Cory S. Manka, Oklahoma

Second Front Remarks

1. At Start Airfields.

Resource Points are available in each scenario for players to expend on airfields and forts. The decision to build or not should not be left to the players. Both sides had an extensive airfield network. The Italians constructed numerous airfields in Sicily and Sardinia. To be consistent with other Europa games the locations and size of these airfields should be given or an expenditure of resource points for airfield construction by area should be mandated.

2. Landing Craft

a. The Allies receive 3 LC units as reinforcements on the Apr I 44 turn (and 2 others are transferred to the ETO from the MTO). Historically, landing craft were the "long pole" in the tent. When the scope of the invasion was expanded, a month's delay was accepted to gain additional landing craft. The 3 LCs should not be available until the May II 44 turn.

b. The number of LCs available seems to be short by several REs of lift capacity. The historical record talks about a 5 division landing, however, six divisions landed by sea (the regiments of the 29th (US) Infantry Division were attached to the lst (US) Infantry Division for unity of command on Omaha Beach). Each landing was heavily reinforced with engineers, tanks, rangers, commandos and other specialized troops. If we assume that Second Front only provides lift for the initial assault regiments and supporting units, we require 27 LC units. This breaks down as follows:

Beach Units Regimental Equivalents (Total)

UTAH
4 Infantry Battalions
1 Amphibious Tank Battalion
2 Engineer Companies
Total: 3 REs

OMAHA
6 Infantry Battalions
2 Ranger Battalions
2 Recon Companies
5 Engineer Companies
2 Amphibious Tank Battalions
2 Heavy Weapons Battalions
Total: 7.75 REs

GOLD
6 Infantry Battalions
1 Amphibious Armor Brigade
2 Flail Tank Companies
1 Engineer Company
Total: 4.75 REs

JUNO
6 Infantry Battalions
1 Amphibious Armor Brigade
2 Flail Tank Companies
1 Engineer Company
Total: 4.75 REs

SWORD
3 Infantry Battalions
1 Amphibious Armor Brigade
2 Flail Tank Companies
4 Engineer Companies
1 Commando Brigade
1 Inter-Allied Commando Battalion
Total: 5.5 REs

JUNO & SWORD
1 Commando Brigade
Total: 1 RE

TOTAL REs: 26.75

3. Europa Regimental Equivalents. This has bothered me for some time. In Western European armies, a battalion is one third of a regiment or brigade. Simply because three US tank battalions combine into a tank brigade does not decrease the amount of naval transport required to move them from shore to shore. Additionally, divisions should be rated by their number of regiments or brigades, not an arbitrary 3 REs apiece. I would recommend that a Grand Europa optional rule be developed to correct these deficiencies. For most players, the rule as stated is fine, but for those more attuned to reality and not hung up by possible RE complexities, optional standardization would be appreciated rather than an assortment of home-brewed rules. I also recognize the affect this would have on Armor Effects Capability.

The solution to the 'missing " landing craft lies in the fact that intrinsically amphibious units may be transported to beach hexes by NTs. By the way, don't forget that c/m units count double their RE size for naval transport.

GR/D issued an official summary of clarifications and errata related to amphibious landings in TEM #4 0. To obtain a copy seend SASE.

Jim Arnold, California

The benefit the Allies get from the Ground Support mission in Second Front still seems exaggerated, even with its recent reduction against certain terrain types. I'd like to propose a further adjustment, one that adds greater consistency to the mechanics of the combat system without adding to its complexity.

What I'm calling a lack of consistency seems at first to be just a subtle anomaly, one that I'm sure everyone has noticed, where Ground Support shares any die-mod penalty with the ground units (necessarily so), while in some cases when the attacker is halved or quartered (e.g., an attack across a river) it does not. The most glaring inconsistency has already been fixed in the SF rules-situations where aircraft used to be able to provide full support to attacks in the mountains. But I think adjustments should be taken further still, especially in SF, where air and naval support can be so plentiful.

The basis of the problem I'm addressing is that there are two distinct factors which limit the effectiveness of supporting firepower: terrain and diminishing returns. Terrain can inhibit the employment and impact of heavy weapons and bombing, and so can a relatively inadequate contribution by the troops up front on the ground. The effect of the latter derives largely from the fact that insofar as the defender is not forced to expose himself in an energetic defense, artillery and aerial bombing are going to have limited value.

Both limiting factors, terrain and diminishing returns, are reflected to some extent in the current system. Rules 14B, 20G2b and 33A, which restrict the number of artillery, air units, and NGS points that can provide full support to the total of ground unit REs involved, all specifically express the effect of diminishing returns. But do these rules go far enough, especially in SF?

When, for example, 3 REs are attacking across a river into a clear hex, supported by two air units, the terrain itself is no impediment to the Ground Support; but if only 1.5 REs are effectively projected across the river, shouldn't that reduce the maximum number of fully effective air (and artillery) units as well?

Consider a well-known example, and judge for yourself which interpretation of the limits of support better simulates the event. The scene is Omaha Beach: 1x 4-8 Inf III, 2x 3-8 Inf III, 1x 3-8 Eng X, 1x 1-5 Amph Aslt Eng II, 1x 1-8 Ranger II, and 2x 2-1-10 Amph Tank II land against a 5-7-6 Inf XX in a fort behind a cliff. (An additional Ranger II is raiding the CD in the hex.)

There are 4 non-amphibious and 2 amphibious REs in the attack, with 13 and 6 raw attack factors, respectively. When the attack factors are quartered or halved for the landing, and halved again for the cliffs, the US strength is first reduced to 3.25 plus 3, and then to a total of 3.125, so the odds (before support is added) are 3.125: 7, with a -1 mod for the fort and +1 for the engineers. Let's say the Allies have 12-pt and 4-pt naval task forces in support, along with 6 air units with 4 TBFs each. Under current rules that makes for an attack at 3.125+16+24 against 7, for 6:1 odds. This is a tough landing?

In the modification I'm proposing, with the number of effective REs reduced to 1 non-amphibious and 1 amphibious due to the landing, and then to just 1 RE due to the cliffs, the Allies can only employ 1 air unit (4 TBFs) and I group of 4 NGS points at full strength. I would treat any additional air and naval support a player might choose to employ in a way that is consistent with the treatment of excess artillery. If, accordingly, the additional 12 NGS available in the hex are counted at 1 attack point per RE of support they provide (i.e., I per 4 NGS), the adjusted total is 3.125 i 4 1 4 1 3, or 14.125 against 7, or 2:1.

Additional aircraft should, in my view, be counted at 1/4 their TBFs. (This would avoid the gaminess of throwing in the weakest air units available if the rule stated that any additional air unit counted as 1 T13F.) If the Allied player seeks 3:1 odds, he would have to pile on 7 more aircraft with 4 raw TBFs apiece, or 10 with 3 T`BFs.

A more accurate simulation of the actual assault at Omaha Beach would probably have lx Amph Tank Il sink in the surf, which would bring the adjusted RE total in the attack below 1, to 7/8. In this case, no aircraft and only 3 NGS could support at full strength, for a total attack strength, after the additional 13 NGS in the hex are added, but before any additional aircraft, of 2.625+3+3.25, or 8.875. In this case the US player needs to add 6 more 4-TBF air units just to make a 2:1 attack. A mental image of "Bloody Omaha" now springs to mind.

Omaha beach is just one example, of course. But anyone who has tried to match the historical defense put up by the Germans in the west in 1944, against the overwhelming Allied air and naval ground support as it is currently represented, will likely achieve a greater similarity by using my proposal. And given that you usually have to count REs anyway, there's really no added work involved. For the sake of accuracy and consistency the use of the adjusted RE count should apply to artillery as well, although the unmodified ratio of artillery to non-artillery REs usually doesn't exceed 1:2, meaning the rule would not often be invoked anyway.

Incidentally, when all of this is combined with halving of GS against mountain hexes, the historical performance of the Germans in Italy appears much more feasible, too.

We have received several similar proposals from other readers over the last few months. The change in Second Front halving GS against mountains~ forests, swamps, cities and certain types of fortifications has given rise to a small chorus of voices asking, "Why stop here?".

Tie most recurrent theme is that GS for cross-river attacks should be halved (for rivers) and quartered (for major rivers). What do the rest of you think? If you have an opinion on the subject, please take a few minutes and drop us a fine.

I would like to remark on a possible misunderstanding about excess artillery. Excess REs of artillery do not count as 1 point per RE., but rather as a total strength of 1 point for all excess REs. Example: A player has three 2-3-8 artillery regiments and one 2-8 combat engineer regiment attacking a hex. Since only 1 non-artiffery RE is participating in the attack only 1 artillery regiment may attack using its full attack strength. The other 2 artillery REs attack with a total strength of 1. Thus, the attack strength of the attack (assuming no terrain or other modifications) is 5.

Arthur Lee, Oregon

I was exposed to the Europa system about five years ago. While I found the game a very enjoyable historical simulation, I had many reservations. Buying the games required a big monetary commitment, and there was no guarantee that the series (or even Second Front, for that matter) would ever be completed. I was also totally dissatisfied with the existing air rules and air replacement system.

Although I saw a glimmer of hope when GR/D obtained the rights to Europa, I was still hesitant to dive in when all I saw was what looked like modules and old games with some new window-dressing. These concerns (and the fact that I probably don't fit the usual demographics of your customers--I'm under 30 and a blue-collar worker without any higher education) were enough to keep me away. You might be surprised at the number of history buffs out here who don't fit the usual profile of a historical wargamer. Most of us can't afford a good computer, but can afford an excellent historical boardgame that will not become obsolete the next year.

When I saw Second Front in the store, I decided it was time to design and fabricate a large ceiling drop table for wargames and drop a hint or two about Christmas. I was not disappointed by Santa Claus or the game: a quick dash to the air rules and order of battle revealed that most of my pet peeves had been addressed. An in-depth look at the rules and maps totally satisfied my concerns about GR/D's commitment to . the system. An obviously huge amount of research, play analysis and game design was involved in Second Front. I now hope there are plans to redo all of the older Europa games; I am ready to acquire about two titles a year at current prices. Although I am unfamiliar with your company, my hunch is that you are a bunch of people dedicated to their job and keeping the Europa system alive. Keep up the good work.

Phil Mason, New Zealand

As you can see from my address, I'm from 'Beyond the Fringe'-a member of the Pacific Europa Group. Apart from some slack service from PEP (which was a problem, but has been cleared up recently) I've been a very contented soul with Europa, and have enjoyed TEM immensely. I'd Re to throw my twopence worth on several topics that have been bouncing around the mag for the past while.

Air System: Well, I'll reserve judgement on the new system until I've had more experience with the Second Front rules, but I have been using Gary Dickson's ideas (TEM #25) and give them a big thumbs up-- the flexibility of tac air support of the late-war air forces is very well simulated. It's much easier to impose tighter restrictions on early-war doctrines than to try to do the reverse. I'm relieved to see that Strat Bombing is abstracted in SF; it reduces the countermix, but more importantly, removes any idiotic temptation to use Bomber Command or the 8th AF for ground support just because the counters are there.

Hot Rod Europa, Noodles and Surf-Nazis on Rollerskates: Personally, I think there should never be an impregnable deadcertain defense. Military simulations should always attempt to recreate the uncertainty of warfare; a primary reason for wargaming is to test alternative strategies against history. To remove the risks and make attacks or defenses 'dead-certs' turns the exercise into a glorified game of chess. With the tools given to the Red Army, Operation Barbarossa was a dead-cert failure--it was the way the tools were misused which gave the Germans the sniff of potential victory. So, for example, setting up a NODL line across AGC or AGN to deny them Moscow or Leningrad, guaranteeing the Germans run out of time trying to hack their way through, one hex at a time, is strategically and militarily unrealistic and therefore bad simulation.

What I'm getting round to, in a convoluted way, is that such systems as Low-Odds Overruns should always be an option to the daring/desperate player. Thus, NODLs fall back into perspective: a strong tactic, but still with an element of risk attached, like any real stratagem. Combined with unopposed and exploitation movement for infantry and cavalry (TEM #13), such a rule makes for a very fluid and mobile system. Game turns aren't 2 days of combat and then 12 of R&R-you've got a lot of toing and froing, and breakout and reaction to simulate.

Percentile Odds rounding is another good assist. Von Richthofen didn't send in exactly 67 Stukas for a key assault; two or three Geschwader would be detailed. Point counting just bogs the game down.

Finally a few thoughts on Grand Europa. Picture this: a young kid sits in an old attic with dusty maps and asks the man there "Grandpa, where were you when Man first landed on Mars?" "Well lad, I was just starting my fourth turn of GE." Now, I for one, do not intend to link Europa up into a 1943 super-scenario; it would rival the Beast of Revelations. But I would be interested in adding abstract strategics to one of several Megagames, which would be basically:

i) early war West/ Central
ii) Med War
iii) Eastern Front
iv) late war West/ Central

Looking at such behemoths as Scorched Earth and Second Front reveals that they occur in a historical box. Regardless of on-board success/failure, units are withdrawn, reinforcements sent in without accounting for the Alternate History evolving within the game. What I can see GE's role to be is to provide the wider cause-and-effect impact of players' strategic decisions in an abstract way, without recourse to all the other maps and counters. Some examples may explain better:

(a) Winter beckons on the Eastern Front, inhibiting the usefulness of the German panzers. Holding a relatively secure position, OKW withdraws several divisions to send to Africa. Imagine the effect of doubling Rommel's armor capability.

(b) A reverse case: things are tight in 1941 for AGC, the Germans can't afford to send off Luftflotte 2 to assault Malta as per the usual Nov I requirement. Will the short term Russian respite balance the supply loss to Rommel?

(c) Unlike Hitler's insistence to maintain a counter-bomber force in 1944, the German player puts priority into fighter production to defeat the Allied bombing raids and maintain industrial production. Germany is thus better prepared to meet the D-Day landings.

(d) Germany forfeits resources to be able to winterize a large number of divisions for Barbarossa, anticipating a stubborn multi-season campaign.

You see that an inherent delay occurs in decisions taken. Taking the historical WW2 timeline as the yardstick, such GE alternatives increase/decrease the probabilities of alternate outcomes occurring: for example case (a) yields a higher chance that Rommel breaks through, perhaps seizes Alexandria and Suez, maybe even linking up in the Caucasus, as per the original pie-in-the-sky Axis idea! The system would require lots of plus and minus factors: ifs, buts and alsos, then crossindexing with probable outcomes. These would be checked every 2 months, say, and no doubt would need to be computerized, I suspect. This gives the Europist the chance to examine why some unusual tactical decisions were dictated by wider strategic concerns. Such ideological things as the 'Final Solution' or the Ukrainian Enslavement remain outside GE's scope-the players are the Chiefs-of-Staff, not the State Leaders.

Just to blow away all my credibility and get branded as a blasphemer and a heretic: consider looking at how such games as Advanced Third Reich and World War H. ETO handle their industry, political and maritime systems. Obviously there are copyright issues involved, but I see no conflict of interests here: those are corps+ level militico-industrial games, whereas Europa is a division-level military simulation looking for a unifying backdrop. Europa is the pinnacle of detail, research and accuracy in WW2 simulation, but one can always learn new angles. Keep up the fine work all you intrepid writers!

Potpourri: As mentioned, Second Front has just arriveddim wor&. Gosh! Wow! Amazing! Great maps, high quality counters and (generally) well-ordered and cross- referenced rules. I'll be giving SF more serious attention once a few Europa mags come out with some articles related to it.

My grandfather was a truck driver for the New Zealand Division in '40-'42, and during my 1993 trip to Europe I spent a few days in Crete where he had fought. I came away very impressed and moved by the sites of Suda Bay/Khania, and particularly Maleme and Hill 107--no wonder there was such heavy fighting there--the fields of fire were so obvious. Interestingly, from the cemetery headstones, the average Allied soldier was about 25 years old, whereas the average Fallschirmjager was only about 20. A separate tour took me to Matthausen labor camp near Munich, also a very tragic and moving site well worth a visit.

Finally, I have recently turned my interest to trying the Operation Groza scenario using the Sudden Storm rules. If anything worth reporting develops, I will send a dispatch.

David Jennings, Illinois

I have just read the EXchange column in TEM #38/39, and I must respond to your answer to Bruce Yearian's letter.

To start with, I think your uninformed opinion of our gaming group is way off-base. In fact, it sucks. We have played a number of games over the years--not all of them Europa--and have found that no other game company advocates changing the rules the way you seem to. Granted, vague rules will always be with us, and show up in almost every game. All companies have errata sheets, but nowhere do they encourage players to tinker with their game systems the way you do. I realize that Europa is a growing, changing entity and sometimes rules modifications and "Bro" rules do indeed eventually become officially sanctioned Europa rules. This is well and good, and I tip my hat to those in the Europa community with the time and resolve to make it happen.

Unfortunately, my group really doesn't have time to tweak the game system when we get together. We are doing well to get a game set up and one turn played in the course of a session. All of us in our group have families, jobs and other obligations that demand our time. We depend on the game system to be sufficiently well thought-out and well-written to allow us to enjoy our limited gaming time. Besides, confusion about the rules, when altered, can cause inadvertent illegal moves that take the fun out of the game. The Europa community itself speaks out against being too liberal in changing the rules to suit the individual.

I refer to my good friend Roy Lane's article in the Europa Newsletter #3, "Official Sanction." The whole article is excellent and maybe should be reprinted, but one excerpt stands out: "Officially sanctioned rules are the foundation from which Europa evolves." My group did not change the rules to suit ourselves because we were trying to play the game as close to the way Mr. Astell planned it as possible. Sure, we thought of doing all of your changes, but we try to play with rules-as- written. Mark Pitcavage's article in TEM #21 "What is Wrong with Europa" is another excellent commentary. Mark states, "I realize that I belong to a distinct minority because I prefer playing with 'rules-as-written' (RAW)." I would like to meet Mr. Pitcavage; I think we would have a lot in common.

Mr. Gayler, I have played Europa since 1974 and have all the titles. I don't mean to imply that I'm an expert. My deployment in the Leningrad: 1941 contest proves that (although I did write my setup after being on duty and awake at my job as a firefighter for over 30 hours). Nevertheless, I'm not an expert; I game for fun. I choose to play Europa, predominately, and will continue to do so. I do not find myself in the habit of messing with other peoples' games. It usually damages play balance and I feel that it slights the efforts of Mr. Astell and others more worthy than me. All my group and I are doing is playing Europa as best we can, as well as exposing others to a very rewarding game system.

Interestingly enough, your fetter arrived after I had composed the initial draft of my editorial for this issue. My views on Europa and house rules are covered there.

I am sorry that I offended you and your group. I did assume that if Bruce had reason to believe that viewing stacks was wrong, then perhaps there was a player in the group who was taking an inordinate amount of time examining stacks and/or counting factors. This was an unenlightened guess that I had no sound basis for making, since (as you properly note) I have no first hand knowledge of your group's playing habits. I should have approached this more obliquely: "If examining stacks and counting factors begins to detract from play, there are several house rules that address this issue, if your group is willing to depart from, the rules-as-written.

If you don't have this sort of deliberate player in your group, count yourselves fortunate: they are out there in large numbers, witness the next letter.

Patrick A. Minnaugh, Pennsylvania

Thank you for allowing our group to playtest scenarios for the magazine. Please allow me to express our feelings regarding this opportunity. We are long-time Europa junkies that have been forced to suffer through obscene rules lawyers (both legal and historical), extremely slow players (10 minutes per counter-not stack, counter), stack maximizers (taking hours to decide where a 1-6 Penal counter should go), endless hours of the air phase (this is a very sore area with us), and being forced to finish a game short-handed or just plain stop play because of gamers who enjoy dishing it out, but are unable to continue when things do not go well for them.

This is why we have enjoyed the many scenarios in the Europa magazine. They have brought back the enjoyment of playing the system for all of us, and we are all looking forward to participating in the process. We just want to play. Hopefully our efforts in this regard will meet your standards.

This presupposes, of course, that we have any standands... Seriously, thanks to groups like Patrick's we are steadily building a stockpile of thoroughly tested scenarios.

John Berger, Hawaii

I am looking for information on the Japanese-allied military forces of the Co-Prosperity Sphere (1931-1945) - Burma, China (Nanking), French Indo-China, Indonesia, Malaya, Manchukuo, Mengchiang (Inner Mongolia), the Philippines and Thailand. There is a considerable amount of published information on the Indian National Army, but apparently less on the other Japanese- allied groups.

I am particularly interested in uniforms and insignia, and in wartime operations.

I would appreciate any suggestions on reference materials I may not have.

Jim Byrne, Ontario

Re GR/D's recent production problems: we had a saying when I was in the Navy, "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined." I know how depressing things can seem when everything you do seems to go wrong, and you know that at the bottom of it the only one responsible for the choices you made was you. I've been there myself. GR/D will visit the pit again, I'm sure; it just won't affect you as badly as the first time.

I have confidence that GR/D will continue simply because it is not a business in the sense that so many other concerns are. I view it, rightly or wrongly, as a group of individuals committed to a single goal, the maintenance of Europa as a living product. People Re that are infinitely more resilient than the largest of corporations, but they tend to take their setbacks a lot more personally.

It does look as if GR/D may be turning the corner to more prosperous days. At least we hope so.

Victor Hauser, Texas

I was quite pleased to note in the A Winter War errata sheet in TEM #37 that the Soviet artillery division is now prohibited from advancing after combat in that game. I also note that NKVD units are non-c/m units in AWW. I hope that these two changes will eventually be transplanted into Scorched Earth when that game is reprinted, as they would go a long way towards bringing Scorched Earth in line with historical reality during the 1943 and 1944 phases of the campaign.

Current Soviet tactics under existing Scorched Earth rules go something like this:

• move to the Axis position with all available assault forces
• blow one or more holes in the Axis line
• advance powerful, full-ATEC units into the hole(s), assisted by NKVD troops in order to render Axis counterattacks unprofitable at best and disastrous at worst

Currently, the Axis is helpless in the face of these tactics which, I believe, overstate both historical Soviet tactical flexibility and their true ability to resist German mobile counterattacks. Further, highly defensible positions such as fort lines across major rivers become very simple to break, since air power plus artillery generates all the firepower needed to move just about any German stack. Once that occurs, the exploitation force, which includes one or more big artillery division (!) per hex, advances with impunity across the major river (!) into the heart of the Axis line.

I don't think that artillery divisions, with their thousands of vehicles, could do anything more than get in the way (causing more harm than good) during the chaos and rapidity of a breakthrough operation. In addition, the artillery divisions get, in effect, two moves for the price of one in a single turn: artillery is halved in attack on the turn it moves, but advance after combat doesn't count as movement. Thus, an artillery division can fire at full strength (after first moving into position) to blow open the hole, then advance into the hole (contributing tremendously to the defense against German counterattacks), and then be able to fire again at full strength the following turn (to truly can-open the Axis position) since its advance after combat didn't count as movement.

Making all NKVD political troops non-c/m would also go a long way towards clipping the wings of impregnable Soviet stacks. The Soviet player would now be faced with a trade-off advancing an NKVD unit into a breakthrough hex would provide the "no-retreat" benefit, but would water down the ATEC and AECD capability of the units in the hex.

Don't get too excited, the jury is stiff out an this subject. The decision to prohibit the Soviet artillery division from advancing after combat in A Winter War was made by the designer of that game, Gary Stagliano, and is only valid for that game and time period. It remains to be seen whether Yohn Astell will see fit to make this a system-wide official and the same goes for the ultimate treatment of NKVD troops during the 1943-44 period.