Europa's realism and playability depend on how well the rules reflect the wargamers' taste for combat simulation. One reason for committing the enormous amount of time necessary for competent play is the challenge of playing well over the course of an entire game. FitE/SE requires a complete mastery of the rules in order to obtain strategic objectives against an equally skilled opponent. Otherwise, stalemate will rule each game. The sheer volume of counters and terrain features versus the competence level of each player insures variations from game to game.

Mastering the rules will take an average player several campaigns to accomplish. However, completion of each game isn't a prerequisite to game mastery, nor is mastering the rules a guarantee. Sounds a little contradictory? Well, after mastering the "rules as written" your level of gaming leaves the rule book and enters into the abstract. Your game plan begins developing in your mind without being bound by the set of rules. Instead the objectives become long range. A German player well versed in the rules but who hasn't grasped the strategic framework of the game can be led into easy avenues for his panzers to blitz, thereby leading his troops all over the board pursuing tactical objectives that turn out to take more time than originally thought.

Mastering the Europa system requires years of playing the game as written and accepting the evolution of the overall system. Reading about pet peeves that each player has and their idea of how the rule should be changed bothers me. The reasons for criticism are many, yet in the long run it may undermine the quality of the system as a whole. Officially sanctioned rules can be abused, making the rule seem illogical. However, the rule itself should not undergo several fluctuations simply to serve against the abusive player. When players continually spend energy devising new twists to the rules, a standard to compete with becomes harder to achieve, and the continuity among EPA members becomes fragile due to fractional divisions on how the rules should be interpreted. Usually the local expert on history will intimidate opponents by interpreting history his way and how the rule should read. The end result is a system that no longer evolves gracefully with logical progressions. Instead the system is subjected to the whims of the more vocal.

The community as a whole will not benefit from the expenditure of energy in a direction that undermines the foundation. Without law there is anarchyl The community of Europa gamers, and the continued growth of the EPA, will depend on the membership. A base from which to build is necessary in order to refine the ability of players to communicate using the same language. Editorial content will be a major factor toward growth. OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED RULES ARE THE FOUNDATION FROM WHICH EUROPA EVOLVES. Officially sanctioned rules set the reference whereby all games are measured. Not so much in how the victory points are assessed but in how each player fairs in each campaign.

A closing suggestion is necessary in order to call the above constructive criticism. The focus of the individual and the participation of GDW could be to adopt an Officially Sanctioned Advisory Ruling. Or the EPA membership could vote quarterly on a Semiofficial Optional Ruling, giving GDW the lion's share of voting percentage. The quality of home brew rules would increase because of the desire of each individual to be correct in their assessment of historical interpretation. And there would be the pleasure of trying out a rule that has had at least a consensus of opinion. Trying out a home brew rule on a game that requires enormous amounts of time to set up and play can lead to gross examples of historical simulation and a waste of time. The reasons for not using brand new brews are because of added complexity, error on the part of the brewer, or even the game designers' intention for the rule as it relates to the system as a whole. Making an Officially Sanctioned Advisory Ruling classification will help serve the continuity of the system.

Spoiling

Now would be the best time to mention a few published people complaining of "rules lawyers" spoiling the game using certain tactics. Reference was made to "Ants vs. Ants" and "Slime in the Ukraine" as being the tactical variation that destroyed the game at hand by bringing the entire game down to one die roll. A letter in ETO (#33) stated that after a 1-10 AA unit severed Leningrad's supply line for two turns by virtue of the Russian rolling an unlucky DR, he called the game. HE CALLED THE GAME!!

Gentlemen, you simply do not surrender the game because of the seizure of one city's supply status. Under FitE rules the Soviet player was able to keep Odessa and almost Kiev supplied until the cost was higher than the strategic value of the city. So don't tell me the game system is at fault because you had to call the ball game.

FitE/SE takes years to complete; the more time left for planning the more intense and fascinating the play. The loss of Moscow isn't even fatal to the Soviet after late summer '42. The scope of the game is extremely complex and unpredictable, making tactical setbacks nailbiting episodes until the front has been stabilized. Any player who suffers strategic failure early in the game has generally made quite a few tactical screwups. Naturally the novice will state that the game is at fault.

I have played DNO/UNT and now FitE/SE since 1974 and have always stuck out a game unless completely hopeless. And surprisingly enough many a game with initial disasters has been turned around several years later in game time. People, this game encompasses a very long war between two nations who fought a bitter struggle of mutual destruction. A tactical or strategic setback early in the game will not seriously change the outcome between equal opponents.

I do agree with the principle of your arguments. GDW must surely benefit from constructive criticism. After all, the system has continually evolved and will continue to do so. However, a game quit so early can hardly be the fault of the rules. Besides, the Russian river flotilla's ability to transport supply would have been of use to a more experienced player. [The fellow said it was his first game of FitE.] EPA members, be wary of the enormous amount of time setting up and starting a game to have it finished because you make the mistake of taking advantage of a good opportunity.

GDW has provided wargamers with a system that recreates with cardboard and ink a war of long ago. Many a war ago men fought in the frozen steppes of Mother Russia for vodka and Fatherland.

Rather than continually trying to change the system, let's build more of the ethereal and abstract into the game. EPA can be the beginning of a structure for multiteam/ multicounry diplomacy-style wargaming on a Grand Europa level. It can't happen if we aren't playing by the same set of rules. We as an association can take the basic package offered to us by the folks in Normal and raise the level of enjoyment beyond that available in a single face-to-face game. So if you all agree with everything I've said, then I'll be the Fuehrer!

Letter to Editor: Response (#4)