From the vigorous discussions taking place in EXchange, from discussions taking place between Europa players, and from comments players make during games, it is clear that quite a number of us are having some doubts about certain important aspects of Europa. Consider:

• An increasing chorus of complaints that it is virtually impossible to duplicate history, no matter what you do, in FitE/SE.
• An awareness that you simply cannot accurately simulate the 1940 Norwegian or 1940-42 North African campaigns without considerable modifications to "standard" Europa rules.
• A realization that the Polish campaign of 1939, which actually took the equivalent of two Europa turns, in fact can stretch into many months in the game.

I could go on, but the point is this: Europa is a magnificent piece of historical order of battle research and terrain mapping, it has led the way in depicting operational- level air combat and armor effects, but it has several profound flaws in terms of simulating what occurred in World War II.

I firmly believe that, if left uncorrected, the cumulative effect of Europa's "problems" will be that Grand Europa will be a gross distortion of WWII in Europe. I am certainly not an advocate of the idea that a wargame must duplicate history, but since many of us play wargames to explore historical "what ifs," the game should capture the essence of the era it is simulating, at the level appropriate for the game (operational -level in Europa's case).

In many respects, Europa does this, but in several ways it creates a simulation that profoundly distorts what happened in WWII. For those of you that remember SPI's old War in Europe, you may understand when I say that despite the simplicity and blandness of WiE, in some ways it did a better job of simulating WWII in Europe than does the Europa system. This is, I feel, a great shame, because Europa is so much more colorful and interesting a game, with much, much better order of battle work and other features.

First let me review what I think are Europa's main problems. I will then, like any responsible critic should, offer some solutions for the consideration of GR/D and the general Europa readership.

Europa's Problems

1. The biggest problem with Europa is the gross distortion caused by the two-week turn.

Given the movement rates of units, campaigns move much too slowly. In Europa terms, the 1939 Polish campaign should be over in two turns. That cannot happen in the game. France should fall in three turns in 1940--but this can't happen when you play Europa. How can the 1940 British offensive against the Italians in North Africa be recreated in Europa terms? Answer--it can't.

Many of you are complaining that there is no way that the initial German offensive into Russia can be simulated. I agree: given the distortions caused by the two-week turn, it just isn't likely to happen.

Look at the movement rates. A typical infantry unit has a movement rate of six. That equates to 96 miles of movement in 14 days in "tactical" conditions (i.e., not admin movement). That is 6.8 miles per day. Napoleon's armies moved faster than that. Even at double movement in admin mode, a typical infantry unit is moving less than 14 miles per day.

The cumulative effect of this over a long campaign, like FitE/SE, is obvious. It is one reason infantry simply cannot achieve what they did historically. This is the case in the Norwegian campaign of 1940, France 1940, the desert in 1940, and many other cases. There is no way the two-week turn will hold up in Grand Europa. The two-week turn is the biggest problem with the game system.

2. Armor has unrealistic "hit and run" capabilities.

Back in the Drang nach Osten days this was really out of hand, but even today armor imposes too much of a limit on the movement of infantry in Europa games. In a sense this may have been a way for GDW to compensate ror the two week turn--a lot had to happen in that two weeks, so let armor kill a lot of things.

Unfortunately, it creates a very unrealistic effect in the game. Look at the map of most WWII campaigns. For extended periods "lines" formed, with enemy forces confronting each other at close distances. When one side or the other eventually built up enough troops and supplies an offensive took place, but in the meantime, forces "sat" rather close to each other. This just doesn't happen in Europa. The fear of full AEC +3 attacks causes huge areas of "no man's land" to develop, as infantry stays away from hostile armor attack. Think about it, "gaps" of 8, 10, 14 hexes between opposing lines are not uncommon in FilE/SE. This is 150+ miles! Utterly unrealistic, and all due to the effect of huge armor stacks dashing from cover, killing swarms of unprotected infantry at +3, and then running away in the exploitation phase, leaving a 160-mile gap between themselves and the enemy. These "Panzer Raids" are a significant distortion of how armor operated.

3. Supply is too easy in Europa.

Military professionals think about logistics all the time. It is the "hard" part of large military operations. In some ways Europa does a good job of simulating the constraining effects of supply (I've always liked the rail-road-truckcross country supply rules in FitE).

Nevertheless, Europa makes it far too easy to conduct theater-wide attacks. So long as you can trace lines of supply to a rail line, you are okay to go on the attack from the Arctic Circle to the Black Sea, all at once. On the other hand, Western Desert and Torch have got it about right as far as supply goes. Those games realistically portray how high level military commanders have to build up a reserve of supplies in order to conduct-and sustain-major offensives. Those supplies have to be brought near where the offensive will occur and be accumulated. If that is not done, an offensive will not happen, or at least it will quickly fizzle. Other than in North Africa, Europa does not portray that very basic military reality.

4. FitE and SE need to do a better job of simulating Soviet capabilities.

As many of you are pointing out in recent articles, it is virtually impossible to recreate the German 1941 drive into the USSR. Who has ever taken Rostov in November? How many of you have cut off Leningrad? Who has had the infantry of Army Group Center sitting east of Smolensk by the Sep II turn? Much of the blame lies with the two-week turn. There are other causes, however.

The following list may not be all-inclusive, but I think I have basically summarized the over-rating of Soviet capabilities, particularly in 1941:

• Command and Control at the Operational-level (moving groups of armies or large numbers of divisions) is too easy for the Soviets. For example, the Soviets can place a mass of armor on rails in the northern Ukraine, hustle it hundreds of miles to the Romanian front, devastate masses of Romanian infantry at +3, and advance into the rear of other unsuspecting German/Romanian units. All in the context of one Europa two-week turn. The Soviets barely had that kind of ability in 1945, much less 1941.
• Soviet armor moves in masses in 1941/42, killing swarms of Axis infantry at +3. As many of you have pointed out, the Soviets had great difficulty controlling large amounts of armor until late 1942, at best.
• The Soviets can, if they wish, abandon huge amounts of terrain in the Ukraine, mass on the Finnish front, and head toward Helsinki. This is in 1941 in the midst of the trauma of the Axis invasion. Absurd!
• The Soviet command has the ability to carefully orchestrate non-overrunnable double lines even in the midst of the terrible chaos of July-September 1941. This assumes near-perfect Operational/Strategic command and control that did not exist.

Some of you may disagree or would add other items to the above list, but I think that the points I just made are the major problems with Europa that, if left uncorrected, will eventually result in a simulation that is very different from what actually happened in WWII. Now let me give some recommendations for correction.

What Do We Do?

1. Weekly Turns.

Like the man says, "Just Do It." Yes, many of you groan at the prospect, but if we want Europa to be as accurate a simulation as possible, this is virtually a must. Here's a quick way to implement one- week turns (please note the supply modification below is critical):

• Four weekly turns per month.
• Movement costs are paid for entering and leaving a ZOC.
• Double the number of infantry replacements-they are probably too low now for all armies anyway. Example: After 3 years of terrible casualties, Rumania actually had more men under arms when it defected in August 1944 than it had in June 1941 (the Romanians were, however, very short of vehicles and heavy weapons in 1944). Some may also want to increase armor replacements by 50% during the month.
• Special replacements are received at a rate of 50% for combat/motorized, artillery, and antiaircraft units.
• Admin movement remains unchanged.
• There are no more "Surprise Attack Turns;" they are a distorted attempt to compensate for the two-week turn. There will now be no need for these "free" turns. Instead, on the first turn that a nation is attacked "Operational Surprise" is possible, as follows:
  Roll a die for each stack of enemy grounds unit that is attacked: On a result of 1-3 add +1 to the odds (surprise has been achieved on that stack of units), on a roll of 4-6 there is no effect on the odds column (that stack was sufficiently prepared for the onslaught).
• During the first turn of the player who is attacked, "Command and Control Problems" are possible. For each stack that moves, roll a die according to the following table. If the stack is "disrupted," its movement factors are halved during that turn (only).

Country Attacked : Roll to Disrupt
Germany : 1
Britain : 1
France : 1,2
USSR : 1,2
Poland : 1,2
Finland : 1
Norway : 1,2
Belgium : 1,2
Holland : 1,2
Yugoslavia : 1,2,3
Greece : 1
Rumania : 1,2
Hungary : 1,2
Sweden : 1
Turkey : 1,2
Spain : 1,2
Bulgaria : 1,2,3
Italy : 1,2,3
Switzerland : 1

Note that I would recommend using a disruption roll of 1,2,3 for the USSR if it does not attack Finland prior to being invaded by the Axis. Reason: Without the operational experience of fighting the Finns in 1939-40, the Soviets would have been even worse when the Wehrmacht attacked in 1941.

The effect of the above rules will negate the need for the highly artificial "Surprise Attack Turns," and be supportive of a weekly turn structure. I define the "first turn a nation is attacked" as when it is invaded or when 11 active operations" would begin in the West in 1940 (when the French finally wake up).

2. Combat/Motorized units that participate in attacks only receive 1/2 of their movement rating during the exploitation phase.

This is the easiest way to reduce the effect of long distance "Panzer Raids" where stacks of armor dash from cover, kill exposed infantry, and then run for safety during the c/m phase, leaving a "gap" of hundreds of empty miles behind them.
This modification basically says that armored units will lose some of their "momentum" by participating in the combat phase. Note that this does not exempt c/m units from using their full second phase movement allowance if they participated in overruns. The assumption here is that an overrun is such a blow-out that the c/m units that participate in an overrun do not have their "momentum" reduced and can therefore continue to surge forward in the c/m phase.
This rule will also create a more realistic effect of forcing attackers to hold back some "reserve" armored units (which do not participate in combat) to exploit the effects of the combat phase. Additionally, this rule means that c/m units are still moving about the battlefield rapidly. Including participating in an attack, a panzer division still can move some 15 hexes per turn (240 miles in 7 days, or a respectable 34 miles per day).

3. Make the Western Desert/Torch Supply System Europa-wide.

As I said earlier, the WDITorch supply system is very realistic. It makes players move supplies and accumulate them prior to a "Big Push." What I recommend is that the number of Resource Points a player receives each month be quadrupled, and that these be used to make supplied, full strength attacks in exactly the same way Supply Points are used in Torch.

What will the effect be? During the initial few turns of FitE, for example, the Germans will be able to make front-wide attacks with virtually no hindrance. The RPs will be numerous and close to the fighting. No problem! As the offensive moves eastward, however, the Germans will have to cart their RPs forward to the vicinity of where attacks are taking place. The farther east the Germans move, the more difficult this will be.

Eventually, they will begin to run short of RPs as the horde at the beginning of the game is depleted. Then they will have to start prioritizing what portions of the front will get supplies to keep the offensive going and cutting back attacks in some areas to accumulate a stockpile for the areas where they really want to attack.
Doesn't this sound realistic? This is how military logistics really works. The current rules for moving RPs are perfectly adequate. Additionally, RPs will still be used for all the purposes they are currently used for.

4. Soviet capabilities must be restricted in 1941 and 1942.

Many of us have come to believe that this is a significant problem in FitE and SE. Put simply, the Soviets are too good in 1941. I gave some examples earlier, so I will not belabor that point here. Let me give a few suggestions:

• In 1941 no more than 4 REs of Soviet c/m units per stack can attack at full strength. Any units above the 4-RE limit attack at 1/2 strength.
• In 1942 no more than 6 REs of Soviet c/m units can attack at full strength, with the excess attacking at 1/2 strength.
• In 1943-45 up to 8 REs of Soviet c/m units can attack at full strength.
• Upon the arrival of Tank Army Headquarters (per Charles Sharp's recommendation in an earlier Europa article), Soviet c/m units stacked under a Tank Army HQ can attack at full strength.
• If the Axis accumulates 30 or more Victory Points at any time in 1941, Soviet replacements are cut in half for four turns. This serves to place at least some restraint on advocates of the Runaway Defense.
• During 1941 any Soviet unit that expends more than two of its MPs in rail movement has its attack strength halved during that turn.

As I noted in the "Disruption" rule earlier, there should be additional penalties against the Soviets if they fail to fight the Finns (or someone else) prior to an Axis invasion. The Soviets were pretty inept in the summer of 1941. They almost certainly would have been even worse had they not discovered some of their faults during the Winter War of 1939-40. I am not sure what penalties should be imposed against the Red Army, but there certainly should be some if they fail to gain operational experience prior to the Axis attacking.

Conclusion

I hope that these suggestions will give food for thought and stimulate discussion on how to make Europa more realistic. I have always been a Europa fan, and always will be. It is a great piece of research and game design. In many ways, Europa brings new, innovative techniques into wargaming. It does, however, have some significant disconnects in terms of accurately simulating WWII in Europe. All that I have said here is offered in the context of constructive criticism. Let's all continue to help refine this excellent collection of games.

About the Author

A Europa player from the first DNO days of the early 1970s, John Gordon owns every Europa game that has been produced and has played each many times. He has also participated in several playtests.