Bulgaria in return has responded by forming an alliance with Hungary, and an arms sale agreement with the USSR.

This probably all seems highly irregular - and it is. We give the players the circumstances, and inform them of the consequences of certain actions, but nations are free to pursue whatever course their players choose. What we provide is a theater for people to let their imaginations run wild. The Allied country players usually like to see everything go completely according to history, as their side won historically. The Axis countries want to do everything different. The Soviets tend to ignore their operational shortcomings and invade everyone with which they share a border, with predictable results when the reserves run out, as they inevitably must.

The whole thing has been an incredible learning experience for me. I've learned more about WW2 politically, militarily and socially in the six months moderating these games than in my whole life up until then. So as I said at the outset, I will fidget nervously until Grand Europa show up. As monsters go, that should be the Godzilla of games.

By the way, I like the idea of politics, economics, public opinion, etc. being handled in Grand Europa by computer program. This is probably the best solution. In any case, for whoever decides how to handle the Grand Europa economic and political system, I enthusiastically recommend Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and David Irving's Hitler's War, both of which do an excellent job of cutting away the half century of extremely prejudicial propaganda to explore the political- economic situation and its effect on the decision-makers of the late '30s.

William Kominers

The genesis of this letter was your 'GRD Briefing" from Europa #18 concerning both Europa modules and First to Fight.

One troubling aspect of the Europa system, as I am sure you are aware, is the size and length of time required for play of most of the titles. As an aging gamer, with many more responsibilities of time and space than twentyfive years ago, the prospect of more Europa titles is daunting. This works to the disadvantage of the newer titles or revisions, so that I am unable to take full advantage of the "modernization" of the system (rules, graphics, etc.).

My question/suggestion is for scenarios to be developed which might involve one or two maps of some of the multi-map games, particularly Fire in the East or Scorched Earth.

To the extent that smaller than full game-map scenarios have been developed and presented in TEN/TEM, could these be compiled in some way that they could be made available to players or prospective players?

With these more limited scenarios, the introduction of novices to Europa would be enhanced. Similarly, the actual use of Europa by those of us with limited time or space would be expanded. This could also provide a mechanism for having several "gamesm going on at once with different individuals (by mail, phone, or otherwise) where different maps from the same title are being used for different scenarios.

Another potential use of such scenarios would be for "programmed instruction" leading a novice into the intricacies of Europa from very small to larger and more complex scenarios. In this way, participation in individual or multi-player versions of the larger games will not appear so overwhelming.

One might not purchase Fire in the East knowing that only fullfront scenarios were available. If instead, one could expect access to 6, 8, or 10 one-map or two-map scenarios in addition, I feel that the game and the system would be more marketable. One need only look at the success of Africa OrientaI6 published in S&T to see that there is significant interest in smaller-scale versions of Europa.

As an aside, I am not certain that Case White was the first game covering the Polish campaign, as you suggest in the "GRD Briefing" column. If you recall, Jadgpanther published Poland 39 sometime prior to its Issue #14. I am not certain of the relationship of dates between that issue and the publication of Case White, but I believe that the Jadgpanther title was earlier.

Beats me! Can any of our war game trivia-experts out there resolve this issue? Write in and let us know.

Re: Scenarios-I couldn't agree with you more. That's why we are excited about "Leningrad 1947.' In addition to being playable in a short time span, it will serve as an ideal introduction to the Europa eastern front.

There are a number of additional scenarios currently in the works, including the first "Greater Europa" game, several new scenarios for Western Desert and Fire in the East, and several others covering such diverse topics as the invasion of Holland and the partisan war in the Balkans. Some of these scenarios are geared to serve as introductory tools.

The prospectus at this time is to have a scenario in every issue from here on out. As for compiling all the scenarios previously published into some sort of collector's volume, I think this is a consideration for the future, but premature at this time. -RG

James Broshot

I have been enjoying the latest issues of Europa. I have also been enjoying my copy of Balkan Front. However, I have some small gripes (what dedicated Europa player has none?).

First why not stop tinkering with the values of the aircraft counters? By my count, this is the third or fourth revaluation of the Wellington I. Using the new values for the Wellington I, the Blenheim I and the Hurricane I in "War in the Desert" will certainly alter the balance of power.

The Wellington I will be significantly more effective against the Italian ports such as Benghazi and Tripoli, and the Hurricane I will now become an effective ground attack aircraft (in "WitD" every attack factor counts, especially early in the campaign). If the new values are official, will you guys make revised value aircraft counter sheets available while we are waiting for the revised games to come out?

Secondly, it is my considered opinion that the British 1st Armoured Brigade has been grossly overvalued. Did anyone read Robert Crisp's The Gods Were Neutral? It details how poorly equipped and trained this unit was and how little they actually fought. This unit has now gone from its Marita- Merkur values of 1x 3-2-8 Arm X 1, 1x 1-8 Art 11 2 and 1x 1-10 mot AT II 102 to WD's 1x 3-2-10 Arm X 1 to a 1x 4-2- 10* Arm X 1.

In reality this unit comprised two battalions of the Royal Tank Regiment, one Territorial Army battalion of the King's Royal Rifle Corps, a regiment of Royal Horse Artillery and a Territorial Army yeomanry antitank regiment. These men had just barely got off the boat after a long voyage from England when they loaded back on board and were sent to Greece. Crisp points out that their tanks, all obsolescent, thinly- armored cruisers, had not been off- loaded since the ship had left Liverpool. A 1x 4-2-10* Arm X 1 is overly generous.

This points out another problem in "WitD" (since we are now engaged in revising and rechroming this game). The 1st Armoured Brigade was part of the 2nd Armoured Division. This division had been stripped of two of its tank battalions previously to reinforce the 7th Armoured Division and, upon arrival in Egypt, not only did it lose the 1st Armoured Brigade and part of its support group (the 2nd Royal Horse Artillery and 102nd Antitank Regiment) for Greece, one of the remaining tank battalions was converted to an armored car regiment, which the division had lacked until then.

The values of the 3rd Armoured Brigade and 2nd Support Group in "WitD" and in Frank Watson's "Enter Rommel" scenario are for full-strength units, which these units were not. This is especially true since at least one tank battalion of the 3rd Armoured Brigade was equipped with captured Italian medium tanks.

I haven't had a chance to try "Enter Rommel" yet, but I wonder about a scenario that has to make major alterations to the movement rules to come out accurately. Perhaps some revisions to the basic game system are necessary? In playing my "Operation Compass" scenario, I have found it hard to capture Benghazi before the Afrika Korps arrives. I do think that the 1x 3-4-6 Art III 24dM is not historically justified and should be removed (it also helps play balance).

Lastly, I have always been in favor of expanding Europa to the Pacific Campaign. The basic original Europa naval and air system were used in GDW's naval games for Coral Sea, Midway and the Indian Ocean campaigns and worked reasonably well. I do not think that it would be necessary to go to really small unit size. I would like to see the counters be able to transfer from Europe to Burma or to the Philippines without undergoing a major transformation.

More land unit breakdown counters will be needed and the air units will have to represent squadrons. A major revision to the amphibious landing rules is in order as well as allowing units of two opposing sides to remain in the same hex for more than one turn. Is anyone interested in my Europa order of battle and order of appearance for the United States Marine Corps?

Sure, send it in.

3-2-10 vs. 4-2-10* = Grossly Overrated? Let's see, we've got some artillery, some antitank guns, some tanks and a bunch of Her Majesty's blokes. I can't get excited about this one way or the other, Crisp notwithstanding, but I guess such hair- splitting is part of Europa's appeal. - RG