When Gary first opened this Topic on Genie, I was in the middle of a very stalled German offensive in Scorched Earth where the Soviets were giving as good as they got. Indeed, while the Germans were knocking off 200+ Soviet factors per turn, the Soviets were returning fire bringing the kill ratio very close to 2:1. Too close in fact! During all this bloodletting, I was confined by a Soviet NODL (Non-Overrunable-Double-Line) and simply spinning my wheels at the rate of one hex per turn. Obviously, my level of play must be brought into question for allowing this to happen; however, since I'm the one writing this article I'll simply gloss over that aspect.

In the following (heavily edited) messages, Gary Dickson returns the focus again and again to the "Problem" of NODLs. The rest of us (me included) dance all around the issue and fail to address Gary's basic concern. If the "Problem" is being raised by Europa-On-Line GEniuses, chances are it's going on Europa-wide. Is the solution to the "Problem" a matter of players' abilities, or (in equally competent play) a rules issue? One thing is for sure, NODLs won't go away quietly.

1. [9/4/92] Gary Dickson

Yes, I've started yet another Topic. One thing that bugs me and may bug you about the Europa system is the practice of counting precise factors, be they combat or movement, to determine mathematically perfect attacks or defenses, lines which cannot be overrun, etc.

As examples, I point to Trey Nelson's very fine article in TEM #24 in which he suggests putting a non-overrunable Soviet defense line 11 MPs from the nearest Panzers to limit their exploitation move; Roy Lane's suggestion in TEM #17 (in an even better article) on breaking down Panzer divisions to create a "killer wad" of 60 attack factors to force the Soviets to create 7-point stacks; and the practice of creating non-overrunable Soviet stacks in double lines in Leningrad 1941 (henceforth L41) to slow the German advance to one hex per turn. Now, these are all valid tactics under the rules and I'm not criticizing anyone who takes full advantage of them, but it would seem to me that after umpteen numbers of replays, especially of a small game like L41, one would like a little more variety.

Off the top of my head I've come up with some suggestions for adding a little uncertainty to Europa. I realize that some of these may favor one side or the other, and may require balancing rules.

1. At the start of a player turn roll one die. On a roll of 6 the phasing player's units receive increased movement allowances (MAs). In the movement phase only, c/m units increase their MAs by 2, and non-c/m units increase their MAs by 1. If a 1 is rolled, then those MAs are lost. c/m units have their MAs reduced by 2, and non-c/m lose 1 MP. This does not affect the exploitation phase.

2. For an expenditure of resource points, MAs or combat strengths can be increased. Say, one RP to boost 10 REs, or something like that. You might increase MAs by, say, 1/2, or attack strengths by, say, 1/2. Maybe the defender could do something like that too, but with lesser effect.

3. As an alternative, depleting trucks increases the MAs or attack strengths of all units within 3 hexes.

4. Do something about making overruns more variable. Lotsa talk about this, no action.

5. Implement second attacks for c/m units. C/m units may make two attacks per combat phase. If they do, their attack strengths are halved for each one. The second attack comes after all regular attacks have been made. The c/m units may have advanced after combat in the first attack and can receive such air support as was flown against the second attack hex in the Air Phase. Soviet units may not do this prior to, say, 1943. The French and lesser Allies may not prior to 1942.

6. If using #5, implement some sort of reserve move for the defenders. Say, defending units not in a ZOC may move one hex after all first attacks are done.

[I have the same concerns about a "reserve move" here as I stated on page 30 of TEM #28.-VAH]

2. [9/4/92] Mark Pitcavage

As to your suggestions, well, I don't like most of them, because they tend to favor the attacker unduly. Many of them don't add uncertainty, either (at least as far as attacker factor-counting is concerned).

Here is an alternative suggestion: Allow overrun attempts at any odds.

3. [9/5/92] Graham Stephens

This should be an interesting Topic. The only problem I have with your suggestions is that they will add more complexity to an already overwhelming game. The suggestion I would make would be to allow overruns at any odds, but include some negative modifiers.

4. [9/5/92] Gary Dickson

Mark, I admit that most of my suggestions favor the attacker. This reflects my current state of mind, where in L41 I'm facing a seemingly endless future of double 5-point stacks all the way to Leningrad, thanks to Marshal Gaylerov. I stated already that some of my rules would need counterbalancing, let's hear some suggestions.

My immediate goal is to eliminate the use of "perfect" lines, ones mathematically certain to defeat an attacker, or at least limit his advance to one hex. Therefore we have a tiny bit of variability in movement, chances for the attacker to increase his movement and/or combat power at a price, etc. The only counterbalance I mentioned is reserve movement, something I think you yourself have brought up in Moves.

The sort of uncertainty I'm talking about wouldn't involve a lot of die rolling, but would put uncertainty in the mind of one's opponent. I'm not really talking about uncertainty in counting attack factors, but in adding rules that give a player more options. I guess you could call it increased operational uncertainty, not tactical-in my humble opinion, we have enough of that already in the CRT. As it is now, that sort of uncertainty only exists where one player knows the rules better than the other or is more experienced, and uses things like Brandenburgers, river flotillas, and special operations to good effect.

5. [9/5/92] Gary Dickson

I'm beginning to warm to overruns at lower odds, but not at any odds. Try, say, 6:1, with an automatic -2 and the AS becoming an AH and the HX an EX, for example. The problem is how to integrate that into PBEM (Play By Electronic Mail).

One difference between wargames and real life is that in real life soldiers don't get to practice on the real thing. At best they can take part in training exercises that try to approximate actual combat, but which can't equal it. In wargames we can practice on the "real thing" umpteen times before facing a live opponent, or even play many opponents to sharpen our skills. Real soldiers may play the same 'game' system over and over throughout the war, but they'll never play the same 'scenario' more than once. Just think what the French could have done if they had practiced on their game system a dozen times before 1940, or if on the Jun I 40 turn they said "Okay, we lost this one, let's start over now that I understand the rules better."

6. [9/5/92] Roy Lane

Uncertainty? Overruns at any odds? A reserve movement rule? And on and on...

What is the root cause of all this frustration? The double line! Yet, any tinkering with the system to eliminate this suspect "Problem" will only yield new tactical approaches to the newly tinkered system.

Double lines are double-edged. How many points are put in the front line? The minimum? In L41 five factors can be overrun! Fewer points in the front line allows for a greater number of attacks against that front line. Putting large stacks in the front line will reduce the number of attacks, but may actually cause higher losses.

Any tinkering with the overrun system will simply introduce new ahistorical tactics to prevent breakthroughs.

The attacker is simply forced to find sectors of the front which can be interdicted with harassment air missions and force withdrawals in those areas. Time limits generally work quite well at reducing the minimum double line tactic, but won't work in PBEM.

In my opinion, double lines will always be here! What a double line represents is a commander's attempt to prevent breakthroughs. So tinker away, but players will always strive to prevent breakthroughs no matter how it's done!

9. [9/6/92] Alan Tibbetts

How about this idea, off the top of my head, (you may decide it should be "off with my head"): Stop whining about the "Problem" because any solution will add unwanted complexity. Solve the "Problem" through proper application of your available forces and the existing rules. Germany never did take Leningrad, they only got as close as they did because of Soviet incompetence. Unless you can find incompetent opponents or build in idiot rules, the Germans shouldn't be able to take Leningrad. Gary, I think you are trying to make up for player competence (lack of incompetence) by suggesting these changes. Why not a simple rule to eliminate stacking during overrun movement to allow the Germans to overrun at will?

13. [9/7/92] Roy Lane

Alan, why should the Germans be able to overrun at will?

When Fire in the East was introduced many aggressive Soviet players realized that it was possible to stop the Axis cold on the entire front by August. In some games the Axis mired in the mud and threw in the towel before taking Kiev or Smolensk. It wasn't Soviet expertise which allowed such a "Forward Defense" to work, it was the OB and the rules set.

With the introduction of SE several years later it appeared as if Soviet thinking had to change, based on the premise that the Red Army had to live to fight another day. So the "Runaway Defense" was born.

Since the Axis can't break through against a competent NODL, many people feel a change in the rules may be needed. However, I don't believe the rules system is what is in need of overhaul. It is the Soviet OB which needs some restructuring. Basically, the Soviets are too strong in 1941, and the counters don't go far enough in factoring in the very real problems the Soviets had in command and control during that time frame.

Here are examples of simple historical changes to the Soviet 1941 OB:

1) All Soviet c/m cadres are unsupported until July 1942.

2) All Soviet cavalry divisions become supported 2-1-8 brigades.

3) The Soviets may only use mountain stacking until Sep I 1941.

4) Restructure the victory point schedule to reflect the economic and political repercussions of allowing the Soviets to conduct a "Runaway Defense" (which would no doubt gain in popularity if the Soviets have a weaker offensive punch in 1941).

5) Change NKVD Political Troops to 1-8 non- motorized units. All other capabilities remain the same.

The double lines represent a competent commander's desire to keep his line intact. In 1943 and 1944 the front was fairly solid, and the present rules seem to work in that time period. The frustrating part of the Soviet double lines in 1941 is that the Red Army can combine them with a sizable offensive punch which simply isn't historical.

14. [9/7/92] Gary Dickson

Roy, I don't think changes concerning support of c/m cadres or the strength of cavalry divisions would have much effect. Your idea about mountain stacking for Soviets until September 1941, however, would have a potentially huge effect, in my opinion. Of course, most double lines can be formed within that stacking limit, so maybe its prime effect would be against Soviet counterattacks. Have you ever played with it just to make sure?

As I've said many times before, my aim is to make the defense a little less pat and leave more doubt in a player's mind as to his opponent's capabilities. As it is now the defender knows exactly how far the attacker can move, and exactly how much it takes to defeat an overrun. Doesn't that bug anyone else?

15. [9/8/92] Alan Tibbetts

I do not think the Germans should be allowed to overrun at will. That was just a sarcastic solution to the "Problem" of double overrun-proof lines. I agree with most of what Roy says. The Russians of 1941 simply weren't as competent as players usually are.

16. [9/8/92] Roy Lane

My ideas for the 1941 Soviets were supposedly based on current research, none of it official as yet. However, I do believe some of it will come to pass in the Collector Series revision.

As to the "Problem" of double over-run proof lines, I emphatically disagree with the notion that a player not be able to control the depth of his front in such a way as to prevent breakthroughs! The notion is absurd that the 1943 Axis should be able to overrun two Russian 3-6 Rifle Divisions and a 1-2-8 AT brigade at lower than 10:1 odds. As it is, the 1943 Axis can put 80+ point stacks together.

I do find fault with the inability of the Axis to create a more fluid situation in 1941. As the "Forward Defense" becomes easier to execute by more players, it seems as if we are back to FitE! This is what my proposals try to address without changing the system. After all, making overruns easier and making the game even bloodier than it is won't work past 1942.

To those players who are advocating easier overruns, air support for overruns, and adding a "fog-of-war" rule to incapacitate the defender from being able to forecast whether his line will prevent a breakthrough, have you played into the fall of 1942 or into the summer of 1943? Making the game even more favorable to the attacker than it already is (the CRT favors the attacker!) will lead to a string of ahistorical Axis victories in the east.

The reason most Soviet players can double line the entire front is unaggressive Axis play and a correspondingly low kill ratio. The Soviets must be spread thin and areas that can only muster a single line defense (or a no-line defense) should see some pressure. Although forays into the center of the board are somewhat risky, they should be pursued. In games where the "Problem" exists, have the advocates put pressure only on Leningrad-Moscow? Or the entire front? Is your offensive localized along only two or three axes of advance?

What I'm getting at is that play style can allow the double line tactic.

18. [9/10/92] Alan Tibbetts

Is this Topic a "Brainstorming Session" where we throw out ideas without any real consideration of the merits, just for the sake of ideas? That's the approach I'm taking. I'll leave it to you to decide if any of my ideas have enough merit for further discussion.

While I'm not an expert East Front Europa player (just a few games of FitE/DNO) I agree with Roy's assessment that playing style has more to do with the "Problem" of double lines than any rules. Maybe it's my style of play, but I've never seen the level of German losses portrayed in some of the FitEISE battlefield reports in ETO/TEM/GEnie. I've always wondered how a good German player could lose 50- 100 attack factors per turn in 1941.

As a German I've never taken Leningrad or Moscow, but I've never been without a strong German Army in December 1941 either. Label me a conservative player if you will. Someday maybe I'll get to PBM/PBEM a game of FitE/SE with the experts to see how it all comes together.

Overruns at less than 10:1 might be a way to add uncertainty to the situation, and increase fluidity (is that a word?), but they should carry a very high cost. My proposal would be a -2 DRM, and making any overrunning at less than 10:1 constitute the attack for those units, and the units involved end their movement immediately afterwards, and defenders get their cadres, and HX becomes EX. Perhaps there should be strict limits on who, when and where this rule is applied such as: clear terrain and weather only; only Germans can use the rule, only on the Eastern Front (Poland, Balkans, USSR), and only in 1939-41.

Maybe an idiot rule similar to that in FoF is in order to reduce the Soviet counteroffensive punch. How about this: If a Soviet (Hungarian, Rumanian?) unit moves (maybe only if it moves more than half its MA) during its movement phase, then its attack strength is halved for all overrun calculations and during the following combat phase. If a unit retreats during the enemy player turn, then its attack strength is halved during the following player turn, whether it moves or not.

During the exploitation phase c/m units of these countries have their MAs halved and, their combat strengths halved for overrun calculations. A country is released from all such restrictions on the (insert a number, I suggest 6th) game turn of full-scale operations. There are many variations possible, this is basically a reiteration of FoF Rule 30.

24. [9/17/92] Rich Velay

Two questions on the Topic. First, considering that the front at Leningrad didn't move more than one hex either way for most of the war, that would seem to indicate that the Soviets did have a .1 non-overrunable" double line there, in real life. I see the fact that the game accurately represents this as a plus, not a problem! And if things are not going fast enough early on, well maybe the opponent is not as brain dead as ole' Uncle Joe was as a military commander. I see it as a question of: should the Soviets be able to do better against the Germans than they actually did, if we subtract Stalin from the equation? Of course they should.

What does need to be represented is the problems of the Army, as distinct from political interference. The Soviets couldn't control masses of tanks or airplanes-this needs to be addressed. But should we really limit what they can do with the junk we do give them? (3-6's and all). I don't think so. If the attrition ratio is such that they can form a double line, then I would look first to the players, and not the system. I am a lot more worried about the impossibility of Soviet 1000 bomber GS missions, and the insane ability to form masses of fully motorized Tank Armies in 1942, than I am about whether or not we should be able to overrun at 7:1.

25. [9/17/92] Gary Dickson

Rich, are you seriously arguing that the Soviets held Leningrad with 6- and 7-strength points in each hex? You must be, since you're using that as an example against any overrun changes. Personally, I'd guess that they had something more like 30- or 40-point hexes. I have nothing against non-overrunable hexes as long as they're strong enough.

The fact of the matter is, once the defender calculates what the maximum German stack is, he can form double lines one point higher and limit the advance even though he may face infinitely high odds all along the front. Can you give me a good reason, or even a historical example, of how a double line of, say, 7 points in clear terrain, should be able to limit, say, two 60-point stacks of full AEC tanks to an advance of 16 miles for half a month?! In the combat phase, the attack will be 17:1, but because the attacker cannot stack more than 60 per hex, all that power is limited to a one-hex advance. And don't tell me that's an unusual situation; it happens lots of times in SE, L41, Fall of France, and probably Second Front.

And please let's not hear that tired argument that in that situation the attacker should be spreading out his attacks for maximum attrition! Guderian would be rolling over in his grave to learn that the only way to win is to attack each and every hex on as broad a front as possible. That sounds more like WWI, not WWII. The current double-line mess pushes games into massive attrition battles, with little opportunity for a Blitzkrieg-style of play except in the very beginning. In games with limited time-frames like FoF, L41, and maybe some SF SF scenarios, that can be the difference between winning and losing.

27. [9/18/92] Rich Velay

No, I am not arguing that they had 6-7 point stacks in front of Leningrad; I simply meant to point out that totally static fronts developed, even granting all the conventional wisdom about the Nazi hordes; better leadership, better combined arms, better troops (early on), etc. Sure, the game fails to adequately represent many individual aspects of WW II.

And yes, your "Killer Wad" can be stopped in L41. But all I am saying is that perhaps that is not a failing of the system. Maybe, given equal playing ability, the result should be one in which the Germans are stopped cold. Even with two "players" of unequal ability, the historical situation at Leningrad was a stalemate. Since you are playing an opponent unburdened by stupidity, political constraints or the demands of other theaters, perhaps the best the scenario can present is a bogged down German and a victorious Soviet.

I don't know, I haven't played the scenario, and one can't learn the ins and outs just by reading the rules and checking out the OBs, I know that. But considering that as the German you do not control your own force pool, and accepting that the Germans did not commit enough troops to the campaign to ever have taken Leningrad, is it surprising that you can't make the kind of headway you want to?

And just through looking at historical OBs, I doubt that the Leningrad Front had the resources to have 30-40 point stacks along the lines, until well into 1943. But that still begs the question of whether or not the Germans could have advanced faster and further; of course they could. In your next game of SE, just commit Armee Gruppe Mitte against Leningrad, along with AG Nord, and see what happens.

Hey, I am sympathetic, I just don't know the answer. And when I don't know the answer, I don't like to fault the system. Perhaps the Europa combat system is inappropriate for such scenarios, I don't know. But it sounds like you are ending up with the historical situation, even if it isn't being arrived at through the historical manner. Perhaps that is the most realistic and accurate that Europa can hope to be...

And reaIly, isn't the attacker already overcompensated by this system? How well will this attacker-centered combat system perform in Italy, in representing the Gustav Line? Not too well, I imagine. . .

All I can say is that the system must represent the other campaigns as well. Sure, it seems to have problems with Free Setup for the French, or unlimited forts anywhere, and with scenarios. But Europa was designed to have the historical results appear from historical settings; I don't think it can also be expected to be a good model when we examine it too closely (scenarios with Flat Earth game edges) or when we ask it to represent non-historical situations.

Or, perhaps I just don't know what I'm talking about! ;-) [Note: winkandgrin.] Maybe I should play the scenario before I defend the status quo...

Anyway, I sincerely hope you roll a lot of sixes.

29. [9/18/92] Roy Lane

Rich, I would have to say your opinions are right on target, especially coming from someone alleging not to have played L41 or SE. The game wouldn't be playable if things were set back to the DNO days with the Axis simply walking over (overrunning) every Soviet line put before them. This may partially explain why the "Runaway Defense" has became so popular. Gee if I can't be sure my line will hold because the overrun ability is so fluid, why am I standing and fighting? With the Soviets running away the game really gets boring!

30. [9/19/92] Rich Velay

Now, now, I never alleged that I hadn't played FitEISE M, just admitted I hadn't played L41. Man, I've been doing Europa for many moons, and certainly have my share of SE time (though not against the level of competition of the people here or in the Europa magazine. . . I am always the teacher . . . ) For me, it comes down to the imponderables of the situation, not so much the imponderables of the game.

What I mean is we don't know where the front line in front of Leningrad would have been without Stalin, just as we don't know where it would have been if I had replaced Manstein, or Leeb. Both of them were better "players" than I, and the fact that I can't do as well as they did, against better- informed Soviets than they faced, is not surprising. And certainly doesn't, to me, indicate a flaw in the basic game system. DN0/Unt was a good game, it wasn't WW II; FitE/SE is a good game, is better history than DN0/Unt was, but it still isn't WW II.

The only way we could ever "know" if the system works as history, is to get Joe to play against Dolph (ie., Adolf Hitler). (None of this helps me, since my primary attraction to the system is for its history, as flawed as that might be. I have never played a competitive "game" of Europa, and doubt if I ever will. I like Anzio as a game, or Third Reich, but Europa? Anything that takes up my dining room for a year-that is no game!)

31. [9/20/92] Mark Pitcavage

I think Rich is very right. There is so much talk about play balance in FitE/SE: people arguing that the Soviets are too strong here, or the Germans can't break through there.

As a result, there are all sorts of "fixes" proposed-- fixes to make it easier for the Germans to do this, or harder to do that. However, this is completely wrong-headed. The question people really should be asking is: Is this historically feasible? Are these results realistic? Could they have happened, given the fact that I am not Stalin and he is not Hitler, and we both know a lot more than they did?

It is possible for Europa to be tinkered with to death. Actually, we need to step back and ask ourselves, "To what extent does this simulate WWII combat on this scale reasonably? Are all the relevant factors taken into account?"

If the answers to these questions are yes, then stop the tinkering. If the answers are no, fix the problems. But don't try to program the historical WWII into the game: it won't work.

34. [9/21/92] Roy Lane

Although I do play face-to-face I've found that several playings against the same opponents can make a player stale and out of touch with competitive play. History, for me, is the model around which the "game" is structured and for me any rules-tinkering must follow a few guidelines. Many of the guidelines have already been stated: simplicity of play heads my list. However, many players play (study) Europa for different reasons, which leads to different views on why such tinkering is worth a damn or not.

Since the demise of ETO there has been but a single voice for Europa--TEM. GEnie On-Line has allowed the spirit of dissent to again ferment. And for that I applaud. The issue of NODLs has been a very enjoyable discussion to be a part of. Not since the "Slime" debate in ETO has so much ruckus been raised!

35. [9/22/92] Rich Velay

Gary: I believe this all started with a call for changes to the overrun rules, to redress some perceived imbalance working against the Axis. Considering the latest reports from the L4 1 tournament the Axis are, if anything, ahead of schedule, in terms of ground gained, as compared to history, I really fail to see the need to monkey with the overrun rules. Also, regarding questions of historical accuracy, the Dolph/Uncle Joe factor, you will have to prove to me that there is indeed a historical injustice being represented in the games. You want to see reduced odds overruns-why? For historical accuracy purposes, to redress game imbalance or simply to add uncertainty, i.e., fun?

For the first, no case has been made that Europa needs such rules changes to further accuracy; if anything, I believe the present ability of even a marginal Panzer Korps to overrun a reinforced Soviet 1941 Rifle division could be seen as overstated. For the second, well, one doesn't mess with a system-wide rule to "fix" a game imbalance problem in one game. Again, though, I would say that no case has been made in this area, either. Most SE games recorded, or seen by me, seem to run pretty much to history; good team vs. good team leads to early German success, developing stasis and then Soviet recovery. As for the third, to simply add uncertainty-well, that is personal choice. Personally, I would think it to be an unsound change, with little historical validity. Besides, I don't care if the "game" is balanced or not; if it wasn't balanced for Dolph and Uncle Joe, who are we to meddle with history?

36. [9/22/92] Rich Velay

As much as I wish to be listened to for my own Chrome, I also want to be heard when I disagree with an idea. Do we need to stop the double line defense? Is its use ahistorical? Was the Soviet Army really unable to stop the Germans in front of Leningrad with the forces they had available? Does the fact that the Soviet can deny overrun opportunities along certain stretches of the line mean that there is a design flaw in SE, or indeed, within Europa as a whole? I know I don't think so.

37. [9/22/92] Gary Dickson

Re: Rich's "I believe this all started with a call for changes to the overrun rules, to redress some perceived imbalance working against the Axis. (Emphasis mine.)

Despite the fact that the Germans are the chief beneficiaries (in the beginning of the game) of improved overrun rules, I do not recommend them so that the Nazis can take the Kremlin in September, 1941. I propose such things to correct what I consider to be a deficiency in the game, namely, fundamentally weak, non-overrunable double lines (NODLs). Many fail to see the need for monkeying with the overrun rules because the way things are keeps the Germans to roughly their historical advances.

Gentlemen, I find that logic faulty in the extreme. To take it to its ultimate conclusion, why not chuck everything and just roll one 10-sided dice; 1-9 the Soviets win, 10 the Germans win. That too would result in games which accurately reflect history.

The reason I play any wargame is to get a good idea of how the armies moved, and to try to do better under as nearly the same conditions as possible within a playable framework. That's why, no matter how easy it is to keep them, I am against these terribly ahistorical NODLs. The fact that successful Soviet play depends on this very gamey technique to me suggests that something else is out of whack. That's why I suggest that 'balancing' rules might be in order. Not simply to balance the game for one side or the other, but to more closely approximate the operational realities.

Does everyone agree that nowhere in WWII were such weak lines, if they existed at all, capable of holding such a superior opponent to consistent gains of only 16 miles a fortnight over a period of months in clear terrain? Can anyone give an example of such a thing? If you can't, which I doubt, then ask yourself, why should it be possible in Europa? What mechanism was it that kept the Germans to their historical gains without the Soviets using NODLs? Was it all Hitler's fault? (I suspect part of the answer is supply, which I think Europa should model better.)

So that's the challenge to all you NODL lovers. Come up with an instance in WWII with the following characteristics: 1) One side used minimally non-overrunable double lines, i.e. exposed his front line to 7:1, 8:1, or 9:1 attacks; 2) In clear or, at most, woods or rough terrain; and 3) kept the opponent to a 16 mile per fortnight rate of advance for a period of six weeks or more.

39. [9123/92] Mark Pitcavage

Gary, are not non-overrunable double lines equivalent to a defense in depth?

40. [9/23/92] Gary Dickson

For me to prove that there were not barely-NODLs in WWII would require an exhaustive review of every front, for all 5+ years. But you're the one trying to prove the positive- that NODLs not only existed, but dominated in the same way they do in Europa. That should be a much easier proposition, but judging by the examples you gave, perhaps not.

When setting out my three conditions for NODLs, there was one obvious assumption: that someone was attacking! Of course you had lines that did not move for many months, even years. But there were no major offensives! Tell me how that proves the effectiveness of NODLs? That, I believe covers most of your examples, thus nullifying them. In Italy you have the further disqualifier of mountainous terrain. I haven't seen the Europa map of Italy, but isn't the Anzio area surrounded by mountains? And what was the strength of the Allies? Enough to get 7:1s? I doubt it. The rest of your Italian examples are similarly defeated by terrain or the fact that no one is attacking.

On to the Eastern Front: again, in front of Leningrad the terrain is excellent for defense. Second, there were either no really major offensives or the Germans, as the defenders, had larger than 8or 9-point stacks (guesstimating on that). So that's out. As to the Courland, the Soviets simply weren't staging any significant attacks-it was just better to mask it and move on to the real offensives in Poland and Germany.

You do, however, agree with me that Europa does not handle at all the great stretches of inactive front that did exist, particularly in the east. So why rest on a flawed NODL concept, which still doesn't affect that issue? Better to spend our energies on how to create those inactive fronts!

Mark: for the zillionth time, the entire issue here isn't defense in depth at all--it's the gamey practice of sacrificing very weak, but barely non-overrunable lines backed up by barely non-overrunable second lines to hold vastly stronger forces to advances of one hex per turn.

42. [9/23/92] Roy Lane

The NODL question isn't whether they should be allowed, but when. When FitE was first introduced, the NODL was possible in early July by a competent Soviet player. SE moved the Soviet NODL out to late July-early August. With the changes I've suggested the Soviet ability to form a NODL would be pushed out to late August or early September.

After late summer 1942 the Axis is very hard pressed to form a NODL, and depending on how bloody the game was the Soviet may also be in a pinch. The NODL is not a viable tactic in SE for very long because of the high attrition. A game where a NODL is possible from sea to shining sea by both players is not a valid example, because both players are obviously more concerned about avoiding losses than taking ground.

In all the games I've played, the NODL is not a long- term factor because one side or the other simply can't maintain such lines indefinitely. In my opinion, the NODL is not a problem.

44. [9/25/92] Rich Velay

Well, first of all, I don't need to see the Europa maps to know that Anzio isn't surrounded by mountains. Perhaps one clear hex and one swamp hex, along with one or two rough hexes, but no mountains.

[Per the latest Second Front draft maps, the two- hex Anzio enclave ("the largest self-supporting POW camp in Europe") is surrounded by a clear, a wooded-rough, a rough, a mountain, and a canal-intensive hex as one looks clockwise north-to-south. -RG]

And I have no idea whether or not the Germans or the Soviets had 8- or 9-strength points in the line between Leningrad and the Minsk-Moscow highway. But I am also not so sure that they both had only one single line, with all of their strength in the front line. Also I don't know that no attacks occurred over a time period of a year and a half or so.

The point is, we can no more translate all of WW II reality into Europa than we can expect Europa to model all of WW II. You contend both that my examples are spurious and that NODLs are ahistorical; one contention supports the other. But I am still not convinced that there is a problem. I don't see the problem at all, to be honest. Perhaps you simply don't like the method that Europa employs to reduce this certain historical situation to a paper map, perhaps you think it is too gamey.

Regardless, my position is that NODLs work adequately to represent the situation that they seek to represent. Maybe things would be better with variable overruns, reserve movement, flexible unit placement, hidden strengths, etc. To accept any change whatsoever though, we all have to be convinced that there is a demonstrable need for the change. OK, you don't like my defense of NODLs, fine, convince me that not only is my defense out of order, but that the game is as well.

As far as changing the stacking rules, to eliminate NODLs, I don't think that is the way to go. With 4/4/3 stacking, you won't ever find out if it benefits the Soviets at Stalingrad, because the game won't last that long. At least until the Soviets figure out how to make NODLs of 8- and 9-strength points, and then the whole situation starts again; the Reds stop the Nazis in a few areas of the front, the great attack slows down and then we need to find a way to stop the use of NODLs all over again. Sorry, the game works pretty well right now, and I don't see the need to muck about with things that will simply need to be mucked about with again a few months later...

45. [9125/92] Gary Dickson

Ah well, so we've seemingly come back to the ancient debate over playability vs. realism. Since it's a matter of personal taste, everyone is right. I can't convince you, Rich, (or you me) that NODLs are out of order when the argument is phrased in those terms. Enough said.

As I wrote, any increase in stacking would have to be limited and/or counter-balanced. The reason I propose that route (and there's nothing magical about 4-4-3), besides the NODL situation, is that I believe that higher stacking is more realistic. But that's been argued to death in another Topic, so I won't get into it here. But it seems to me that there is a certain threshold beyond which the Soviets at least can use NODLs on a wide basis. (I doubt that the Germans ever have enough units or replacement ability to use NODLs over a wide area). Is it not the situation that they can only just barely maintain NODLs even now? But that may be too dependent on individual game play-people like Roy Lane and Rick Gayler know more about that than I do anyway.

46. [10/05/92] Gary Dickson

Another aspect of NODLs is that they make terrain irrelevant. Since each stack is only minimally non- overrunable (usually around 5 to 7 strength points), it makes not a whit of difference what kind of terrain there is since the attacker can take any hex that is held so weakly in the combat phase.

At least historically the Soviets delayed the Germans at the Luga river line, an obviously strong natural barrier. But a Europa player would be a fool to build his main line on the Luga (so close to Leningrad) when there are so many nice clear and woods hexes to the south-west to form NODLs in. Boy, those Soviets sure were dumb...

47. [10/06/92] Alan Tibbetts

Terrain makes no difference? Bah! You only need half as many points to NODL in a swamp/forest/behind a river (be careful about rivers).

48. [10/06192] Gary Dickson

All right, it makes little difference. The basic thrust is still the same, as you know. It's much more important to hold clear hexes to the west than pull back and use the rivers, etc. to economize on your stacks.

In Closing....

Does the "Problem" defy a solution, or barely merit mention? Since the issue was first raised, my opinion has diverged from my earlier thinking. Any reading of Europa Soviet play strategy and tactics revolves around preventing breakthroughs-but is the cost of preventing a breakthrough by using NODLs too cheap? Readers thoughts on this subject are, as usual, solicited.

From Victor Hauser

After reading all of the above, it occurred to me that the GEnie Contributors seemed to have missed a decisively important consideration--counter density and operational flexibility. I strongly believe that the side that has more counters to work with has an overwhelming advantage in Europa. To me, it is clear why the Soviets smash the Axis in the 1943 scenario. Not only do the Soviets have 1000 more combat factors, but they also have 400 more counters to work with (not counting partisans, and in addition to allowing artillery divisions to advance after combat as well as c1rn NKVD units). And with those 400 extra counters, it's not hard to imagine being able to find places to use them where there simply aren't enough Axis pieces of cardboard to do anything about it.

As an analogy, it's like the Soviets have unlimited breakdowns available for all their numerous corps and armies, while the Axis is forced to operate mainly in "corps- sized" stacks in an attempt to merely survive. And since they don't have enough of these "corps" to even adequately man the front, they have no opportunity to form double lines. Thus, the operationally most competent army in the world finds itself badly outclassed in operational flexibility by the (in comparison) operationally inept Soviets. The Axis is faced with the delightless prospect of either having to try and stand in their single line against the Soviet attritional meatgrinder, or give up territory wholesale in headlong leaps to the rear. (In my experience they usually end up having to suffer the worst effects of both.)

I find it both odd and disturbing that the 1941 Soviets (which, according to Dupuy, had about the same fighting capability relative to the Germans as the Iraqis had against the UN Coalition forces in 1991) are able, in FitE/SE, to not only make their initial deployment so strong as to virtually guarantee that the Axis cannot achieve their historical initial gains, but to also be able to adopt offensive-stopping tactics (i.e., the double line) that will forever be denied to their historically operationally superior opponents-simply because the Axis player doesn't have the cardboard. And this situation is likely to worsen due to ongoing research uncovering dozens of new Soviet units from Soviet archival sources.

The idea of "variable" overrun appeals to me, but I know from actual experimentation that it does slow play a little bit (as well as being somewhat problematic when playing by mail).

So, as an alternative (or in conjunction), I have another idea. Allow attackers (south of the Arctic) that have achieved a DE result, have advanced into the defeated hex, and are now facing defenders (not in fortifications or across major rivers) in clear, rough, or woods terrain to make one additional attack that combat phase against said defenders. The next questions are: how does air support factor into this, and when would such additional attacks be made? I would handle air support as per the current rules, that is, players would have to fly their ground-support and DAS missions during the air phase before knowing the results of any combats. This would require a bit of foresight by the players. As for when the additional attacks would be made, I would say that they would come after all "first-round" combats have been resolved, in a "second round".

In some respects, this "second round" of attacks could be seen as an application of "variable" overrun, except that it is performed in the combat rather than movement phase (and, thus, could replace the concept of variable overrun altogether). If you consider the DE result as a crushing local success, and if you consider the way most variable overrun tables are set up (i.e., calculate odds as for combat, with DE results indicating a successful overrun), then I think you'll see the parallel. Indeed, this "second- round" concept actually applies more uncertainty to the defender's situation than variable overrun since he can no longer use movement points to calculate his "perfect" defenses based on double lines.

It has been argued that such "attacker-favoring" rules would overwhelm the Soviets in FitE/SE. Well, according to Charles Sharp, over 5 million Russians volunteered for combat during the opening stages of the war. If we take 3,000 men per Europa strength point (and 3,000 is probably conservative), then 5 million men will produce about 1,700 strength points above and beyond what was mobilized due to calling up the reserves. Thus, I suggest that perhaps Soviet replacement rates should be increased to more "historical" levels (doubled maybe?) during the early months.

To me, not only would this compensate somewhat for the higher losses the Soviets would suffer at the hands of the Axis, but it would also produce a better "feel." Namely, the Axis smashes army after army that the Soviets throw in front of them, but eventually (or maybe not?!) the combination of additional Soviet reserves, bad weather and terrain, and overextended supply lines would halt the Axis invaders.

That would produce, hopefully, a feeling of exhilerating desperation that I haven't felt for years as the Soviet player. I personally derive no great satisfaction or sense of accomplishment in crushing Axis invasion after Axis invasion in 1941. To quote Darth Vader, it has become "All too easy." I believe that adopting something along the lines I've proposed here would definitely put the challenge back into playing the Soviets as well as providing more "realism".