[Got a question, comment, or announcement to make? Post it to the editor and all the members can read it here.]

Bobby Bryant

Jim Arnold

From experimenting with TFH and researching the Battle of Britain, I am very much impressed with the way Patrol serves to simulate the "home field" advantage of the British fighters--a simulation of the Spits' finest hour just wouldn't be possible without it. The reality being represented is not just the interception by frontline fighters along a mission's flight path but also the additional missions a fighter can fly when it operates close to its own base. So while I might be persuaded that the mechanics of the Patrol Attack need adjustment, I would rank the concept of the rule right up with AEC as one of the most elegant innovations of the Europa system.

The one qualification I would offer on your combined Airbase/Air Unit mission is that a fighter with a TAC strength of 0 should not be credited with a hit on the base for (in effect) strafing the aircraft.

Regarding the notorious difficulty of catching fighters on the ground during a bombing mission, some improvement can be obtained by returning to base any Returned and Aborted interceptors before the bombing mission is resolved, instead of during the Interceptor Return Step. I'm not sure that many players don't already do this; I do, and it seems to work well.

Jim Parmenter,

I arrived at a very similar conclusion to your "Base Hit!", and your solution is certainly more elegant. However, I don't buy destroy on the basis of your comparing air combat vs. bombing odds (and even less in dragging partisans into it -- there is a little of Europa before partisans). Inoperative plus capacity is a full set of teeth for strong men even if interception is not subject to a success check.

"Mission Patrol:" It would've been an incredibly messy design feature to allow true interception anywhere along the mission force's flight path, . . ." (underlining mine). It seems one definition of "messy design" is when lots of players who write letters complain about "it." What is "true" interception? Maybe it would make a stronger man out of most of us to accept "true" interception anywhere and everywhere it happens, including going home. Let's delete the patrol attack rule and allow the interception mission to be flown in any hex in any patrol zone (AZOC) which the mission force crosses/enters in addition to the target hex. (They should probably catch flak if they fly over any also.) Of course, each non-phasing interceptor gets just one mission and takes its lumps anywhere just as in the target hex. This plays hell with PBMail because when intercepted before (or after) the target hex, the phasing mission force must stop to resolve the results. After that, the remnants may continue on or return to base. One rationale for this is that Europa emphasizes the ground combat game and most air assets are best used in close support rather than guarding the rear.

Peter Robbins

I read with interest the articles by yourself concerning problems with the Europa air system. Like other players, I find Patrol Attacks awkward to use, and so I have dropped this rule entirely. The resulting difficulty with deep penetration raids going unintercepted I have dealt with in the following way:

The defending player may intercept each group of air units once only anywhere along their flight path, not just the target hex. The group of units may be the entire group assigned to a target or any portion of the group. A group of air units in a hex must be attacked all at the same time. Individual air units may be singled out for interception only along that portion of their flight path where the unit flies alone. No air unit may be intercepted more than once.

The air mission sequence then goes like this: the phasing player plots all of his air missions, showing the flight paths of his air groups (this need only be done hex by hex in areas where interception is likely); the defending player then announces which of his fighters are intercepting and in which hexes. I believe that this will greatly simplify the air phase and also make it reasonably realistic. Consider the following:

A Stuka unit takes off from a frontline airfield intending to join an attack with several Heinkels. However, the Stuka is intercepted as soon as it is airborne and never makes its rendezvous with the bombers. Moral: base fighters with Stukas (as was Luftwaffe practice) so that they can be escorted throughout their mission. The same Heinkels rendezvous with a couple of 110s who escort them through an area where four MiG-3s can intercept. The Heinkels' target hex is out of range of the 110s, but it is in an area where only one of the MiGs can intercept. The Soviet player can then either intercept the raid before or after the 110s turn for home, but not both. Note that if the interception of the Stuka had failed, further interception of the Stuka/Heinkels/110s would not be allowed since this would involve a double interception of the Stuka. page

Coupled with the above, I also use the following modifications to avoid the problems described in "Deus ex Machina" and "Base Hit!": First, when air missions are announced, only the target hex is given, not the type of mission. In many cases it will be fairly obvious where the bombs will be falling, but in the case of airbase attacks, the attacker will retain the option of choosing either to crater the runways or go for the planes on the ground--deciding after interception has taken place. After all, why should the Soviets know whose name is chalked on the bombs before the Luftwaffe arrives overhead? Second, as you suggest, delete the Scramble rule. Now the fighter base commander has a difficult decision. He can intercept that overwhelming mass of 109s or take his chances in that slit trench while (a) his planes or (b) his runways are hit.

A couple of other thoughts: In many cases, airfield damage, unless there is an engineer in the hex, is more serious than damage to aircraft. Aircraft can fix themselves but runways can't. Worse, a bunch of planes trapped on a 0-capacity airstrip are sitting ducks for the next raid.

I realize that there are probably all kinds of cases I haven't considered, and I would like to hear -from your readers whether they prefer this arrangement over the rules as written.

Gary Stagliano

I just received TEN 3 yesterday and it is your best issue yet! The Facts behind Counters" by Shelby Stanton was short but sweet. The "Trends in the East" by Rick Gayler was good. Rick asks why the Germans find it difficult to take Minsk on a historical timetable. In a nutshell, the Soviet player knows what is going to happen and deploys to thwart the German mandatory setup. Historically the Germans tailored their plans on the Soviet dispositions. That's why you see an entire panzer army deployed across from wooded and swampy terrain. Although the terrain was poor the defenders were even poorer. A smart Soviet puts everything he can in blocking positions. He uses the non-divisionals in an ahistorical manner to beef up the line. A cure for all this is to make the Soviet border forces set up with the same restrictions the Axis have. The Germans must deploy certain non- divisionals with certain armies. The Soviet non- divisional units should be deployed in the same manner. Nuts & Bolts has been working on an historical setup for the Axis and Soviets for a long time. John Astell thinks that it is impossible to play the game that way. I have found that the Soviet historical setup in game terms is not all that hopeless. I hope to have it finished very soon.

Deen Wood's article, "Scorched Earth without the North," has merit but neglects to state how many resource points must be sent to the North by both sides. I'm sure both sides used resource points in this theater. In addition the Soviet 1st Tank Division was removed from the theater and sent to defend Leningrad against Army Group North.

Roy's "Official Sanction" article hits the nail on the head. I am a believer in limiting "home brew" rules. They almost always upset the balance of the game. The rules in Europa are far from perfect. I would like to see some of the rules suggestions made in the hobby press become official. I do believe that any rules changes should be of the nature that they actually reduce the length of the rules and add to the elegance of the system. For example, your example of deleting the Scramble rule 20B fits this category. Your "Base Hit!" idea has merit but may not really be necessary. Although the rules formally state that only one type of mission, with a few carefully marked exceptions, may be flown a player turn, John Astell mentions that the rules do not mandate when these missions must be announced! This is especially important in the case of tactical bombing missions. For example, aircraft running tactical missions to a hex may perform any mission they are eligible for. Remember, the rules do not state a time when the mission type must be announcedl Obviously, if an aircraft is flying to several airbases one after the other it is performing the transfer mission. A fighter moving through a patrol zone must tell the enemy player if the fighter is carrying bombs or not. He does not have to tell its mission or target hex (how would the enemy know?). So, it is allowed without violating either the spirit or the letter of the rules to send, for example, five bombers to an enemy held hex which holds an airfield with one inoperative fighter on it and a rail line. After all air combat and flak takes place, the bombers attack one at a time announcing their missions as they drop their bombs. The original intention may have been, perhaps, to destroy the fighter on the ground. In this case let's assume the bombers hit on the second try, destroying the fighter. The three remaining bombers are free to pursue any tactical mission in the, hex since they have not yet announced their mission. It is important to keep in mind that, with the exception of SE rule 20.F.2.h (bombing naval units), air units do not need to predesignate bombing attacks. If, on a much smaller scale, bombers flying single missions have secondary targets, how much more probable they have secondary targets given the multimission two-week Europa turn. Perhaps one bomber will attempt to break the rail line, perhaps the other two will just stay and harrass the hex. The missions can be of any type not prohibited by the rules or the tactical situation. Keep in mind, with few exceptions, the players are still limited to one mission per aircraft.

Michael Emrys

But much more fundamental is that the present system does not adequately reflect the flexibility of air power. In the time represented by a Europa turn, air units could strike a variety of targets over a wide area. Granted, some game missions represent campaigns that would require repeated strikes over several days, but such targets as airbases, ports, shipping strikes, and communication lines were dealt with in one or two strikes leaving the units free to hit other targets over the course of 15 days. Of course, if air units are given multiple strike capabilities, it may be necessary to rebalance the capabilities of air units in other ways, like reducing their effectiveness on the bombing table. On the other hand, it might provide justification for patrol attacks, which some people have been complaining about recently but which I've always liked. (It's almost the only way to defend Malta, for instance.)

Deen Wood

His second point concerns the use of the Soviet 1st Tank Division later on against Army Group North. Without verifying this I will concede that he is correct. As a matter of fact, I'd be quite surprised if other units I listed as "permanently committed" to the NT did not make appearances on the main front. I have no reasonable way of tracking the movements of all those divisions, especially since many that were destroyed were reincarnated elsewhere which adds to the identification problem. There were losses in the NT area. This means that there are units which may have historically been sent to the NT and destroyed there that are not accounted for in my article. Anything short of a complete Northern Front OB analysis will not sort this thing out and the sources for even this are certainly not what I'd call complete. Unless someone is willing to do this it is probably not justifiable to take one or two units out of the NT. As I tried to point out, any overcommitment should be chalked up to losses.

While I am not comfortable with the Russian casualty rate, I would like to make an additional rule for "Scorched Earth without the North".

Force level requirements in the NT for a particular strength unit may be met by using a more powerful unit (more attack strength) of the same type, provided that unit is not being used to fill another requirement. For example: The Soviets have 2x 5-6 Inf XX that are not needed to fill the 5-6 Inf XX requirement or the RE requirement. They are short of filling the 4- 6 Inf XX requirement by 2x 4-6. The 2x 5-6 may be used to fill the 2x 4-6 force requirement.

This simplifies things, although it takes some of the burden off the Russkies. I would appreciate comments from "Northern Theater" experts on the force !levels. After playing recently I'm not entirely comfortable with things as I originally proposed, although the above changes seemed to be great improvements.

I reiterate that I presented a crude framework. Mr. Stagliano voices valid criticisms. If anyone out there wants to add a muffler or hood to this stripped-down vehicle, then please do it! I'll be among the first to use it.

Steven Cabral

Each land unit in the game is rated for its own strength and equipment levels and to a lesser degree training. Consequently, we have very strong U.S. and British units and German panzer types, slightly weaker German and French units, and the remainder of the nationalities equal to one another but weaker than most Germans.

Consequently, U.S. and Commonwealth troops easily pound German units, and the Germans must heavily concentrate to build up the strength for breakthroughs.

However, historically outnumbered Germans smashed their opponents early in the war while the Russians (in Finland), French, and British (everywhere except vs. Italians) floundered or outright lost.

Britain had a terrible showing fighting the Germans. France, Greece, Crete, North Africa, Sicily, Cassino, Caen, Arnhem--failure after failure, even with superior numbers. Russia took two years to meet the Germans on equal footing.

Here is an untested proposal for the readers to examine and criticize. Note its similarity to winterization rules.

Morale: Regardless of final modifi ers add +1 to all attacks under the following conditions.

German: All clear or frost weather turns from May I 40 to Feb I 43, regardless of opponent.

U.S.. British: All clear weather turns vs. Italians from May I 40 to end.

U.S., British. French: All clear and frost weather turns vs. minor powers - from Jun I 40 to end. Exceptions: Turkey, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland.

USSR: As above vs. minors from Aug I 43 to end. To be eligible in mixed nationality stacks, the proper country must have more REs or one full division.

A. E. Goodwin

Your suggestions for cleaning up the Air Rules and the beginning of a column by Shelby Stanton in TEN 3 were very good. I have one question, however. What color ink is going to be used for the next issue? I'm betting it'll be green.

Bill Stone's letter (and Phillip Buhler's response) in "Half EXchange" about how to handle supply when operating in Turkey may have missed a key point. The Germans, Turks, and Russians in this area would (normally) be using supplies shipped for the most part over rail lines directly from their home supply sources. The British, however, are using supplies shipped into the area by sea for the most part (requiring a much greater effort for the same effect). This to me has seemed to be the logical way to distinguish between when the normal Europa supply rules or the Desert ones should be used. Thus, for Grand Europa at least, I would prefer to see the normal supply rules used whenever supplies are rail borne, and the Desert ones used whenever they go by sea. If this makes it harder for the British to operate in Turkey than it is for the Germans, it seems to me only an accurate portrayal of the actual situation.

My current project is rather ambitious. Tenatively entitled The Far Eastern Theater, it is a module of maps, rules, and counters to portray the Soviet Far Eastern Forces and the Japanese Kwantung Army. This will include four full size and one partial mapsheets (all of Manchuria, the Soviet Union east of Irkutsk, about half of Outer Mongolia, and parts of China and North Korea), rules for three scenarios (Nomonhan border incident of May '39 escalating to full-scale war in '39 or '40, a '41 attack on the Soviet Union by Japan, and the historical '45 Soviet Campaign in Manchuria), and OBs for the Japanese Kwantung Army, Soviet Far Eastern Forces, Mongolian, and Manchukuoan units thoughout the war.

I have draft versions of all the maps and OBs basically completed at this time (although the Soviet OB still has some major gaps, which Charles Sharp is helping with) and am working with Dennis Duberley (the designer for the Urals map project) to link his project, my project, and SE together. I'm shooting for Thanksgiving as a date to have everything ready to go out to playtesters. If anyone can put together a group which will seriously playtest at least the '41 scenario let me know and I'll put you down to receive a playtest kit (xeroxed maps, full OBs and rules, make up your own counters).

In tandem with the larger project described above, I'm also designing a scenario portraying the Nomonhan battles on an introductory level to get new players trained in the Europa system. This will include a map the size of a normal sheet of paper, about 80 counters all told (20 to 25 ground units and 15 to 20 air units on each side), six to eight game turns (variable to portray outside pressures to end the border conflict), and simple victory conditions based on possession of the disputed territory at the end of the game. The rules are being purposely kept simple, with everything except the movement and combat rules factored out. Total playing time should be under one hour. Once you get the newbie trained on the basics, the air units and air rules can be added back in. I'm also actively seeking playtester for this; if you're interested let me know and I'll send you a copy.

A. E. Goodwin