M & M Enterprises verged on collapse. Milo cursed himself hourly for his monumental greed and stupidity in purchasing the entire Egyptian cotton crop, but a contract was a contract and had to be honored, and one night, after a sumptuous evening meal, all Milo's fighters and bombers took off, joined in formation directly overhead and began dropping bombs on the group. He had landed another contract with the Germans, this time to bomb his own outfit. Milo's planes separated in a well- co-ordinated attack and bombed the fuel stocks and the ordnance dump, the repair hangars and the B-25 bombers resting on the lollipop-shaped hardstands at the field. His crews spared the landing strip and the mess halls so that they could land safely when their work was done and enjoy a hot snack before retiring. They bombed with their landing lights on, since no one was shooting back. They bombed all four squadrons, the officers' club and the Group Headquarters building.

-- Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Unless your opponent has made an economic deal with you to bomb your own airfields, it is safe to say there are three problems with the rules on bombing airbases or the air units stationed there.

First, Ernie Wheeler opined in ETO #29 that - attempting to destroy the enemy's air force on the ground does not seem to be a very good use of air assets." Ken Kettering, in ETO #33, wrote that "airbase bombing is largely a waste of time under the present rule." Most recently, Deen Wood expressed this same sentiment in ETO #35. This would indicate that many players find these particular missions too weak to bother flying.

Second, as was alluded to in "Deus ex Machina," what does a bomber do when its mission is to bomb an enemy fighter on the ground but the fighter intercepts, leaving no target for the bomber? There is no rule for switching bombing missions.

Third, the idea of bombing air units on the ground separately from the airbases's capacity is much too fine a distinction for a tactical game, let alone a grandoperational game like Europa to make. The rule for bombing air units on the ground has been with Europa a long time, but the rule for bombing airbase capacity first appeared in Their Finest Hour (if I'm not mistaken). This probably explains why there ever came to be the two separate missions.

These are three very different problems: a subjective feeling that bombing air units on the ground is poor investment for the effort; a rules oversight; and a separation of events too minute for Europa's scale, if indeed the events are separable at all. Nonetheless, it is possible to solve all three by merging Scorched Earth rule 20.F.2.a, bombing air units, with 20.F.2.b, bombing airbases. Substitute the following for those two rules:

Airbases. Air units may bomb enemy owned airbases. A fighter has its tactical bombing strength increased by 1 when flying this mission. For example, a fighter with a tactical bombing strength of 0 would have a strength of 1. Consult the bombing table for each bombing attack. Each hit achieved upon the airbase decreases the capacity of the airbase by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and eliminates one air unit based in that hex (chosen at random).

This solution is not only shorter than the two existing rules but it solves all three problems. It makes a bombing attack about the equivalent of a partisan attack, which seems quite in line. Note that SE rule 33.C, Partisan Attacks, and optional rule 40.B.1, Partisan Units, should also be changed to reflect that a successful partisan attack on an airbase affects both the airbase's capacity and an air unit sitting there. Digressing further, partisans should not have a choice of what air unit is destroyed in an attack. I'm sure any plane was feast enough for them as long as they got out alive. Note that the Allied Raiding Forces in the desert choose their air unit target at random.

Perhaps not all Europa players feel that the mission for bombing air units is an ineffective one. In this case, such players can still use the above blended rule with this modification: Each hit on an airbase decreases its capacity by 1 and renders one air unit based there inoperative, or if already inoperative destroys it. This could result in 0 capacity airbases full of inoperative air units, though. Admittedly, certain damage to an aircraft, such as a cockpit hit, might destroy a aircraft in the air but only put it out of commission on the ground. Nevertheless, I believe the inoperative option is not strong enough.

For example, pit a typical German fighter, the Me109F (6F6 1/8), against a typical Russian bomber, the II-2 (3A4 3/8). In aerial combat, the fighter has a 10/36 chance of destroying the bomber and an 11/36 chance of rendering ft inoperative. If this same fighter strafed this same bomber on the ground, however, it would have only a 12/36 chance of a hit. Or consider two Hurri 1s (5F5 0/8) strafing a Ju87B (2D3 4-1/9). Again, there is a 12/36 chance of a hit (with both Hurri units attacking together). But in the air, each Hurri will kill the Ju87 on a 6/36 chance and abort it on a 9/36 chance, with all that a second abort implies.

So the question is, should that one base hit destroy the air unit on the ground or merely render it inoperative? Given that partisans destroy air units on the ground, and given the above comparisons between the chances for aerial combat hits vs. airbase hits, it would seem that each hit on an airbase should destroy one air unit there. (Note that this is somewhat weakened since the affected air unit must be chosen at random.) Therefore, changing this rule will not only consolidate two rules into one but also give more teeth to the airbase bombing mission.

Letter to Editor: Reaction (EUR4)