Q&A

Q: The 1st Cheshire Regiment (1x 1-8 MG II 1 Ch) is shown on Malta in the Dec I 40 OB. According to Joslen, Orders of Battle, as of 31 Jan. 1941, this unit was still in Egypt attached to "Matruh Sub-Area," and Bellis, Regiments of the British Army 1939-1945, has this unit as part of Malta Command from February 1941. What's going on here?

JMA: A portion of the 1st Cheshire was sent to Malta in 1940 to help train Maltese forces. However, the vast majority of the unit remained in Egypt, so a transfer to Malta on Feb I 41 instead of Nov I 40 is historically more accurate. It doesn't seem worth issuing an official erratum for a single battalion being off a few months, but if you want to incorporate this into your game, go ahead. (Instead of being on Malta in the Dec I 40 OB, it would be in the Middle East Command at Matruh (19A: 1218). It is not part of the Operation COMPASS forces.)

Q: I note that the Libyan Fantasy is a real fantasy, in that it must take place in 1941 and costs 4 It arm RPs, but the Italians receive NO arm RPs for all of 1940-41. Is that why it is a fantasy? Do the Italians have to rely totally upon German largess, or is the Axis replacement chart in error?

JMA: The Libyan Fantasy option and the Axis Replacements Chart are both correct. Don't forget, you can also disband and scrap Italian units to get the RPs you need. When you count up the number of Italian armor RPs in units that start the game in Africa or go there in 1941, the Italians can easily scare up enough armor RPs for the Libyans unless they incur losses. For example, just counting tank battalions, the Italians start with three 1-6s and get another three during Dec II 40-Jan I 41, so in theory the Libyan armored division can be formed as soon as Jan I 41!

Q: Rule 38H3, first bullet: "If the Axis player violates the neutrality of any Vichy region, the Axis occupies metropolitan Vichy France immediately .... .. Should the rule read "If the Allied player violates the neutrality ...." ?

JMA: No, "Axis" is correct. If the (on-map) Axis player decides to violate the neutrality of a Vichy region, such as French North Africa, then the (off-map) Axis will automatically occupy Vichy France, too. Put it this way-Rommel somehow convinces the powers that be that he's got to grab some Vichy territory (say, Tunisia) and the Axis high command approves the plan (reluctantly or enthusiastically, take your pick). Well, the Germans know Vichy France won't like this at all, so they decide it's better to occupy Vichy than risk the chance that Vichy would do something against the Axis, like mobilizing and opening its ports to Allied forces.

Q: If using maps 20A and 21A, is there now an incentive for an "Alep runaway" strategy, which would likely extend the duration of the campaign, but could be considered "gamey" given the actual campaign?

JMA: Surely you do not suggest that the historical Vichy strategy in the Levant was the only possible strategy? Historically, Dentz, the Vichy commander, decided to strongly resist the Allied invasion - with the result that his forces caused a fair number of Allied casualties (the campaign was no walkover) but collapsed fairly soon because French strength could not be sustained.

Two other strategies (other than outright surrender to the Allies) seem possible: try to hold an enclave on the coast in the mountainous terrain around Beyrouth, or fall back to the north of the Levant and try to hold out as long as possible.

Q. What can you use the zero strength Allied marine commando units for?

A: Check out Optional Rule 44D3. Otherwise, sit the ME Commando next to the pyramids and take propaganda pictures of commandos on the Sphinx! If you put them in the line and they get scragged, your Nov I 41 raiding ability gets delayed.

Q: Tobruch can be taken immediately by British armor in the regular turn after the surprise turn before the Axis even move. Only AA and two Italian artillery regiments are there, and the rules say Tobruch's garrison (an infantry regiment) doesn't appear until the Axis turn. Is this correct ? (If the Garrison rule from SF was used the infantry regiment could appear immediately, increasing Tobruch's defense from 1 to 5+.)

JMA: What you describe is the rules as written, but the "Tobruk Gambit" can be quite risky for the British as some players have discovered. The 7th Armoured Division usually ends up broken down deep behind Italian lines, and if the Italians can manage a counterattack (often possible), there's a chance precious British armor will be sitting in the replacement pool for many months.

Q: There is no area harassment rule in WitD. Is this because it's only an advanced concept (SF) or something else?

JMA: You don't have the air unit density in WitD that you have in SF, so the times the game would benefit from this rule are very limited. So, it's better to keep it simple. Anyway, air forces of this period really aren't skilled yet in massive harassment efforts, so allowing level-3 harassment at 10 tac pts and level-4 at 20 seems inappropriate for WitD.

Q: There is no rule for creating large capacity airfields in WitD. Once again is this because it just wasn't done this early in war (SF concept) or should it be an optional rule which just got missed/dropped? What about Malta or Gibraltar having large 12 capacity airfields in SF, when does this happen?

JMA: Again, there's little need of such a rule in the game, so KISS (keep it simple, surely) it goodbye. For Malta, high-cap airfields are appropriate for SF but can be ignored for WitD. Gibraltar does need to build up to a 12-cap airfield in the game, but this is handled simply and surely by the OB; see the Allied OB for Aug I, Sep I, and Oct I 42.

Q: Also, in our latest game the ONLY forces ever lost in transit to Libya were attack supply and a sole 5-3-10 panzer regiment! I guess that's ULTRA for you. However, this was a catastrophe. It took almost 6 months to get the arm RPs to get the panzer regiment it back. Shouldn't you be able to, say, ship over the 5-3-10 as 5x 1 arm RPs (only if all 5 arrive is the counter available, else extra RPs need to be shipped before it can form up) as it's just too important for this to happen, and I feel unrealistic. Historically RPs or part of a regiment/battalion/company were lost, never an entire regiment.

A: Let me get this straight-you only lost one stinkin' ground unit in transit and you still want to change the rules to make it easier to get across? Tough luck, sinkings happen. As for history, things like this do happen-for example, that panzer division in Greece in spring 1941 that was shipped by sea to Italy because all the rails north were clogged with other units transferring out theater. As I remember (I don't have the article handy) British submarines sank the ships carrying most or all of the division's tanks and artillery movers. Even though few men of the division were lost, this sinking put the entire division out of action most of the summer of 1941 (at a time, to put it mildly, when Germany could have used it to good effect). Yes, it didn't happen in a WitD context, but it did happen in the Med in 194 1, so it's of relevance to WitD.

Q.- I've recently read a book that suggests a really gaudy chrome rule. To allow delivery of fighters to Malta direct from Gibraltar, without need for carriers, the British fitted Spitfire Vs with an extra 29 gallon internal fuel tank and an 170 gallon jettisonable drop tank. 17 were delivered in this way beginning in October 1942, flying 1,100 miles from Gibraltar, but the plan was abandoned after the siege was raised late in 1942.

JMA: Yes, and here's a another gaudy chrome rule you can add, too:

1) Early on, one set of carrier-transported air units (12 Hurricanes) were launched from a carrier near the Hurricane's extreme range, 450 miles, since the RN thought the Axis had detected the naval force and were going to bomb the ships. Unfortunately, the RAF pilots were not experienced in long range flying, set their engine revolutions too high, and only four Hurricanes got through, one with only 2 gallons of fuel remaining. The rest ran out of fuel on the way to the island.

2) In January 1941, following the Allied conquest of Cyrenaica, 6 Hurricane Is were flown from Cyrenaica to Malta. Well, in the game you can air transfer anything with a movement allowance of 9 or greater from Cyrenaica to Malta, but Hurri Is with their MA of 8 just can't do it. The reason this is so is that maximum air transfer range of Europa air units is about 3.5 times printed MA, not 3 times. The rules use 3 times to account for things like adverse weather, getting lost (just review the raid on Ploesti in TEM #50 to see how bombers wasted MPs getting lost on the way to Ploesti), and so on.

Points 1 and 2 above suggest you can come up with a chrome rule allowing an air unit to fly up to half its printed MA for air transfer, beyond its allowed 3x MA air transfer range. However, some sort of roll on the success table to account for factors like weather, navigation, and inexperience is indicated. Well, this exhausts my interest in these chrome rules, but enough is here for anyone wanting to play around with fringe rules to press on.

Q: Why don't British support groups have an ATEC capability in the new WitD? In Western Desert, the SGs had full ATEC Now, it's Neutral.

JMA: It is overstating the ATEC of a British armored division of the period to have it break down into two full-ATEC armored brigades and one full-ATEC support group. Hence no ATEC for the support group, just like for divisional HQs. The thing to remember is that a British armored division's 1939-42 support group is not a wonder unit with tons of great abilities, but a poor organization based on British misconceptions about the nature of armored warfare and armored divisions. Once the British get knocked around enough by better-organized panzer divisions and get disappointed enough by the poor performance of their own armor, they finally take steps to correct the situation, and in 1942 the support group disappears as part of this reorganization.

Q: I always though the British 25 lb. gun served as a fair antitank weapon in a pinch, hence the ATEC rating the old game. Did the Royal Artillery Regiment lobby you to get their guns out of the front line?

JMA: Yes, the 25-pounder had some minimal AT value, particularly at short range. If you absolutely had to fire something at a tank, I'd probably choose a 25-pdr for very short ranges and a 2-pdr ATG for longer ranges (better accuracy and easier to position the gun). A 6-pdr ATG was better than either against tanks. Anyway, the Royal Artillery didn't make it a practice to use 25-pdrs as AT guns, so it's best to reflect general usage rather than theoretical ability. It's the same deal with the British 3.7" AA gun - on a hardware basis it's better at AT than even a 6-pdr ATG (but not as good as a 17-pdr!), but giving it full or even half ATEC greatly distorts how it was actually used - "Don't be silly, lad, ack-ack guns are for shooting at aircraft, not tanks."

Q: I can guess that Inf and Arm RPs are not quite exactly the same for SF and WitD, but they are not that dissimilar. Why then are the costs for replacing transport counters so radically different?

WitD: 3 INF RP/RE carrying capacity
SF: 1 ARM RP/RE carrying capacity

JMA: In SF, trucks are mainly factored into arm RPs, which is why you have to spend arm RPs for motorized forces that actually had no tanks in them. In WitD, trucks are factored into (some/many) inf RPs, since the desert forced even nonmotorized units to dispense with horses for trucks (to haul artillery and supplies, for example). However, trucks are a scarce commodity in 1940-42, even for the Allies, so I inf RP to replace a transport counter is way too low a cost, but 3 inf RPs better show their relative worth.

If you wonder how this will be reconciled in Grand Europa, it is my firm intention to separate manpower from equipment in a GE replacement system. An armored division, for example would require X manpower, Y tanks, Z equipment, etc.

Above, I said, "In WitD, trucks are factored into (some/many) inf RPs" and, yeah, inf RPs don't have heavy equipment and can be flown around. Unless you cheat and find tons of extra air transports, however, there's little practical way you can always fly in inf RPs, so this is no big deal. If this is the sort of thing that keeps you awake at nights, however, then you can go to a system whereby half the inf RPs have HE and the rest don't, with restrictions on what the "lite" inf RPs can replace. I leave filling in the details here as another "exercise for the student."

Q: Rule 23.C in WitD omits the 'first bullet" of Second Front Rule 23.C, covering extended range fighter escort and CAP missions. Is this intentional? No drop tanks in 1939- 1943?

JMA: Well, there were some, but they weren't available for most fighters for the entire period covered in WitD like they were for SF. Sure, there are some around, but I think the game overall is more accurate excluding drop tanks totally than including them for everyone at all times. Sure, some intermediate method could be done, based on nationality (or even model) and a date, but I feel this is too messy to bother with. Be my guest if you would like to come up with an optional rule or table on this; I'm sure TEM would appreciate it. <>Q: Do you think the Italians would have committed their fleet to supporting the invasion of Malta with naval gunfire, and if so would that have influenced the course of the (hypothetical) invasion of Malta?

JMA: The answer to both questions is YES, and this is embodied in the rules themselves, see Rule 32A (Special Operations, Amphibious Landings): "Due to naval gunfire support from naval units not directly shown in the game, a unit is automatically supported."

Now, my guess is that some might now argue that the rule is no big deal for the Italians, since they have 4.5 ANTPs and thus can amphibiously land 2x 3-6 Inf XX and 1 x 1-8 Aslt Eng II 7 attack points automatically supported due to the divisions. hut, allowing full divisions to land and to be supported (the rule could have said supported units are treated as unsupported during amphibious landings, to reflect the infantry going in first and the artillery being landed much later) was a convenient stand-in for NGS. Take a look at the landing via the Second Front rules (a version of which will be the Grand Europa amphibious landing rules): You'd have to break down each 3-6 Inf XX into Ix 6 Inf XX HQ and 2x 1-6 Inf III (unsupported), and then your landing consists of 4x 1-6 Inf III and I x 1-8 AsIt Eng 11, for a total strength of 2.5 attack points (5 points halved due to lack of support).

This difference between 7 and 2.5 points in itself is significant, and, given the vagaries of Italian fleet performance, is, in my opinion, more that sufficient to reflect the fleet's contribution. Almost all other factors would tend to degrade the navy's contribution, for example:

• By no means all or even most of the fleet would fire NGS, as major elements would be patrolling against interference from Allied naval forces and protecting the invasion shipping.
• Of the committed NGS element, the presence of or fear of Allied air strikes, submarines, mines, coastal artillery, etc., would diminish the effectiveness of the navy.
• There is a reasonable doubt as to the effectiveness of any NGS the Italian navy did provide. First, the Italian navy was a highly independent service and did not cooperate well with the other services, yet cooperation at all levels would be necessary for effective NGS operations. Second, the Italian navy is rather inexperienced in NGS so even if sufficient cooperation is there, it is possible the NGS would smear random targets and undefended places rather than being delivered on time and on target for the needs of the ground forces. For example, in the invasion of Greece in 1940 the Italian navy shelled the coast in support of the ground forces, but I think Balkan Front simulates this with 98+% accuracy simply by ignoring it.

All told, I think Axis player should be quite happy with 7 guaranteed points rather than risking getting only 2.5 attack points guaranteed albeit with a chance of getting a few more than 7 points.

Q: Rule 40.A.3 - Allied Reinforcements. When rolling for "Allied Forces Evacuate Greece " on the Jun I 41 turn, if 1x 1-8 Marine Cmdo X Layf 1x 3-2-8 Art X W and/or 0-1-4 Cons X 43 RPC (Col) successfully arrive in Egypt then they escape being removedftom the replacement pool (until they are in the pool on a later turn, Rule 40.A. 1, 11 th "bullet, " [Remove]). If they fail then they go immediately from the replacement pool to out of play (and cannot be scrapped). Correct?

Correct. The British simply don't have the resources in theater to replace these forces if only a few men and no equipment escape from Greece. For Layforce, there is a shortage of trained commandos. For W, the theater cannot stand the hit to replace so much artillery. For 43 RPC, you've lost a bunch of Middle East RPC companies, and the Cypriots and Palestinians won't be too eager to volunteer to replace their comrades in the RPC.

However, if these units are not lost in evacuation from Greece, the Middle East command does have enough resources to allow these formations to continue operating.

Q: Regarding the Allied OB Apr II 41 British player turn, "Reduce the Allied East Med naval transport ability by 9 REs (but not below 0 REs) for this turn." Is this for the evacuation of forces from Greece to Crete? Nothing is being sent to Greece or Crete. Naval transport penalties are inflicted on Mar II 41 turn (massive reinforcements to Greece) on Jun I 41 turn (forces evacuated to Egypt).

Yes, the ANZACs and friends have to get off mainland Greece in a hurry. You can quibble whether this should occur Apr II or May I, given the order of play, but I chose the historical date.

Limiting COMPASS

The errata sheet dated 28 April 1997 added this to WitD.

"Due to preparations for the surprise attack and other factors, during the regular Allied Dec 140 player turn, the Allied player has a rail capacity of 0 for the Middle East rail net and 0 NTPs for the East Med naval transport ability."

To help decide what WitD should do, if anything, to force the Allied player to follow history's dead hand for Operation COMPASS, I polled the Europa Internet mailing list with "The Operation COMPASS Survey." The choices were:

1) Have Systemic Restrictions: Reduce the Dec 140 ME rail capacity to 0 and the Eastern Mediterranean shipping to 0, to prevent the Allied player from sending troops forward.

Say something like "Due to preparations for Operation COMPASS and other factors" in justification for this, since for COMPASS alone the rail capacity should probably only be reduced to 4 and the shipping not at all. Note that this fixes the "problem" but is slightly suspect on simulation grounds.

2) Add Idiot Rules: Reduce the Dec I 40 ME railcap to 4, leave the shipping alone, and add some sort of idiot rule preventing non-COMPASs Allied forces on or east of Matruh from moving west of Matruh on Dec I 40. Justify the rule by saying something like "Because Operation COMPASS was conceived of as a raid and not the offensive it turned into ...... Note that this fixes the "problem" but adds idiot rules, usually a thing to avoid.

3) Ignore It: Reduce the Dec I 40 ME rail cap to 4, leave the shipping alone, and don't have any idiot rules. After all, there was no reason preventing the Allies from sending additional forces forward, and the Allied player should have command of his forces like in the other games.

Note that this doesn't fix the "problem" (and thus will cause endless kvetches from the "the game allows you to do things that didn't occur historically" crowd) but allows a valid, albeit nonhistorical, examination of the topic.

As is typical when one does something like this, the results of the survey were ... a tie ... between choice I (systemic restriction) and 2 (idiot rules). "Ignore it" also received votes but was a ways back. Various arguments were given to support the votes, some were clever but none were absolutely convincing.

So, what to do? Well, I hadn't voted yet, and I voted for.... #1! I proudly declared it the winner.

My reasoning for #1 developed as I thought more about the situation. Initially I favored #3 (4 REs rail capacity and 10 REs Eastern Mediterranean naval capacity), as this was within the historical ability of the British even if they chose not to use it. However, I realized that this did overstate the historical ability, since about two thirds of the turn has already elapsed before Operation COMPASS begins, so the capacities really could be reduced to 33% to reflect the passage of time.

More Q&A