When I read Mark Pitcavage's article 'Grand Europa: The Myths and the Realities" I was aghast. I cannot disagree more strongly with what Mark is espousing. Many of us have been waiting long years for Grand Europa (GE) to finally come together-and now it is being suggested that the project be scrapped simply because the possibility exists that it won't resemble the Second World War.

But why does anyone play Europa in the first place? Is it to recreate the outcome of World War II, or is it to recreate the conditions of that conflict? If you are playing it to study or relive its outcome, let me give you a hint: Germany and Italy lose. If, on the other hand, you play Europa to become immersed in a Second World War where you are the commander and in control of your own destiny, then all you want from the game is to recreate the conditions of the conflict.

Even in the mega-game Fire in the East/Scorched Earth/Urals (FitE/SE), the highest position one can attain is Theater or Front commander. In my opinion, the goal of GE should be to allow players to assume the role of Supreme Commander of a nation's policy, economy, and all of its armed forces everywhere. I know there are considerable problems to overcome to achieve this, but they are not insurmountable,

I have personally experimented with GE "principles" by making some of my own home-brew rules when playing FitE/SE. Many of these have proven to be spectacular failures, but some have proven successful in re-creating a feel for the "Big Picture".

One of my most basic reforms to the game has involved some elementary research into the German order of battle. I have always felt too constrained by the restrictions placed upon me by a strict order of battle, especially the forced withdrawal of units.

It is most distressing when an order of battle requires certain units to withdraw for no reason other than the fact that, historically, this is what happened. I believe that some withdrawals should be conditional. I also think an explanation should be provided in each order of battle as to why each particular unit is being withdrawn.

If a unit is being withdrawn because it is being sent to reinforce another theater of war where its presence is important, then that withdrawal should be a forced withdrawal. If a unit is being withdrawn because it is being sent to the rear to rebuild or upgrade, then that withdrawal should be an optional withdrawal.

Although the Soviet order of battle is still a huge quagmire, the Axis order of battle is relatively simple to tinker with. [However, tinkering with one side while excluding the other can lead to unfortunate consequences-VAH]

For instance, by using books like Samuel Mitcham's Hitler's Legions and Bruce Quarrie's books on the Waffen SS, I have pretty well determined which German divisions went where and why. And by incorporating this information into some house rules, I've provided a measure of control over many of the withdrawals the Germans are faced with when playing FitE/SE.

I also tied this idea into the game by modifying replacement-point levels using the replacement points saved (i.e., the points that were theoretically in Germany to rebuild the unit that wasn't withdrawn) to improve units already in France preparing for the Second Front. Although not withdrawing certain units from FitE/SE will mean fewer combat formations available in the West, at least they should be at higher strength levels. However, I have not yet been able to fully test this idea because Second Front has been repeatedly postponed.

Force pool eliminations can be stopped altogether. If the replacements are available, players should be allowed to rebuild any unit desired. Instead, how about a general scrapping rule for GE?

Mark has a valid point when bringing up the question of unit quality changing over time. I tried a "promotion" system, whereby a unit went up in strength after so many combats if it wasn't reduced to cadre, but obviously this involved a tremendous amount of bookkeeping.

So, I changed gears and instead focused on an "elite unit" rule whereby certain units receive die roll modifiers for their presence in combat. I don't think that simply increasing a superior unit's combat factors, the current Europa method, is enough. All that shows is the better equipment these units received and not necessarily their hand-picked, elite status.

My elite-unit rule makes a game of FitE/SE, especially one that is in its later stages, more challenging. I have found that the Soviets are an almost unbeatable powerhouse in 1943 when playing FitE/SE, to say nothing of 1944. Indeed, I wonder just how many games are played through to the bitter end. But my elite-unit rule can model the effects of German "Fire Brigade" units which constantly and consistently were called upon to blunt Soviet offensives throughout the war. Other examples include the 101st U.S. Airborne at Bastogne or the 1st Fallschirmjager at Monte Cassino.

And while I've spent my efforts to date on FitE/SE, thus limiting this rule to the German Army (e.g., SS Wiking, Grossdeutschland, 7th Fliegerdi vision, etc.), I believe that the concept could be applied to a few Allied units as well. The idea is to give elite units a die-roll modifier (+1 or +2 depending on the unit) using the same RE principles as the engineer bonus (except that this modifier applies to both defense and offense).

On the other hand, these units are more expensive to replace. My system doubles the replacement cost of these units.

Of course, these issues are relatively simple ones for GE to deal with. The major problems which Mark points out are valid ones, but I don't believe they should be characterized as unsolvable. Mark wants to remove production and economics from the game. I think that the economic war is the main issue to be dealt with above all else, and that it is possible to create a workable system of bookkeeping to accomplish it. This includes the effects of strategic bombing, economic growth, and research and development.

One of the keys to developing such a system is to focus and elaborate on an item that Europa has already addressed: resource points. I think that, if handled correctly, resource points can be used as a kind of industrial currency with which investments in industrial plants as well as research and development can be made.

I also believe a separate system to reflect oil supplies (i.e., oil points) can be developed similarly to answer the questions of mobility for air, ground, and naval forces.

Another means of reflecting economic and organizational modifications on a strategic scale in GE would be to provide a bunch of "generic" counters. These counters would represent hypothetical alternatives to unit types and strengths. Although it would mean many more counters, the advantage would be that it would allow players much greater flexibility as to the types and quantities of units their nation produces.

Anyway, these are just a few ideas and I'm sure other readers have many more. Together we can work to make GE the fun and exciting game we all want it to be. If everyone contributes, even small ideas can help to make the pieces of the GE puzzle fall into place. Let's not give up on our dream and settle for less than the ultimate strategic game.

Mark Pitcavage's opinion notwithstanding, I remain convinced that Grand Europa will work!