Association member Joe Czerwinski of New York shares a favorite partisan trick with us:

"Here's a slick trick to use when using SE optional rule 40 (partisans). Often players plan their attacks so that the defeat of one partisan force and the subsequent advance after combat will surround another group of partisans with APZOCs. When the first group of partisans consists solely of one or more dummies, remove them prior to the actual announcement of the combat. (Dummies may be removed at any time, per Rule 40B2.)

Having thus denied your opponent an advance after combat, your other group of partisans may escape the trap and be able to retreat.

This seems a little slimy to me-- why should a unit that attacks be able to move one hex further than one that doesn't, especially when the dummies may have prevented enemy units from entering that hex during the movement phase? While the displacement rule unofficially added by Gayler and Hauser in TEM #30 lessens the impact of this trick (and indeed, the impact of this trick is probably close to negligible anyway), it still retains its legality."

Yeah, this trick sounds okay to me. Mr. Czerwinski then goes on to add:

"Getting back to the point about advancing after combat, there seems to be a logical flaw in the idea that a unit that moves its full movement allowance and attacks may 'gain', in effect, from 1 to 6 MPs or more (allowing for terrain and ZOC costs involved in the advance), whereas a unit that does not attack cannot exceed its movement allowance.

Although this inconsistency is a part of virtually every wargame that I can think of, can anyone explain why this should be so?"

The phenomenon described by Mr. Czerwinski has been challenged before.

Readers of ETO will fondly remember it as the Popofsky Maneuver. This is a wargame mechanic whereby a player "defends" a hex by leaving it empty! Suppose the closest enemy unit can only move adjacent to a hex. If you place your units in it, the enemy can attack the hex and possibly advance after combat, gaining position (and extra MPs) as described above. However, if the hex is left unoccupied, the enemy can't attack it, which can often prove frustrating.

The "solution" to the problem advocated by Mark Popofsky was to allow units to "attack" empty hexes, and advance after combat into them if desired. The best analysis of this quirk, and some possible methods for addressing it in Europa, appeared in the article "The Popofsky Maneuver" by Paul Smith in ETO # 31.

There are many aberrations of time and space in wargames, and Europa has its share. Consider these two cases:

1. A c/m unit moves from Minsk (1B:3611) in clear weather as follows: 3711 (1 MP), 3810 (1 MP), 3910 (1 MP), and 3909 (2 MPs).

2. A unit can admin move in clear weather through the following owned hexes as follows: Start in 1B:2609, move to 2608, 2708, 2807, 2806, 2706, and 2605. Each hex costs 1/2 MP.

Note that the road movement rate is used when a unit enters a non-clear hex so long as a road crosses the hexside through which the unit enters. One might argue that the cost to enter hex 3910 in case 1 should be 6 MPs instead of 1 MP, since the unit is not "moving in hexes directly connected to one another by the line" when it exits hex 3910, but rather is "cutting through the swamp."

Well, both movements are correct as shown. As Rule 7 states, movement costs are determined by the costs to enter hexes and cross hexsides.

But again, one might ask why does it work this way, as there is the problem of reversibility. The same c/m unit that in case I spent 5 MPs to move from 3611 to 3909 must spend 9 MPs to retrace its steps over the same ground! This is true because there is no road connecting 3909 and 3910, and so the c/m unit must spend 6 MPs to move from 3909 to 3910.

And in case 2, the unit could not even retrace its route using admin movement due to the woods hex in 2806. What gives?

I put this matter up to John Astell some years ago, and he responded thusly:

"Well, I can make some rather implausible rationalizations as to why it should be that way (can you?), but I'll resist the impulse. In essence, the lack of reversibility is an artifact of how certain types of wargames (not just Europa) judge terrain and movement. Although it's an artifact, I don't find it a significant problem, certainly not worth putting the rules through contortions to correct."

The fact that the Popofsky Maneuver has never been addressed by any official Europa rules is undoubtedly due to a similar line of reasoning.

Rules Court

The Battle for Kiev, 1943 Scenario
Other Europa Topics
Popofsky Partisans