[Got a question, comment, or announcement to make? Post it to the editor and all the members can read it here.]

Phillip Buhler

Seriously though, it is great that someone has decided not to let the eastern front end in the middle of nowhere on some half maps. I was always bothered that SE did not include at least two more full-sized maps to add to FitE. Those alone would almost have stretched to the Urals. One bone of contention remains even with the Urals map plan. Why did GDW not bother to include a half map north of Map 7A to make the game area symmetrical? While I realize that the terrain east of Arkhangelsk is not exciting to panzer commanders, many players (myself included) are fond of coastlines, isolated towns, and other unusual corners of the war where we can launch paradrops and commando raids (see my article on Arkhangelsk in ETO #39). The problem is not solved by the Urals module. Attaching Map 28 to the east of Map 6A and then adding a puny Map 31 to that does not align the north with the eastern edges of Maps 29 and 30. A straight eastern edge would look neater when mounted. I submit that instead of the present plan a half map be created to fit above 7A. Then Map 28 would run in line with 29 and 30. How about it guys?

This infatuation with the northern maps brings up another suggestion. During much of the war the Germans maintained weather stations in the Arctic, where northern Europe's weather patterns are born. The main stations were on Greenland and Spitzbergen, the latter being occupied after the surrender of Norway. These stations gave vital information to the Kriegsmarine but might also have provided advance information to land forces on impending weather changes. Is there a chance that such stations would have allowed the Germans to predict weather changes a few weeks (i.e. a game turn) in advance? If German units were to occupy southern Novaya Zemlya on proposed Map 28, could a rule be designed to allow the German to secretly roll the weather dice a turn in advance, representing his very good forcasting ability? I would like to hear the opinions of other players on this matter. I still am uncertain if this forecasting could be fit into Europa scale operations. Any weather experts out there?

A. E. Goodwin

After studying the SE rule I think the reason it was written was to keep players from converting true roads (verse low capacity rail lines that have been designated as roads) into rail lines. The only roads the SE rule prohibits from being converted to rail status are those in the Arctic and those in mountain hexes, and in every instance roads in these categories are true roads and not low capacity rail lines. The road from Erzurum east on the other hand, IS a low capacity rail line. (See Bill Stone's forum discussion in ETO #12.) Thus I think that if the Turks are added to SE that the rail line east from Erzurum be made an exception to SE Rule 38C2 and the Turks should be allowed to upgrade it to a rail line.

Europa trivia questions of the week: The first Free Norwegian combat unit (an infantry battalion) was formed in early 1941. What vital function did this unit perform during its first two years of existence?

Answer: It garrisoned the lonely, windswept island of South Georgia in the South Atlantic Ocean.

Ken Kettering

It there is one project I really would like to see the Baker Street Irregulars get to work on, it would be the "Outposts" project Bill Stone suggested a couple of years ago in ETO. This interests me greatly and surely will never be generated by the official GDW mill. I know that Art Goodwin was interested in the Outposts project and did some preliminary work on it this spring. Perhaps you could run up a few flags, or trial balloons, or whatnot, to see whether anyone is interested in writing and publishing this?

Bill Stone

In some instances the mission is readily apparent, at least by the time the target hex is reached. (For example, if a bomber flies to a hex in which there is no feature other than a rail line, and there are no enemy units around to harass, it's a pretty good bet that the bombardier is aiming for the tracks.) In other instances, the bombers have a plethora of targets and missions from which to choose. So, while the aim of Gary's argument may be right on target (so to speak), at least one of his bombloads misses.

Specifically, Gary writes as follows: "...for example, five bombers [are sent] to an enemy held hex that holds an airfield with one inoperative fighter on it and a rail line. After all air combat and flak takes place, the bombers attack one at a time announcing their missions as they drop their bombs. The original intention may have been, perhaps, to destroy the fighter on the ground. In this case let's assume the bombers hit on the second try, destroying the fighter. The three remaining bombers are free to pursue any tactical mission in the hex since they have not yet announced their mission."

The problem here is the wording of Scorched Earth Rule 20F2a, Tactical Bombing of Air Units. The rule states: "At each airbase, the phasing player must specify the target of his bombing units before resolving any bombing attacks there." (Note that this ruling appears in Fire in the East and Scorched Earth but not in Western Desert or Torch, which seems a little puzzling.)

Consequently, Gary's example appears flawed, at least under east front rules. If those bombers were committed to tac bombing of air units on the ground, then they apparently cannot switch to alternative targets even if the primary target is already destroyed by the time they come to bat. Likewise, by my reading of the rule, they could not opt for air unit bombing after seeing the lead bombers miss the primary target.

Gary's commentary and this oddball case led me to put the question formally to the good Mr. Knight. "Just when does the phasing player decide and announce his missions?" Perhaps he will be so kind as to publish his ruling in this issue of TEN. [See "Rules Court," page 14, column 2.1

Rich Velay

The first has to do with the Rank and Reward Program as outlined in TEN 4. Why not develop that further. Standardize the criteria for giving certain awards and make them available to anyone who is a Commander or Gamemaster in multiplayer games. Giving out actual certificates to players with a picture of the award and the reasons for the award being given would be nice. The document for each award could be unique or could be standardized with only the picture of the award changing. A nice computerized certificate maker would be ideal. Awards for each side (British, U.S., French, etc.) would have to be developed.

My other suggestion has to do with adding leaders to the game. In multiplayer games, this would not be necessary. However, in one-on-one games the players, as Supreme Commanders, have complete control of every unit on the board. I seriously doubt this was the actual case. There were many instances where the local commanders disregarded the instructions of the High Command. Rommel in North Africa was told riot to conduct any major offensive operations but did on his own initiative soon after he arrived.

I propose that a system be developed where the players (in a twoplayer game) would have Army and Army Group Commanders control their respective HQs. Issue #29 of ETO had an article on "Bro Rules" which described HOs and their effects. This is a start and I would like to see this developed further. Leaders themselves could be rated on efficiency of command or radius in which they can control units assigned to them and, more importantly, their effect on combat and tactical abilities.

The way I see it, if Rudel has his own counter, why not Patton, Rommel, Montgomery, Zhukov, and many other generals and field marshalls who commanded the armies in the field.