Rich Velay, British Columbia

I am including 11 pages of questions about Second Front for your attention. Please be assured that this volume of queries in no way indicates any dissatisfaction or displeasure with Second Front . While there might be less questions if the game was less complicated or involved, it is a measure of the game's value and appeal that I take the trouble to see these things dealt with.

Even at over $150 Canadian, I feel I got more than my money's worth with SF. I think it is important for people to remember that these games from GR/D are essentially a labor of love and that we, the buying public, are not simply passive recipients of this boon. I don't mind that the game is, in some areas, not completely finished nor idiot-proofed. With a paid staff of three, designing, developing and producing the biggest, grandest and most richly detailed operational level games on the Second World War, we should all be more than satisfied that the thing ever saw the light of day at all! So I think that those who might bemoan the confusion of some rules, the counter problems, and the "built-in" errata should perhaps take a moment to imagine the state of Europa were it not for people like Rick, Winston and most of all, John Astell. I think some people would be better off offering GR/D heartfelt thanks at keeping Europa afloat and viable, instead of sniping about publication delays and less than perfect presentation.

That being said, I really must object to the mislabeling of Le Puy en Velay as Le Puy, and the fact that the Velay Mountains (17A:3711) are not labeled at all! (One of my relatives, a Grand Uncle or some such, was the leader of a communist Partisan group in the Lozere region of the Central Massif during the war. I haven't quite figured out how to get THAT into the game yet...)

I was surprised to hear that the Luftwaffe color change was not a printing error. I much prefer the light blue color scheme to the new one, which is so similar to Kriegsmarine colors. Simple aesthetics aside, this makes all of the more recent LW counters quite useless, meaning counters from BF, etc., are incompatible for GE. And the Robin's Egg Blue looks like the color used for underbelly plane camouflage, while the current color just looks like misprinted Slovaks! Bring back the light blue...

The sheer amount or research and attention to detail of the game is quite staggering, and a real feather in the caps of all those concerned. I was most pleased to see the Canuck Infantry Divisions rated as the best of the Commonwealth, this is certainly as it should be. I was a little miffed that the Amis STILL had a leg up on us, with their First and Ninth Divisions, but hey, errors occur! In all seriousness, I think the single strength point here is a very close call between morale, elan, volunteer status and TOE standards. I will remain quite happy with the Canucks as 10-8s to the "colonials" 11-8s.

The maps are beautiful, and functional. All of the little additions, like point cities, narrow sea crossings and reference points add so much to the value and appeal of what might have been drab, purely functional game maps. Mr. Goodwin has presided over a "quiet revolution" in Europa cartography and a comparison with DNO/UNT maps, or even FitF/SE maps shows just how far things have come.

It seems as if GR/D finally has the counter font right, and it is only the unfortunate printing error which caused the "splotching" damage to many of the counters which keeps them from being A+. The addition of separate colour schemes for the major Commonwealth countries is a nice touch and will, no doubt, be much appreciated by the Aussies...

I am very pleased with how the naval units were handled. While individual ship counters are nice chrome, Europa really isn't on that scale, nor are naval operations so important as to justify such detail. The Task Forces are easier to handle, simpler to use and just as appropriate as air units being deployed at group level or ground units appearing as divisions. I hope we have seen the last of individual ship counters; they simply add to counter clutter and really feel out of place in a European based operational level game. They might be appropriate for Glory, ala GDW's Coral Sea and Indian Ocean Adventure, but I for one would be more than happy to dispense with the October Revolution and Paris Commune and simply see a few Soviet Task Forces in the next version of DNO. (Actually, that would be the same way that Soviet ships were portrayed in DNO. Everything old IS new again...)

I am also happy that a way was found to get rid of all the Strategic Air War complications, especially all those hordes of B-17 and Lancaster groups, without ignoring the major effects on the German war effort. It all happens in the background, where it should be, and we have little control over it. A very neat and elegant way to avoid a great amount of pointless and time-consuming counter shuffling. As with the navies, the Strategic Air War simply doesn't deserve, nor need, the same level of detail as is lavished on ground operations. All we need to cover in detail is where air or sea forces interact with the ground battle; anything else carries too high a price in complexity and time compared to any benefit we might derive from having such finely detailed sub-systems.

This is a question of focus and control; Europa could be so open-ended and overly detailed as to be both unplayable and valueless as a game. In the ongoing debate within the ranks of the players, and I imagine, the designers and developers, one always has to balance the desire for more and more detail with the reality of what can be simulated. So far, Europa has managed to stay true to its mandate of providing detailed yet playable games on the European aspects of WW II. 

None of this is meant to attack people who desire greater detail; different strokes for different folks, and all that. For example, I appreciate the amount of work and TLC that goes into something like Supermarina, which is a very good representation of the realities and problems of a naval campaign (at least in the Beta version), but the question is simply, do we need something at that level to play and enjoy Western Desert? The bottom line has to be: does it add or detract from the enjoyment of the game as a whole, keeping in mind where the focus of the game is meant to be. And I think most Europa players would rather do the sweeping Rommel stuff in the desert and not have to worry about how many metric tons of fuel the Italians have available for submarine operations this month...

All in all, a fine job and really, much more value for the dollar than we are getting from any other game publishers. A sweeping panorama of WW II, which provides a real "feel" for the campaigns, which gives us an insight into aspects outside the purely military, and doesn't (yet) drown us all in overwhelming detail and historical minutia. The fact that the most we can find fault with is usually nit-picking and incredibly minor aspects of the whole, is surely testament that Europa is alive and well, and moving in the right direction. A tip of the hat to all of those involved, in any capacity, with bringing this incredible endeavor to fruition. Second Front is surely a more than welcome addition to my collection of games, Europa or otherwise.

Thanks so much for your (kind words, Rich. It is gamers such as you that really keep Europa afloat. Without your understanding and support there would be no GRD. Actually the current paid staff of GRD consists of two part-time workers: Vi Brown and Heather Dunwoody. The rest of us are just hanging around waiting for our ship to come in...

When I told you the LW colors were not in error, I based that on the set of counters I had, which were only slightly darker than normal. Since the original light blue color scheme is very prone to fade, I approved of this. However, Winston has since advised me that the longer the press ran this countersheet, the darker it got. Thus some of the sheets near the end of the run did, in truth, approach 7(riegsmarine dark blue! This was not intended, and is one of several quality issues we are disputing with the printer, whose poor workmanship has caused us no end ofgrief. Rlck

Ken Koch, Missouri

I have two metal walls in my game room and just put up ALL of the Europa game maps to form all of Europe from Spain to the Urals, and from North Cape to North Africa. I was very surprised by bow many maps overlapped, to the point where I would like to cut them apart to reduce the thickness of the maps. But I hate to ruin a good game map forever. Therefore, I was wondering if GR/D had any extra game maps for sale?

GRD decided some time ago to discontinue the general sale of spare parts, so as to preserve the few we had left to replace rejects that might eventually show up in the field. However, contact the company and ask they may have a few extra copies of select maps available. -Rick

Peter Robbins, British Columbia

I note with interest that the discussion of problems with the Europa system is moving away from the purely tactical "slime," "ants" and even rail regauging, to questions concerning command, control and communications. In particular, Charles Sharp, in EXchange #29, points out the headquarters anomaly: differences between the command, control and communication (C-3) abilities of different armies are just not dealt with in the Europa system. This leads to C-3 being just as efficient for the Rumanians as for the Wehrmacht, or for the French in 1940 as the Americans in 1945. This problem has bothered many Europa players, judging by comments in the magazine, and various fixes have been attempted or proposed for it.

1. One way is to factor C-3 into the strengths of the combat units. A Soviet rifle division in 1941, for instance, generally has half the strength of the German infantry divisions attacking it. Now, a Soviet rifle division in 1941 fielded about 14,000 men, or about 4000 men per strength point. The German divisions were stronger, about 18,000 men by my calculation, and so have about 3000 men per strength point. The discrepancy in the "men per strength point" ratio can't all be due to the divisional artillery, or the infantry weapons of the two sides. In fact, the Soviet artillery was of high quality, and their infantry weapons were rugged and reliable. Rather, the Europa designers have made allowances for the training, experience, unit cohesion, initiative and skill of the troops involved. These qualities, in senior commanders, are a large part of C-3.

2. Another method is to limit the abilities of specific units. French units in FoF, during the first two turns of that game, have their attack strengths halved if they move during a turn, or retreat due to combat in the previous turn. Soviet c/m divisions in FitE may not exploit if they attack during a turn, or if they are in ZoC at the beginning of the exploitation phase. Alternatively, some opponents of armies with poor C-3 receive an advantage. In AWW, for instance, the Finns have not only the Winterization benefit when they attack, but also a Woodsmanship benefit that works in a similar way. In several games, the side launching the initial attack gets a special "blitzkrieg" turn. This is not limited to the Germans, but includes the British in WitD , and the British and Americans in Torch.

3. Politically based restrictions, such as limits on the initial set-up, limits to movement on the first turn, and mandated garrisons, do not normally have much to do with C-3. However, the historical restrictions on the French in May 1940 are related to their C-3 quality. Such political restrictions are often abhorred as "strait jacketing," but how else can you get a recreation of the panzer's race to the Channel? As Europa players, we take the roles of Generals and Field Marshals, not historians with 20/20 hindsight. In this regard, shouldn't Second Front have "Hitler orders" preventing units from retreating, or a fixation on the Pas de Calais as the "real" invasion target?

4. The last method used to show C-3 limitations is the most recent in origin, and I believe it has the most promise: reduced stacking and corps counters. Corps counters were first supplied with FoF and FitE, but were specifically described as accounting devices only, in order to reduce "counter crush," and had no effect on play. In the new AWW, the Soviets get corps counters, partly because of the crowds of stacks throwing themselves against the Mannerheim Line, but also to represent Soviet C-3 problems. At the beginning of the Winter War, the Soviets are subject to reduced stacking, which prevents them from building large enough stacks to get reasonable odds on the Finns. This reflects the inefficiency, incompetence and political interference prevalent at the time, due to a severely purged Soviet officer corps, cowed by their commissars. Result: the offensive bogs down, with probably only one attack at poor odds each turn. As they gain experience and correct their command problems, they receive one corps counter per turn, which allows them to use regular stacking when stacked with these counters. I suppose that each corps counter represents the presence of one competent corps commander and his staff.

I think there is great potential in corps counters. To reflect poor Soviet C-3 in 1941, or French in 1940, reduce their stacking to mountain stacking. This reduces both their defensive and offensive capabilities; corps counters could be allowed to trickle in as in AWW. Perhaps all nations with poor C-3 should be so limited, although this would be waived for units that are part of another nation's stack (Rumanian units in a stack that is primarily German, for instance).

Corps counters could also be used to handle air units. There are air group counters in SE, intended to reduce the same kind of counter crush as with ground units. As the air rules stand now, the only limit to how many air units can be used on a single ground support mission is the number of ground factors (or REs of non-artillery ground units in the case of Second Front ) attacking that hex. This leads to ahistorical "1000 plane raids" by the Soviet air force in 1941, which, as Rich Velay points out in TEM #29, ought to be impossible: poor C-3 again. Perhaps air corps counters could be used like ground corps counters: only a certain number of Soviet air units would be able to combine during a mission. Perhaps six should be the number: this is the maximum number of units that could base at a single hex (major city), and air units coming from several hexes would experience difficulty forming up and coordinating their mission, given the primitive state of communications and command at the time. Even the RAF in 1940 had such problems, with the "big wings" often taking too long in forming up to arrive where they were needed in time.

One criticism that Europa players might level against reduced stacking is that it will lead to many units not being present in the front line, due to stacking limits. These units will be behind the line, "not in use." Well, isn't this the fate of most military formations, most of the time, in a real war? Most soldiers in WW II spent only days or weeks in active operations, and months or years drilling, digging holes, filling them in, and drilling again. The best units in an army saw more action: the Panzers, Marines, and Airborne divisions spent more time in combat due to their elite or specialist abilities. But the average infantry regiment from any army probably spent most of their time just moving from barracks to barracks, with some digging and filling in of holes just for variety. Reduced stacking will produce a certain amount of this, at least until there are enough corps counters available. There ought to be enough corps counters for the "Hero Cities," and places that you have just got to hold at all costs. And, after a certain length of time, your entire army would be able to use regular stacking.

I should point out that the above suggestions are quite untested. I have, however, been thinking about this problem for a while, and fmd it useful to compare the Europa system to that used in Victory Games' Pacific War. In PW, ground units are divisions, brigades, regiments, and battalions, just as in Europa. However, most units sit around as a garrison or reserves most of the time. Since PW uses "command points" to determine which units become "activated," and there are many more units than command points, only better units are used in active operations: you don't send the "Sleepy 71st" to liberate Guadalcanal, you send in the Marines. I don't think it would hurt for those people designing a series of Europa-style games on the Pacific to look at PW, which has some very interesting ideas in it.

Cory S. Manka, Oklahoma

In playing Balkan Front with Rule 32E, Greek Morale, I fmd that this restriction does not prevent the Greek Army from following a cut and run defense, and falling back to south of the Spherkios River to bar the gate to Athens. A competent Allied commander will take advantage of this, as it places the greatest number of Greek units in a position to resist Italian and German aggression the longest, in the strongest defensive position in the country. If we look out towards Grand Europa , this could have significant and deleterious implications.

As the rule stands, defeatist acts do not include the most serious event of all, the withdrawal of the Greek Army south towards Athens, thus abandoning the remainder of the country. ' Politically, this was unacceptable to the Greek government and people, just as abandoning a major portion of almost any country would be rejected by its leadership and citizenry. Therefore, I propose the following additions to Rule 32E.

Add as the fourth bullet under defeatist acts the Allied player may not perform:

• voluntarily end movement of a Greek unit more than 7 hexes from both the Greek international border and any Axis unit, once that Greek unit enters a hex within the 7-hex range.

Add as the third bullet at the end of paragraph E:

• This restriction is no longer in effect when 10 Greek mainland cities are controlled by the Axis player as modified by the German Assistance Level.

Add as two new paragraphs:

The Allied player may designate 3 divisions, 3 non-divisional units and 2 artillery units exempt from this rule. This represents the Greek Operational Reserve. Units may freely move in and out of this Reserve, but the total units in the Reserve may not be exceeded at the end of any movement phase. Ignore Greek units on islands when making this determination. For each RE of the Operational Reserve in excess of the above limit at the end of an Allied player turn, the Allied player loses one victory point.

German Assistance Level Adjustment. The number of cities in mainland Greece needed by the Axis to terminate the Greek Morale rule is reduced by 1 for every 5 REs of German Assistance received.

Using these changes makes for a much more realistic play of the campaign. It also serves in a small way to deal with one of the political restrictions that Grand Europa will have to address in the future. 

Martin Duke, Maryland

I'd like to suggest a couple of things that I think would made First to Fight a better simulation.

1. The surrender roll for units after the government is captured or evacuates should have some modifiers depending on the location of the Polish units. Nothing is as frustrating to the Polish player as a unit that has survived attacks and is one hex away from a neutral border surrendering just before escape. Maybe making a surrender roll unnecessary for units on the border is the solution, where the border is not impassable terrain. To prevent this rule from being abused, the Poles should have to declare their intention to move across the border at that point (the Germans can't stop them from moving just one hex).

2. The French intervention roll needs some serious modifiers for Westwall strength. Don't you think the French would come across rather quickly if the Germans left nothing but an engineer battalion on the Westwall?

3. Another rule I've seen in other wargames that I think would work well in Europa is a +1 DRM for each odds level over the highest one in the table. Sometimes you just can't overrun thanks to a lack of movement points, especially in First to Fight with the horrendous ZOC costs for c/m (in fact, all) units, or because you can't get all the necessary attack points in one stack. For situations like this, it's just not right when 110 points of c/m units with 7 squadrons of Ju 87s attacks two 0-1-4 border regiments and gets a `DH' result-it just doesn't make any sense. Of course, because of the Europa CRT, a +1 would result in an automatic `DE' at 10:1 odds, but if 10:1 is good enough for an overrun, which is a fraction of a turn, it should be good enough for the length of a full combat phase. Plus, such bonuses would be useful when attacking Mountain hexes-I hate those DRs at 9:1 odds. And if that applies at 10:1 and up, why not 1:5 and down? If anyone is stupid enough to attack at those odds, they should get a higher chance of `AE.'

Lastly, the naval rules presented in TEM #25 by Dean Brooks are definitely preferable to Supermarina. Although I'm not very experienced with naval warfare, I do know that I don't want to spend more time on it than on the land war. The European theater was basically a land war with some glamorous, yet inconsequential naval battles and some unglamorous (and dull to simulate) convoy actions that were very consequential. Maybe in Glory you can have an elaborate naval system, but I'd like to see Europa games use something relatively simple.

Steve Van Schultz, New York

I purchased Second Front via War Bond for $85.00. After reading the rules twice, I realize the level of detail is more than I can dedicate myself to memorizing at this stage in my life. I am a very experienced gamer (25+ years), and a veteran of many FitE/SE campaigns. But as a married man with two very young children and a demanding job, I don't have the time to learn such a complicated/detailed set of rules considering the limited amount of time I can spend on gaming (2-4 hours per week).

Will GR/D issue a slimmed-down version of the air and naval rules (Boot Camp rules) for Second Front ? I can't wait to play Second Front , but I would like to cut out some of the detail.

Several such projects are underway; stay tuned - Rick.

Hale E. Cullom III, Texas

I have recently purchased Second Front , and as usual, you have turned out a superior product. I am a practicing attorney, so my time for gaming is less than it once was so quality is an important consideration. The order of battle information alone in Second Front is worth the price of the game.

Don Carlucci, New Jersey

This letter was inspired by Mark Pitcavage's "Blueprints in the Sand" (TEM #33) which discussed possible items for inclusion in the new WitD with an eye toward Grand Europa , and also by the GEnie VP "objective" debate in that same issue.

I have been a Europa player since 1981, and thoroughly enjoy the system. The trick for me has been to find those two assets that are essential to the game, namely opponents and time. Most of my wargaming associates prefer to play games that can be finished within at least 24 hours and this has inhibited our play of games the size of FitE/SE .

Still, I do manage to get in a game of FrF or WD roughly once every three months. My gaming friends and I, however, manage to play many other grand strategic games and it is from this base of knowledge that I offer these comments. Since I am a projectile designer for the U. S. Army, and not a game designer, I will speak in broad terms. Responses written either supporting these thoughts or refuting them with valid logic are invited.

Economics: My greatest hope for GE is that an economic system will replace the historical unit appearance charts we currently play with. These orders of battle are great historical data, great for playing the current games, but woefully lacking if put into a game covering the entire war. I have several reasons for this statement. The actual commanders did not know three to four years in advance what their reinforcement schedule would be. This would depend on economic as well as military issues. What if the French campaign took an extra six months and destroyed many German vehicles and infantry formations? Maybe the Germans would have put the Pz IV into production earlier or committed the Landwehr or Volkssturm earlier. I feel that losses should be tied to new unit creation, i.e., once country 'X' takes so many infantry losses, Y-strength infantry units can no longer be created. Aircraft and naval production could be handled this way also. The point here is that while it still would be fun to play a complete campaign with the historical unit appearances, it would be more unpredictable, and therefore exciting, to have each nation construct units in accordance with its evolving military posture.

Politics: One of the greatest problems faced by military and political leaders during any war is uncertainty regarding reaction by other nations to their actions. This can be handled by the institution of reaction tables for each nation. These tables could be modified by events deemed pivotal to the country's foreign policy. Other items that could modify these tables would be foreign aid, unpredicted events, and luck. In this way it would be possible to place the player in the same military situation his counterpart was in. By using such methods certain idiot rules and garrison rules could also be eliminated. For example, the Soviet garrison on the Turkish border is removed because it is needed in the west. Instead of forcing a rule on players to prevent this from happening, give the Soviet player this option. 

However, if the garrison departs, there is `x' chance that unrest occurs. If unrest occurs there is then 'y' chance the Turks join the Axis or Allies or whatever. There would be two advantages to this. Problems caused by events like this can lead slowly or rapidly to bigger problems and the commander can weigh his options against worst-case outcomes. Given the choice between saving Moscow or probable unrest in the Caucasus, would you deplete the garrison? I don't know, but as a gamer you should have the choice.

Unpredicted Events: This feature is probably the one most suited to the scale of Europa. All nations might have a table of, say, 100 variable events from which they randomly select 5 each game. These could alter strategies significantly or just be annoyances to opponents. Possibilities could include Germany developing jet fighters early, or France not building the Maginot Line. These items would add unpredictability, require commander flexibility and force players to deploy forces to guard against contingencies. These events could have strong consequences. An example of this might be French troops not shocked by the initial German assault, and consequently no German blitzkrieg bonus move on the first invasion turn.

As an additional thought, I'd like to congratulate and wish GR/D luck in their WW I game endeavor. This is a subject not well covered by other companies. I have full faith that if anyone can do a great job on this subject, it's GR/D. It would be great to see this war simulated on a Europa scale.

I feel that GR/D is doing a fantastic job reissuing the old titles. I enjoy FtF much more than CW, and the same goes for BF. Hopefully this letter will generate responses from the Europa community and generate good ideas to make GE the ultimate game it should be.

Cdr C. A. Janiec, Iceland

I was very glad to receive TEM #36 a couple of weeks ago. Except for the cover (computer graphics enlarged beyond what resolution allowed), it was the best issue yet, and a welcome improvement from TEM #35 (scenarios are great, and I'm really looking forward to some for Second Front , but I don't like to see a scenario take up 32 of only 43 substantive pages in a magazine!). I like the idea of double issues; that should allow you to include a longer scenario like "Sudden Storm," while still having plenty of good, meaty articles.

My primary reason for writing is to offer my opinion on a subject which I've followed with interest over the past year or so: NODLs (non-overrunnable double lines).

I agree strongly with Charles Sharp's views in TEM #33 on NODLs, and support most of his proposed solutions. DNO may have boasted state-of-the-art mechanics for simulating operational-level mechanized warfare twenty years ago, but as others have pointed out, the system shows its age. NODLs lead to a war of attrition rather than localized superiority and breakthroughs-exactly the opposite of what World War II was all about. Instead of employing mobile reserves to counterattack and seal off penetrations, a successful Europa defense employs NODLs, where reserves are needed only to help build the second line. The Germans can't hope to hold the line in SE because they lack the troops to form NODLs, and as they learned in WW II, waiting two weeks to counterattack (as the Europa system forces us to do) is too late.

I propose four changes that should reduce the use of NODLs while enhancing the effectiveness of a more flexible defense, and more accurately reflect operational art in WW II. None of these are original, but they need to be playtested in combination to determine their validity:

1. Conditional Overruns. Attackers may attempt overruns at odds as low as 4:1, using all standard combat modifiers. Attacks at 9:1 odds or less cost 3 MPs for German c/m units and 4 MPs for all other units. The overrun is successful only on a DE result; apply any other combat result normally and end movement for the overrunning stack, which may not attack during the subsequent combat phase.

The NODL becomes a thing of the past, yet the attacker doesn't get a free ride: failure means probably taking any losses from precious armor, plus not getting to employ that force again during the combat phase. Thorough playtesting may determine that a 4:1 limit is too low, but it seems a good starting point; I chose it because it's the lowest odds where a DE result is possible without modifiers. The prohibition against using an unsuccessful overrunning force in subsequent combat reflects the loss of cohesion and need to regroup when an attempted shock attack fails, and prevents this from being merely a device allowing two attacks on a defender in the same turn. I disagree with Jim Arnold's proposed treatment in the "Lunge to Stalingrad" scenario in TEM #34. Besides (needlessly) introducing a new table, there's too little risk to the attacker: why never suffer losses when you "choose to plow through" at 4:1 (unmodified) odds, yet risk a very costly exchange result when your force "deploys and crushes the defense methodically" in the combat phase? This also somewhat answers Anthony Hanford's complaint in TEM #36 that the two AT battalions in wooded rough terrain should be harder to overrun than the infantry regiment in the clear (although they always were "harder" to overrun, in that it took more time, i.e. MPs).

2. Defensive Reaction. [Some] defending units not in an enemy ZOC may move [some fraction to be determined] of their MPs before the combat phase.

This change is deliberately nebulous, since which defenders may move and how far will depend on national doctrine and training, and will change as the war progresses. About 1/3 (rounded down) of a unit's movement allowance for c/m troops (only) seems like a reasonable basis to start from, but the fraction and the inclusiveness will vary widely. In combination with conditional overruns, this change promises to more effectively model both the Fall of France and the Russian Front, but obviously a lot of playtesting will be necessary to get the numbers right, and that's something I've been unable to do here on my current tour of duty in Iceland, given the small size of my quarters. One concern is adding time to already lengthy games, but in the "monsters," the defender should be able to begin his countermoves long before the attacker is finished (something to do besides eating pizza while your opponent moves!), and in smaller games the added time shouldn't be very great.

3. Fortifications. All types of fortifications except those which are unimproved (fortified hexsides, fortresses, Westwall and Ouvrage hexes) reduce the effective odds for overrun purposes by 4 (e.g., the attacker needs to obtain 14:1 odds to achieve a 10:1 overrun).

Many contributors have spoken of defense in depth as the counter to blitzkrieg tactics and used Kursk as an example, but as Mr. Sharp pointed out, we're talking about less than a twohex belt of prepared defenses. Gaining time (i.e., preventing an overrun in game terms), as well as improving the effectiveness of defensive forces (negative die roll mods or attack strength reductions), should be what fortifications do, but under present rules forts, fortified areas, and Westwall hexes have no impact on overruns.

4. Flexible DAS. Designate air units to fly defensive air support missions during the friendly air phase, but do not fly the missions until the beginning of the opponent's air phase. Type BJT/HT aircraft may only fly to half their printed range (rounded down).

The new air rules in Second Front obviate the need for this change, but need be retrofitted to work in the older games. It's always annoyed me to have to determine which portion of my line would receive DAS essentially two weeks in advance, and waste hundreds of sorties supporting a stack which the enemy then studiously avoids while pounding the adjacent hexridiculous! One of the great advantages of air power is its flexibility, and this change restores some of that (and the new rules restore even more). Simply rotate the designated air units 90 degrees when assigning them to this mission.

Note that none of these changes require modification to any components already published, with the minor exception of changing the TEC for fortifications. Mr. Sharp may be correct that attackers in Europa suffer too few losses, but I'm afraid that tinkering with that aspect now will require wholesale revising of replacement schedules (lest regular replacements become such a reduced fraction of special replacements as to be meaningless).

I'll tackle victory conditions for Grand Europa next time. Thanks for all your hard work on the magazine.

You are quite welcome, sir! I await your future comments with great anticipation; it is very exciting to receive such thought provoking letters.

By targeting our cover, you have correctly identified an area for improvement. When discussing the idea of double issues at Origins this summer, one wag quipped, 'Hey, one less ugly cover!' I demurred, 'actually, I think some of our covers have been rather good. '"Name one, " chimed in another wise guy. "Well" I said after an embarrassed pause, "the cover of #30 wasn't too bad... " Okay, so we won't win any cover awards -but it's what's inside that counts.

I was very uncomfortable with the amount of space that 'Sudden Storm' took up in TEM #35, and yours was not the only voice raised in protest. The lack of other articles was then exacerbated by the long delay in the publication of issue #36. We are trying to do a better job of preparing material in advance to avoid this situation. Rick

Bruce Yearian, Illinois

I have a question for the Europa Grand Pooh-Bahs. I am a new Europa gamer, but have played wargames for over 20 years. I like the games, but I fail to understand some of the logic in them. I'm playing Scorched Earth with friends of mine, and one who has a subscription loaned me a copy of the magazine to read to see if I would like to subscribe. I like the articles and the information-it's the "gameology" that I don't understand. Each player is allowed to examine stacks and count factors. I think that's totally unrealistic and ruins the game. War is hell and a crap shoot. When someone can spend hours counting factors, and make a series of attacks along a whole front work out perfectly turn after turn, this is outside the realm of real life. What works out perfectly in war?

I am not blind to Europa's faults. In fact, it was a sincere desire to do my part to fix what needed fixing and see the ultimate goal of Grand Europa achieved that led me to my current standing as a "Grand Pooh-bah. "However, your complaint may indicate more of a problem with your group than with the game. }'bu and I have both been playing wargames for over 20 years, and I would wager that over 95% of those games don't prohibit players from examining stacks or counting factors. To upbraid SE for this seems unfair, but I realize that due to its size and the number of counters, such factor fiddling can become especially irritating, and a real drag for the non phasing player.

Some Europagamers cure this by using the following:

1. Do not examine opponent's stacks.

2. Place the strongest unit possessing a ZOC on top of each stack; If there is no unit with a ZOC in the stack then the strongest unit without a ZOC is placed on top.

3. A stack, is only revealed when combat is declared against it.

4. Combat is resolved using Incremental Combat Odds. Incremental Combat odds work, as follows: Calculate the odds ratio to one decimal place, rounding down. If the odds are greater than 2:1, the attacker rolls a 10-sided die (1D10) to determine the final combat odds. If the 1D10 roll is equal to or less than the decimal remainder, then the battle is resolved on the next higher odds column. A '0' die roll = '10' or this purpose. example: the odds are 34:9. This yields preliminary odds of 3.7:1. 2pll 1D10. If the result is 1-7 then the battle is resolved at 4:1 odds. If the result is 8-0 then the battle is fought at 3:1 odds.

Another popular option is to set stringent time limits for each segment of the turn and stickto them. A suggestion for establishing such time limits in Scorched Earth appeared in issue #36. 'he limits vary depending upon the size of each team and the phase being executed.

This forces players to move faster and eliminates the more obnoxious delays caused by intractable factor fiddlers. Use of Incremental Combat Odds is also recommended when taking this approach.

Getting your group to take a reasonable approach to the game is probably the most important key here. One monkey can stop the show if you let him. Rick. 

Franck Berthelin, France

Being a member of the Club Europa France, I recently received TEM #30 (with luck, #31 will soon be in my mailbox!) and, of course, was very pleased by the first pages (well, the others too, but it was not the same...). Upon reading them, I draw two conclusions. First, it seems that French is a pretty difficult language! Apart from the few (unavoidable?) little mistakes, "Bataille Conduite," the title of Special Rule 3d is of great interest (and fun!), as it has no sense! The exact translation for methodical battle is "bataille methodique." I don't remember the real name of this doctrine, but it is something like that. Second, I wonder what is this thing called the French Air Force (why not write Armee de I Air, on the Axis OBs I read Luftwaffe, not German Air Force...).

I don't know how a French player, even a lucky one, can achieve a result close to the historical one: the Luftwaffe lost about 1,000 aircraft during the Campaign of France, and Arm&e de l'Air about 500. Assuming that half of these losses are integrated into the game system, Armee de l'Air lost 5 counters, and Luftwaffe 12 or 13! I'm doubtful about the probabilities of a FoF game ending with such a result.

I don't think the trouble lies in the counter values, but rather in the air crew quality: maybe it won't please some of you, but French airmen in 1939 and early 1940 were better than German ones! Of course, the Luftwaffe contained many experienced pilots who fought in Spain, but the rest (i.e. most) of the German Air Force was a mass of young and inexperienced pilots who merely followed their elders instead of bitterly dogfighting! During the so-called "Phony War," French pilots reported that the aircraft formations they encountered seemed mainly constituted of "fresh" pilots who "just came out of the school" and "lacked of initiative." So, I think a quality modifier should be applied to all air forces depending upon the period and their nationality. Among other things, it would allow Russian aircraft to sport their real values...

Well, in conclusion, I really enjoy the work you do, so even if you don't heed my advice, it won't keep me from purchasing the next games released (soon I hope)!

P.S I almost forgot! Regarding Second Front , is there any good reason why the 2eme DB, constituted of veterans of 1940 and 1942 campaigns, is rated inferior to a medium, equally equipped, US armor division of inexperienced young men fighting away from their home? If there is, well, I wish to hear it it must be a VERY good reason!

John Gee was kind enough to respond to Frank's letter:

John J. Gee, California

The doctrine was called "Bataille Conduite. " It is mentioned in Coronel F. Paoli's L'Armee Francaise de 1919 a 1939, volumn 2, Le Phase de Fermete and in General Gamelin's memoir, Servir. Now, I fully appreciate that many Frenchmen would like to forget Gamelin and all his works, including this doctrine, but he mm the commander-in-chief, after all.

As to the actual translation of Bataille Conduite, well, often literal translations from one language to another do not convey the essential meaning of the word or phrase. I have a Mexican publication that translates the word vaquero as "cowman." Cowman is the literal translation, but the correct translation is, of course, "cowboy." For another example, I also have an American version of a French work, Historie de l'Aviation Militaire Francaise. The title is literally translated as "The History of French Military Aviation." But this is misleading, this translation implies that all French military air operations are covered, while in fact the long history of French Naval aviation is not mentioned, nor are those units operated by the French Army since 1954. The translation which would convey the actual meaning in English is "History of the French Air Force." Among the translations of conduite are: "conducted," "managed," and "commanded." Another possible translation of Bataille Conduite that would convey its essence in English would be "orchestrated battle." Still, I am satisfied with "methodical battle."

Franck is quite correct about the superior French pilot quality versus the Luftwaffe in 1939-40. It does appear that the French (and perhaps Belgian and Dutch also) fighter aircraft should have a -1 modifier in air combat in the revision of Fall of France . The British should not; the RAF had undergone an expansion much like the Luftwaffe and its pre-war cadres had been diluted with a vast influx of new pilots. Such a modifier needs to be playtested, of course.

I apologize for my spelling errors, I make them in English, also. But Charleville-Mezieres is not, in fact, misspelled. Written English does not use accent marks, and The Europa Magazine is an English language publication aimed at a primarily English-speaking audience. Therefore, Konigsberg is properly written without its umlaut, La Coruna is written without its tilde and Chalons without its carat. Europa maps also follow this convention.

Mr. Gee is quite right: the Europa convention for foreign accent marks is to omit them altogether. Neither do we opt for phonetic spelling. Thus the correct Europa spelling is Goring, and not Goring (with umlaut) or Goering. However, I constantly ignore or abuse this convention in the magazine. This cavalier attitude comes home to roost when I overlooked through ignorance or oversight, one accent markor the other. This leads to scolding from Swedes, Frenchmen, and others. Similar shortcomings on the part of your humble editor can best explain the use of "Luftwaffe" in the first instance, but not "Armie de l'Air" in the next.

We hope you enjoy this double issue. Ciao!