Cory Manka, Oklahoma

Having read Europa #41, I have two comments about the EXchange section. The first is that in my letter, the engineer battalions I listed for UTAH and OMAHA beaches appear as companies in #41. Checking both my research material and the letter I sent in, battalions is indeed correct. This will make the RE calculations make sense.

The second item is the letter by Jim Arnold and the commentary following it. I do not favor a change in Ground Support, Naval Gunfire Support or effective REs for an amphibious assault, or further reductions in support for units attacking across a river.

Jim's calculations assume the coastal raid against the CD is a success, and the amphibious tank battalions make it ashore. But the coastal raid may not be successftil, and if the CD is not attacked by air or sea forces it is available to fire on the assault units. Further, if sea conditions are calm, an amphibious tank unit will fail to reach shore if a "1" is rolled. Therefore, if a single battalion fails to reach shore, Ground Support can only be provided by 5 air units. As Jim's original attack factor count after all modifications was 43.125, the loss of 4 Ground Support factors drop the odds from 6:1 to 5:1.

If the CD was successful in hitting a LC carrying an infantry regiment, and one amphibious tank battalion fails to reach shore, only 4 air units could provide ground support, and the odds will drop to 4:1. If the engineer regiment is destroyed by the CD, and one amphibious tank battalion fails to reach the beach, the odds become 4:1 (- 1).

Historically, the assault waves for OMAHA consisted of two infantry regiments (plus divisional engineer and AA weapons battalions and recon companies), an engineer regiment, two tank battalions, a ranger battalion and elements of a naval amphibious assault engineer battalion. This is a force equivalent to 5 REs in Europa terms. A ranger battalion landed at Pointe du Hoc, not to conduct a "coastal raid" but to seize and destroy the weapons there and defend until relieved. Thus an additional 1/2 RE can be added to the assault.

The pre-invasion air bombardment at OMAHA on 6 June was ineffective, the naval bombardment only partially so. The German coast defenses were not completely destroyed. Thus the Germans were able to fire on the assaulting troops and landing craft. Due to heavy losses in engineer troop and more importantly equipment, I am going to assume the amphibious assault engineer battalion is destroyed, and that sufficient tanks from both amphibious tank battalions reach the beach to constitute a weak battalion. 5.5 REs becomes 4.5 REs. With 16 GS and 16 NGF factors, you have at best 4:1.

In Europa we have two week turns. Historically, the German 352nd Infantry Division was decimated within two weeks of the invasion. But the US Army assault units took heavy losses on the 6th of June as well. This can only occur if a half exchange result is possible on the combat results table. HX exists at both 4:1 and 5:1. Thus, although OMAHA beach can be assaulted at 6:1, it is not absolutely certain to happen. As Europa can model the historical results, my vote is, "Modification Not Required".

The other suggestion is to reduce ground support for units attacking across a river. I ask, "Why?" A river does not affect the amount of ground support provided in any way. As a terrain feature, a river is just a line on the ground, whereas mountains, due to their steep slopes, cause problems with accurate targeting, particularly from the air.

It is true that halving the strength of units attacking across a river hex side does reflect that only a portion of the attacking force is conducting the crossing itself. However, as soon as sufficient assault craft, bridges and ferries are available, the rest of the force will cross to reinforce the bridgehead. Crossing a river obstacle consists of more then just the assault phase and thus includes more then just the initial assault units. Once again, the context of an entire Europa turn has not been considered. Assault crossing of a river takes a matter of a few minutes to a few hours at most. The bridging phase will largely be completed within 6-24 hours. During this entire period, units and equipment will be shuttled across the river by all means available. Thus within the Europa context you have committed the full unit although its effectiveness is temporarily reduced.

The reduction in effectiveness does not mean that planning and preparation to support the assault is reduced. Pre-planned air support would be used as a major supplement to artillery fires, especially if the bridgehead expands to a depth beyond which artillery could range. It was not uncommon in WWII for all the air support allocated to a division to be sub-allocated to a single regiment making the main attack. And that regiment had the means to employ and control it even during the crossing phase. So, unless someone can explain to me how a river is going to interfere with the operations of aircraft, I must again say "Modification Not Required."

There are numerous historical examples I could use to support both my view points. But let's just say the following. No amphibious assault by US forces in the ETO or MTO that can be reproduced on an Europa scale was ever defeated. Several experienced tough times once ashore (at Gela, Salerno, Anzio and OMAHA) but ultimately they all succeeded. On the air side, the presence of ample Ground Support when artillery was not forward in large quantities made the German river crossing at Sedan a success in May 1940. I really believe that with both the issues, the following applies, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Dave Lippman, Now Zealand

Greetings from Christchurch, New Zealand.

I have recently found out that the 2nd New Zealand Division of Balkan Front has an interesting note to its order of battle that has some small effect on that game.

When the 2nd NZ Division was withdrawn from Greece in the late stages of the Nazi conquest of that country, it consisted of three brigades: 4, 5, and 6 NZ Infantry Brigades.

4 and 5 Brigade were withdrawn to Crete, while 6 Brigade was sent to the Suez Canal area to regroup.

While in Crete, the 2nd New Zealand Division formed the ad hoc 10 Brigade under Brig. Howard Kippenberger, which consisted of the 20th NZ Infantry Battalion, the I st NZ Composite Battalion, and the 6th and 8th Greek Regiments.

The 1st NZ Comp. Battalion is an interesting outfit. Two companies were drawn from division transport elements - the Echelon Supply Company and the Petrol Transport Company. Two other companies were artillerymen without guns.

These three brigades faced the German airborne assault on Crete.

It would seem to me that the Balkan Front deployment of the 2nd NZ Division on Crete as a cadre should really be the 4th and 5th Brigades deployed without support, and the division HQ. Naturally the 2nd NZ would not be allowed to regroup as a complete division.

It would probably be a bit much to create a counter for 10 Brigade and a subsystem whereby the British player could eliminate a Greek regiment or two and create 10 Brigade.

Historically, the two Greek regiments in 10 Brigade fought extremely poorly, while the Kiwis did well under Kippenberger's leadership.

A good source for this material is a fairly rare book in the States, Infantry Brigadier, which is Kippenberger's memoirs. I also spoke to a number of Crete veterans at the V-J Day Plus 50 events here in Christchurch.

The battle scenario "Airdrop on Crete" in TEM 40 uses a version of this approach, replacing the 2NZ Cadres with three brigades: 4th, 5th, and 6th, but no HQ. Its designer notes explain that 6 Brigade is included to account for the ad hoc 10 Brigade and that the missing HQ unit represents the artillery shortage on the island. --FW

Frank Hughes, Texas

I'm writing about a change needed for the Europa game system. I've been keeping up with the main issues about Europa's problems and I believe I've found a solution to at least three problems: NODLs, the Surprise Turn, and meeting historical timetables.

I see the Europa game system flawed in two respects: its rigid turn sequence and the short two-week time allowance for the scale of units involved. Europa needs to become more flexible since prior knowledge of which side goes next eliminates one of the best aspects of wargamess: gaining the initiative. Also, for the units represented (battalion size and higher, air squadron, and individual ships and flotillas) two weeks is a complete blur of their capabilities.

The solution to these flaws, I believe, can be found by adopting a turn sequence similar to that used in The Legend Begins by Mark Simonitch's Rhino Game Co. I think a modified version for Europa would solve the three problems I mentioned above. This alternate sequence uses turn counters for each side and breaks the two-week game turn into seven subturns. A major disadvantage is the time factor, but the rewards are worth it.

The general scheme is as follows: eight counters are used (four for each side); the four counters are divided by a name printed on each one; the names are "Primary," "Secondary," and "Tertiary" (with "Primary" printed on two of the counters). A game turn would commence like this: turn one (for example Jun II, 1941) begins; all eight counters are placed into a coffee mug together and shaken about; a player draws out one of the counters blindly from the mug and shows it to all other participants. The color of the counter determines whose side has the initiative for the first subturn and the name on the counter determines which turn events will be available for that side's subturn. That side completes their subtum and then the routine repeats itself until only one counter is left in the mug, so that only seven subturns occurred. This last counter is not drawn out, in order to represent one side losing the initiative for part of turn one (Jun II).

On turn two (Jul I, 1941) the process starts over again. This will increase the amount of time spent during a game turn, but gives the Europa game system what it's been lacking -- an initiative-based turn sequence more suited for the game's detailed scale.

That's the big picture. The details are as follows: a special rule is required limiting each side by the number of subturns they may have consecutively; which is two. This also applies to subturns in between game turns. For example, a side can go during the seventh subturn of turn one and the first subturn of turn two. The instant a third counter is drawn consecutively for one side, it is returned to the mug and another counter is drawn. This repeats till a counter from the opposing side is finally drawn.

The meanings of the names on the counters are as follows:

Primary - means the player may move all of his units at their printed movement rate.

Secondary - means the player may move all of his units at 2/3 their printed movement rate.

Tertiary - means the player may move all of his units at 1/3 their printed movement rate.

I used the game turn from the Errata and Notes (21 July 1987) for FitE as an example.

[Mr. Hughes included extensive attachments with this letter with further details, including the game turn events available for each of the above counter names. Unfortunately, we did not have room to incude them - FW]

To be sure, I'm not just thinking about this alternative turn sequence, but I've actually used it in two Europa games, albeit solitaire. The first game was FtF. I wanted to see if I could match historical troop movements through Poland without having to resort to either the surprise turn or the three-day turn sequence (it would benefit GE very much to have a consistent turn sequence from start to finish).

During the FtF game the Germans surrounded Warsaw and had reached Brest-Litovsk and the outskirts of Lwow by the end of the game turn one (two weeks). This is very close to the historical outcome and didn't require a surprise turn or modified three-day turn. Warsaw and Lwow fell to the Germans and the Soviets linked up with them East of Lwow by the end of game turn two. I let the game begin with a German Primary subtum and the other subturns were left to chance. I prorated the Polish reinforcements by saying that since each side gets to use at least three subtums per two-week game turn, then each side's subturn represents five days. So the Poles got Turn 1 and 2 reinforcements during their first subturn, and so on.

Being satisfied about my initial successes at meeting the historical timetables and doing away with the surprise turn and modified three-day turn sequence, I decided to try to tackle NODLs using FitE. However, first I planned playing two games of FitE, each lasting till the Aug II turn, to find out the possible upper and lower extremes of this new turn sequence and to see if there were any unhealthy complications to the overall game balance.

In one game I would use the best possible seven-subturn counter sequence for the Germans and in the other game, one for the Soviets.

For the Germans I chose the following sequence:

Ger. Primary, Ger. Primary - Sov. Tertiary - Ger. Secondary Ger. Tertiary - Sov. Secondary - Sov. Primary.

For the Soviets I chose the following sequence:

Sov. Primary - Sov. Primary - Ger. Tertiary - Sov. Secondary - Sov. Tertiary - Ger. Secondary - Ger. Primary

which would represent Stalin having allowed preparations to meet the invasion. I didn't think of it till after I played the first game turn, but I could have reduced the amount and type of subturns for that game turn to four and the counters used in the German's favor to represent the campaign starting on the last week of June as historically, instead of the last two weeks as in Europa. A table of possible combinations of subturn counters might also be used in such an instance to leave favor for either side to a die roll.

I must say, however, that time was soon lacking and I only played the German-slated game to the end of the Jul I turn. As I expected, the Germans smashed the Soviets to bits and reached the line Narva - Leningrad - Valdai Hills - Smolensk - Gomel Kiev. Laying between that line and Poland were only half a dozen Soviet units because I used the extra movement to use the German infantry to crush stragglers earlier than in a normal game turn. Also, the Soviets were barely holding onto Leningrad, the Valdai Hills, the Smolensk-to-Moscow Hwy., and south towards Kiev, which was showing the only determined resistance because of the large amount of forces available.

As far as losses went, it was very bleak for the Soviets -- 658 ground points and 154 aircraft during the Jun II turn alone. I used Victor Hauser's setup for the Soviets, variable reinforcements, no Rommel in Africa (two 12-10 panzer divisions available), no Italians, and neutral Finns, Hungarians, and Romanians because of limited game space. Because of the need for space, I folded the maps so that most of the border with Romania was missing and I left out the Finnish theater completely. In order that the Soviets wouldn't be able to use forces that should be guarding the borders of those two nations to keep their neutrality, I made up a rule requiring the Soviets to maintain a pool of units amounting to 3 REs per hex of the missing Romanian border and allowing 10 REs to be available from the Leningrad District for use against the Germans. I didn't spend much time thinking these rules over, in order to start my game quickly, so they may need some changes if such a scenario is used by other space-saving Europa gainers.

The drawback to this first game, besides not testing for NODLs, was that I wasn't finished refining the turn sequence and so I made changes both throughout and after playing the game. The major change was a rule of my own, whereby I decided from WWII war experiences, that whenever the Germans launch a general offensive against an individual nation's forces for the first time, then that nation's first Primary turn is altered. I determine a general offensive to mean penetration of at least two hexes into the territory that a nation's forces occupy. This should apply even if that nation's forces are stacked with allies who have experienced this rule, as long as there are three or more REs of their own forces present (this would be enough REs needed to learn from their mistakes). Minor forces (for example, Brazilians, British-equipped Poles, Free French) and Empire forces would be included with the home or supporting nation's forces.

Now to the bigger point. I've got more time to continue playtesting and to prove that NODLs are a myth. I could either play the two FitE games over from the start using consistent turn sequence rules this time, or I could play a new game that would leave the turn sequence completely to chance.

However, working for my own gaming experience it has not been a very interesting affair, hence, I'm writing to spark interest and maybe some additional ideas as well. I would like to think that I'm not wasting my time playing two games of experimental Europa (I do have a life) and would rather know that there are people very interested in my results. I don't want people only interested in reading about my results, but people who can use my results to reshape Europa into the game system it ought to be - one with few controversies.

I'm very interested to eventually see the Europa community advocate the adoption of a new turn sequence like the one presented here. Sure it needs work, and I wouldn't be asking for help if it didn't, but this new sequence needs an advocate who has experience with the community, which is the only way things get changed around Europa. So, please think about this alternate method and let me know if I'm wasting my time, or if there's a chance for it with the community. Let me also know of any suggestions and other similar methods being passed around. Also, are there "correct" procedures to playtesting or is it at my own discretion?

Far be it from me to pass judgment on what might be liked by the Europa community. If this proposal punches your buttons, drop Mr. Hughes a fine.

I don't know of any ironclad 'correct playtesting procedures' although I'm sure you could find a discussion in one or three of the wargame design books (all out-of-print, of course). I think one pretty good rule-of-thumb would be that solitaire playtesting of one's own design or rules proposal leaves a lot to desired. You'll tend to play your rules proposal/game scenario the way you envisioned it in the first place and not in the way other players might see it. - FW

I'm also interested to know if thought has been given to the following:

• Soviet OB for the rest of 1941 and 1942 for GE purposes should Germany wait to attack.
• German OB for the East from the fall of Poland to Barbarossa, should the Soviets wish to break the Nazi- Soviet Pact (or having not agreed to one in the first place) and attack Germany, say when Germany is fighting a possibly prolonged war in the West.
• A scenario booklet for SF, FitE, and SE to allow players to set up and play games during various historical moments to increase variety instead of normalcy. For example, the OBs for all sides right before the December 1941 Soviet counter offensive or the Battle of the Bulge. These big scenarios would be a lot more interesting to set up and play rather than those little scenarios in TEM that hardly use the counters or time ranges these expensive games come with. When the 1943 GE link-up scenario comes out in TEM, then it will be a major step towards a more versatile game system.

About Frank Hughes

Twenty-six years old and engaged, Frank is currently attending U. of Texas at Austin (one semester left for his BS in Civil Engineering) while interning with an Austin engineering firm.

He has previously spent 4 years in the Air Force (87-91) stationed in Berlin as a Russian linguist, and is still a member of the U.S. Army Reserves. Frank has been wargaming since 1987, and playing Europa since 1988, starting with FoF and TEM #4.

`Clash of Titans' finally made it and the Bulge still adorns the coming attractions list. Realize though, that it's not like GRD allocates resources to design scenarios. They're contributed by readers -- including me. We open up the mailbox every day and see if anything new is there. FW

David Tinney, Arizona

This is an attempt to provide some, hopefully constructive' feedback on Second Front. First let me explain where I'm coming from. I've owned a copy of DNO for years, but after setting it up and seeing all those one strength units I said, no way. I don't know if you lose a significant number of potential players but certainly the one thing that turns me off the Europa system are the ants and (two things) the ceaseless demolition. They're not the history I'm interested in recreating. Don't get me wrong, the area I am most interested in is operational level WIAM, and I have waited a long time for something that would improve on old personal favorites like Anzio, Fortress Europa, Panzergruppe Guderian, and Cobra. But battalions, construction engineers, and position AA in 16 mile hexes that are already running over with artillery and AA brigades, breakdown regiments, and division groupies, is overdoing it. Hopefully you will do an antless version of Second Front. It might attract more players to Europa.

Before I tackled Second Front I borrowed a copy of Western Desert to practice on. Compared to that game I congratulate you on the improvements that you have made in SF. The new air system is much more realistic, especially the mechanics for the DAS. However, one problem I had with WD and think I'm having with SF is how historically it plays.

In Western Desert I found it very hard for the British to capture Benghazi the way they did in 1941. Consequently the Axis pour in reinforcements and go on the counteroffensive much sooner. In every game I played both solitaire and with an opponent, the Axis capture Tobruk and are at El Alamein by June 1941. Maybe we're missing something, but I can't escape the feeling that for all its accuracy in OBs and terrain, the game is inaccurate historically.

We're having the same problem with Second Front, by the end of the Axis July I player turn the Axis ground and air strength in Sicily and Sardinia is much greater than it was historically. It seems the Axis garrison requirements for France are far too lenient, no air units and just 29 REs for 5 major cities and 14 dot cities, letting them move an ahistorical amount of strength to the South. The prohibitive casualties to the Allies if they try invading in a danger zone seem artificial. Meanwhile half the historical Allied invasion force for Sicily is still either in Britain or the Middle East. It is impossible to recreate the historical invasion on the opening turn.

[I've yet to figure out how to expedite those Canadians from the Clyde to Sicily, myself -- FW]

I'm not sure how to change the start of Second Front to get more historical realism. I don't understand the purpose of the Axis relocating the seven units when, after the Allied pregame turn, they have an entire player turn to strategically rail and administratively move every unit on the map. I don't know what the Allies can do with the pregame turn other than bomb airbases and marshaling yards and shift naval units from one theater to the other, which incidentally the Germans can seriously attrition by putting a strong naval patrol force at Brest.

I realize you have tried to establish some historical conformity with the Germans declaring an emergency deterring an early invasion of France, and with Italian TFs, mines, and danger zones "encouraging" the Allies to invade either Sardinia or Sicily. But knowing this, Axis players can bring almost every available air and ground unit to these two islands. If the Allies try to swing LCs to Britain, the Axis can, by temporarily increasing rail capacity, strategically rail everything back north. Perhaps and article on opening strategies by the Allies would be highly useful if there is something we're missing.

[Any takers out there? There's you're invitation - FW]

There are also some tactics I'm seeing that don't fit in historically, For example, following a successful Allied landing on Sardinia the Axis player disbanded every Italian unit on the island so as to avoid losses toward Italian surrender and then rebuilt them as alpine divisions on mainland Italy the next turn. I saw the same player throw both Italian TFs into naval combat for about 15 rounds until they had been completely annihilated. Every single Italian warship in existence sunk in a single suicidal battle, how historically plausible is that? Apparently the Allies can airdrop into an unoccupied coastal hex, and, if not disrupted, gain ownership thereby allowing an unplanned invasion that technically is just a disembarkation onto a friendly beach.

[It is rather irritating to see Sardinian or Sicilian reservists morph into highly trained alpine troops. "Correcting this situation might have its own problems, however. Consider that an arbitrary limit on disband isn't perfect - in reality, disbanding a unit in Holand would not prevent another unit from disbanding in Gascony. Keeping track of what kinds of units disband sounds like a bundle of bookkeeping. Any other thoughts on this out there?

As for sacrificing the Italian Navy against an Allied invasion:

"Supermarina, in agreement with the Supreme Command decided to sacrifice the Fleet only in a moment of national collapse, should it become proper to seal the end of the struggle with a heroic gesture for the honor of the nation and the Navy."
--M A. Bragadin, The Italian Navy in World War II.

Don't the revised Second Front anphibious rules at least somewhat defang the "airdrop to secure a beach" tactic? In the revised rules, no NT can disembark units directly onto a beach, so (except for amphibious units) you still must use precious LCs. The main difference in an eneny and friendfy-owned beach is 30 naval MP, which seems hardly critical in most circumstances. You do get around the specific planning requirements and limits, but you did have to plan the airborne operation in the first place.-FW

One area where we have had to improvise is off-map sea movements. We adopted a house rule allowing the Allies to sail out in the Atlantic, using 128 MPs to go from Liverpool to Gibraltar while staying 26 hexes out to avoid naval patrol contact. Luckily we have the map from For Whom the Bell Tolls which allows us to accurately measure the distance from Oran to map 27, from Gibraltar to hex 27:1833 or 27:0233. But we would like to know the distance of a safe route (26 hexes out from Iceland to Gibraltar, and the direct distance from Iceland to Liverpool, and from Belfast to Liverpool (assuming units in N. Ireland don't have access to the Britain holding box). Perhaps you could publish a map of the Atlantic on a mini- hex scale that would allow players to calculate the distances between these ports by any route they chose.

[Wonderful idea; send it in. Perhaps even a mileage matrix like those accompanying road maps would suffice (but in hexes, of course). For a head start, Belfast to Liverpool is 10 hexes in Their Finest Hour. - FW]

There are many proposed rule changes flying about, whose authors claim they make the game more historically accurate. I think only by starting with where each unit was historically turn by turn and what combat and casualties took place historically turn by turn can the best rules changes, if any, be determined. If it is not possible to accomplish what happened historically the rules would have to allow more, if players can accomplish a lot more than occurred historically the rules would have to allow less. If Europa could at least provide the approximate historical positions on a turn by turn basis (thus by subtraction the casualties) and let the players argue how they got there I think it would bring all debate about the rules down from the abstract and ground it on a much more factual historical plane.

Only when it's demonstrated that the rules fit what happened historically turn by turn with leeway on either side for stupid or brilliant play will the debate hopefully dry up. I think using the antless versions to experiment and try to come up with games more historically accurate turn by turn would not only be easier, but also allow all the crotchety old gainers who love their ants and are set on all their little game tactics to keep the old rules.

I don't have the resources to tract the ground units, although I am working on trying to track all the naval units, both in Europe and the Pacific.

James Broshot, Missouri

My pet peeve (other than the SF amphibious invasion rules) is the total denial of the fact that all of the British and American units are motorized and not dependent, like the Germans, on horse-drawn transport. This leads to some interesting oddities, like air-lifting in a U. S. Army engineer unit (of any type) for construction. Such units were loaded with heavy equipment.

My late father-in-law was an officer in an aviation engineer battalion. Sure, they used shovels, but they had a lot of trucks and other construction equipment. Look up Shelby Stanton's engineer unit OBs and check the vehicle numbers.

In Europa, you can have "fighting bulldozers from the skies!" This tirade doesn't even begin to address the problems caused because U. S. "non c/m" units, with MPs of 8 and with, in reality, lots of trucks, cannot exploit. I have seen it said that a German panzergrenadier division was the equivalent of an American infantry division with an attached tank battalion. Yet the Germans can exploit and the Americans can't.