Second Front

Maps

Is Caen really a bigger port than Cherbourg?

Surprisingly, Caen is a a more important port than Cherbourg. Cherbourg was a premier port for ocean liners in the pre-war period, but Caen was the heavy-duty cargo port of the area. This explains part of the Allies planning on capturing Caen early in the Normandy campaign, as they hoped to capture the port. In the event, the Germans blocked the British back from taking the port in the early days of the campaign, and then they wreck the locks system that gave access to the port, so extensively that the port was rendered of little use for the remainder of the war.

Questions and Answers

(Rules IOH and 14A2) May a player voluntarily reduce his AECA/AECD/ATEC or combat engineer proportion in order to avoid "Required Losses?"

No.

(Rule 12) Are ground units on ships in supply?

The regular supply rules govern the supply of ground units, even when they are embarked on board ships. Note that in some cases units will become unsupplied when on board ships. For example, a unit embarks upon a NT and ends its turn at sea. In the next player turn, the unit becomes out of supply, since there is no way it can trace a supply line to a supply source. If the NT is in port, however, then an embarked unit on board may be able to trace supply, per Rule 12.

If this seems a bit odd, it works this way to prevent game abuses, such as embarking units on ships to establish a permanently-in-supply "floating reserve" or other silly things.

(Rule 12C2) The final sentence of this rule seems to contradict the previous one. If in order to function as a limited supply source a standard or minor port must trace a naval element supply line to a major or great port, what does the last sentence of this rule mean when it states, "...supply line may be traced from a minor or standard port. "?

The last sentence allows you trace a naval supply line front a standard/minor port; it has nothing to do with tracing the line IQ a major/great port. Instead, see Rule 12B4, which governs naval supply lines and says you have to trace from a major/great port. 12B4/12C1 is the general case, allowing both sides to get full regular supply via naval supply lines. 12C2 is the special case for the Allies, allowing them to get limited regular supply by using ports that don't make the cut for 12B4/12C1.

(Rule 14J) If a movement counter is not carrying a unit is it treated as a 0-strength unit for combat purposes (e.g., not included in AECIATEC computations) ?

Yes.

What is the RE size of a transport counter for purposes of naval and rail transport?

Its basic size is doubled for being c/m. A 1 RE-capacity counter that moves by rail or sea counts as 1 RE for transport purposes, and a 3 RE-capacity counter counts as 2 REs.

(Rule 14J1) Can transport counters carry units during the combat phase?

No.

(Rules 14J2 and 14J3) If a unit being carried by an LVT or APC counter is eliminated in the combat phase, is the carrying LVT/APC eliminated as well?

Yes, as they are treated as a single unit.

(Rule 14J3) Do units carried by an APC have their total combat strength increased by 1 when determining losses, or is the APC treated as a separate unit with a strength of 1 ?

Neither, actually. The 1-strength point increase is a strength modifier (similar to the way siege artillery is doubled against fortresses), but losses are determined using printed strengths only, and the LVT/APC counters do not have a printed strength. Example: A 3-8 Inf X carried by an APC would attack with a strength of 4. If eliminated, both the 3-8 Inf X and the APC would be removed from play and would count as a loss of 3 attack strength points.

Suppose two 3-8 infantry brigades, each carried by an APC counter, participate in an attack. Would their combined attack strength be 7 or 8?

The bonus applies for each and every APC counter, regardless of the presence or absence of other APCs in the hex/attack. Thus, their attack strength would be 4 each, for a total of 8.

Can a unit be carried by several APC counters, and thus receive more than a +1 bonus?

No. Note the phrase "carried by au APC counter" in the rule.

Do units carried by an APC have their total combat strength increased by 1 for purposes of overrun?

Rule 13 says "Overrun odds are computed in the same way that combat odds are..." Hence, the +1 attack bonus does apply for overruns. 

If units carried by an APC are attacked is their total combat strength increased by 1 ?

The rule specifically covers attack, not defense, and so the bonus does not apply for defense.

(Rules 20F2 and 24) Page 26, Rule 20F2 says ground units may air drop in any hex except prohibited, mountain, woodedswamp, or forest. Page 35, Rule 24 says units and supplies may air drop in any land hexes. Which is correct?

Rule 20F2 is correct; Rule 24's "may air drop in any land hexes, including hexes occupied by enemy units" is intended to let you know that you can drop in enemy occupied hexes, but I see how you misinterpreted the rule the way you did. Perhaps the rule should remove the "any" or even add a rules backreference: "may air drop in land hexes (per Rule 20F2), including hexes occupied by enemy units."

(Rules 20F3, 22B, and 34E) The minelaying rules seem to make mines excessively effective; in particular, the lack of breakdowns for the big Allied TFs seems to make sweeping mines ridiculously expensive. The rules seem to prohibit naval units firing AA at mine-laying aircraft in their hex-is this correct? [One slick trick would be to wait for the invasion armada to end a movement step, then do a night mine-laying air operation in the hex (the rules do not seem to prohibit this, even if the Allies are not sailing at night). There would be no AA, and only night fighters to contend with. If successful, even one mine point could inflict very heavy losses, far more than seems to have occurred historically.]

Naval units don't fire AA at air units on aerial minelaying missions, as the air units do not lay the mines in the part of the hex where the ships currently are. (The hexes represent a huge expanse of area, with it being impractical to impossible for ships to cover the whole extent.)

Air units dropping mines in a hex containing enemy naval units at sea, thereby doing all sorts of harm to the ships at the start of their next naval movement step, can be abusive. However, it requires numerous sorties over the course of a turn to lay enough mines to qualify for a mine point, so the enemy can't catch the ships by surprise through a single overnight mine laying. The game's sequencing of activities attempted to show this:

• A player may aerially lay mines by flying a transport mission, which can be done only in the movement and exploitation phases of his own player turn (Rule 20F).
• Enemy naval units in the hex are unaffected at this time, since per Rule 34E1 they check for mine damage if they enter or put to sea in the hex (they are already in the hex, so this doesn't count) or if they start a friendly naval movement step in the hex (since it is not their player turn, this can't occur at this time).
• After the mine-laying player is finished with his turn, the enemy player turn begins. The enemy naval units now can be affected by the mines, but before they do check for damage, automatic mine clearing occurs if the mines are in various coastal hexes or beyond the range of certain ports (Rule 34E3).

I had thought the above sequencing would take care of things in most typical cases. However, reexamining the point leads me to believe that when automatic mine clearing does not occur, the naval units in the hex have a big problem in the game, whereas in reality this would not occur in such a fashion.

The best way to handle this situation is: When a player aerially lays mines in a hex containing enemy naval units at sea, then during the immediately following player turn those naval units (only) ignore the presence of those mines (only) during the naval unit's first naval movement step (only) of the turn.

(Rule 23A2) It seems almost impossible to take out enemy fighters if they don't want to fight, since even inoperative ones can scramble. This seems too generous; fighters certainly did get caught on the ground from time to time; it is actually easier to overrun them with tanks! Perhaps they should have to make some kind of escape die roll in order to scramble?

Inoperative fighters must be able to scramble. Otherwise, players would resort to the ahistorical tactic of waiting for enemy fighters to become inoperative and then immediately flying to bomb their airbases.

(Rule 23G) Why are there NA air units if no tactical bombing missions can be flown at night?

Obviously, type NA air units can fly transfer missions at night without fear of crash landing! Actually, if we ever allow (some) tactical bombing missions at night, then these air units are already rated and will automatically retrofit. Don't hold your breath waiting for night tac bombing, however. The case for this having any appreciable effect at Europa scale is rather tenuous. Still, someone someday may marshal enough data to convince me otherwise.

(Rule 23H10) If I understand this rule correctly, then a code X air unit which suffers an "A" result in combat is considered aborted and not eliminated. Is that correct?

The unit would suffer a "double abort" (once in combat and once per Rule 23H10), but in SF this still equates to an "abort" and not an "eliminated" as in some other Europa games.

(Rule 24B1) An Allied airborne unit lands in an unoccupied Axis-owned hex that contains an airbase and becomes disrupted when dropping in the hex. Therefore, the Allied player is unable to use the airbase there. May Axis air units continue to operate from the airbase?

Yes.

Suppose the hex in the example above is also a port. May Axis naval units continue to use the port? If so, may Axis naval transports land ground units at the port? If so, may they then conduct the same sort of in-hex combat in the combat phase that airborne and amphibious units conduct?

They may use the port there, but ground units may not be disembarked at the port. Rule 6 lists "In general, a unit may not enter a hex occupied by an enemy unit. Exceptions to this are covered in the appropriate rules." Note that the naval transport rules do not list this as an exception. 

Suppose the hex in the example above is also a city. May Axis reinforcements/replacements appear in the city in the Axis initial phase? If so, may they then conduct the same sort of inhex combat in the combat phase that airborne and amphibious units conduct?

Yes.

(Rules 27A3 and 31) Can you deliberately allocate excess naval transport to a unit in order to avoid losses at sea?

No. Several naval transports can combine to carry a unit. But, assigning "excess" naval transports to a unit doesn't ensure it will avoid losses at sea, since if any of the naval transports carrying the unit is sunk, the unit is eliminated. (I suppose you could make a case that if 20 NTs were assigned to carry a brigade and only one was sunk, the unit has lost only 5% of its strength and should remain in play. I believe, however, that this is getting into the silly zone and would encourage players to adopt ahistorical tactics.)

However, there is a way to get a result similar to the one you're looking for. Don't assign "excess" NTs to carry a unit, but include NTs that are not carrying anything as part of the naval group with the NTs that are carrying the unit. If naval units in the group take damage from air units, it may turn out that empty NTs get hit rather than laden ones.

(Rule 28A) Is it correct that non-phasing naval units cannot move at all, except by reaction?

That is correct.

(Rule 32B and 32D) Do divisions making amphibious landings have ZOCs (which might affect enemy reaction)?

Divisions are not amphibious units and therefore cannot make amphibious landings. Divisions must be broken down into unsupported regiments and transported by LCs and LVTs to make amphibious landings. The divisional headquarters can subsequently be landed in the exploitation phase and the division re-formed at that time. (Exception: The optional U.S. Marine XX Exp is intrinsically amphibious; its ZOC would be considered when determining enemy reaction.)

(Rule 34G) Do you check LCs for damage when they EMBARK cargo at a beach?

No, only when disembarking cargo.

(Rule 34J) Do LCs acting as ferries have to be at sea throughout the turn?

Yes, an LC must be at sea to operate as a ferry; it cannot be in port. It must remain at sea throughout the player turn it operates as a ferry. (Rule 37A4) Does massive flooding destroy a fort marker in the hex? No. A fort marker is removed only when it is captured by enemy units. However, given the sequence of events in Rule 37A4, the Allied player will have the first opportunity to reenter the flooded hex, and if he opts to do so, the fort will be destroyed at that time.

(Rule 37E) This rule allows half of a garrison's REs to be placed "immediately whenever any enemy unit enters any hex of the district. " Does this include enemy units entering the district via airborne drops and amphibious landings?

Yes.

If yes, the garrison of France is quite large. Consider the case of an airborne assault on two or three undefended French ports, hundreds of miles apart, undertaken after most German units have moved south in August 1943. Do several 5-defense strength security brigades appear immediately the paras leap out of their transports in time to affect the disruption die rolls?

The garrison activation is triggered "immediately whenever any enemy unit enters any hex of the district." In the case of an airborne landing (and similarly for an amphibious landing) triggering a garrison, the garrison is triggered immediately when a unit (the first one, if several are dropping in the same air operation) lands in a hex in the district. Note that the disruption die roll is part of the procedure to land the unit, so it occurs before activated garrison units are placed. After the landing of ; the (first) airborne unit, the enemy player may place up to half the REs of ground units in the garrison, in any hexes where it is legal to do so (any friendly owned cities in the district, including the hex the first airborne unit landed in, if the unit became disrupted when dropping in the hex). The regular course of play resumes when this is done. Note that the newly placed garrison units may now affect the landing of subsequent airborne units.

Note that an airborne assault on two or three widely-separated French ports cannot occur as part of a single air operation, since the air drop missions will have different target hexes. Such assaults must be performed in separate airborne operations. Thus, when the first drop comes in, the Axis player will only know for sure that one particular port is the target of a drop and will have to guess if and where any other drops may occur.

If Allied units make an amphibious landing in the Axis-owned coastal hex of Catania in Sicily (26:4025), thereby entering the province of Sicily for the first time, may the Axis player immediately place Sicily off-map garrison unit(s) in Catania?

Whether or not garrison units may appear in Catania depends upon Catania's status. If the first Allied unit landing in Catania gains control of the hex, then garrison units cannot appear there. Otherwise (such as an Allied unit landing at Catania, but Catania is Axis occupied and not immediately overrun upon the unit's landing), garrison units may appear there. If Allied and Axis units are now in the hex together, the standard rules for both sides being in the same hex apply.

(Rule 40A1 and 40A2) The Axis Order of Battle booklet specifies several transfers or withdrawals, e.g., "Oct I 43, West, German, Transfer to Southeast: lx 5-5 Static XX 264." As 5-5 Static XX are eligible for reorganization to 5-7-6 Inf XX as of Jul I 43, 1 understand that if a specified division has been reorganized, another 5-5 Static XX may be transferred in its stead. However, if ALL 5-5 Static XX have been reorganized as 5-7-6 Inf XX, what should be done to fulfill this requirement? Should a 5-7-6 Inf XX be transferred? 

No, simply follow the rule for withdrawals. If all 5-5 Static XXs in play have reorganized, yank one from the replacement pool and pay the RP cost, per the withdrawal rule. I note that the withdrawal rule possibly should cover the case where an appropriate unit is neither in play nor in the replacement pool: don't yank any unit, but pay the RP cost.

(Rule 40A1) On Nov 143 can the Axis player convert 9-8* Para-Inf XX 2 (LW) [instead of 4-8* Para-Inf Cadre 2 (LW)] and 1-8 Para-Inf II U1 St (LW) to 7-8*,Para-Inf XX 2 (LW), and receive 5 inf RPs?

This is allowable.

(Rules 40A1 and 40A2) May the Axis player reorganize divisions (e.g., 5-5 Static XX to 5-7-6 Inf XX) that are in garrisons? In the North? In the Southeast?

No for all cases above. You can reorganize (or otherwise do things with) only those forces under your control. Rule 37E defines that garrison forces come under a player's control when the garrison is activated. While in garrison, these units are not under the player's control and thus cannot be organized. Rule 3F defines how theaters are handled: if you control a theater, you control its forces. Depending upon scenario, the Axis player may control one or more of the Greater Germany, West, and South theaters. Neither the North nor the Southeast theaters come under the Axis player's control in SF, so the player does not control the forces in these theaters (and hence cannot reorganize them).

(Rule 40B2 and 40B3) If a specialized armor unit is replaced, does its replacement also count against the combat/assault engineer replacement limit?

No, specialized armor unit types (flamethrower tank, engineer tank, assault engineer tank, and sturmpanzer) are different unit types than combat and assault engineers. Consult the UIC.

(Rule 40D1) This rule refers to tracing an overland supply line to a "source of replacements. " What is that?

This rule is misworded. Replace the phrase "source of replacements" with "friendly-owned, unisolated regular source of supply."

(Rules 40D1, 42, and 43F2) Is it really true that disbanded units don't count for losses-if so, it seems to make it almost impossible for the Axis to inflict "excessive losses" on Allied ground units: the Allied player can simply disband a few units in play to generate sufficient accumulated infantry RPs to offset his losses.

Disbanded units do not count towards losses. Yes, it is difficult for the Axis to inflict excessive losses on the Allies in most situations (although it is possible in MTO-only scenarios, as happened historically). Think of the excessive losses rule less as a reward the Axis can achieve, but more as a penalty the Allies can incur: if the Allied player burns out his forces trying to knock out the Axis quickly, he incurs the wrath of the citizens back home.

(Rule 43E) Allied Cooperation. "Other Allied units" are part of a national contingent, but "may be included with any contingents and switched between contingents freely. " Does this occur for all units of a national group at a particular time or for individual units? For example, can one French unit (before the return of the French government from exile) attack with a British stack, and another French unit attack with an American stack in the same combat phase with no penalty?

Yes, the determination is made for individual units.

(Rule 43F2) In different places in the rules and charts, the definition of `force" seems to be different. For the purposes of this rule I assume that the Allies have five forces (American, British, French, Italian, and Other Allied) and the Axis have three forces (German, (RSI) Italian, and Other Axis). Is this correct?

Yes.

(Rule 44B3) Is there anything to prevent the Axis player from running around with their engineers and damaging every port in sight?

See Optional Rule 44B3.

Rules Court Europa

Second Front
Russ' Soapbox: Resource Points
Fall of France