Deen Wood

I hope that the maps prepared for Second Front contain all those features present in the 1940 campaign (i.e. Maginot Line, etc.) in addition to those needed for the 1944-45 campaign. It would be a real hassle to have to change out maps in a Western Europe campaign or "Grand Europa" . If such a comprehensive map is not planned for SF then let me suggest that GR/D make a set of corrected maps available for Fall of France.

Thoughts on airbase darnage: As things stand right now, an airfield/ airbase that changes hands for whatever reason is instantly available at full capacity for use by the occupying power, unless the opposition has specifically demolished it in advance. In most cases this does not seem too unreasonable. However, in a situation where control of this air facility passed from one side to the other as the result of a violent battle or series of battles in that hex, is it reasonable to assume that the airbase that the airbase was ignored by the artillery and other weapons of mass destruction usually employed by people who are peeved at one another?

I suggest that airbases or airfield which change hands due to a combat result of EX or HX be considered zero capacity until repaired by engineers. It a couple of lousy half-trained and underequipped partisans can cause mayhem, then surely a major battle would as well.

(Editor's note: Not a bad idea! As an alternate suggestion, an extra die roll could be made to determine airbase damage. The number rolled would yield the damage hits to apply to the airbase in the attacked hex (but never more than the total capacity present at the time of the attack).

There was a rule similar to this in the SE playtest for determining damage to ports which were seized through combat RG] In closing, I would gladly pay for updated official rules for Fall of France ' Merita-Merkur, and the rest of the older games. It would be worth it not to have to thumb through half a dozen rules manualser games. It would be worth it not to have to thumb through half a dozen rules manuals trying to prove that so and so is correct.

[PUBLISHERS NOTE: The last part of the letter addresses a key point in the series of games. I have started making plans along those lines and expect to have some news on what we are up to here in GR/D land. It should be very interesting. WJH]

Ray Kanarr

The magazine is shaping up real well. The only criticism I have regarding the physical product is the number of typos that show up.

[Editor's note.- Waht typos? Seriously, this area is being taken care of.]

I enjoyed James Broshot's "Beyond Compass", although I don't how close or far from the mark his modifications are. Perhaps someone will submit an article concurring or demurring.

Though I disagree with much of Jay Kaufman's and Tom Johnson's tweaks to the system ["Home Front"] and ["Debugging the System"] published in TEN 5, it all comes down in the end to the fact that everybody plays some sort of "Home Europa" (which ought to keep the Europa Police busy! By the way, do they exchange info with the Dream Police? If so, then I'm taking issue with several points that I think need addressing.

Jay Kaufman's approach to overruns, as others before him seems to be aimed at giving the attacker an extra combat phase in the form of increased chances for overruns. My own reading of the situations is that overruns represent all the effects, material and psychological, of overwhelming force (probably coupled with operational surprise, as the lack of same would probably result in the defender tightening up his lines into overrun-proof stacks.)

A 3-1 can hardly be considered overwhelming. I have read several analyses which have stated that the rule of thumb for a successful assault is 4 or 5 to 1, and that is to take a position, not completely rout, discombobulate, dishearten, and eliminate an enemy force. I think overruns are overruns, and combat is combat, and that efforts to amalgamate the two are ill-advised. If there is empirical evidence out there of what the current overrun rules are attempting to simulate occurring at what, in Europa terms, would be considered "low odds", then I'll reconsider. But not just because we want to give one side or another an extra shot at opposing forces.

Another point relates to Tom Johnson's suggested rules change regarding replacements. Some wipeout divisions in both the Soviet and German armies (and probably others as well) were re-raised as full divisions, and did not pass through a cadre-division stage. Perhaps a limit on the number of divisions that could be resurrected (along the lines of the Soviet winterized limits) would be more appropriate than outright prohibition.

With regard to Mike Arthur's comments regarding command control: my own thoughts are that the abilities of leadership all even out in the end. For every excellent general there's a mediocre one, of whatever nationality. While it might be fun to have tables to roll on for competency, obedience to orders, and consequences (leader shot/removed/commended/ promoted), I don't really think that the overall influence is worth the investment in time and complexity.

Although the "Timothy O'Shenko" article was, overall, a good one, I dislike pseudonymous authorship. If a writer does not wish to be identified (for any number of good reasons), I think the ,.narne withheld by request" is a more honest way of dealing with things.

[PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The article by "O'Shenko" was not meant to hide the identity of an author. I failed to complete the input. The byline was to have the additional note: "AKA Jack Radey". The "O'Shenko" was meant to be humorous, not devious.]