John Berger, Hawaii

Belated thanks to Alan Philson for his response to my question published in TEM 53. I think one of the most important functions of the magazine is as a clearinghouse for information regarding game mechanics and clarification of how various rules are intended be approximate historical (or hypothetical) situations.

Terry Foskett, North Carolina

I have been reading Hitler's Willing Executioners by Daniel Goldhagen and note that Police Battalions (Reserve police units of the Order Police) were not only active in genocide but were also used in the anti-partisan role and in combat alongside regular army units. For example, look at Police Battalion 65 at Cholm in January 1942. Does anybody have any ideas how these could be integrated into FitE/SE?

Lars Wistedt, Sweden

I would only like to say that I am one of those who are almost permanently playing one (often several) of the TEM battle scenarios, either by PBEM or against the hardest opponent ever found (myself, that is!).

I liked "Long Left Flank" a lot, but so far I see it favoring the Allied side; we mostly end up half way to Berlin, regardless who is playing which side. But fun it is! I am currently PBEMing "Battle for Rome" and "A Summer War."

Our most played scenarios otherwise are:

1) Battle for Rome (easy to set up and easy to PBEM)
2) Invasion of Sicily (a good way to learn amphibious planning)

Long Left Flank. I think there might be two reasons why game play tends to favor the Allies:

1. Historically, the terrain put up more difficulties than the game maps do, with tank columns unable to attack because of the steep embankments on which the roads ran. Remember A Bridge Too Far? It is far easier in the scenario to attack with a full British corps and brush away the Germans.

A way to go could be not to allow any AECA for the Allies north of Eindhoven, in addition to other terrain modifications. We have only tried that once or twice, but it helped out a little.

2. When about to begin a game of "LLF", one is at top condition, prepared to launch an offensive with far-aiming goals. Supply is no problem, as it was warm.

Troops were tired after the Battle for France, and the operations had only paused during the first days of September for a couple of days -- just enough to fill up some gas.

But soldiers and commanders were tired, perhaps exhausted, and did -- as far as I have understood -- not have the same "go" as fresh and well-­prepared units normally have. Thus they did not possess the 13-10 or 9-8 combat values as in our games.

It is also likely that many felt that they had just ended a campaign and were not psychologically ready to start one at the same moment.

Several units had been in the first line since D-Day and I know how I feel the days before the holidays - I am no 13-10 then!

Maybe one could test to use the attack-supply rules from WitD, with limited amounts of supply for the Allies. I have not tested that myself, but we have discussed it and I am going to test it with some friends soon.

Battle for Rome. This is a very challenging and rewarding game. You have to be very careful as the Axis player not to have every unit the frontline, since they will be eliminated soon and if there is no second line to back them up it will leave advance routes for the Allies in the exploitation phase. This is especially true if you play with the optional limited infantry advance-rule. That rule is a good one that makes play more challenging, I think.

With normal "dice-luck," I recommend the withdraw strategy, since it is very hard to keep the VP hexes if you meet an at least average player with normal dice-luck (=good NCOs).

Sicily. In this game I used to go for one-week turns; it makes the scenario a little longer and you can get an AS or EX without losing too much momentum.

I normally go for withdrawal strategy, since it is hard to defend yourself without attacking, as has often been mentioned by Europa players. The CRT causes often too little casualties on one side (attacker) but completely wipes out the defender. But the system is like that, and I think it is good anyway. The CRT rewards itself better in a long campaign game than in a brief scenario.

The scenario has one real great advantage -- and that is when trying to become an amphibious-invasion Liberace. You can in a small game with short preparation time analyze why you are losing speed in GT 2 and 3 after D-Day.

That was great, just doing it over and over again, experimenting with floating reserves, holding back one or two divisions, planning forward and trying to stick to the attack plan; that is great gaming, I think.