As GRD begins to gear up for the revisions of Fire in the East and Scorched Earth, the opportunity presents itself to make some essential fixes to the ground combat system in Europa. After all, Europa is primarily concerned with the land campaigns in Europe - the air and naval systems complement the ground action. While some abstractions and inaccuracies can be tolerated in the air and naval systems, we really need the most realistic ground operations (movement, supply, command and control, and combat) possible. Unfortunately, the land combat system is precisely where the most glaring problems lie. Furthermore, over the years while there have been substantial changes to the air and naval systems, land operations in Europa remains essentially the same as it was in Drang Nach Osten of the early 1970s. In the intervening two and a half decades many significant problems have been discovered in Europa's land operations system yet they have remained largely unsolved.

Now is the time to come up with some significant changes that can be implemented in the revised Collector's Edition versions of FitE and SE - and then retrofitted into the other games. I will review what I think are the most glaring systemwide problems, and then suggest reasonable solutions. By "system-wide", I mean problems in Europa's treatment of land operations, regardless of the game or campaign.

Turn Length

I, and others, have been saying for years that the two-week turn is simply wrong. It has an enormous distorting effect on the game - and will cause Grand Europa to collapse. For example, the movement rates of infantry units are far too slow for a two-week turn. At 6 movement factors an infantry unit is advancing 6.8 miles per day in optimal conditions (good weather, no enemy ZOCs, clear terrain). Therefore, even unopposed admin movement through friendly territory is a mere 13.6 miles per day. This is far short of historical potential. Indeed, George McClellan, who was constantly criticized for his slow rates of advance in the American Civil War, moved faster than this. In long campaign games like FitE/SE this has the effect of causing non combat-motorized units to fall well behind their historical potential.

Because so much has to happen with each two-week turn to keep things moving at anywhere near historical rates, it seems armor has been given killing power that is beyond reason -- a +3 to the die roll for full AECA, for example. Because campaigns were going to fall well behind their historical potential, Europa has had to use "surprise attack turns" that artificially add almost a full additional turn to help make up for the effect of the two week turn. And remember, the movement rates are actually worse than the 6.8 miles per day cited above. Keep in mind that Europa doesn't even really have two-week turns. Twenty-four two-week turns per year sum to 48 weeks; four calendar weeks are therefore missing in each year. So, when an infantry division stomps its 6 MPs forward, it is actually doing it over a period of 15.2 days; the division is moving barely 6 miles per day. Guys, Grand Europa ain't going to work if this remains unchanged.

Recommended Solution: Modify Europa to use three turns per month. This will mean that each turn represents about 10 days. Weekly turns would double the length of what are already very time consuming games, so that is too extreme a solution. 10-day turns will, when combined with other rules listed below, greatly add to the realism of the game. Keep reading.

Armor Effects

Infantry forces must advance at great caution in Europa games. Because armor has such enormous killing power, and can literally dash from cover, smash exposed infantry stacks with +3 AECA die roll modifiers, then dash back to cover in the exploitation phase, infantry operates in the open at great risk. This "Panzer Raid" nonsense has just got to stop. If c/m units take the time to fight during the combat phase, they need to have their movement reduced in the upcoming c/m phase. Additionally, by going to three turns per month, the overall effectiveness of armor can be torqued back a bit. You will now have three, as opposed to two, turns per month to conduct operations. Not as much has to happen in each turn to reflect history as was the case in a two-week turn, so an-nor's devastating killing power can be reduced. Infantry will not have to cower every time any number of tanks are in the area.

Recommended solution:

a. Use this modified Armor Effects Table:

Level	AEC	AECD	ATEC
Full	+2	-1	-3
1/2 or more	+1	-1	-2
1/7 to 1/2	0	0	-1
less than 1/7	0	0	0

b. Whenever a c/m unit contributes its combat factors to an attack in the combat phase, it is limited to no more than 1/2 of its movement factors in the upcoming exploitation phase. Denote this with any convenient game marker. [ A template for making "0 Exploit markers appears at the end of this article. - PR] This will help limit the long range "panzer raid" where armor can dash from cover, kill, and then flee great distances to safety in the c/m phase.

c. Note that if a c/m unit participates in an overrun, but not the combat phase, its ability to move at full speed in the exploitation phase is unaffected. This is intended to simulate the fact that if the unit participates in the combat phase it has to deploy for an attack and therefore losing momentum. An overrun attack, on the other hand, is assumed to be a real blow-out. The overrunning unit maintains its momentum and therefore can still move at full rate in the exploitation phase.

Combat and Movement

There are several things that should change in the combat system. First, units should not be allowed to use huge amounts of rail movement, detrain, and then employ their entire combat factor with no penalty. In issue # 51 of Europa magazine I suggested some specific limitations for Russian armor in this area. A generic, Europa-wide rule is also needed. Going to three turns per month makes this particularly important. Next, there needs to be a penalty for entering zones of control as well as leaving. When units move into contact with the enemy they tend to slow down. Enemy outpost screens or rear guards impose caution and delay on approaching units. In fact, such delays are probably more significant than the effect of breaking contact and pulling away from an enemy unit. Unfortunately, current Europa rules only impose a movement penalty on units that are leaving the ZOC of an enemy unit.

Additionally, many players currently tend to accept EX and HX losses in artillery units. This is very unrealistic, particularly for attacking units. While defending artillery was sometimes overrun, the overwhelming majority of losses in WWII were among armor and, more significantly, infantry. This basic reality needs to be imposed on players.

I have also been bothered by the fact that defending units are almost always forced out of their positions by a DE, EX, or HX result. That makes it very difficult to simulate, for example, the German defense of Monte Cassino. During that fierce, months-long battle, there would have been, in Europa terms, a number of EX or HX results - with the dug in Germans retaining their hold on the mountain. It was only when the position on Monte Cassino was on the verge of being outflanked in May 1944 that the Germans finally abandoned the position. Below you will see a recommendation for this type of situation.

Recommended Solution:

a. Whenever a unit consumes over 50% of its movement points in rail movement its attack factor is reduced by 1/2 that turn. I personally think that there should be differing degrees of penalty for various armies through the war, but for a system-wide modification I think that this rule is adequate.

b. The same movement point penalty is paid for entering a ZOC as is paid for leaving. Going to three turns per month really mandates this modification.

c. Whenever an attacking stack suffers a combat result of EX or HX, losses must be taken in armor, infantry, engineer, or cavalry units first - prior to any artillery units suffering casualties. If a defending stack suffers an EX or HX result, at least 50% of the casualties must be infantry, armor, engineer, or cavalry prior to any losses being assessed to artillery-type units.

d. A fort or port fortification counter that is located on mountain, wooded rough, hedgerow, swamp, full hex, partial hex, or dot city hexes allows the defender to remain in the hex following a DR, EX, or HX result. If the combat result is DE, any surviving cadres must retreat from the hex. This rule is intended to replicate the fact that units dug into very difficult terrain, or cities, are very difficult to dislodge.

NODLs and Optional Overruns

There has been a lot of ink (and probably some blood) spilled over the subject of Non-Overrunable Double Lines (NODLs) in the last several years. The problem is particularly bad in the Russian campaign once the Soviet player gets enough units on the map to set up NODLs. From that point on the Axis player might as well just go on the defensive, sniping away each turn at the Russian line with armor to kill as many of the enemy as possible. All this has a terrible effect on the game, and is one of the most glaring problems that must be fixed in a revision of FitE/SE. A number of possible solutions have been proposed in recent years. I have my own favorite that I offer below. Readers note, the "Optional Overrun" rule must be used in conjunction with the following rule on Reaction Phases.

Recommended Solution: To break the tyranny of the NODL, use the following "Optional Overrun" rule.

a. A stack of units may attempt to overrun an enemy hex at odds as low as 5­-to-1. Use the following table with one six-sided die:

5-to-1 = die roll of 1
6-to-1 = die roll of 1, 2
7-to-1 = die roll of 1, 2, 3
8-to-1 = die roll of 1, 2, 3, 4
9-to-1 = die roll of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

If the die roll is successful, the enemy stack is overrun. If the die roll is not successful, all the units in the stack attempting the overrun must return to the hex from which it entered the defender's hex and cease movement. That stack must attack the enemy hex it attempted to overrun during the upcoming combat phase. Other units may enter the stack that was unsuccessful in the overrun attempt during the remainder of the movement phase, and other hexes may participate in the combat phase attack; GS air may also be added.

The key is that the stack must stop and, as a minimum, that stack must attack the hex it attempted to overrun (and watch - the intended victim will have the chance to bring in reinforcements via air or the Reaction Phase, see the next rule). The stack that was the target of the overrun is not subject to other overrun attempts during that movement phase.

What is going on here? Think of it like this: the attacker attempted to "bounce" the 'victim' hex. It did not work, and the attacker was repulsed but -a fight is now underway as an aftermath of the failed overrun. Due to the fight taking place inside the defender's hex, other units can not effectively get into the fight for another overrun attempt, but they can reinforce the troops that attempted the overrun by moving into the stack of the failed overrunning units, or helping them from other hexes adjacent to the defender. Meanwhile, the defender, having beaten off the would-be overrunners, can also call for help. A set piece (that is, combat phase) battle is underway.

If an overrun attempt is made in the exploitation phase and fails, the would­be overrunning unit must still attack the intended victim, and can bring in air support or other c/m units into his hex (ONLY), prior to the end of the exploitation phase. The defender will not have a reaction phase with which to move additional ground units, but will have the opportunity to bring available air into his hex for DAS prior to the failed overrun combat being resolved. After the defender flies any DAS, and the attacker GS, attacks from failed c/m phase overrun attempt are resolved. 

This rule accomplishes many things. It provides a way of breaking NODLS at relatively low odds; starting at 5-to-1. There is, however, risk to the attacker. If the overrun fails, the intended victim hex must be attacked. Given that the defender will have an opportunity to bring in reinforcements during his reaction phase, the attacker could be confronted with a very low odds attack in the combat phase. Therefore, prior to the defender's reaction phase, the attacker may want to bring additional units into that particular battle (in essence, the failed overrunning units are now in a pitched battle and want help). This is the sort of risky, unforeseen thing that happens in actual combat.

"We thought we could easily take that position, but couldn't. More and more units had to be thrown into the fight. Units that we had intended to use elsewhere." This Optional Overrun rule, when combined with the Reaction Phase rule which comes next, will have the following overall effects:

The tyranny of the NODL will go away. Attacker losses will go up.

Much more uncertainty will be added to the gamejust like there is in real war.

Reaction

Together with NODLs, one of the features of Europa that has come in for fierce criticism is the fact that the attacker does not suffer sufficient losses. Because players have perfect intelligence, exemplified by the ability to examine your opponent's stacks and compute exactly how much force needs to be brought to bear for a high odds attack, there is little risk to the attacker. The "on demand" DS air that first appeared in SF will help this situation somewhat, but not much. Not when you consider that DS air only uses 1/2 its tactical bombing factor, and the total number of air units that will be available for DS will probably be quite small on any turn. In the standard Europa two-week turn (or my proposed/preferred 10day turn) a lot should be able to happen. 10- 15 days is a long time in modern combat. It is certainly plenty of time for reserves to be moved to threatened points - which is the essence of this rule. A very important point in this rule is that the ability to move reserves must vary among the armies of Europe - and changes over time.

Think of France 1940. The carrier pigeon, motor cycle courier French Army of 1940 was simply not very "fast on its feet". The French were still prepared to fight 1918-style combat. The Germans of that period of the war were far superior in their ability to react to a rapidly changing situation - and could move reserves about much more easily. This rule does not assume that just because a unit is available to move in the Reaction Phase that it will be able to do so. There will be a degree of uncertainty that represents failed communications, misunderstood orders, or an enemy attack that simply hits the defending units on the front line prior to a reserve unit being able to respond to the situation. Nevertheless, the fact that reserves will be available for movement prior to the combat phase will greatly complicate the attacker's problem - and will cause 5- and 6-to-1 attacks to suddenly tumble to 3-to-1, 2-to-1, or possibly even worse. Attacker losses will go up. Remember, using the Optional Overrun rule, any victim hex where a failed overrun occurred must be attacked - and the defender will now have an opportunity to bring in help prior to the combat phase. Have fun!

RECOMMENDED SOLUTION Use this rule in conjunction with Optional Overruns. Here are the features of the Reaction Phase rule:

• At the conclusion of the attacker's movement phase, any defending phase unit that is not in the ZOC of an enemy unit may attempt to conduct Reaction Phase movement.
• Depending on the year, and the defending army, role one die on the Reaction Phase table for each unit attempting to move.
• Units that successfully role on the Reaction Phase table may move up to 1/2 of their printed movement allowance. They may conduct overruns (for example, blow away unsupported airborne units that landed behind your lines as you move to help your friends), but may not use rail, sea, or admin movement.
• All normal movement costs apply, including the effects of enemy air harassment.
• Any unit that begins the reaction phase in the ZOC of an enemy unit may not attempt to move in the reaction phase. (This prevents units from 'side stepping' one hex into an adjacent hex that is clearly the target of an upcoming attack. It also gives the attacker a powerful incentive to try to get some of his ZOC-capable units adjacent to potential enemy reserves).
• Reacting units may enter friendly hexes and have their defensive strength added to that stack in the combat phase. Reacting units may enter a hex where mandatory combat will take place due to a failed overrun attempt.
• Reacting units may not enter a hex if it violates the stacking limits.

Reaction Table:
Year	1939	1940-41	1942	1943	1944	1945-46
German	1-3	1-4	1-4	1-4	1-4	1-3
British	1	1-2	1-3	1-3	1-4	1-4
France	1	1/2*	1-2	1-2	1-3	1-4
Italy	nil	1	1-2	1-2	1-2	1-2
Soviet Union	nil	1/2**	1-2	1-3	1-3	1-3
U. S.	-	-	1-2	1-3	1-4	1-4
Fin., Swe., Swz.	1	1-2	1-3	1-3	1-3	1-3
All others	nil	1	1-2	1-2	1-2	1-2

* French c/m units may react in 1940-41 on a roll of 1-2. The French had intended to use their armored, mechanized cavalry and light armored units as counterattack reserves, therefore they should be somewhat better than the rest of the French Army's ability to conduct Reaction Movement.

** The Soviets move to 1-2 in 1940-41 three months (6 or 9 turns, depending whether you are using the standard Europa twoweek turn, or three turns per month) after they have engaged in ground combat operations with at least 30 REs of units for at least two months. If the Soviets do not engage in at least two months of combat operations, their reaction ability in 1940 is NIL and I in 1941. This is intended to simulate the fact that the inept Red Army of 1939 had to learn many hard lessons at the hands of the Finns. Had the Russians not gained some experience and discovered just how bad their command and control system was, they would have been in an even more difficult position when the Axis attacked in 194 1.

Replacements

Going to three turns per month will, unquestionably, increase the total number of combat die rolls that are taking place. This has the potential of increasing attrition considerably. Whether one uses the standard Europa twoweek turn or the proposed three turns per month, one important fix that should be made is to increase the number of special replacements. Historically, the vast majority of casualties in combat are wounded. Something like 50-60% of wounded men return to duty. Some return quickly, others literally take years.

In his diary Franz Halder stated that within a few months after the invasion of the Soviet Union about 50-70,000 recovered wounded men per month were returning to duty. This is why encirclements are so important - the wounded men who would otherwise return to duty do not get away. The special replacement multiples need to be increased.

Another problem with the replacement system is the fact that destroyed units return to duty far too quickly. Some division that was wiped out in an isolated pocket can reappear the very next turn by simply expending replacement points and hurling the formation back into combat. It's not that easy guys-particularly for the better quality formations. Again, whether the unit was destroyed while encircled makes a big difference. Here are some ideas.

Finally, there has to be some way to represent national abilities to rebuild units back in their home country that are above and beyond the normal replacement rates. For example, in the "Clash of Titans" 1943 scenario several German divisions that were destroyed at Stalingrad are in the process of rebuilding. Of even greater importance is the fact that a very large percentage of the Rumanian and Hungarian armies are in the process of being rebuilt - above and beyond the normal monthly replacement rate. The abilities of various nations to gradually rebuild units while not digging into the replacement factors that are being pumped to the front(s) needs elaboration.

Recommended Solution:

• All non-c/m, non-artillery units that are eliminated while not encircled produce infantry special replacements at rate of 50% of the eliminated number of attack factors.
• C/m units and artillery produce special replacements at a rate of 30%. This accounts for the fact that so much of the combat power of c/m and artillery is in their weapons - as opposed to manpower­intensive infantry, cavalry or engineer units.
• When a non-divisional unit is eliminated while not encircled, place it in a holding box for one turn. it is eligible for rebuilding during the next turn.
• If a non-divisional unit is eliminated while isolated, it must remain for one month in the holding box prior to being eligible for rebuilding.
• If a division that does not produce a cadre is eliminated while not isolated, it must remain in the holding box for one turn prior to being eligible for rebuilding. If eliminated while isolated, it must remain in the holding box for one month.
• If a division is reduced to a cadre, it must be spend one turn not in combat in order to receive replacements. Note, the cadred division may remain adjacent to the enemy, but it may not attack that turn. The Americans, in particular, did this all the time.
• If a division with a cadre is eliminated while not isolated, it requires two full turns to reconstitute the cadre. During those turns, the cadre may not be adjacent to an enemy unit, nor may the cadre move that turn. During the third turn, the cadre may accept replacements to build it back to a full strength division, but may not attack.
• If a division that produces a cadre is eliminated while isolated, the division must remain in the holding box for one month. The next turn after waiting a month, the cadre may be replaced, per the rules above.

The final point I raised above-the ability to periodically rebuild units deep in one's rear area (while not consuming regular replacement factors) must be incorporated into the game. GRD has already done this-but it is in terms of specific historical events that already happened, such as Stalingrad. What happens if in a future Europa game there is no "Stalingrad" in late 1942 or early 1943, but some time later 10-20 divisions are smashed in a pocket? Some provision for this should be incorporated into the overall replacement potential of each army.

Supply

The most realistic element of Europa's supply system is the North African campaigns. Here supply factors must be carted about, and kept relatively close to the front for attacking units to use. Because there are not very many counters in the North African campaigns, this does not impose much of a burden on players. Such a system in Russia could lead to the need for a player on each side to be devoted to quartermaster tasks. There is a clear need, however, to impose more of an overall supply constrain on armies. Currently, if you can trace a supply line to rail heads, you can go on the offensive with every unit in your army from the Arctic circle to the Black Sea. That is too much.

Having just read several books on the Siegfried Line campaign in 1944, it is very clear to me that three things saved the Germans from defeat in the period September through November of 1944: bad weather, the overall cohesiveness of badly battered German units, and American supply difficulties. Unlike the situation in Normandy where Allied units could fire utterly stupendous amounts of artillery ammunition, with ships bringing in more supplies just a few miles to the rear, in the Fall of 1944 the Allies had to cart their supplies hundreds of miles from the beachhead. They had a very finite amount of ammunition and gasoline to spread among three Army Groups. There was simply not enough supply nor transport to keep every division and corps operating at full tempo. It took the Allies months to completely close their supply system up to the fighting along the Westwall.

Europa needs a "Supply Depot" system. As long as units are within a certain distance (probably counted in movement points, with weather, terrain, and broken major river bridges having an effect) of a depot, attacking at full strength should be easy. However, as you pull farther away from a depot, supply becomes harder and harder. Periodically, depots will have to move. While they move depots should not be capable of meeting unit's needs for attack supply. Simply because you can trace a path to a rail line should not be good enough. How many Depots each Army should receive is open to debate. It probably should be about one per Army Group - plus a limited number of extras for the major armies.

Hopefully all the thoughts provided above will help stimulate ideas that can be codified in the Collector's Editions of FitE and SE. For too long the problems of NODLs, attackers taking almost no losses, two-week turn distortions, "Panzer raids", have detracted from Europa. The order of battle work and terrain research in Europa is so good, that errors in the ground operations system should not be allowed to harm the game's realism. Lets get these things fixed prior to the Eastern Front games being reissued.

Commentary from Frank Watson

John Gordon offers interesting solutions to some of the most commonly heard charges against Europa.

Three turns per month I've thought before that three turns per month is one way to solve the perceived problem of low movement rates, but, personally, I have gradually come to think that the two-­week turn has benefits that outweigh its disadvantages. In researching various "Europa as History" articles (both published and unpublished), I've found that most campaigns do actually have about two "decision points" per month. There are exceptions, late July and early August in North Africa in 1942 is my best example, but they are exceptions and not the general case.

Three turns per month always has some attractive points, but there are other, less drastic ways to revise movement rates.

Artillery Loss Restrictions This is one reasonable way to approach the problem. Making artillery costly to replace is another way to influence this tactic.

Armor As a companion to three turns per month perhaps something like this is necessary. I've always been a fan of the 1/7 th ratio since it allows one tank battalion attached to a division to give an especially good bang for the buck.

"Super Forts" and Non-retreats I'm always wary of any "no retreat necessary" provision in any game. I've seen them abused too many times in non-Europa games. No-retreat terrain makes it is possible to make many positions impregnable by stationing reserves ready to take the place of any remaining cadres. If this is historically accurate, then OK, but in other systems I have found it feels "gamey." I might be more enthusiastic if the defender had to roll on the success table to deny a retreat, but took additional losses on an F* result.

Supply Interestingly, it is the study of the Allied situation in late 1944 (while the TEM staff was working on developing the "Long Left Flank" scenario) that has led me to conclude that the Europa's supply representation is really not that bad. In September the Allies were attacking in Holland, at Aachen, and on the Moselle. It seems to me that Patton's Third Army probably missed one two-week Europa turn of attacking in October due to a lack of supplies (even though a valid Europa supply lines existed). Is that worth having to deal with the complexity of a depot system?

Maybe, maybe not.