Trey Nelson, Texas

Our group did an East Front playtest using Arthur Goodwin's draft maps, Charles Sharp's Soviet OB, Jason Long's Axis OB, and a select group of house rules representing what we felt to be the most promising efforts to reform Europa. We played most of 1941. It was a huge success: fast, fun and historical. Highlights included large Russian pockets, Leningrad cut off, Soviets in dire straits and Germans overextended and with supply problems when the mud hit. Let me know if you would like more details. We're very excited about how smoothly this upgraded version plays, and especially with how Arthur's factory/economic system affects strategic planning.

On another topic, I believe that the regular discussion of game concepts (strategy and tactics, optimum use of units and how to conduct specific operations) is of immense use to beginning players and may even help veterans sharpen their game. I have contributed a few such articles myself over the years, and hoped that starting such a forum would eventually loosen up some of the old veterans to share their skills and experience, thereby upgrading the level of play of the Europa community as a whole. "Saving tricks" to beat up helpless beginners may be immediately gratifying, but not very productive in the long run. Novices who brave the intimidating size/complexity of the system should be helped to upgrade their skills and enjoyment of the games. Humiliating new players usually doesn't impress them with a veteran's dazzling ability; it may (and in many cases probably does) discourage them and cause them to tam to other games that require less time and overall effort to master.

This brings us to the point the veterans raise: "I've spent years learning this system and its intricacies; novices have got to pay their dues/take their lumps/learn their lessons!" Such tribal "initiation rites" may stroke the ego of the existing Europa community, and it may result in bringing on board "a few good men," but it won't help the community's growth rate much, and as attrition (age) takes its toll, new blood must be encouraged in every way possible. Convention seminars/displays are one good avenue, GEnie another, but a cheaper/more public method would be to publish articles in the magazine promoting a higher level of playing skills among new players.

Again, I realize that due to veterans' reticence such articles are difficult to come by. Overall, I am very impressed with the magazine, and encouraged by the trends I've seen and the ideas I've heard discussed. I do hope, however, that the magazine will continue to become more focused as a "gainers' rag," with the emphasis on playing techniques, rules court, widely-used rule variants and other such articles, while still retaining some "history as it relates to game mechanics" articles.

We constantly try to wrangle play articles out of veteran players, especially those we know from personal experience to be experts. But as you accurately point out, such articles are hard to cam by. The reasons for this may be more complex than you think Sure, there are a few prima donnas out there who jealously guard their clever little tricks. But there are many other factors involved, including:

• Some of the best players just don't write articles. Just because a gamer is able to squeeze top performance out of a cardboard army doesn't mean he can string words together.
• This kind of article is one of the hardest to write. For example, Frank Watson asked in issue # 37 that someone step forward and instruct players on how to devastate Scorched Earth NODLs. But consider this: every game is different. There is not one patented NODL strategy that is used by all players. The NODL is just as much apart of a Forward Defense as it is a Runaway Defense, but each requires a different response. It is hard enough to show someone how to attempt to deal with a NODL over a game board where a specific set of circumstances exists, much less set a definitive blueprint down in writing in an abstract context.
• Many of the best players are very humble and rather self-effacinq. They reject the notion that they are qualified to instruct other players. One of the best gamers I've known over the years describes himself as the "luckiest guy I know." Of course, it isn't luck that makes him so good, but you can't get him to accept that fact. -- Rick Gayler

Jacopo Porreca, Italy

I am a fan of Europa; I have all the games of the series and I am waiting for the final wrap-up kit.

Last week I played the "Crusade in Europe" scenario from Second Front. I handled the Allied forces, while my friend commanded the Axis units. His war plan was to save Italy from surrender as long as possible; for this reason the initial setup of Axis forces, especially German, was aimed to a massive redeployment to the south by rail and administrative movement. Even air units were deployed only on airfields in southern Italy.

In the initial turn, the US/British forces landed near Trapani, Licata, Agrigento and Mazara dell Vallo, while airborne units were dropped near Palermo. The Axis units were all in the Messina area in a defensive posture. For the rest of the summer (Jul II through Aug II) the Allies occupied half of Sicily without fighting.

In the air war, big battles occurred over the port of Messina; if this supply terminal is destroyed, all Axis forces in Sicily will be out of supply, except what can be supplied via a landing craft functioning as a ferry in the hex. The Axis player called up his strategic air forces and brought in huge amounts of static and motorized AA to defend the Messina/Reggio di Calabria area. Mt Etna was captured by the Allies in the Sep I turn, while other British forces were assaulting Sardinia.

In the Sep II turn, under heavy Allied pressure, my opponent withdrew to Calabria and Corsica; by this time he had lost about 40 REs of Italian forces. The Axis player withdrew Italian units from danger areas as quickly as possible, and the number of German units taking their place grew turn by turn.

With only static divisions in northern France and no strong units at all north of Marseille, I started to plan an early invasion of Europe for the Oct I turn. My air units in Britain had been bombing every rail hex in France from the start of the game and the strategic wings began to hit the rail marshaling yards of the Mainland France/Benelux net. The Luftwaffe was unable to intercept any of these units (the fighters were all in the south), and so in a short time the rail net was utterly destroyed.

In the Oct I turn, the 12-8 Marine XX, plus Canadian and American 10-8 infantry divisions and a lot of airborne units, assaulted Festung Europa. The landings succeeded in taking Dieppe, Le Havre and Fecamp. This presented the Axis player with unexpected problems: he was unable to quickly redeploy his panzer and panzergrenadier units due to rail breaks and so only those units forming in France were available as a c/m reserve.

In his Oct II turn my opponent began to attempt the early arrival of two SS panzergrenadier divisions and a 4-3-8 SS armored battalion, and also a Wehrmacht panzer division. Both panzergrenadier divisions were mobilized at full strength, but no tank battalion arrived and the panzer division entered play as a cadre. These forces, without air support, were unable to attack the beachhead, which was covered by heavy DAS. During the Oct II Allied player turn, the invasion forces were able to expand the landing area, destroying a number of reserve and static divisions of the Wehrmacht in the process.

Back in the south, an attempt was made to take Reggio di Calabria, using a landing craft to cross the hexside. My calculations were wrong, so the final odds were a miserable 1:2 (0), but "The Force" was with me, and with a die roll of "6," Italian losses grew to 50 REs. In the initial phase of Nov I 43, Italy surrendered and the weather turned to mud. With no chance of successfully counterattacking the invasion forces in France during winter, the Axis player decided to surrender.

The strategy of trying to save Italy from defeat at all costs succeeded in delaying her fall until Nov I, but ultimately cost the Axis player victory when Germany was left with too few units to garrison the French beaches. This experience certainly proves that an early invasion of Europe may be considered if the appropriate conditions are met.

Jason Long, Illinois

Better late than never department: Let's settle some hash from issue #24. On page 23, Mark Pitcavage wondered what aircraft were off- loaded from the French aircraft transport, Beam. The dive bombers were 50 Curtiss SBC-4 Helldivers, old biplanes the USN was trying to unload. I'd rate them at 2D2 2C8. The other cargo were 23 Curtiss H75A4 and 6 ex-Belgian Brewster B-339B Buffalos.

The two light cruisers in the West Indies were Emile Bertin and Jeanne D'Arc, and the Lamotte-Picquet was in Indo-China.

A discussion with Charles Sharp revealed 3-2-8* Cav [X] 32 should start with the group of forces around Simferopol, while 5th and 9th [Xjs comprise 2nd Cavalry Corps in Odessa MD.

W. Nelson

It seems to me it would be easy to link up the various Europa games into a simple but interesting Grand Europa without too much chrome being needed. I am perplexed by the urge everyone seems to have to make everything complex. Here's my suggestion: Start with First to Fight. The Poles try to survive long enough to trigger Western intervention, while the Germans win by crushing the Poles before it is triggered. If the Germans win they can choose to go first in Narvik or hit France. They would be allowed an 8-month window to decide when to attack. If they wait longer, the Allies can then decide to attack Germany or Norway. If the Poles win, the Allies decide whether to attack Germany or go first in Narvik. It's possible that a cold-hearted ally would sacrifice Poland to take out the iron mines.

This approach would give the winner of the previous game a high degree of freedom to attack where and when he chooses. Note that the Germans should be allowed to avoid TFH so as not to lose the initiative, if desired.

Add an Italian Jealousy Chart--the more successful the German player, the greater the possibility of Italy starting its own independent war (i.e., Albania/Greece), thus dragging the Germans in and possibly costing them the initiative.

Steve Grover, Connecticut

Frank Watson's article in TEM #29 on economics in GE was particularly refreshing in that it presented a positive approach to this problem. I don't agree completely with his presentation (especially the breakdown of the shipbuilding industry), but in general it lifted my GE spirits.

Keep up the great work; the magazine improves steadily.

Grand Europa is a bit intimidating, but I see no real reason why it can't be done. The idea of grand campaign modules (first advanced by Mark Pitcavage in issue #19) is a very viable concept. But I do not think that this is all GE can be. Like Frank Watson, I firmly believe that GE is attainable, and without giving players Me 262s in 1943. The designer and the various researchers and developers for Europa have no intentions of letting such absurdities occur.

I do believe that certain things must happen to keep GE from getting too crazy and losing all basis in historical reality. These include thaht the game must start with Germany at war with Poland, Britain and France and allied to the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Hitler must declare war on the US whenever Pearl Harbor is bombed. Mussolini's military adventurism. and desire for martial glory must be taken into account; the Italians should have their own set of victory conditions that include VP rewards for certain foolish military expeditions, like those into Greece and Egypt. On the other hand, there is no reason why Italy must invade Greece rather than Yugoslavia. The Germans need to be forced to attack the Soviet Union; the Groza scenario in issue #23 demonstrates what will occur if the Rusians attack first. Thus, Stalin will have to be shackled from breaking the Pact with Germany until mid-1941. -- Jason Long