Chris Buffington, Texas

It was interesting to read the review of the ORIGINS convention in TEM #32. I attended and unfortunately I have to agree with the diagnosis of the good doctor, Rick Gayler. The interest in wargaming is declining sharply.

While at ORIGINS, I had the extreme good fortune to meet a fellow wargamer and game designer, Eric Pierce. Some of you may have noticed Eric's name mentioned in TEM #32. Eric has created what I consider to be an excellent companion game to Europa, titled The Great War 1914-1918. As we discussed our impressions of the ORIGINS convention, he told me about The Great War. I started to ask questions about the game, and the answers excited me! It was, as the name implies, a re-creation of World War I on Europa scale.

My enthusiasm got the better of me, and I asked Eric if he had his game with him at the convention. He did, and we agreed to play. Now, before I hear any moaning about trench warfare, let me set you straight! The game (we played the 1914 German invasion of France) plays very well and is exciting on top of that. I requested to be the French player, due to my lack of experience with the game. My thought was that it is easier to defend in this sort of situation than it is to attack.

Eric displayed the true daring of any good German player, and tried to sweep through Belgium too quickly, before it was mopped up. The Belgium Army, to his dismay, attacked at unfavorable odds instead of retreating. I received my only good die roll of the entire game and promptly eliminated his strike force. In retrospect, this was probably the only way I could have held out against the Germans, not due to French weaknesses, but rather to my failure to properly employ the French forces. Eric, despite his losses, was undeterred. He proceeded in a race against time to capture Paris before the autumn rains began.

I also had the misfortune of having to contain the German advance on two fronts. In addition to the German sweep across Belgium, the Germans managed another breakthrough where France, Germany, and Switzerland connect. Holding back this front tied up sorely needed French troops. This lack of manpower was felt as the French line was stretched like a rubber band from the North Sea at Ostende, Belgium to two hexes east of Paris, back toward Metz. A strange front line, I agree, and frustrating to both players.

Eric has developed some innovative rules that make this game a real winner. One that I particularly like shows how you can be drawn into a battle that you don't want to fight in an area where you don't wish to be engaged. It parallels history's huge bloodbaths of the era. It's not unlike a good poker hand, where you feel you can't give up because you've invested too much money in the outcome.

The game also provides such interesting "chrome" features as Zeppelin bombing and siege artillery (it's deadly!). Other rules allow for interesting "what if" situations such as invasion of Holland, sea warfare (Jutland revisited?), and amphibious invasions. I believe Eric has plans to cover the Western Front, Eastern Front, Southern Front, and Middle East.

In summary, all I can say is that in all my years of wargaming, I've never thought that World War I would be very interesting. This game definitely forces me to re-examine that opinion! Besides, any Europa game where the German player can invade Russia and knock her out of the war, has to capture attention. Sign me up for a first edition copy!

James Broshot, Missouri

I just got issue #32 and I think it is the best one in quite some time. I am glad to see Jack Radey is still around. I hadn't read anything by him in a while and was wondering what had happened to him.

His stuff is always interesting (when he confines himself to military history, even Soviet military history... Sorry, Jack!).

I particularly enjoyed the "Battle for Kiev" articles. As to the 25th Panzer Division, I will have to translate the appropriate section from my copy of Rolf Stoves' Die 22 Panzer-Division, 25 Panzer-Division, 27. Panzer-Division und die 233 Reserve-Panzer-Division to see what it says about heroic and/or cowardly Generalleutnant Schell. I note that Stoves describes him as being "schwer erkrankten" ("pretty sick") when he was relieved by Generalmajor Hans Kroger 11/20/43. Bender's Panzertruppe says he gave up command on 11/14/43.

Suffice it to say, I think everybody agrees that 25th Panzer Division, fresh from France, did not do well at Kiev and was pretty much destroyed and had to be completely rebuilt.

I think that the Kiev scenario is good because it can be played with a minimum of special rules. I like the Soviet command and control rule, and think it has applications for Scorched Earth. I didn't bother with the earlier Alamein scenario, on the other hand, because of all the extra rules and modifications.

A parting nit-pick. If Brandenburgers get separate counters for all their battalions and detachments, how come the British commandos do not, and are shown in brigade strength, long before any Commando brigades were formed? Keep up the good work.

Michael Lintner, South Carolina

Say what?! Maybe I didn't read that correctly (TEM # 21, p.11 "deployment notes").

Let's see... "The sixth set up approximates historical Soviet troop locations on June 22, 1941. In game terms it is simply an awful (and illegal) deployment." Yep, I read it correctly. Did anyone bother to tell Uncle Joe (Stalin)?! This is an outrage! How could Uncle Joe have gotten away with this illegal deployment?! Why, if I were Adolf, I would have written the Rules Court pronto on this one. And, after 52 years, am I the first to challenge this blatant disregard for the rules?

The ludicrous remarks don't end here. The very next sentence reads, "A Soviet player with even a modicum of experience would not set up in this way."

Well, that is correct given that presently the Soviet player has so much flexibility in his deployment. However, an Italian/Axis player with even a modicum of experience would not attack Greece on Nov I 40 (the last clear weather turn in zone D) overmatched in manpower, and with no hope of defeating the Greeks, not to mention, no hope of supplying his troops through the winter, should they make successful gains on that one turn. No one had a problem creating an entire game based on the fallible strategy of Papa Benito. Indeed it's a pretty good game, and a very fair representation of the campaign.

Perhaps the Soviet lobbyists were too powerful during the development of this game. Or, perhaps, the designer is a Soviet sympathizer. Seriously, there must be a problem with the allowable Soviet initial deployments as outlined in FitE/SE for one to be unable to "legally" and exactly reproduce the Soviet deployment of June 22, 1941. [For a thorough explanation of why John Astell felt that requiring exact placements for the Soviet border units was a poor way to simulate the German invasion, see TEM #11, Inside Europa, pg. 8). -RMG]

Currently, the Soviet player has far too much flexibility in his deployment parameters. Coupled with the knowledge of where and at what strength the enemy must deploy, this leads to consistently ahistorical results. In short, Stalin didn't have a copy of the Axis OB, nor did he have the luxury of "playing" Barbarossa dozens of times. If the Italian/Axis player is forced to live with "simply awful" mistakes, why not apply the same philosophy to the Soviet player as well? About now I suspect Soviet players (especially the so-called "strategists") are quite upset at this analysis.

After all, all they have to do to win FitE/SE is deploy one long NODL on the Jun II 41 turn, run like hell for three turns, set up another NODL, wait a year, and then pound the ever-loving snot out of their opponent for the rest of the game. Victory for them is sealed on turn one, when they limit German advances to meager proportions.

Victory for them is never earned by better play than their German counterparts, just carefully calculated. These opponents are "Wannabee Strategists," relying more on skill with the calculator than skill as players. And they are rewarded, no less, by such commentary as that which prompted me to write this letter.

I personally enjoy wargames that create tension, win or lose. If I lose, I want it to be because of the incredible move(s) that my desperate opponent made to counter my own desperation. And if I win because I have exploited the weaknesses of my opponents' deployments and play, it is an exhilarating and self-satisfying experience. I do not want to win or lose because of some mechanism or false advantage which pre-exists at the start of play.

Invariably, a game designer has the power to predestine the outcome of his oame. If he uses this power, he fails to create a game of competition. He also fails to inspire repetition of play. In contemplating winning and losing, I recall that some of my most satisfying experiences with wargaming have been when the contest ended in victory for neither side. Usually, in those games both players came close to total victory at some point in the game. This set the stage for the real fun--the hours of debate and speculation over what each of us thought the other should have done to seal the victory: the "I thought you should have done this," and the "You're right ... I snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with that move."

Turning to the Axis set up, my studies of this campaign lead me to believe that the initial Axis deployment is incorrect. I will, for simplicity, express my considerations in "game terms." Based on my studies, I think that 3rd Panzer Group should deploy from hex 3023 to 3221, and that 9th Army should deploy from hex 3223 to 3627.

This all depends, of course, on the premise that we are seeking a historical deployment. But I present you this case: Since we obviously have 'not confined the Soviet player to a historical set up, why should we be compelled to confine the Axis player to one? I advocate "free deployment" within reason for the Axis. After all, any Axis player, given a choice, would not deploy the 3rd Panzer Group in rows 3000 and 3 100 and deploy mere infantry in row 3200, would he? I sure as hell wouldn't. And maybe I don't want to strike at Leningrad, Moscow and Kiev/Rostov in the first year. Maybe I prefer only two main axes of attack, or for that matter, only one axis. Likewise, after due reconnaissance, maybe I don't want Mr. Guderian rambling through the mud pits of the marshes, only to be befuddled by a mere four infantry divisions and a partially formed mech corps. No self-respecting German with even a modicum of experience would allow that to happen, now would he? [Just such after-deploymnent option as you suggest was featured way back in TEM #5. -RMG]

I notice front the new map that there is now a road from Mogilev to hex 4711. At least now, if I have Heinz traipse through the mud, he can repeat his emergence from the swamp in historical fashion. Wilno has moved to the correct side of the river, etc. Hopefully, the new maps for Russia will help make the game it little more competitive. Map 37 appears to at least be making that attempt.

Finally, I hope this letter serves some purpose to improve the game. FitE/SE needs some serious revision/rethinking before it hits the shelves in its Collector Series edition. Otherwise I, for one, would not spend any money on it.

[I wrote the commentary in issue #21. As editor, I wanted to make sure the deployments conformed to the rules as written, and the stciff spent much time checking their validity. My remarks may sound silly when cast in the context you have portrayed them, but I felt that something had to be said about a Soviet deployment that (for example) situated a 4-2-8 Art X alone in hex IB.-2518.

The deployment rules will definitely be revised for the Collector Series reissue of FitE/SE; in fact, the design-development teahi is working even now to make them acclurate and competitive.for both sides. For John Astell's latest position on this subject, see TEM #31, Inside Europa, pgs. 8-9. -RMG]

Gordon Wilkinson, Ontario

I have just received TEM #28 and have found that I simply must comment on several items.

My first reaction upon reading of a second printing of A Winter War was a confused mixture of surprise, relief and annoyance. I am happy for GRD that sales were good enough to warrant a second printing, especially since I have not been able to get a copy of the game.

Like Kevin Harris, I have found that the local retailers cannot get copies of your games. TEM does get onto the shelves (albeit quite late) showing that your material does exist in the distribution system. I am a member of the Association and could order my copy direct, but for reasons akin to GRD's policy of not selling directly to retailers, I prefer to support my local hobby store owner, not a distributor who also happens to run the Europa Association. -

[Wrong! Winston Hamilton is not a distributor. He is a game manufacturer, who (like most game manufacturers) sells his products through distributors. If your local store can get our magazines, it can get our games, unless the owner waits until his distributor is sold out to order. (Yes, he probably buys most of his wares from a distributor, who you support whenever you make a purchase at your local hobby store!) -RMG]

On another note, I take exception to the attitude of Mr. Tonks. A moment's thought would show that GRD, like many other companies in North America, is effected by the recession and, like any other company, cannot afford to go without income while they perfect the ultimate product. I question Mr. Tonks' knowledge of the game production path.

While not associated with any game company, I have (over almost 20 years of wargaming) become aware of the basic steps a game goes through before it hits the shelves. I know that the design team does not sit huddled over a game for months and then suddenly emerge with the finished product. Instead, there are discrete steps involving (usually) different people who, once they have finished their contribution, move on to other projects. Yes, they have to be available for feedback questions, but in terms of overall time requirements, they have done their bit. Thus the designer hands his rough draft over to the developer who polishes off any rough edges and gives it to graphics who makes playtest components. Then the developer gets feedback from playtesters. He checks with the designer and works playtest suggestions into the product and so on.

It is obvious that having several projects in the pipeline at different stages of completion is not a squandering of resources, but rather a productive use of people.

Thank you for taking the time to hear me out (so to speak) and I hope I will see A Winter War on local shelves soon.

James Steel, England

Having read the letters and articles in TEM #29, I am somewhat puzzled. Several problems were discussed: NODLs, victory conditions, politics, and a few others. I am not sure that you and your readers are not looking at the problems in the wrong way.

Inactive Fronts: In the Europa On-line section of TEM #29, mention was made by Gary Dickson that Europa does not recreate the large inactive sections of frontage that characterized the Eastern Front during certain times. It occurs to ine that solving this problem might also solve the too efficient Russian meat-grinder of 1943 onwards and place more historic limitations on the German forces throughout the war. I believe that there is a single reason why these inactive fronts do not occur, and a simple solution. I apologize if you have already thought of this solution and discounted it, or if you have already devised a simpler and more elegant way round the problem. If you have opted for a much more complicated, time consuming, and logistically accurate solution, then you have my sympathy.

The root of the problem is this: There is no such thing as unlimited supply! In the real world, armies will stockpile ammunition and other supplies for months before an offensive. It takes time to manufacture such supplies, and armies must decide whether to expend them piecemeal in attempting to cause attrition, or save them in order to pack a real offensive punch. Mimicking this restriction will lead to a more reasonable use of forces in Grand Europa and maybe to less arbitrary victory conditions in individual games.

The importance of the campaign in Yugoslavia may be more that it used up essential war materials for Barbarossa than that it took a small part of the army to achieve victory. VPs might be better based on the amount of "ammo" used than time taken. In a similar way FoF might benefit, forcing the German player to try for a quick victory before the French "Bataille Conduit" can bog them down into a new trench war. Use of such a system would discourage the "Runaway Defence" so common to FitE/SE games and avoid the runaway offences common to some WWII grand strategic games (where Germany routinely attacks everything it can as soon as possible, running over minor country after minor country).

Better than that, the restriction on "ammo" is for the most part an operational restriction. It doesn't need politics or some form of more abstract rules to explain.

Best of all is the fact that you already have most of the mechanics for such a system in Europa.

Imagine a single table each for the German and Russian player in FitE/SE labeled "Ammo Points" or "Attack Supply." (I shall henceforth refer to APs.)

It might have four or five counters labeled 1's, 10's, 100's etc. German industry will produce a certain number of APs each turn which are added to the current German total.

Each AP would support 1 RE attacking anywhere within the German rail supply net (but not overseas or through air supply). Units might attack at full strength without such an expenditure (unless supplied from a supply unit as in WitD), but would then suffer the same penalties as U-2 status units, and be so marked. Removing the U-2 markers would cost one AP for each RE so resupplied. However, a unit's status would never rise above U-2 so long as it was in General Supply. In addition, one AP would have to be expended to use the full defensive strength of several (I don't know how many, either two or three) REs of units without their also acquiring U-2 statius as above.

APs would also be used when creating supply counters for transport by air or sea. This is, of course, a simplification.

Ammo is not all that hard to move about, so I propose not bothering to represent its movement. If you have to put it in forward supply depots, then allow it to be bombed. Deliberately failing to use arnmo for the defence while there is some available somewhere might give it additional -1 modifier for the attack.

Overruns, with their vastly superior forces, would need no AP's to perform. and DE results (walkovers) might also yield back some APs to the attacker, in that, obviously enough, less ammo will he used. It should he very easy to keep such an AP running total.

[Sounds like a bookkeeping nightmare: I think I can safely say that John Astell will NEVER go for anything this intense.

Nonetheless, there are aspects of your idea that I like. How about a simplified approach that more closely inirrors the WitD treatment? I would recommend that units defend with their full defense strength and abilities so long as in regular supply.

Issue attack supply points (ASPs) per a preestablished schedule as vou propose, with some provision for gaining or losing ASPs based on specific game events (e.g., capture or loss of Baku).

Upon expenditure of one ASP, all units in a given combat attack tit their regular strength, modified as norinal. If an ASP is not expended for an attack, all attacking units are halved as a result, in addition to any other normal modifications.

I fully realize that this is a gross simplification, but counting REs as is done in WitD doesn't seem to be a feasible approach for FitE/SE. (And there are also the precedents of trucks and resource points in the Arctic, where burning one supplies or allows to attack anywhere from one to an infinite number of REs.) This system would serve to restrict offensives to 'major efforts,' while creating the effect of inactive fronts. --RMG]

The existence of this rule might also mean that the offence could be allowed some more leeway without becoming ahistorical. Fronts should move fast and then grind to a hall, running out of steam as the ammo dries up (or continuing the offence to the bitter end and risking terrible and debilitating counterattacks). Beefing up the offence might deal partially with the NODLs I see so much of (more on this later).

Europa Politics: It has always seemed to me that political matters are very badly treated in the hobby. In games from TAHGC's Origins of WWII to ADG's Days of Decision, I have seen a little diplomacy but precious little actual politics. Europa's problems are unique, as the game is attempting to create a level of detail which makes such politicalconditions vital. In my opinion, there are two possible grand views on which "political" decisions might be based, and it all comes down to a single question.

As (for example) the player in charge of Germany, are you playing Hitler or High Command?

If you are playing Hitler then all decisions are yours. You can decide who to invade, and where and when, but your victory conditions must be similar to Hitler's also. Non-player nations may react according, to some mechanistic set upon, but you should be able to apply diplomatic pressures to try to win them over. You should also be aware of public opinion in Germany, and your standing among the generals. It may well be (in team play) that your generals have a different set of objectives, and maybe even victory point conditions.

The attempt on Hitler's life in July 1944 might occur in a team game as part of' the political game, when and if the Generals decide to try it. If it should fail, then the Generals involved might suffer a considerable victory point penalty (to simulate the real ones being shot--a real cramp on one's career prospects).

Remember also that Hitler's objectives were not very nice. Diverting some of your industrial production and war materials to exterminating captive populations would undoubtedly gain any "Hitler" player victory points, and reasonable players may well find this objectionable.

Similarly, as "Mussolini," failing to invade Greece would involve considerable loss of face. Your dreams of a Mediterranean Empire would be in tatters. Egypt, to the Italian player, is a side-show, and should be reflected as such in victory conditions in Grand Europa.

"Stalin" has considerable military/diplomatic problems before the "Great Patriotic War," and the political difficulties of attacking Germany before Germany attacks you cannot be understated. Would five and a half million volunteers appear for a war which Stalin started? I think not. Soviet morale in such a war, especially if the Germans seemed to be winning, might force peace or even lead to political problems for Stalin at home.

"Churchill/Chamberlain" might lose VPs and diplomatic clout for failing to honor promises to the Greeks, and will have different war aims than "Eisenhower," who will be somewhat concerned with avoiding pointless American casualties while Controlling the conduct of the war in the west.

The other way to play Politics, the "ignore politics, let's get on with the fighting" way, opens up some interesting possibilities. In such a case, I would favour an abstract system of "Political Objectives" to interfere with players' freedom of action. Players might attempt to influence Grand Strategy, but would not control it. If a country becomes more successful, its military objectives may well become more outrageous.

The old SPI game Drive on Stalingrad gave the German player such political restrictions, and is worth looking at. It is a fascinating game. A system of' "Hitler Directives," "Churchill Orders," "Stalin Objectives," etc. would abstractly control Grand Strategy and occasionally interfere with operational decisions. Western Allied players would always be able to look at Axis objectives (since we could read their Enigma messages).

In team play the "Objectives" system might lead to the team leader of one side being summarily replaced if not enough "progress" has been made. Being told that you have to invade Greece in Autumn 1940 by Mussolini, despite military sense, will reflect the realities of commanding that army, and never mind that it starves your North African campaign of supplies. Winning with Italy in North Africa may not be as valuable to the Italian cause as trying to win and failing in Greece.

If Hitler decides to invade Russia in 1941 then as head of the Wehrmacht you're not going to argue. You got Smolensk'? Now get Moskva, Rostov and Voronezh, Stalingrad, and by next week, too! In a team game such objectives might even lead to deliberate stalling by junior team members trying to get their superiors' jobs. Intrigue between team players on the same side will become important.

Politics indeed!

Okay, So you probably wouldn't go that far. It's an interesting thought though. I quite like the idea that you might be simulating holding an actual position in the Axis or Allied armies, with all the Politics that that might involve. Patton, please step forward!

On the "Problem" of NODLs: I would like to propose a possible solution to the NODL problem which does not involve any ahistorical "double use" of armoured units' attack factors. Try this as an optional rule: C/m units adjacent to, but not participating in, attacks in which the defender is eliminated (maybe only on a DE result) may then participate in the advance after combat and immediately perform their own attack.

This second attack may only, include c/m units in the new hex that have not yet attacked and must occur before any other combat. The ability to perform this maneuver might be given to various nations' units in a similar way to the ability of c/m units to retreat into friendly-held enemy ZOCs. Use of such a rule leads to a much more satisfying blitzkrieg combat-big attacks on little fronts. It might even keep Gary Dickson happy, since the front line will have to be that little bit tougher. Wek-,ome back all you Guderian wannabees. NODLs are still possible, but would have to be deeper and have their antitank weapons on the second row, a much more satisfying simulation of defence in depth. Against such a weakened front line a normal frontal attack a la WWI would have devastating effect (but would use up a lot of ammo).

And Finally: Living in London, England I have to get TEM from a specialist game shop in the centre of town. How does one join the Europa Association from overseas? If that isn't possible, how can one order goods direct? If you wish to publish any part of this letter (unlikely, I know) then please feel free to translate it into American English.

[Actually I tried to preserve as much o~ the flavour of your letter as possible; the diverse following of the Europa system is one of its most intriguing aspects.

GRD in Grinnell, Iowa does not accept foreign memberships in the Europa Association; rather you should join the UK Association at the address shown on page one of this issue. You may order products and back issues direct from GRD USA if you are willing to pay the rather high postage rates for delivery to England. Due to varying (progressively more expensive) methods of shipping from the USA to the UK, it will require some correspondence to request and obtain quotes for your desired method of delivery. Alternately, you can call GRD long distance and obtain pricing for your order over the phone. However, you may be able to obtain what you wish directly from the UK Europa Association, and we recommend you try therefirst. -RMG]

Lindsey Murillo, Pennsylvania

I couldn't help but smile when I read the recent article on Aberdeen. It certainly conveyed some of that "kid in a candy store" wonderment felt by any 20th Century warfare buff who visits there for the first time. I felt the same way when I first went there back in 1986, and I've had a collage of photos of German AFV's adorning my office wall ever since.

One thing the article did not tell your readers was the detailed information contained on the plaques accompanying many of the AFV's. In some cases, they tell you where it was manufactured, the battle in which it was knocked out or captured, and how and when it arrived at Aberdeen.

[This is because, according to Winston, the plaques you make reference to have been removed. -RMG]

When you consider the thousands of gamers who have trekked through Baltimore on their annual pilgrimage to Origins or Atlanticon over the years, it is amazing that no one has ever came up with the idea of a bus trip to Aberdeen prior to this. My only comment on this is to suggest that you take that idea to the GEMCO people, or whoever manages the convention, so that it can be part of the general program, and not just open to Europa-philes and readers of TEM. Tell everyone to take their cameras! If Aberdeen is a somewhat well-kept secret, you might want to let your readers in on an even better-kept one, since you are in an endorsing frame of mind.

Veterans of the Battle of the Bulge

There is an organization operating out of Arlington, Virginia called the Veterans of the Battle of the Bulge, or VBOB for short. Associate members dues are $15 per year. For your money, you get a 36-page quarterly newsletter called the Bulge Bugle. To a real WWII enthusiast, it's packed with great stuff! Here are some of the things you get in each issue:

• About one-third to one-half of the pages are firsthand accounts of personal experiences sent in by GI's who were in the battle. These aren't literary masterpieces, and towns are sometimes misspelled, but forget about divisions and arrows on maps; this is what they felt, saw, and heard from their foxholes and tank turrets.
• A "find an old buddy" system.
• Lists of dozens of unit reunions around the country, where you can meet and talk to veterans.
• VBOB has a historical monument foundation program.
• Videos for sale.
• Books for sale; VBOB is also publishing its own book, a compendium of personal experiences like those described above, with "then and now" photos.
• Info on how you can spend a weekend in a preserved WWII barracks at Fort Indiantown Gap, and watch over 1000 reenactors simulate Battle of the Bulge actions, complete with vehicles, AFV's, etc.
• Travel info on battlefield tours.
• Never-before published photographs from personal collections.
• Veteran's rights issues, and more.

VBOB is dedicated to preserving the heritage and the monuments to America's greatest battle of World War II. My father was in the battle, and it is sobering to think that the last of these men will have passed into history by the time I live out my life. Thus, VBOB deserves the support of anyone who wishes to ensure that as much information as possible about the battle is recorded and documented for all time, before it is too late. And, considering the dues, it's cheap at the price. VBOB can be contacted at:

Veterans of the Battle of the Bulge
P.O. Box 11129
Arlington, VA 22210-2129

With Second Front hitting the stores, there would be no more appropriate time to endorse, or at least inform your readers of this organization. I've been an associate member for five years, and I wholeheartedly support VBOB.