Larry J. Earhart Jr., via GEnie

First of all, I wanted to let you know that I just recently got around to punching out and sealing the counters from the "902-Balkan Front Counter Sheet 21A". This was a freebie you sent out over a year ago. A large percentage of the counters are separating into two pieces. I experienced this same phenomenon with several FTF counters, but this time it is much more serious, as dozens of counters need to be glued together. Would you please let me know that you are taking steps to prevent this from occurring in future releases?

My readings of several sources concerning the Eastern Front during World War Two lead me to make the following conclusions:

German SS units should have the same ability as Soviet NKVD units to force exchange results instead of retreats. Maybe this should be limited to only units of division size, I'm not sure, but it seems required losses such as those suffered by Armor would also be appropriate if this ability was used.

The excellent command and control advantage the Germans experienced over the Russians throughout almost the entire war does not appear to be represented. The Russians improved their C&C throughout the war but only near the end, when the German forces almost ceased to function, did it exceed the German C&C. How is this accounted for in FitE/SEITU?

When equally-matched opponents play FitE/SEITU, the Germans are simply steamrolled off the board, starting in 1943, even if the German player does not overextend himself and hold onto every piece of real estate like Hitler ordered his army to do. Maybe the Germans would not have beaten the Russians had Hitler not issued his stand-and-die orders, but many believe, including myself, that they would have given a much better account of themselves if they had been allowed to withdraw to the west and fight the Russians on a shorter front under fluid conditions. This does not seem to be a realistic option under the current rules. In conclusion, I would like to thank you for your excellent work and I would like to put my vote in for more "mini-games" as my wife and I are about to move out of our house and into a motorhome for a year or more and space is at a premium.

Gary J. Stagliano, Connecticut

TEM #28 was one of the best issues yet. I would like to comment on this issue from front to back.

I have ordered the counter trays from Sam Racina and they are excellent. The trays fit snugly in the boxes and have plenty of room for the counters of your favorite Europa Game. Sam's service is fast; the box of trays I ordered arrived in a timely fashion and in good condition. At $2.00 each for Association members, it is the steal of the year.

I am glad to hear that A Winter War has sold out of its first printing. I hope the second printing will correct the (very minor) printing errors of the first edition.

I hope the blue mask will be printed like it was originally envisioned with frozen rivers, lakes and seas in light blue and non-frozen river, lakes and open seas in darker blue.

Victor's notes on the Playtesting Spirit really hits the nail on the head. It is a good idea to occasionally step away from it all and remember why you are there. I'm glad to see the EXchange section expanded in this issue. Maybe this could become a year-end treat!

I am also glad to have my nits picked by John Astell concerning A Winter War. Of course John had no small input in the original design. However, I want to reply to a few points he made.

1) I agree with John that the Soviet deployment is too liberal. The original Soviet deployment was quite restrictive, using historical placements (see my Designer's Notes elsewhere in this issue). During the game's development, the Soviet deployment was made less restrictive, using FitE as a guide.

2) The original playtest rules had the 14th Rifle Division tied to garrison duty. The change offered by John makes sense here and I agree.

3) The Soviets were very secretive about the 14th Army and its defenses. It is hard to get complete information about that sector. Until we do, it will be hard to determine who is correct.

4) I disagree with John on "forest fright". I did not like the "panzer scare" rule in Fall qf France either. The Soviets are pretty much road-bound under the present rules. The additional supply restrictions of the Advanced Rules restrict movement by limiting supply lines. This seems close to the classic Europa way of restricting movement.

I have only one real problem with the "Finland Prepared" option. Where was poor Finland to get the money and equipment for all this material expansion of their army? If you do use John's suggestions, let the Soviets act as if there was full Allied intervention.

John's "Early Barbarossa" was quite interesting! I wonder if the free set-up should be used? John's "Commando" article was great fun to read. Are the counters to appear in Second Front? It is nice to see how many people took the time to playtest Second Front. Here are my comments on the rules proposals. I don't like the -2 Row on the CRT. I tried it in the development of A Winter War and it seems too harsh on the attacker. There should be a minimal bad result and the -1 Row seems to simulate that well enough.

I also disagree with the quartering of armor-type units in mountains. It seems to me that attacker and defender are equally road-bound in mountains. Armor already loses its AEC as it is. Air support should be limited not by combat strengths, but by the ability of the attacking or defending units to control the air strikes. This would vary by nationality and timeframe. The Germans would be masters of this tactical technique, while the Western Allies would be good and the Soviets poor at first, but better as the war progresses. Soviet Guards units would have better control than regular Soviet units.

Another factor would be unit size or type. Divisions would have more assets to control air forces than regimental or brigade units. I would limit air support to one air counter per RE for the Germans and one air counter per division Q REs) for the Soviets.

I have been an advocate of "Retreat Through ZOC" for a long time. I would be a little more conservative on who and what units would receive the ability:

• All German C/M units, all German and Italian units with a movement allowance (MA) of 8 or more, all units in SS or LW colors, and (after Apr I 43) all German units.
• All British Empire units with a MA of 8 or more (giving this capacity to home guard and auxiliary units is too much).
• All Swiss units in Switzerland.
• The French were too tied to their WWI philosophy of combat... But if France survives until Jan 1942: all French C/M units.
• All American units with a MA of 8 or more.
• Polish units with a MA of 8 or more.
• Axis Allied units with MA of 8 or more.
• Soviet Guards units only.
• All winterized units in Winter (snow, winter or frost weather).

[This is the second "list" of special cases I've seen for this rules proposal. How many conditions and special cases will this rule have? It looks like more trouble than its worth to me. The original concept was to find a mechanic that did not discourage the 'Jagged" fronts that occurred historically but are less common in Europa (due to the hex grid's influence). I suggest that an "enhanced fortification" rule (maybe similar to that proposed by Mike Faletti in TEM #27) solves the same problem and is simpler to implement.-VAH] The "Italian Surrender" rule looks fine. Good luck for the ongoing development!

Trey Nelson's "Europa East Front" Series is rational and informative. His analysis of unit types, strengths and weaknesses is what Europa is all about. Adding roads to NW Africa is a good idea. Tracks are not really necessary. The Collector's Series maps finally rationalized the Europa transportation net into three classes. Rail, Low Capacity Rail, and Roads. What roads are shown on the map depends on transportation line density. In A Winter War many roads are logging tracks through the wilderness. But because these are the only "roads", they are shown as such on the map. What works for the Arctic wastes of weather zone A should also suffice for the wastelands of the Sahara.

I like the Idea of Europa Demonstration Battles; however, I think that the scenario presented strayed too far from the mainstream to be useful. I do like "Rule 28 F-The Monty Factor". "Rules Court" was informative as usual. There seems to be a lack of questions on A Winter War. Are the rules that good?

The "EXchange" column was especially good this issue. Ian Trout's and Cory Manka's comments on the air system point out the problem in linking ground and defensive air support to ground units' combat strengths.

Jim Snyder overestimates the resources required to computerize Europa. A 286 machine with standard VGA would be enough. A MAC could handle the computations with no problems. Ideally the game would generate IBM files as the units are moved with a graphic interface. These files would be compatible across platforms so even people with a lowly C64 or Apple would be able to participate in the game. These users may have to use the board game for their graphics, but if file compatibility is maintained, all Europa players may be able to participate in computerized Europa.

I just received Vol 1, Number I of Panthers and Pikes. It is an excellent newsletter, and I recommend all Europa gamers get it. I have one question: Pikes? "Pike" was the Soviet nickname for their JS III tank.-VAH]

Ralph Sunley, Western Australia

I have just finished reading Winston Hamilton's somewhat frank assessment of the Games industry. He makes a number of points which I feel deserve further comment.

The first major point he makes is that board gaming seems to be in decline, and that roleplaying was the major event at GenCon. He also mentions that Europa's main demographic slice is the 35-50 year old middle class American professional.

Might I inquire as to the makeup of the persons involved in roleplaying? If Australian trends are any guide, my guess is that they were mainly in the 15-30 age group, students or unemployed. I suppose my point is that board gaming tends to be seen as "an older man's game, for those without sufficient imagination to be a dungeon fighter or space warrior, but instead an armchair general, far removed from the real action". On the other hand, roleplaying is portrayed as a pastime for the young.

What I am trying to say is that Europa and boardgames in general have an image problem. This I feel is largely due to poor marketing. When I go to my local games store, I see no end of posters and glossy brochures extolling the virtues of Battletech, Warhammer 40K, and even good old D-n-D. Conversely, the advertising and promotion of boardgames is conspicuous only by its absence.

Winston says, "Our hobby ... will be diminishing as each year passes", yet professes to want to bring in more people to the system. He rightly states that the Boot Camp rules were ignored, but is this surprising when First to Fight was not marketed as an introductory game, but instead as another installment of the Europa monolith (if at all)?

My view is that Boot Camp rules are an excellent idea, and should be used in association with the excellent scenarios in the magazine to promote the system as the model of versatility, covering every theatre, and every campaign, using either full blown rules, or a streamlined subset.

New players should be drawn by the ability to simulate almost every major action in WW2 in Europe and Africa. For those who prefer an in-depth study of the whole Eastern Front 1941-45, the system caters to them. For those who prefer "beer and pretzels" Oust what is a pretzel, anyway?) battles, short and sharp, they are catered to as well. Young players, not wishing for a giant game should be attracted, and while imagination may play a smaller part than in role playing, isn't playing the role of "Colonel Meinhof", or "Brigadier Biggins-Smythe" just as fun as being "Nalrog the Unspeakably Violent"?

Winston says that interest in WW2 is waning after 50 years. I argue that a good game should stand up on its own, regardless of what period it represents.

As long as it is interesting, then who cares if it simulates Napoleon or Caligula? The fact that Europa (and the rest) are mainly concerned with WW2 should not be a major issue.

With regard to the statement that most Europa players earn $30,000+, I shall be rude and say that if the games were cheaper, then those of us less well off (i.e., younger, with lower incomes) could view them as a short term acquisition, rather than needing a long term savings plan to acquire them. Of course, living in a remote corner of the planet tends to double the price as far as I am concerned, but I'm sure the principle still applies in the US. If you increase profit by making the games a bit cheaper (in conjunction with advertising), well you are ahead.

As part of a positive marketing campaign, I feel it is a mistake not to allow reviews of games. Even if they are unjust in their criticisms, it gives you a chance to reply, answering or discrediting the reviewer if necessary, while emphasizing the positive aspects of the system. Either way, discussion is stimulated and awareness increased. 'Tis a fact of life that you must take the good with the bad, mon ami. I do agree that the press as a whole does need to be persuaded (pushed?) into framing things in a better light than present.

There, that's off my chest. I have absolutely no training in marketing or advertising, but I am sure relatively simple steps could be taken to improve things. I am 21, Australian, and I earn about A$150 a week in a supermarket because I cannot get regular work. But I love boardgames and Europa. I am a seasoned veteran, yet I got into it by buying a game on mail order I knew nothing about (i.e., by accident). Does Europa only wish to attract new players by accident, or should there be a plan? Only the creators and designers can answer.

This letter may need some editing to produce cohesiveness--I never was a good judge of an essay at school. By the way, great idea to sell the Second Coming (Front?) maps separately, but will you then be able to buy the game without the maps?

Steve Grover, via GEnie James Snyder's letter in TEM #28 got me to break down and check out Europa, GEnie style. Upon reviewing the Computer Europa Topic, I find that Mr. Snyder's assessment of progress in this area is essentially correct-much discussion of PBEM, but not much else.

Enough! I would like to see this Topic move beyond PBEM and address Mr. Snyder's very interesting arguments.

I have a few problems with James's suggestions regarding hardware. First, because circumstances dictate that I share the house with five kids and (shudder) two cats, I'm seldom able to dedicate the space and time that Europa requires. If I'm ever going to get to play this thing the way I'd like to, it has got to be on the computer. Second, the computer that I've got (and am likely to keep for the foreseeable future) is a 286. I don't know how many folks are going to scrap their WordPerfect- and Lotus- adequate machines so that they can play Europa. I can't afford to, so my Computer Europa is designed for 286 (and up) DOS PCs.

Yes, I said Computer Europa. The system is well under construction (DBMS, user interface, and mapping system are essentially complete) and I hope to have it playable in 1993. Non-map graphics and unit management are presently in the works. James is absolutely correct in his remarks concerning the development of standards; I spent two years working this stuff out before I began writing real code. I would be interested in receiving input in the standards department, not so much regarding basic architecture (which is pretty much set) as portability which, due to my admittedly parochial approach to this project, I have addressed only in the most general terms. I apologize for dismissing James's second issue (portability) so quickly, but I am in many regards working in a vacuum here.

What really got me to post this message, though, was his third issue (content). I am seconding his challenge "to dare to dream". If you've got a brainstorm about how Europa can be represented or perhaps enhanced by a computer implementation, sound off here (or in the EXchange column of TEM).

The implementation need not propagate the deficiencies inherent in a paper and cardboard version. Admittedly, the graphics cannot be as good as in the boxed game (although they can still be very good), but we can compensate for that failing by introducing ease of play and other enhancements. So, let's put on the thinking caps and brew up some ideas, and then make them happen. But if we sit around wondering about whether it can be done, it won't be. Computer Front Now!

John R. Taylor, Virginia

TEM #26 and #27 were excellent. I just finished a tension-filled game of Objective Sweden. The game came down to the last attack on Malmo on Sep II 43. The Germans had a 3:1 (+0) attack and needed anything but a 2 (NE) to win. You guessed it, they rolled a 2. Game over, but a very exciting game at that.

Keep up the good work. I do have a question though. Since the Collector Series maps are major revisions of the old maps, but do not need to wait for rules, counters, and OBs, why not produce all of the new maps and sell them separately? This would allow us to use them with the old rules, counters, and OBs. It would enhance the East Front especially to be able to use the new maps.

I, like everyone else, eagerly await Second Front and all Europa scenarios. [There is only one John Astell. And since he must review each new map hex-by-hex before publication, I believe that there would be howls of protest if he were to stop work on Second Front, or whatever game he was working on at the time, to do all the Europa maps at once. I hope you won't be too disappointed in having to wait for the new maps one game at a time.-VAH]