I recently got interested in "The Great NODL Debate" and dug out all the pro and con arguments on the topic in recent magazines-there's an ample amount. I'm no expert on the Eastern Front, but I want to put my two cents in. The debate seems to rage between the Reformers, who think that the Soviet NODL ability is the critical flaw on Europa's Eastern Front, and the Conservatives, who basically say there's just no problem. John Astell seems to do the best job of advancing the Conservative cause, as put forth in TEM #31.

John says the complaint is not about NODLs, but about Overrun Proof Lines, or OPLs. Reading all the other debate, I don't think that is correct. Nobody has a problem with an Overrun Proof Line. I think that generally, most lines in Europa are and should be proof against overruns.

The Reformers' complaint is that the Soviets are able to form two adjacent OPLs (hence, a NODL) and slow the Axis rate of advance to one hex per turn. The Reformers state emphatically that the Soviet reinforcement/replacement rate is sufficient to sustain this tactic over long periods of time.

Only one argument is really valid against the claims of the Reformers. 'Mat is that the NODL tactic results in huge losses for the Soviets, thus making the NODL unsustainable except for short periods. Various other arguments don't really hold up, including:

"NODLs reward defense in depth." No, they reward the ability to add up to 7 (or 8, or 9, etc.).

"NODLs reward optimal play." That's the problem. To borrow some terms from optimization theory, NODLs are optimization at a well-defined boundary condition, which is no great mental feat, especially for those with the inclination to play Europa.

"It all averages out in the end." I think that if most Europa players wanted a game that all averaged out in the end, they would play chess. I for one, want the results to average out to something historically plausible every turn or two.

"Rules lawyers will just find other loopholes to exploit." That line of logic says, "I won't fix my leaky roof because it might start leaking somewhere else next year."

Overrun rules are in games (not just Europa) to condense the time scale in a sequentially structured sequence of play. They discourage the tactic of spreading out small, expendable units in superefficient delaying actions. By super-efficient, I mean in Europa terms, that a 1-6 AA battalion can't be allowed to stop a panzer corps for two weeks. Slow it down, yes, but not stop it. In effect, overruns allow multiple combats in a turn, because not all combats lasted two weeks in real life. The problem arises when the Soviets are able to field such force levels that their concept of small, expendable units rises to several dozen stacks of 7 strength points each per turn (the number increases later in the war). This is above the capability of Axis overruns, and the overrun check on delaying actions ceases to function.

If this situation continues for a long time, Europa quite simply falls apart as a simulation. All the interacting subsystems such as supply, fortification, airfield construction, and AEC lose any real significance, since they are totally subordinated to the 1-hex per turn advance against a regenerating NODL. It even distorts the air system: the only air activity of much interest becomes interdicting a particular portion of the line in the hopes of creating a sector that can't be reNODLed (now there is a word).

The question still comes down to this: Are NODLs viable given the losses that can be inflicted on the Soviet front line? Some people think they are; others, including John Astell, think they are not. I don't play the Eastern Front enough to know. I do know that I couldn't get excited about playing Scorched Earth from either the Soviet or German side if NODLs are the optimal tactic under the current rules.

If the Reformers are correct and Soviet NODLs (forget about OPLs) are sustainable for long periods against competent German play, then they definitely should be "fixed." (I'm avoiding discussing solutions, since the jury is still out on this point.) If the Conservatives are correct and NODLs really aren't sustainable, then will somebody please instruct the Axis players facing NODLs how to devastate them enough to make NODLs Tactically Unacceptable Behavior and let's get on with Europa.