Or "Messing With It," If You Prefer

As I suspect many Europa fans did, the first scenario I set up after opening the Balkan Front box, was "Assault on Crete." It was short, manageable, not in Merita-Merkur and promised an interesting situation. After a couple of plays, however, I noticed that not everything rang quite true. I had a feeling the scenario oversimplified the situation. I refused to worry about it though, and moved on to the "real" game of Balkan Front.

I had always thought the Crete battle would be a good candidate for a "Europa as History" article, for all the same reasons that made it the first BF scenario I played. When I later sat down to work on that project, though, my previously vague uneasiness about the scenario coalesced into more tangible problems, namely:

• lack of air-naval interaction;
• Allied counter constraints in the OB;
• geography changes from MM to BF, the airborne assault system.

This article examines each of these factors in turn and explains the reasoning for incorporating the various changes into the accompanying "Europa as History" article and the "Airdrop on Crete" battle scenario.

Naval Forces

The first thing that struck me about BF's "Assault on Crete" scenario was the incredible level of Axis air support. There was so much that the Axis player had the luxury of assigning the maximum allowed offensive ground support, then previewing the various combat results and deploying defensive air support missions in anticipation of these. Of course the Luftwaffe had air superiority over the island, but was it really that effective?

The answer, of course, is that much of the Luftwaffe's VIII Fliegerkorps was pounding away at the Royal Navy while that fleet tried to interdict the passage of Axis reinforcements. In BF, the Axis can commit air units to bombing the blockading Allied fleet. It's just that it's silly to do so in "Assault on Crete" -- the scenario's victory conditions do not care if the Axis sink the whole Royal Navy. The "Merita-Merkue' and "Balkan Front" scenarios reward the successful bombing of Allied ships with victory points, but "Assault on Crete" does not.

This can be fixed by revising the victory conditions to a point system, as "Airdrop on Crete" does, but the SF naval system provides a way to handle the situation more directly.

Axis Naval Assets. The Axis was busy clearing out the other Greek islands (Lesbos, for example) during early May. As a result, Axis naval assets were somewhat dispersed on May 11, and so I only allot the Axis player five naval transport points that turn. The other five points (of the 10 NTPs total, per BF) are shown arriving as reinforcements on Jun 1.

Counter Constraints and Orders of Battle

One immediately notices the absence in BF of breakdown components for the 2nd New Zealand and 6th Australian Divisions, the unfortunate result of insufficient space on the BF countersheets. However, in 1941, the division was not the basic maneuver unit in the British Army, at least in the Mediterranean Theater. That honor fell to the brigade. "Airdrop on Crete" remedies this situation by using the Commonwealth brigade units from Western Desert. Players not owning WD may use the counter reproductions included with the Allied order of battle to make these brigades.

Overall, the "Airdrop on Crete" OB is 1/2 point short of the original "Assault on Crete." The NZ units now have 7 printed strength points, reduced in combat to 3 1/2 points for being unsupported. The Australians increase to 4 printed strength points, but drop to 2 effective points, losing one point from the Balkan Front OB. For a long time, I had a Cypriot pioneer unit making up the difference-there were about 1,000 pioneers in the garrison. I only axed them when I found that 2,000 Cypriots and Palestinians had been left behind at Kalamai in the evacuation from Greece.

I feel that the "Airdrop on Crete" order of battle gives a more accurate historical representation of the situation. The Allies never fought any engagements on mainland Greece worthy of reducing two entire infantry divisions to cadre status. Their hurried evacuation through the beaches and small ports of southern Greece did, however, force them to jettison their heavy equipment. CREFORCE still had 30,000 non-Greek troops to defend the island; their shortcoming was in artillery support. In "Airdrop on Crete," the absence of the two divisional HQs represents this directly.

The 19th Australian Brigade survived the Greek campaign relatively intact. The 16th and 17th Brigades had each been reduced by the time they reached Crete. Together, they were about as effective as a single brigade. The specific selection of the l7th Brigade to appear in the "Airdrop on Crete" order of battle is admittedly arbitrary.

If you read accounts of the battle, you will find reference to the 10th New Zealand Brigade. This was a scratch unit that did not form until May 14. It consisted mostly of rear-area and other miscellaneous units. "Airdrop on Crete" folds the 10th into 6th New Zealand Brigade to justify that unit. Much of 6th Brigade had actually transported to Egypt before the decision for the New Zealand division to hold on Crete.

Adding the HMS York to the Allied OB is in the same spirit as including the Italian cruiser San Giorgio in WD. Italian motor torpedo boats had entered Suda Bay in an earlier raid and crippled York. The ship was unable to sail, but it participated in the antiaircraft defense of the harbor. To quote Stewart, "The weakened batteries, constantly menaced by machine-gunning fighters, were not yet silenced, and the beached cruiser York, half hidden amidst the drifting smoke and fountains of water, continued to throw back fire at her attackers." It would not be appropriate to add this counter to Balkan Front, since the course of the battle might unfold in an entirely different manner. However, when we only concern ourselves with Crete, we can "splurge" with a little extra chrome.

The "Airdrop on Crete" Second Front-style naval OB is certainly questionable. I don't know the formula for converting naval data into SF units; my strengths for the Allied TFs are guesses. In this case, though, the absolute strength of the TFs is not as important as the number of individual task forces.

The Allied carrier group represents HMS Formidable, which had trouble living up to her name off Crete. Formidable was carrying less than a dozen Fulmar fighters and a handful of Albacore torpedo bombers. I used the Mxd air unit from BF as a handy representation, but even this is probably overrated. The strike on Scarpanto was carried out by 5 Fulmars and 4 Albacores-quite a stretch to rate a unit.

On the Axis side, the 2-1-10 assault gun brigade represents elements of a panzer battalion and motorcycle battalion from 5th Panzer Division made available for the operation. The OB also includes a 2-6 unsupported Italian infantry regiment so the Italians will have a unit without heavy equipment capable of landing on a beach hex--historically the Sitia Bay operation. There is such a unit in the BF counter mix, but the historical ID (GdS) is meaningless here.

Geography

Among the most obvious improvements in Balkan Front when compared to the original Marita-Merkur are the new style maps. Overall, the map changes do not overwhelmingly affect play, but several of the modifications are particularly significant in the context of the battle for Crete. Balkan Front substantially restructures Crete's coastline and changes the location of several cities and ports. I am not in complete accord with this treatment, there being two main points of contention: airfields and ports.

Merita-Merkur located four air bases on Crete--air fields at Maleme and Erakleion, and inherent air capacities at the reference cities of Khania and Rethymnon. This was one too many, as there was no airfield at Khania. To quote the British official history, "One main road- in places very bad-ran along the north coast linking all the towns and the three airfields of Heraklion, Retimo, and Maleme." Balkan Front corrects this by performing a three-way merge of Maleme airfield, the city of Khania, and the port of Suda Bay.

The solution to this one problem has a domino effect that creates some other minor anomalies. The Rethymnon airfield is now overrated. The landing ground at Rethymnon was actually less equipped than those at Maleme and Erakleion. BF represents it with a full airfield. This promotes it to three times the capacity of the airfield at Erakleion, even though Erakleion was actually a more important base. In "Airdrop on Crete," placing two hits on RethymDon adjusts its capacity to be more in line with reality.

BF gives Crete three standard ports: Khania, Rethymnon, and Erakleion. However, the Royal Navy's primary anchorage in Crete was Suda Bay, as it had also been in World War One. Suda Bay was vital to the British naval presence in the area, both as a supply port and as a naval base for refueling destroyers and other smaller craft. The location of this important naval base is now a little off, at least if you go by the outline of the coast as drawn on the Balkan Front map. The peninsula in hex 15B:2113 is the Akrotiri Peninsula. The bay on the east side of the peninsula is Suda Bay. Thus, the anchorage at Suda has moved an entire hex west and has been combined with Khania.

The grading of Khania, Rethymnon and Erakleion all as standard ports is also puzzling to me. When describing the difficulties in supplying Crete's garrison, the British official history has this to say about Crete's ports:

"...Even Suda could take only two small ships at a time, and Heraklion, the chief commercial port, little more; at Canea and Retimo ships had to discharge into lighters."

At the end of the first day of the battle, Freyberg signaled Wavell:

"...So far, I believe, we hold aerodromes at Retimo, Heraklion, and Maleme, and the two harbours..." (my italics).

In The Struggle for Crete, Stewart states:

"In 1941 [Crete] contained no harbour of any size; at Palaiokhora in the west, and at Sphakia and Tymbaki further to the east, there were fishing ports accessible only to small boats. Heraklion, on the northern coast, had modem docks; vessels of up to three thousand tons could tie up along the jetty. At Suda Bay, seventy miles to the west there were no heavy installations, while across the neck of the Akrotiri Peninsula at Canea, the capital of Crete, the ancient Venetian quays could take nothing but the smallest craft. Between Canea and Heraklion, at the small coast town of Retimo, some 30 miles east of Suda, ships could be discharged only by lighter."

In other Europa games, lighterage ports usually do not even rate minor status. Why do they deserve the lofty status of "standard" on Crete? Khania should be a standard port if Suda is omitted, but Rethymnon seems overrated.

A more accurate way to handle Cretan ports might be to downgrade Khania and Rethymnon to minor port status and add a standard port in 15B:2113 to represent Suda. With these changes, overall capacity of Cretan ports remains unchanged.

In a "Greater Europa" setting or when playing Balkan Front accompanied by a naval module, the port arrangement might prove important. Crete would have four worthwhile targets rather than three. In addition, loss of Suda Bay should mean supply difficulties for the Allies and no refueling base for Commonwealth naval units, particularly destroyers. Alexandria is almost 400 miles away. In "Airdrop on Crete" the special modifier to the reaction movement roll tries to give some motivation for Suda's capture or defense: the Axis capture of Suda hampers the operation of British destroyers and gives the Axis seaborne reinforcements a better chance of surviving the journey to Crete.

Having made my case, let me hasten to add that the new BF maps are more accurate and much more pleasing than the old. The debatable placement and grading of a couple of Cretan ports takes nothing away from their excellent design and production. Also, in adding the scenario's special port rules, I relied on the military histories cited above, and not on any detailed geographic research. The original BF rendering of these ports might be quite correct.

The Air Assault System

Under the standard Europa air-drop system, no player in his right mind would drop a parachute unit directly on a defended hex, at least on Crete. Units dropping directly onto an enemy unit have a -1 modification to their disruption die roll and suffer dire consequences if badly disrupted. There is added risk, but no added reward. Europa players may not choose to drop directly onto enemy units, but that's exactly what the Germans did-in four different hexes.

The Europa airborne assault system disregards the surprise factor of descending almost directly on the objective. It was German doctrine to accept the greater risk of jumping directly onto the ultimate target in order to receive the benefit of greater surprise.

John Astell's "Inside Europa" in TEM #17 addressed both these minor problems. It added an optional modification allowing "airborne capture." Ibis provides a motivation for a direct airborne assault and lets us recreate the Crete drop. The "Europa as History" piece shows how this rule can reflect the historical battle. As best I can figure, the odds for capturing an airfield on Crete are 1069 out of 1944 or 55%, assuming there are no losses to AA fire. With one parachute unit dropping against Suda, as in our "EaH," this drops to 46%. The presence of AA, of course, means that the actual chances are somewhat worse than this.

The "Dedicated Mission" rule appeared in the same column. John listed it as very experimental. I could find no other way to get the appropriate units to Crete in "EaH" and still account for the high historical losses in transport planes.

Greek Government

I think the use of capital markers and the addition of rules for exiling governments lend a unique flavor to the new Europa games. In fact, I like them so much I couldn't resist widening their use in "Airdrop on Crete." The presence of King George of Greece and his ministers was a worry for Freyberg throughout the opening stages of the battle. For an expanded role for the Greek capital, try the following rule in a full-scale Balkan Front game.

Rule 28 - Nations

B. The Allies

1. Greece.

a. Government. The Government of Greece starts the game in Athenai (15B:0911). Use the Greek capital marker to mark its location.

During any Allied initial phase, the Allied player may evacuate the government, sending it either into exile or to a Greek-owned island. If sent into exile, remove the government's capital marker from the map. All Greek forces surrender and are removed from play. If evacuated to a Greek island, all Greek forces except those on Greek or Yugoslav islands immediately surrender and are removed from play. The Allied player may evacuate the Greek government to an island in one turn, and into exile in a later turn.

If the Axis player gains ownership of the hex containing the government, roll a die. On a roll of 1 or 2, the government escapes capture, and the Allied player must evacuate it into exile in his next initial phase. On any other roll, the Axis captures the government. Remove the capital marker. All forces of that government, everywhere, surrender and are removed from play. The Axis player gains a victory award for capturing a capital.

Note: It does not cost the Allied player any rail or naval transport capacity to evacuate a government.

An Improved Crete?

Shortly before the deadline for this scenario, I was amazed to discover a tattered copy of The Grenadier #7 in a local used book store. In it was John Astell's original 1979 Crete scenario for M-M. The geography and OB in it were much more similar to "Airdrop on Crete" than to the Balkan Front scenario, so maybe some of my work is a giant step backwards. I do feel however, that the SF naval and air treatments and the other modifications in "Airdrop on Crete" greatly increase the realism of Europa's Crete, if you judge realism by feeling the same pressures that the original commanders felt. Nothing is free, of course, and the realism is purchased at the expense of a more complex scenario than the original "Assault on Crete."

Selected Bibliography

Blau, George E. The German Campaign in the Balkans, Center of Military History, United States Army; 1953.
Goldberg, Eric. "Descent on Crete." Strategy & Tactics; Issue No. 66; 1978. (An incredibly detailed order of battle, but some outright mistakes in the descriptive text.)
Playfair, I. S. O. The Mediterranean and the Middle East, Volume II H.M.S.O.
Rohwer, J. and Hummelchen. Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-1945. Arco; 1972.
Stewart, Ian McD. G. The Struggle for Crete, Oxford University Press, 1966.

Airdrop on Crete: May, 1941 Scenario

The Invasion of Crete
Orders of Battle: Axis and Allies
Detailed Naval OOB
Smile: Pronounciation Guide
Europa as History: Step by Step Invasion
Improving the Crete Scenario