"EXchange" is one of the departments I read first, and enjoy the most, each issue. Keep your letters and comments rolling in!

Rich Velay (#29)

and others have raised cries of anguish over the shoddy treatment of the Ist Luftlande Sturm Regiment (Ist Air Landing Assault Regiment) of the Luftwaffe. Sturm contained three parachute battalions and one glider battalion; it rates out at a hefty 3-5. It never seemed right that this unit should be treated exactly as a parachute regiment, so I made it a glider regiment in Balkan Front. Well, OK, I admit that's not quite right either. The solution is to break Sturm into its para and glider components: Change 1x 3-5 Air Lndg III 1st (LW) to:

1x 2-5 Para III 1st (LW)
1x 1-5 Air Lndg II 1/1st (LW)

Arvi Snall (#29)

Asks why the rules come in booklets, rather than in loose-leaf fashion. Loose-leaf would allow you to put them into binders or albums, and allow substitute pages to be issued and easily incorporated. That's how GDW did it for a while when they first published Europa, and GRD looked this over when we began publishing Europa games. Despite the utility of this in theory, in practice I note that no substitute pages were ever issued when the rules were printed loose-leaf.

Also, each game has its own blend of rules, and the master rules set will have to be specially written, and not just plucked from existing rules sets. Finally, despite the appearance of being low-quality (and thus cheap), loose-leaf format is actually more expensive to produce than booklet form. (All that collating of separate pages is a major hassle.) Thus, GDW adopted (and GRD continued) the booklet format as a way to help keep the cost of the game down without sacrificing anything important.

Larry Earbart (#30)

Notes that the counters on freebie sheet 21 A tend to come apart and have to be glued together. He asks what steps we are taking to prevent this from occurring again. Our first step was to stop using that particular vendor for Europa counters.

Our second step was to figure out what was causing the problem. It appears, at least in part, that recycled cardboard and environmentally "green" glue were at fault. These materials, at present, aren't up to the quality of more traditional materials. Our third step was to ensure that we got high-quality counters in subsequent releases. A Winter War, for example, has top-rate counters.

Larry also states his opinion that some German SS units should have no-retreat effects similar to Soviet NKVD units. The historical case for this is actually very mixed. Despite propaganda claims of various German sources, Waffen SS units only occasionally offered fanatical resistance, perhaps little more so than other units. At times, SS units were among the first, not the last, to abandon a position, sometimes without orders. The superior abilities of some SS units can be traced directly to the fact that they were better equipped and supplied than German Army units, and the game system shows this directly in the combat ratings.

Larry also asks how command and control advantages are reflected in the game, particular the superior German C/C in comparison to the Soviets. The answer is that this is reflected in combat strengths, movement ratings, and various rules:

• Combat Strengths: Unit-by-unit, German combat strengths outstrip Soviet ones. When you break this down to man-to-man, the Germans greatly outrate the Soviets. Too bad the Soviets have greatly more men.
• Movement Ratings: When examining vehicle quality only, Soviet combat/motorized units would qualify for 10-MP allowances, just like the Germans. When you factor in C/C and other effects, it drops to 8 MPs.
• Rules: German forces get advantages in the rules that the Soviets never get, such as lower ZOC costs for c/m units.

Gary Stagliano (#30)

Asks where would Finland get the money for my "Finland Prepared" option. This is a good question, as Finland had very limited financial resources. I point out, however, that the pre-war preparations, while expensive, were far less than what Finland actually spent to fight two wars. Had the Finns decided a stronger peacetime build-up was needed, they could have increased taxation, used deficit spending, and diverted some social spending to defense. This does not solve all the problems, as restructuring the internal economy doesn't generate additional hard currency to pay for imported military equipment, but I think the problem wasn't insurmountable.

Gary, among others, advocates that air support (ground support and defensive support) should be based on the ability of units to control air strikes, and not just on raw combat strength. There's something to be said for this, but it's not outright superior to the current system and it'll be more complicated to play. If you really want to try it out, here's a very rough chart of how it'd work:

Force	Time Period	Supporting Air Units	Limit?
Western Allies	Sep I 39-Dec II 40	1 per 2 ground REs	none?
Western Allies	Jan I 41 -Jun II 43	1 per ground RE	none?
Western Allies	Jul I 43-May I 45	1 per ground RE	none
All German	Sep I 39-May I 45	1 per ground RE	none?
All Soviet	Sep I 39-Jun II 43	1 per 3 ground REs	3 air units
All Soviet	Jul I 43-May I 45	1 per 2 ground REs	none?
All others	Sep I 39-May I 45	1 per 2 ground REs	none

This is entirely untested, and I have no idea how well or poorly it'll work in practice. Charles Sharp would probably argue that an overall limit for the Soviets would be needed. Maybe-and the "limit" column incorporates this idea.

Inside Europa You Ask, I Answer

Questions and Answers
Victory in Europa
Mountain Units and Operational Flexibility
Grand Europa Economics
Partisans
Finland
HX: Exchange Commentary
Army Group North Operations
Leningrad 1941 Tournament Cancelled
Overrun-Proof Lines