Peter Robbins

That was a real sleeper in TEN # 5 (regauging Soviet rail hexes with Axis construction engineers). Does anyone know who asked this question? I have this mental image of John Astell, in trench coat and dark glasses, wrapping a scarf around a pay phone mouthpiece and calling with a harmless-sounding rules query. I agree with the ruling. After all, if a resource point could be used to build an airbase that can hold 120 aircraft, along with fuel tanks, hangers, barracks, etc., why can't the same resource point be used to shift 16 miles of track a few inches closer together? [Historical note: Track-layers building the Canadian Pacific Railway across the prairies in July 1883 set an all time record of 97 miles of track laid in a month. In one day 6.38 miles of track were laid. At Europa scale, this would be 3 hexes per turn, without the use of any mechanized equipment except steam locomotives.] In IjE, the track crews don't have to worry about building a track bed, only with repairing and regauging an existing one. By all means, limit the number of resource points that can be used for regauging each turn: perhaps in the same way that restrictions are placed on their use to increase rail capacity. I leave it to the experts to come up with a short, easily-applied rule. Does anyone have hard data on how many rail lines were, in fact, regauged? In a Grand Europa context, if we keep in mind the German belief that this was to be a short campaign, and so would not require long-term restructuring of the rail system, then the length of track actually regauged is probably an appropriate guide to the minimum that should be possible.

Soviet Asia?!?! If this goes on I'm going to have to move into a warehouse. Mounting the maps on a wall is no improvement: I'll have to stand on a chair to attack Murmansk, while the Soviet Black Sea fleet is going to be hidden by dust bunnies. I have considered gluing the maps directly to the floor, and then laminating everything. But what happens if I have to relocate?

Well Peter, I hardly think John would have intentionally initiated the controversy stirred by the regauging question and answer from TEN # 5. And based on the number of people railing against Ben's interpretation, it would appear your vote of confidence puts you in the caboose of public opinion. There was more involved in regauging tracks in Russia than merely moving the rails a few inches closer together and there are also the play balance implications mentioned by Mr. Goodwin in this issue's "Appeals Court" to consider. I hope Mr. Astell's new ruling in "Rails Through the Russias" meets with your approval in resolving this matter.

If one is to tackle Grand Europa, the many maps must be laid out in the space one has available in a manner allowing comfortable access. Bill Stone presents a reasonable tabletop layout in ETO #45s "Putting Everything on the Table" ' And although you've wittily pointed out some of the potential pitfalls of mounting the game on a wall, I utilize this approach quite successfully. I have the War in the Dese maps mounted on one wall of my game room and a set of SE maps on another. True, I've had to cut maps 5 and 6 roughly along the A weather line and place the Arctic along with Transcaucasus Map 9 off to one side, but I have ample room available to add the Urals maps when they arrive. Using a third wall to mount the Western Europe Second Front maps will provide me with much the same setup Mr. Stone suggests. The expense of wall mounting is very modest: thumb tacks affix the maps and a plastic adhesive from Eberhard Faber, Inc. called HOLDiT attaches the counters. Why, I even have a wall left over for Soviet Asia.

Theo Bierschenk

In reading the recent Grand Europa report [IFU # 6, p. 9], I'm not sure how publishing an "Introduction to Europa" book would bring more players into the Europa series. Since we all have time and money constraints, I don't see why any players who don't have the Europa games would buy a book about a series they don't own. Conversely, if they already have the games, they have no need to buy a book explaining them. SInce we are all in the hobby to play games, I can't imagine why novices would shell out money for a book about games, instead of actual games.

I am convinced the best way to bring more players into the Europa series is to concentrate on producing a workable system for all the games. This is something that wouldn't be addressed by rewriting the old games, since the biggest gaps in the Europa series are the naval and air systems.

I would think you would be better off producing a module emphasizing either naval (Convoy Raiding in the North Atlantic; Central Med Brits vs. Italian Fleet etc.) or air warfare (Allied Bomber Offensive vs. Germany). This would give GR/D experience in developing air/naval combat systems, and contribute towards a standard set of rules for use in Grand Europa.

The purpose of unveiling the concept of Grand Euroga Book was to get feedback of the nature you have provided and your opinion is much appreciated. We will continue to evaluate the project. I think your approach would target a different group of gamers than we thought to reach with Book I. While further development of the air and naval systems is indeed needed, and the sooner the better, these will likely be the most complicated parts of the system. An air or naval module might bring in some new blood whose primary gqming interest was in naval or air simulations, but Book would be aimed at the much broader group of gamers whose interests are more general. This would include not just novices, but casual gamers and those veteran players who have to date been intimidated by the size and cost of Europa.

We'd like to hear from more readers on this topic; drop us a line.

Phillip Buhler

Congratulations on an ever-improving fanzine. The new magazine format is much better than the old stapled news sheets, and gives TEN more respectability on the hobby store shelves (which it very much deserves).

Europa players are by training detail fanatics, and I am no exception to this. Therefore, I have one correction to make to TEN # 6. On page 13 of that issue you have a picture and blurb entitled "Hitler's Last Free Lunch". Your history of the Memel Territory (Memelland, auf Deutsch) is a bit inaccurate. Memel was not awarded to Lithuania by the Treaty of Versailles, but rather was given a special status under League of Nations auspices in the same manner as Danzig. The Statute of the Memel Territory, drafted by the League of Nations, established a Directorate, headed by an appointed President, to govern the Territory. However, in 1923 the Lithuanian Army occupied the Territory, and Lithuania unilaterally annexed Memel. While the League of Nations did nothing to stop this violation of international law, it never recognized the Lithuanian annexation, either. In fact, in 1932 the Permanent Court of International Justice issued an opinion interpreting the Statute of the Memel Territory, in which it effectively declared the Lithuanian annexation a nullity. The Territory would remain under Lithuanian "occupation" until March 23, 1939, when Germany and Lithuania signed a treaty in which Lithuania agreed to cede control of Memelland to Germany. No doubt Lithuania signed this treaty under duress, as Hitler had demonstrated his willingness to use the overwhelming might of the German Army it necessary. In any event Lithuania herself would soon be swallowed by Stalin's Russia.

The issue here was not another German conquest by intimidation, a la Czechoslovakia. Lithuania had no better claim to Memel than Germany. It was rather another loss for the League of Nations. Then again, in its twenty years of existence the League never showed an ability to stand up to big power politics, and could not prevent these two annexations of a League Territory, any more than it could prevent that of Ethiopia, Albania, or, ultimately, World War II.

[Phillip Buhler is published in the field of international law and we bow to his expertise. Thanks, Phillip. Pub.]

James Broshot

I really enjoyed and appreciated the article in Ten # 6 about the British pioneer units. I have always thought that the British were being shorted on construction ability in War in the Desert. My only comment would be that perhaps some distinction should be made for New Zealand and Soutn African units. According to my sources the South Africans committed quite a large number of engineer and pioneer units to North Africa; however, they were under the normal restriction against serving outside Africa. In fact, there were some problems, as I recall, because some of them were sent to Palestine and the Levant to finish the railroad and thus violated the ban.

I would also like to thank Shelby Stanton for the series on German assault gun units. I have always wanted some explanation as to how the Europa units and values were derived.

R. D. Roberts

I have been extremely happy with the Europa series and look forward to more games in the series. How about a game on the China/Burma/India theater and/or Indochina and Malaysia?

Depending on the success of Sovie &ia and continued market study, who knows? Maybe this will be a reality some day. But let's attend to the business at hand first and bring Europa itself to completion. By the way, there will be a full length report on the progress of Soviet Asia in an upcoming issue of TEN. Stay tuned for further bulleTENs.

Jay Kaufman

In response to the quasi-contest in TEN# 6 - the biggest artillery piece? How about the German V-3? I don't know about any biblical name, and I don't think its muzzle exceeded 800 mm, thus my trepidation in confidently saying it wins out over the Dora, but it suits the other particulars: test-fired successfully within Germany, it was emplaced for operations in Belgium; it's target: London. One of Hitler's secret weapons, it was the sort of monster only a German scientist would invent and only a German engineer could build. It consisted of one very long barrel to which was attached many smaller artillery barrels radiating out of the main barrel at acute angles. After the shell was fired, an unbelievably precise electronic firing system would control the firing of the secondary barrels which each fired additional shells into the butt of the main shell accelerating it through the main barrel. The V-3's muzzle velocity will probably never be exceeded until someone builds one of those "mass drivers" the science-fictioners occasionally mention.

WRONG! But your answer was so interesting, I wanted to share it with the other readers. The correct answer appears in "News from GR/D".