Suggestion:

I suggest that a new exchange-type combat result, but favorable to the defender, be introduced into the CRT For instance, AHX (attacker loses half the defender's strength, but does not retreat) could replace AR; and AEX (attacker loses strength equal to the defender's, but does not retreat) could replace AH and AE. Thus, attackers would never have to retreat (the enemy would have to counterattack to drive them off), but would suffer higher losses when their own attacks are repulsed.

Reply:

"Thus, attackers would never have to retreat (the enemy would have to counterattack to drive them off) . . ." Hold it right there! The defender has counterattacked and seen the attacker off. That's part of why the combat results work the way they do. Europa could show this directly, if we wanted, by changing all AE, AH, AR, and AS results on the ground CRT to CA (for "counterattack"). Then, we could have a separate counterattack table, on which the defender rolls to find the result.

For example, here's how 2:1 odds could work:

Current CRT	Revised CRT	CA CRT
Die Roll Result	Die Roll Result	Die Roll Result
1 AR	1 CA	1 AR
2 AS	2 CA	2 AR
3 AS	3 CA	3 AS
4 EX	4 EX	4 AS
5 HX	5 HX	5 AS
6 DR	6 DR	6 AS

The "Current CRT" shows the way the ground CRT works at 2:1 (with no die modifiers, for simplicity). The "Revised CRT" shows how it'd look with an explicit counterattack result. If the attacker rolled a 1, 2, or 3, then the defender would roll on the "CA CRT," using the 2:1 column (both CRTs would use the original odds of the attack, to avoid confusion); the result on the CA CRT determines the effect of the counterattack on the (original) attacker.

Now, there is something appealing about how this works: it does explicitly show counterattacks. However, note that in either system, for a 2:1 attack the attacker will have a 1/6 chance of an AR and a 2/6 chance of an AS. Since both systems generate the same result, isn't it better to use the one that requires only one CRT and only one die roll? I think so.

If anything, rather than suggesting new combat results for AR, AH, and AE results, you might argue that the defender should get to advance after combat on these results. After all, if the (surviving) attackers are retreating due to a counterattack by the defenders, then why can't the defenders advance from their hex after combat just like the attackers can?

The quick answer is that the game system assumes the defender usually isn't sufficiently organized and ready enough to go over to a general advance before the attacker can somewhat recover from the reverse. By not allowing the defender to advance after combat, the system allows the attacker to restore the front line by moving c/m forces in during the exploitation phase. If the attacker is unable or unwilling to do this, then the erstwhile defender can advance, in his next movement phase.

There's a second reason for not allowing the defender to advance. If such an advance were possible, then the attacker would (in most cases, wherever possible) designate a unit (call it the "local reserve") in each attacking hex to just sit there and not attack. Then, if the attacking force scoots, there's still a unit in the hex, preventing the defender from advancing. (And, please, no suggestions that everyone in the hex has to retreat if anyone does.

Sure, you can make a case that this makes sense if three divisions are attacking and a battalion is sitting around in reserve, but this is by no means the only case. After all, the battalion could be attacking and the divisions not, or each division could be participating in a different attack.)

Here's my short and sweet philosophy on making changes to Europa basics such as movement or the various game tables:

1) If it's demonstrably broken, fix it. "Demonstrably" means that actual play of the games shows it doesn't work right.

2)If it's a clear and substantial improvement, do it. (This can be difficult to assess; see "Weird Europa" appearing elsewhere in this issue.)

If something does pass check 1) or 2), then here's my philosophy on what to do:

• Identify the real cause of the problem. Often, a stated problem is only the visible symptom of a different problem. Attacking the symptom is not the solution; attacking the underlying problem is.
• Find the best way to make the fix, without changing the rest of Europa. Despite a lot of hand-wringing and moaning from people who cry that the game is completely screwed up unless their pet rules are inserted, many years of playing show that the Europa rules do work and do work well in case after case.
• If possible, make things simpler, not harder. There may be too many exceptions to the rules now: IF this THEN that EXCEPT these UNLESS those. You can almost always find an exception to any "rule" in World War II. Incorporating them all doesn't make the game better-it ends up making it worse, ultimately unplayable. The key is to discern what exceptions are truly important; account for them and lose the insignificant ones.

The case for 'A-X' results does not satisfy either check 1) or 2). If anyone wants to make a solid case for A-X, go ahead and try.

But, please, no hazy theoretical or hypothetical pleading. I've seen enough theoretical or hypothetical arguments over the years to give a physicist a headache. They typically start from a fact (e.g., both 1.5:1 and 2:1 have DEs on a roll of 8), argue a case (panzers with their +3 modifiers mean that the German player has a 2/6 chance of DE at either 1.5:1 or 2:1), come to a conclusion (obviously, 2:1 should be better, so the game is screwed due to this condition which the German player will exploit to win all the time), and a course of action (change 8 on 1.5:1 to DH). The problem with this sort of argument is that there's no real proof- show me cases from actual play where there's a real problem that exists or a substantial improvement to be made.

The A-X is one example of CRT tinkering that doesn't seem to stand up. Here are some others that have been proposed at various times:

• Add a -2 line on the CRT. The theory for this is that the attacker isn't sufficiently "punished7 for launching attacks that garner lots of negative modifiers, and a -2 line would fix this. The case for this is not convincing: the current CRT is not demonstrably broken, and the proposed change is not clear and substantial improvement. In fact, there's more evidence that adding a -2 line will make things worse; A Winter War in particular probably cannot survive a -2 line.
• Flip-flop DRs and HXs. Some argue that HX is a better result than DR and thus should come after, not before DR on the CRT. Also, by appearing before DR, it makes it too easy for the Soviets to wage a war of attrition through low odds attacks.

  The case for this is again not convincing. There's a lot of theoretical and hypothetical arguments for this, but little proof that things are demonstrably broken. In fact, some of these arguments criticize the CRT for allowing it to do something it is designed to do: let a numerically superior but tactically inept army (the Soviets) adopt a policy of attrition. Arguing that this is possible does not prove there's a problem. Showing that such a policy is too effective would be proof, but I have yet to see that actual play supports this.

  If there is indeed a problem here (yet to be shown), I strongly suspect the CRT isn't at fault. Instead, it's the assumption that Soviet forces were tactically able to force HX results on the Axis in the early war years. If there is indeed a problem, my first solution would be to allow the Germans to substitute, at their option, a DR result for any 14X the Soviets achieve.

• Other New Combat Results. DD is Defender Destroyed: the defender is completely eliminated in combat; units with cadres are eliminated without cadres appearing. DS is Defender Surrenders: This is the same as DD except that the eliminated units never generate special replacements. DD and DS would replace some DEs at high odds.

  These aren't bad ideas per se, but there's no proof that either is needed. Further, the historical evidence suggests otherwise. Cadres and survivors of destroyed units almost always escaped, despite the odds, except under very special conditions such as being pocketed/isolated. This is true of all nationalities, particularly the Germans--the Allies eventually learned that the only way to reliably and permanently kill a German division was to surround it totally and then beat it up.

For example, look at US tactics in 1944-45. The US Army in particular seemed to believe they were playing with DD and DS results: forget about maneuver, just pile on enough force and you'll destroy the enemy. Battles in France proved otherwise. Remember, the US thought Falaise Gap was a decisive (war-winning) victory until all those "destroyed" German divisions showed up again at the front in the autumn of 1944.

By the end of 1944, the US Army had figured out that the only sure way to destroy German units was to pocket them and then smash them, capturing the survivors. American operations slowly changed from bludgeoning the enemy and forcing him back to surrounding and then smashing him. See Eisenhower's Lieutenants by Russ Weigley for a definitive overview on this.

History aside, DD and DS may introduce some perverse tactics into play.

1) Whereas before getting uniformly high-odd attacks (say two 7:1s) was typically best use of force, now taking a 9:1 and a 5:1 might be better.

2) Given lots of turns, such as in FitEISE, I would preferentially go for 9:1 killers against the best Axis units as the way to hurt the Germans the most. This is almost the complete opposite of Soviet strategy, which was to go after the weaker forces first.