In the designer's notes of "The Invasion of Syria" in TEM #33, I mentioned that I had heard of a Syrian scenario called "Operation Exporter" published in The Grenadier, but that I had never seen it. Rick Gayler has since resurrected the scenario (it turns out it was written by Harold Andrews, not Ben Knight) and suggested that I make a comparison of the two. I was a little hesitant. For one, I probably shouldn't be considered very impartial in the matter. Second, Rick informs me that Harold has since passed away, so he can't present his point of view. I gradually came to my senses, though, and realized that if an editor asks you to write a comparative review of your own work, you should probably jump at the chance. Broadway playwrights, eat your hearts out.

At first glance, "Operation Exporter" (hereafter OE) and "The Invasion of Syria" (hereafter IoS) are very similar. They share similar orders of battle and similar chrome rules such as naval gunfire and commandos. At their core, such as how each game is won, however, they are very different. Harold and I took a few different turns on our way down the winding road to Damascus. Hopefully, comparing the two treatments will prove interesting.

Victory

The biggest difference in the two scenarios is the way a player wins. This is related to the differences in game length, objectives, and the way victory is calculated. The accompanying tables on the next page shows the OE victory conditions and ratios.

Game Length.

OE lasts 3 turns, 4 if the Germans intervene (a 1 in 6 chance). IoS is of variable length, depending on when the local Vichy officials lose their nerve and surrender. Lots of players may like the OE approach better since it doesn't rely on chance.

Victory Ratios.

I've always thought that ratios tend to be complex and confusing. IoS is a zero-sum game, like all the Europa scenarios I've done. Zerosum means that if one player scores a point, the other player effectively loses a point. That's easier for me to understand as both a player and designer.

Victory Conditions.

In the list of victory conditions, OE again takes a traditional approach of geographical objectives and losses inflicted. In IoS the main condition of victory is the length of time Vichy Syria remains at war. The main effect of geographical objectives in IoS is indirect-their effect on Vichy morale and surrender.

The victory conditions for IoS contain these assumptions based on my estimate of the situation:

1. Closing the campaign fast is the foremost Allied goal. A lingering campaign draws units and supplies away from North Africa and, in the Allied mind at least, leaves German intervention options open.

2. The Allies don't care how many Vichy French they kill; they would just as soon not hurt anybody.

3. Minimizing their own losses is another important Allied goal. REs lost will not be facing Rommel in North Africa, nor protecting against an attack through the Caucasus.

The OE victory conditions seem to value:

1. Holding Levant cities;

2. Inflicting casualties on the opponent.

The two different approaches can give radically different results. Here is an example. OE has 34 victory points just for territorial objectives. In OE, if, after six weeks of fighting, the Allies have taken every geographic objective and eliminated every Vichy ground unit, they will have scored 54 victory points. Suppose the Allies have lost nine brigades (three entire divisions), giving the Vichy player 27 victory points. This means that the OE Allies get a "Substantial Victory" from this bloodbath. In the same situation in IoS, Vichy scores at least about 30 victory points, yielding the exact opposite result, a Vichy "Substantial Victory!"

Barring Allied disaster, either player can usually win in IoS given lucky surrender rolls, no matter how poorly they play. In IoS, if the Vichy player feels frustrated when he surrenders simply because the Allies hold Damas, or if the Allied player feels frustrated when Vichy fights on and on, then IoS succeeds in its goal.

Chrome

Naval Gunfire.

OE and IoS both include naval gunfire points-OE adds two; IoS adds four. It's hard to say which is better, 2 or 4. Both are probably correct for their particular scenario, because of the different treatment of support. However, I do think that two independent assessments of the importance of naval support makes a case for its inclusion in some form in the Collector's Edition of WitD .

Support.

OE has all units in the game supported at all times. IoS takes the standard Europa approach to support. OE therefore makes things a little simpler for all concerned, but especially for the British, who in IoS sometimes have to make some decisions about where to position their divisional HQ units.

Orders of Battle.

The Orders of Battle are similar, of course. OE gives initial setup hexes for all Allied forces. IoS splits them by Palestine or Transjordan, but otherwise allows a free setup. My feeling was that the Allied player could set up anywhere he wanted in that area during the May II turn--the Allies aren't defending against any attack.

OE gives the British a Bftr 2 in Palestine as the starting RAF. Maybe this is right, but I never found anything about the use of Beaufighters in Syria. The IoS designer's notes describe the makeup of IoS's Hurricane I unit that starts in Palestine.

OE adds a 2A2 2/14 Swordfish group on Cyprus. IoS ties the use of the Swordfish to the use of an optional naval module. The OE rule admits "While they basically supported fleet operations they could, however unlikely, support a land operation." In my judgment, the likelihood of their participating was dubious, at best; however, you can see the residue of my ambivalence in this matter in the finished IoS OB. The IoS Allied Initial Forces specify "RAF and Fleet Air Arm," but list only two RAF units. Originally, I had included a Fulmar group, but later relegated it to the naval add-on.

OE has a particularly nice touch in listing the extra units garrisoning Palestine. These are the 3-8 Polish Brigade, 1-8 6th Cavalry Brigade, and 1-8 Czech Battalion. These units can't leave Palestine. Although this listing leaves the Palestine garrison under strength by 1/2 an RE if no additional units are present, a special rule clarifies that there is no penalty to the Allies for this. I purposefully ignored the Palestine garrison requirement in IoS. I decided that the Allied OB would give the historical units that entered Syria (including the cavalry brigade, according to my sources). I let the garrison in Palestine take care of itself. In one IoS playtest the Polish Brigade would have been most welcome for meeting the Vichy armored drive on Jerusalem.

OE releases the Czech battalion from the garrison as a Jul I Allied reinforcement. I may have just missed this occurrence in IoS; Harold's bibliography listed some sources I didn't have. If anybody knows about this for sure, drop a line to EXchange.

Commandos.

Both scenarios give the Allies a 1-8 commando brigade in Cyprus. OE withdraws the Allied brigade on Jun II 41. IoS does not withdraw the unit. I don't know of any pressing need for a commando brigade in the Middle East at the time, so I don't know where they would be going. (There was a wild scheme for grabbing Pantelleria--I said a pressing need). I let them stay for the duration of the campaign.

As with naval gunfire, I think the fact that both Harold and I include the commando unit makes it worth considering in the new WitD . 

Germans.

OE allows for the possibility of German intervention at the start of the Jun II turn. On a roll of `6' on one die, the Germans intervene, rolling again to see what intervention forces appear (at any Levant air base). On a roll of `12' on two dice, the Germans send an entire 5-8 Mountain division. On a roll of 2 to 11, they send a 2-8 Mountain regiment. In either case, they send one step of supply and 5 SMPs.

I considered something like this in IoS. It would add some spice. I finally turned it down as just being too impracticable for the Axis. The remote chance that Harold assigns to German intervention would seem to suggest that we basically agreed on the subject.

The two questions I would have to ask about Harold's intervention rule is "How do the Germans fly SMPs (trucks) on Ju52s?" and, "How does the Mountain Division's artillery make it into the Levant on similar Ju52s?"

Conclusion

In conclusion, both scenarios have similar chrome rules, but very dissimilar victory determination. The engine is a lot more important than the chrome, and the victory conditions make the two scenarios very different. OE's traditional victory conditions probably make it a better player's game. IoS's rather bizarre surrender rules sacrifice play balance to the whims of historical uncertainty. Which is better is a matter of personal preference and what a particular player values in Europa.

Invasion of Syria Odds and Ends

In the scenario's Vichy French Order of Battle, there should be one airfield in hex 20:4306, not 20:5010.

In the accompanying "Europa as History" article, make the following corrections:

Axis Initial Setup: The identifications of 8th SA Cav III and 1st SM Cav III are switched in relation to their positions given later in the replay. Instead, set up the 8th SA Cav III in Palmyre and 1st SM Cav III in 21:3922. This is for consistency in the replay only, and not based on any historical evidence.

Jun I 41 Axis Exploitation Phase: The reference to the 1st ST Cav III should be to the 4th ST Cav III.

Jun II 41 Axis Exploitation Phase: The reference to the 7th TS Inf II should be to the 7th TS Inf III.

The Great Syrian Naval Table Oddity

In the "Invasion of Syria" optional rules I gave three methods for transporting Vichy reinforcements to the Levant because, for reasons unknown, I imagined that transport through the Eastern Mediterranean was impossible on Naval Table column `0.' The only thing I am fairly sure of is that, somewhere in my quarter century of game collecting, there lies a musty, acidifying rule containing a naval transport table having nothing to do with Europa that has no chance of success on the `0' column. Not that that's an excuse, because even then in Europa, as everybody knows, you still have a 50% chance of cargo getting through after an `x' result.

I can't figure it out except that I did most of the work on the scenario several years ago and somehow that concept accidentally slipped in and never got caught (including by our eagle-eyed editor). The funny part is, that in both my solitaire playtests and against a live opponent, we both merrily rolled away on the `3' column and didn't notice how the whole rule didn't make sense. Mass self-hypnosis. Anyway, it finally dawned on me when I was tidying up "Cunningham's Pond." Too much TV when I was a kid, maybe.