Raymond Cheatham, Missouri

I was turned on to Europa games years ago. My friends have the complete line. I decided to start purchasing your Collector Series games, and two weeks ago I bought First to Fight. Oh Boy, Grand Europa orders of battle. At last! Grand Europa cannot come too soon.

However, when I went to set up the game I found I couldn't, because the set-up hexes mentioned do not even exist on my new maps. The rules booklet states to use map 37, but the set-up hexes mention maps 13A, 16B, and 1C. What gives? I am concerned that your fine company doesn't go the "Avalon Hill route" with Grand Europa as "they" did with Advanced Squad Leader, which we refuse to buy or even attempt to play. You might want to cover this issue in your magazine.

Indeed I do, so everyone will understand how Grand Europa will evolve from the Collectors Series games.

Map 37 was designed specifically for First to Fight. The Polish Campaign game is played using this map, as stated in the rules and OBs. The Europa orders of battle, however, anticipate the day when all the revised maps will be available. When the complete maps are laid out, map 37 will not be used, as the area it covers falls over several maps.

Map 13A in First to Fight is one of the Grand Europa maps, replacing map 13 from. Case White.

Map 16A, now available in Second Front, replaces map 16 from Fall of France. When FoF is revised, there will be a map 16B. It will be the same as map 16A, except for corrections required per the SF errata. Since it will be necessary to have the revised FoF game to play a September 1939 Grand Europa campaign, FtF references the eventual FoF map 16B.

Map 1C will be the eventual revision of map 1B from. Fire in the East. In the meantime, if you own Fire in the East, you could use map 1B in lieu of map 1c (although a little common-sense tinkering would be required, since the old maps and new maps do not match up perfectly).

I am very sensitive to your remark about the 'Avalon Hill route" since I, like you, also abandoned Squad Leader and refused to buy or play ASL. I try to second-guess every decision we make in this light. Anyway, when all the games are reissued as Collector Series editions, the Grand Europa OB in FtF will work just fine. In the meantime, players must exercise a fittle imagination and spunk to undertake Grand Europa exercises. --Rick

Michael Erwin, Virginia

I will not start this letter by claiming that I started my involvement with the Europa system with a brand-new copy of DNO in 1973. I was born in 1979. In December 1990, dissatisfied with my Dad's old copy of first edition War in the East, I bought new copies of Fire in the East and the special reprint of Scorched Earth. About the maps: they have certainly improved since those in the used copy of first edition Narvik that I twice tried to play (the game got knocked over both times).

I don't see what the problem is with the GE production system. The SPI production system in War in Europe coupled with the Scorched Earth replacement system would probably do just fine. Each turn resource points would appear in Ploesti, Baku, Lake Balaton, Narvik, Maikop, locations in the Middle East, and anywhere else you want.

Supermarina II seems too complex and unplayable. Why not develop a naval system that would simply expand on the SE naval system, using mechanics much like those in the air system? Shore batteries could be handled like ships with zero movement. I'm working on such a system myself, but simulating combat has proven a problem so far.

German mountain divisions should have no HQs.

The news that you are working on a World War I game, The Great War, has raised my hopes for games on the wars between the wars. One of my favorite topics is the Russian Civil War, but there are few realistic games on the subject. I have pulled together some Red Order of Battle data, but this information is hard to come by.

John M. Bannerman, Scotland

I am writing to you to ask a few questions, and, also to make a few observations on Europa in general. My first point is one which I am sure most of the Europa community wants answering: when will Second Front be released (if at all)? The main reason I have asked this is the persistent assurances (dating back to 1990) that this monster was "out soon." It would appear that you have had major problems, either with the size of the game, or with the technical aspects arising from the need to simulate the Western campaign.

Second Front took longer than anticipated due to the size of the game and the technical aspects of simulating the Western campaign---but it is finally finished! --Rick

My second point concerns mountains (Re: "Fire on the Mountain" in TEM #29). I have found that the attacker (when given substantive air support such as that found in the West) can almost always gain good odds (3:1 or 4:1), thus either forcing the defenders back, or getting a positive exchange of forces. It would seem logical, therefore, to divide air support factors by 2 for the attacking player. My basis for this comment is deduced from reading on WW2, and also from reports of the present situation facing UN air power in Bosnia. This reduction of air power removes the need for complex CRT modifiers for light units such as Mountain, Light Infantry, or Cavalry units in other restrictive terrain types.

Well, you are right on target-- Ground Support is halved in the new Second Front terrain effects chart. --Rick

Thirdly, I remember an article in TEM #25 or thereabouts suggesting the use of Sea Zones to control naval combat and movement. Unfortunately, I have not heard more of this system-something I would like to learn more of, as I enjoyed having the Supermarina units within WD, although I felt that the system was very cumbersome with 7 segments per play turn... WD suddenly felt more like FitE/SE!

There is a lot going on with the Europa naval system these days. Of primary interest is the Second Front naval system. Supermarina also continues to evolve; see the "Water Rats' article in this issue. And there is yet another naval system ready to make its debut next issue: a detailed set of naval rules for A Winter War. We'll keep whacking away at it until everyone agrees that we have it right. --Rick

My final question is related to the air system, particularly the use of strategic air power in the West during the 1944 campaign. I strongly believe that the Allies should be provided with a fairly large number of counters (be they individual units, or, say "Wing Units" representing a large number of bombers) that may be used to bomb transport nodes, and provide carpet bombing in combat. This I feel is important because both the US 8th AF and British Bomber Command were used almost solely in these roles during April to June of 1944.

Geez, are you psychic? This is exactly how the designer eventually decided to model the strategic wings! --Rick

Brian Adams, Newfoundland

Greetings from the Far Eastern Theatre!

Although I think that Europa is a fundamentally sound system, I do question one feature of the supply system, namely the determination of supply status at the beginning of each player turn. I think that in many cases this artificially favours the offense over the defence. Allow me to elaborate a little.

Player A, in his turn, carries out a successful breakthrough that pockets a substantial number of player B's units. Player B, in his turn, attempts to break out of the encirclement, but having no substantial reserves in this sector of the front, is forced to rely principally on the units inside the pocket. Because player B is required to check for supply at the beginning of his player turn, however, all these units are now out of supply, and consequently can only attack at half strength. Furthermore, since any c/m units in the pocket also have their movement allowance halved, player B will have some difficulty maneuvering his units into advantageous attack positions. Consequently, any breakout attempt is handicapped from the start.

The problem with this, at least as I see it, is that because the alternating player turn sequence is simply an abstraction of simultaneous events, determining supply at the beginning of each player turn gives the phasing player an opportunity to make a move that his opponent may not be able to adequately counter.

In some situations this may be OK. For example, I can see this as a meaningful part of the standard Europa surprise turn, wherein it represents Italian lack of preparedness to fight in the desert, or the collapse of Soviet logistics following the initial shock of Operation Barbarossa. However, let's not forget the numerous examples of situations where quickthinking, quick-acting commanders were able to extricate their armies and avert disaster by reacting immediately to the enemy threat. I'm thinking particularly of some of the "moving pocket" battles in the East in the latter part of the war. While I must qualify my observations by saying that I've never actually played the East Front games, it does seem to me that it would be difficult to replicate these feats as the rules are currently written.

As far as I can recall from my pre-Europa gaming experience (Avalon Hill and early SPI circa late '60s, early '70's), some recognition was given to this problem by having both players determine the supply status of their units simultaneously in some sort of a shared initial phase. This would not be a real solution to the effect I've described above, however, as this would simply give the initiative to the player who moves first, and, unless he really blows it, allow him to keep it for the rest of the game.

My suggestion would be to have each player determine the supply status of his units for two consecutive player turns at the beginning of the other player's turn. Then each player would have one player turn to respond to the enemy threat. Quick thinking and reaction would mean the difference between isolation and destruction and living to fight another day. Paulus may yet be able to link up with von Manstein! On the other hand, if Paulus insists on sitting tight and waiting for von Manstein to come to him, after his first player turn supply effects will kick in, units' combat capabilities will be impaired, and yet once again history will repeat itself.

I'm sure that with all the knowledge, expertise, and sheer brain power that's been invested in the Europa system, somebody smarter than me has already considered all of this and decided that the way the system works is the way it should work. Just the same, I'd be interested in having the Design & Development department respond to these comments and share the rationale underlying the current system.

John Astell obviously agreed that the system needed some adjustment an this point, because he changed the rate in Second Front. A unit now does not have its attack strength halved on the first turn out of supply unless it is also isolated This cleans up a lot of the 'ant' problems, but isn't as strong a treatment as what you propose.

Don't forget that on the Eastern Front the German player can "burn a truck" to put his surrounded panzer forces in supply and effect a breakout, if he has exercised reasonab1e caution by placing his tracks in positions to accomplish this. In the latter stages of the war this becomes a trucks primary mission: it is good for little else. --Rick

Moving on, this may not be a big deal to the overall scheme of things, but I've always wondered why Panzer divisions break down into their constituent regiments rather than into Kampfgruppen in the same way that American armoured divisions break down into combat commands. While the American divisional breakdowns accurately reflect the way these divisions actually fought, it seems to me from what I've been reading that the acknowledged masters at the use of ad hoc combined arms battle groups were the Germans, and the units and men of the Panzerwaffe in particular.

Apart from general considerations, it seems to me that the current representation of the panzer divisions by regimental breakdowns gives rise to some anomalies. If, for example, we consider the 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions in Western Desert and Torch, two divisions that I believe were in reality frequently deployed in mixed battle groups, we find that when breaking down using current regimental breakdowns, the defensive capability of these two divisions is reduced by a third. This doesn't seem to square with what I've read of the historical combat performance of these units. Although I've never actually played either of the East Front games, I imagine these observations would be equally pertinent in that context as well.

Consequently, wouldn't it be more accurate to have the panzer divisions break down into preassigned Kampfgruppen rather than regiments?

The biggest problem I see with this proposal is the number of counters involved. Using a 9-10 panzer XX as an example, what size Kampfgruppen would it breakdown into? A 5-10 and 4-10? Three 3-10s? A 5-10 and two 2-10s? Nine 1-10s? Any of the above? Would you be content to limit the number of Kampfgruppen breakdowns to the countermix included in the game? I like the idea, though. --Rick

John Berger, Hawaii

I read with interest several letters in TEM #34 that discussed from different angles the question of how closely Europa should lock a gamer into an exact duplication of history.

One issue within that general topic is the degree to which political considerations caused real-life leaders of various nations to do things that are absolutely idiotic from a gamer's perspective. "Mussolini attacks Greece in the Fall" is only one of many. One might ask why Il Duce didn't enter the war by invading Malta after first deploying all available submarines and special attack units against Gibraltar and Alexandria. Or, why Hitler gambled on invading Russia in 1941 while still at war with England and in an undeclared war with the United States.

On a related issue, Jason Long notes in "Counterbattery" that the Germans couldn't have introduced the Me 262 in early 1944 because the engines weren't ready. However, if Hitler hadn't ordered a moratorium on long-range R&D in 1940, it's possible that they might have been. Or, if Willi Messerschmitt had been less politically-connected and Ernst Heinkel more so, that the HeS 11 engine might have been adopted instead.

For that matter, if Wever had survived that air crash in 1936, it's possible the He 100 and He 280 might have been selected over the Bf 109 and Me 262.

These variables in no way negate the validity of Mr. Long's observation for the purpose of duplicating historical reality, nor do I disagree with him. However, I would suggest that in our study of history and enjoyment of Europa all possibilities should be open for discussion and implementation as alternative rules and scenarios if only for the purpose of considering how narrowly some battles were decided.

I'll close by noting that it would seem to be warping the spirit of the thing a bit to allow players to make strategic decisions on the basis of information that was not available to the historical decisionmakers in the event.

Nelson Isada, Virginia

I would like to thank you for your acknowledgment of my contribution to the development of Sudden Storm. To be associated with the cover story and main article in issue #35 is very exciting stuff. I am on faculty at a large medical school, where publishing co-authorship and acknowledgments are key aspects of daily professional life, so you can see how a public statement would prove very gratifying to someone like myself.

Once again, thank you for remembering my inquiry, and more importantly, acting on it. I would be very happy in testing "antless" 1942 and 1943 scenarios for FitE/SE/TU, and look forward to future developments.

The German Names of the Wehrkreise
Wehrkreis I Nordost
Wehrkreis II Ostsee
Wehrkreis III Spree
Wehrkreis IV Elbe
Wehrkreis V Sudwest
Wehrkreis VI West
Wehrkreis VII Sud
Wehrkreis VIII Sudost
Wehrkreis IX Fulda-Werra
Wehrkreis X Nordsee
Wehrkreis XI Mitte
Wehrkreis XII Rhein-Westmark
Wehrkreis XIII Main
Wehrkreis XVII Donau
Wehrkreis XVIII Alpenland
Wehrkreis XX Weichsel
Wehrkreis XXI Warthe
Wehrkreis BM Bohmen-Mahren
Source: Atlas de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, Larousse
(French edition of The Time Atlas of the Second World War)

Arnaud Delatmay, France

Bonjour!

I have played Europa for three years, since the time I bought Fire in the East. Now I own all the Collector Series games and nearly all the Europa magazines. I want to express to you my admiration for the quality and professionalism of your work.

I would, however, like to share a few thoughts with you. I think the Europa system simulates the conflict of WWII perfectly, except in one area, which has been neglected since the beginning and which is, I believe, basic in the context of 1940s warfare. This is the area of unlimited knowledge of enemy troop dispositions. In a game of FitE/SE/TU for example, the German team knows exactly what is in each hex of the Urals MD. Likewise, the Soviet team knows exactly where all the German panzer divisions are.

And in Second Front the Allied team will know the exact status of the German coastal defenses in France, and the Axis team will know the weakest hex of the Allied deployment in order to strike it in the 1944 winter counteroffensive. See what I mean? Every gamer is blessed with complete military clairvoyance ...

The inclusion of an intelligence rule may dictate the use of a referee, but think of the exciting sensations of the fog or war. I want to know if an intelligence rule is planned? Indeed, First to Fight contains air units with an S-(for Scout?) prefix...

I hope the Collector Series edition of The Fall of France will be done very quickly. I am glad to hear that you will be changing the title, it's the only game in the series that indicates right at the start the defeat of one of the sides involved, and I am a little embarrassed by this. My proposal for a new title is "Flames of Resistance" (Les flammes de la risistance). These words are derived from the call that General de Gaulle broadcast on the BBC on June 18, 1940 for the pursuit of the fight against the Nazis. I think this title would be a perfect reflection of the Bataille de France: "Resistance", because in the face of Rommel's and Guderian's panzers, the French Army cannot do anything other than resist, and "Flames" because the French daily casualties in 1940 greatly exceeded the French daily casualties in 1916-17. And up to the last minute of the battle, the spirit of fighting was always present in the minds of the French soldiers.

Finally, I have found in my personal library the names the Germans gave to their Wehrkreise. Here is that information:

Let me give a brief expose on the Europa "name-game."

Once upon a time the wargaming community took great pleasure in lambasting GDW for the "Germanic bent' of the names for its Europa games. Most early titles deserved this rap: Drang nach Osten, Unentschieden, Marita-Merkur, Case White, and, yes, The Fall of France.

Less fairly, this criticism persisted into the fate 80s: some claimed that "Fire in the East " was pro-German because only from the German perspective (that is, the west) could one see a fire in the east.

When GR/D acquired the rights to Europa, Winston Hamilton and John Astell pledged to head off claims that the company was showing bias towards any particular side in its game titles. Thus, great pains are taken to select titles describing the game subjects in neutral fashion. To date GRID has chosen Balkan Front, First to Fight, A Winter War, and Second Front.

Unfortunately, your title may not fit this criteria for neutrality. Since the French are the ones resisting the German onslaught, using "Flames of Resistance" could be construed as taking a pro-French perspective.

Still, it is a great title. We are not so fastidious when selecting titles for magazine scenarios -- maybe one of our scenario designers can utilize "Flames of Resistance" somewhere down the road.

Bob Pryce, Australia

Hello from Coober Pedy, South Australia.

When I am playing FitE/SE/Urals I listen to Al Stewart's "Roads to Moscow," a 9-minute epic about the German invasion of the USSR. When I'm doing First to Fight I play his "Last Day of June 1934." Both of these songs are off the 1974 album, "Past, Present & Future," which featured the moderately known hit, "Nostradamus."

Chris Riches, United Kingdom

A big vote of thanks to all your staff and support groups for producing an excellent product. I can't abide the moaners who forget that if you didn't operate as a business we wouldn't have any more games to enjoy.

Frank Watson, Virginia

I was quite interested in Charles Sharp's point regarding the Soviet aluminum industry at Tihkvin, perhaps because I work in an aluminum company. Alas, I think Tihkvin should ultimately rate only as a source of generic "metal" just like iron ore mines. Charles says that without aluminum we wouldn't have Yak-9s, La-7s, and Tu-3s. I think you would. They would just be built with available materials. Could Comrades Yakovlev and Lavochkin not come up with similar designs using steel? Maybe some ratings would be one point lower, but does it matter that much?

I think the amount of training pilots were getting would have a much greater effect on Europa level outcomes than the alloy of some structural components. If you try to apply the logic everywhere, what if the British have plenty of aluminum because the Germans decide to forfeit the Battle of the Atlantic. Couldn't you have aluminum (excuse me, aluminium) deHavilland Mosquitoes instead of wooden ones? What would they be like? In any case, I do think that aluminum Yak-9s would get better gas mileage and be easier to deposit at your local recycling center.

I've recently had a chance to catch up on some intended projects like actually playing A Winter War and Battle of Kiev for the first time. My compliments to Gary for an excellent game and to Flavio for an excellent scenario. We need more East Front scenarios like Kiev. I particularly like the way both use HQ units to show Soviet command problems.

The use of Soviet Corps and Army headquarters in this way makes me wonder if Allied or Axis Army HQ and Soviet Front HQ might be the ticket to easily (OK, nothing's easy) incorporate some concepts traditionally missing from Europa, such as reserves, limited strategic intelligence, offensives, and an overall better treatment of logistics. I think most of the following has appeared in ETO, or "Bro Rules," or even TEM-at least it seems vaguely familiar. I probably just like it better now that I'm thinking of it. My thoughts run something like this.

Assign strategic reserves, within limits, to an Army (or Soviet Front) HQ, but physically place the reserve units off map on a display. In this way, strategic surprises such as the Stalingrad counteroffensive and the Battle of the Bulge might actually work, creating a realistic feeling of "Where did all these guys come from?". There could be limited movement from one HQ to another and possibly some easily simulated intelligence capability. This might be something as simple as, "OK, I get an intelligence capability of 2 this turn, so what do you have in your Ist Panzer Army and 17th Army Boxes?"

Assign the capability for an "offensive" to Anny HQ. This capability is some kind of increased attack effectiveness for a short period of time (only 1 or 2 turns) for units within a certain range of the HQ. It takes at least a couple of turns to effectively assign this "offensive point" to the HQ (in the same manner as planning an airborne or amphibious assault). Meanwhile, HQ movement is restricted or prohibited during the assignment process, and until the "offensive" is over. If the HQ moves before the offensive is launched, the offensive point goes back into the "pot."

The offensive point itself represents concentrations of attack-oriented supplies. The time lag represents planning and organizational effort. This might go a long way toward simulating some of the "lunge and stop" offensives characterizing the latter part of the war. It might also provide a consistent rationalization of "surprise turns" across the entire war.

This might be similar to Jim Arnold's "Offensives" and "Major Effort" proposals in TEM #28. Using Army HQ, we wouldn't need supply counters to make the concept workable. The scarcity of offensive points would limit these "official" offensives. There are a lot of possibilities as to what might comprise increased offensive capability. Could it (and I hesitate in even mentioning the subject) even help with the NODL controversy?

Here's another potential way to look at an HQ/offensive combo: Have a lot more offensive points available than you would in the concept above, but these offensive points must be assigned just to let units attack at full strength. This might help recreate the long periods of inactivity that characterized some fronts in the war.

Lots of people seem to take passing shots at the Europa logistical system, but no one seems to offer any improvement ideas. (Has Eric Pierce ever submitted his system he alluded to in TEM #28?). Maybe these "offensive points" would be an abstract way of elevating the effect of logistics without a lot of clutter. It would also avoid fooling around too much with the general supply rules, which most people seem to think work okay.

One last thing-I think I would enjoy an 8-page article on a really good alternative CRT, at least more than some of the really long OB stuff.

Eric indeed sent in his supply rules in early 1993, along with a considerable amount of additional material some of it related to his "Great War" project. In fact, he submitted several manuscripts to Winston, Victor, and myself. They all eventually ended up intermingled in a thick folder in my file cabinet. Shame on me, I haven't taken the time to sort it all out with Eric and determine the fastest version. This is particularly inexcusible in light of the, fact that Eric was available in person at the fast two Europafests.

Maybe this would be a good job for my new Assistant Editor, along with figuring out how to handle that 8-page article. What do you think Frank? - Rick