Each issue I'd like to comment upon a design issue or two that arises. I am continually amazed at how many gamers have trouble understanding the NE (no effect) result, with comments usually along the lines that how could two weeks of combat go by with nothing happening. Well, the result is right -- the attackers managed to botch the attack (happens all the time), the defenders repulsed it early, or whatever, so that the attack ended without casualties that'd show up at Europa scale and without the attacker being thrown back or routed for an Europa-scale AR. So, if the result is correct, what's all the griping about it? It's got to be the name -- No Effect sounds much too passive and conjures up wrong images of what's going on. So, let's consider changing NE (no effect) to: AP: Attacker Repulsed. The defenders repulsed the attack; neither side retreats or takeslosses.

A "repulsed" result is more meaningful and easier to understand than a "no effect." Well, how about it?

Another thing that amazes is the occasional commentary of some Scorched Earth German players who complain that, in 1941, they do better than historical in the north and worse than historical in the south. The thing of it is, I doubt any of them are playing historically! In the real event, Army Group Center had to divert substantial mechanized forces to swing south, to help out Army Group South by making the Kiev pocket.

Then, in the north, Army Group North had to send its panzers south for the drive on Moskva and got the mission of starving out Leningrad rather than taking it by storm. This tends to be the opposite of what gamers naturally do, especially in multi-player games: clon't have one army group help another, especially if you'd have to divert your panzers, and concentrate on taking Leningrad as soon as possible because historical hindsight shows you might not be able to starve it!

Finally, I've heard a lot about doing away with the fighter scramble rule or having a die roll to see if you may scramble. Everyone who suggests this is forgetting one thing: interception. Even ignoring the historical justifications for the rule, what you're saying is that it is harder for your fighters to scramble and find a known, friendly airbase than it is for them to "scramble" (in the WW2 use of the word) and intercept tiny aircraft quickly flying toward diverse targets!

Remember the old days, before the scramble rule? I do. If my fighter airbase was going to get bombed by a heavily escorted force, my fighters would valiantly intercept the weakest mission force in range. If all were strongly escorted, then I'd figure out what was less damaging: staying on the ground and dodging bombs or intercepting and dodging bullets. This was silly, and I'm glad those days are gone.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE TABLE [OPTIONAL]
DIE ROLL	Airbase	Port	Rail Line	Bridge
1 or less	NE	NE	NE	NE
2	NE	NE	NE	NE
3	NE	NE	NE	NE
4	1 Hit	1 Hit	NE	Destroyed
5	1 Hit	2 Hits	Broken	Destroyed
6 or more	2 Hits	3 Hits	Broken	Destroyed

Modifiers:
-2 if the combat result was AE, AH, or AR
-1 if there were 2 REs or less of defending units
+1 if the combat result was EX, DH, or DE
+1 if attacking air units delivered 10 or more printed tactical bombing factors of ground support in the hex.