Most, if not all, Grognards are familiar with the strange and terrible saga of the Europa gaming system. For those of you who are not, here’s a summary of events up to 2013, as well as a trenchant series of exchanges about more recent developments. Their signature East Front game, Total War, has been in a strange legal-sloth-hand-of-fate purgatory for years. The website is virtually dormant, indicating no news is bad news.
Fortunately, there is some hope. A group of Europa Diehards have continued to play and discuss the game, with one intrepid soul actually publishing a new game.
Timothy Davis’ effort covers the hypothetical German invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 using rules published by John Astell. Astell was a major figure in the early days of the Europa system, and, apparently retained publishing rights. This rule set is “Blitzkrieg Unending.” Tim’s company is New Europa Games and Variants.
I contacted Tim through the company’s website last month. He was working his way through some printing/publishing problems with the Europa variant counters. However, he still found the time to ship me a copy of Fall Grun.
I like it!
It does have the feel of a Beta. The rules have some gaps, the charts are nothing extraordinary and the map is printed on less expensive vinyl. But it’s a quality job and very similar to Europa. So why in the hell couldn’t the HMS/GRD folks do this? Tim’s published a quality product – especially for experienced Europa players who can fill in the gaps – and offers it for a relatively low price. OK, the question is rhetorical since it’s well known that there are all kinds of legal/creditor/investor issues hobbling HMS/GRD…..but just get the bloody game out.
Back to Fall Grun. The counter symbols are slightly smaller than Europa, but the maps have the same feel with different colors for terrain and symbols for terrain features such as woods. Europa players would find most of the charts easy to work with. If one doesn’t like the vinyl map, use maps from the other games or contact Timothy about the availability of the more expensive paper maps. Yes, paper is more expensive than vinyl….Go Figure.
Timothy deserves kudos for his efforts! His variant counters also look pretty damn good.
I hope my wargaming accomplice Tim and I get this on the table soon. Dunno, since there is talk about playing the East Africa scenario from Wavells War next.
Here are pictures of the game’s components. These were not taken with my IPhone!
German CountersCzech and German Air Force Along With Soviet, Hungarian, Pole and Polish Air UnitsVinyl Map
Here are Tim’s comments….We plan to play this scenario one more time, hopefully between Xmas and New Year.
Weather was an issue. The rain, with the accompanying -1 die roll modifier and increased movement costs was a real problem for me. I was having to use units to cart supply to the front when I needed every body at the front.
I should have attacked your river transports much, much sooner. I was pleasantly surprised at how effective the one raid was.
I understand better why it is hard to use the factional units as cannon fodder. Even with their stacking limits, I still wonder if it would be possible to use them in good defensive terrain (rice paddies, or behind a river) hoping for an exchange or to buy time. I know its not really an issue in the context of the scenario but the Central Army 4-6 divisions can’t be replaced and the 3-5 divisions can be only replaced very slowly.
I hope you handed out lots of medals to your aviators. They gave their all and suffered accordingly! I wonder if the Chinese would be well advised to adopt a ‘fleet in being’ strategy for their air force. Having said that, I was sweating when your one naval patrol attack got through…
NGS is really important to the Japanese. I actually could have used it more than I did– I forgot that TFs can sail up the Yangtse as far as Nanjing.
Infantry having an exploit phase is nice. I often would launch an attack and then use the exploit phase to regroup my troops for your turn. I would create a big stack and then split them back up during the exploit phase.
Had another War of Resistance (WOR) session with Tim over the weekend. Once again, it was the Fate of Nanking scenario, with Tim as the Japanese commander, and the Chinese committed to a forward defense of Shangai. This scenario starts with an abbreviated August I (1937) turn, and ends with the Jan II (1938) turn. By eschewing strong drink, and limiting our football viewing, we were able to play through the Dec II turn.
I had studied the logistics rules since our last session, and was much more comfortable allocating resource points and moving them from off map to where they could be used. Chinese engineers were kept busy building forts and repairing rail line hits. The limited rail net moved attack points to the theater headquarters, and strategic river movement was employed to augment the supply effort. As a result, I was able spend less time muddling through logistics, and more time on operational challenges.
Tim provided plenty of challenges. He quickly exploited a gap in my river defenses, and established an amphibious beachhead threatening my left flank. As a result, I had to pull back forces dug-in in Shangai, abandon my factories (which can create resource points) and establish a main line of resistance (MLR) in the suburbs. This was an important early move, since the Chinese player’s mission is to delay and defend, and Tim’s landing probably cost me at least one turn.
Tim’s operational problems are to utilize naval transport to move troops from Japan to China, while juggling the problems of limited port capacity and possible damage to his landing craft used for ship to shore movement. Taking advantage of the clear weather, smooth seas, and experience gained in our last session, he rapidly built up his combat power and began a series of attacks supported by strong naval gunfire and aviation assets.
The Chinese Airforce attempted to thwart this naval movement and also shoot down Japanese ground support aircraft. Their efforts were futile, and almost every Chinese air unit was eliminated or aborted.
As the methodical Japanese moved west, they encountered successive defensive lines built by engineers augmented with civillian labor. This increased manpower allows the construction of a fort in one turn. With narrow avenues of advance, and four construction capable units, the Chinese forces enjoyed consistent -1 modifiers when attacked. The Chinese defenders were also aided by flooded rice fields, which halved Japanese attack strength. However, by October, the rice growing season had ended, and the impact of intensely cultivated terrain was much reduced.
Tim was able to consistently create high odds attacks, taking advantage of the inability of the Chinese to mass combat power in any single hex. This is a function of the low strength Chinese divisions, and lack of regimental or brigade troops to augment the combat power of the divisions within stacking rules. In addition, the Chinese player has only four (4) artillery units, which I used to support stacks of unsupported divisions, which otherwise would defend at half strength, rather than augment the stronger, supported, divisions.
This attritional combat took a heavy toll on the Chinese, who are unable to rebuild lost supported divisions during this scenario. I didn’t help matters by failing to feed the lower strength elminiated units back into the fighting.
By November, Tim had split my defense, and established a beachhead on the north side of the Yangtze. He also destroyed my riverine supply capabilities along with their cargo in a devastating aerial attack. As a result, many of the Chinese units were un-supplied for a turn which, fortunately, did not effect their defensive capabilities. However, this slowed the Chinese withdrawal north of the Yangtze. At this point, China’s greatest ally was time. A patchwork defense in depth continued to slow the Japanese advance.
The game came down to a final roll of the dice by Tim to activate his two headquarters during the reaction phase of the Dec II turn. Had he made these rolls (1 or 2, d6), he would have had a chance to break through my last ditch defense of Nanking. Fortunately for the Chinese, this didn’t happen.
We’ll never know what the outcome would have been if the game had been played for one more month to the scenario’s conclusion. Our consensus is that it would have been a toss-up.
Here’s a series of photos to augment my narrative. I’ll hold off on any analysis until Tim forwards his thoughts on the game.
Initial Japanese Landing by A Corps on Yangtze.Japanese Reinforcements Arrive In Shangai and Move Into ContactJapanese Breakthrough Center, Split Chinese ForcesJapanese Penetration Sealed OffEffect of Naval Patrol Attack on Chinese SupplySituation At Game’s End
Finished up playing yesterday with mixed feelings. This scenario is one of four published under the overall title of “War In The Outposts”.
It’s a great scenario if you want to “play” a physically manageable & comprehensive overview of this system. The scenario has a low counter density, a small map so it can stay set up for a long time, and a relatively short time frame beginning in May and ending in October (bi-monthly turns). It involves just about every aspect of the Glory (and by extension, Europa) system. The naval system, which many consider problematic, is featured, with an emphasis on amphibious landings, use of ports for general supply, submarines (and midget submarines) and coastal defense.
On the other hand, it’s not much of a game. Let’s call it “an operational study”. Here’s a link to a brief overview of the campaign. I’ve included it because it contains a good bibliography, as well as a link to a brief overview of South Africa’s part in WW2. I can vouch for “England’s Last War Against France”.
The decisive victory conditions are stringent: Take Diego Suarez in two turns, control Madagascar by October, do not lose a unit, and not expend more than one resource point. Attaining the latter is especially difficult because it limits British player is limited to one attack with one regimental equivalent (RE) at full strength for the entire game. Everything else is at half-strength, which makes losing a unit very possible and, perhaps, probable. While the Allies have overwhelming naval and air strength for the first two turns in May, most of these assets are immediately diverted to other theaters. From June through September, the British have to operate with minimal naval and air assets, with a carrier/battleship force arriving for the final month.
The opening two turns are devoted to taking Diego Suarez. This area of operations is represented by a map insert at an expanded scale. The British must negotiate restricted waters, deal with disorganization after their landings, and having only a few areas where they can bring overwhelming naval gunfire to bear. A French defense in depth, sacrificing units for time, makes it difficult to control the area by the end of June. British attacks typically take place at 3-1, with maybe a 4-1. The combat results table (CRT) can be brutal, with an exchange result eliminating a British unit, or an attacker stopped result throwing the time track off.
Map Showing Insets, Vichy Set Up and Invasion of Diego Suarez
After Diego Suarez is secured, the British slowly move through the island, attacking French units at low odds, after amphibious landings. Overland travel is very slow. The best approach is to isolate the main French units, reducing their strength so, once again, a 3-1 or 4-1 attack can take place. This takes time, and outside of the process of figuring out how to work with zones of control for a mix of units and capabilities, not much fun……if you even think ZOCs can be fun – kinda.
All this kvetching aside, the scenario does simulate the historic campaign, and is a challenge to the player. In that regard, you can’t complain. Would I play it again, no. Was it worth the time, yes. A good rules overview, and a chance to use the color counters I downloaded from the Europa website (DO NOT go out and try to download now. A nasty pop-up will appear) several years ago.
Tim posted up about our WOR session. As always, astute and spot-on. Here they are…….
Logistics are a major constraint for both sides. While the Japanese get more resource points than the Chinese, they have to pay RPS to buy extra naval transports and landing craft units. I spent at least one RP per turn for more shipping and still had extra units in Japan at the end of the game. You did a better job of using your HQs for suppy than I did– I kept forgetting that you can use HQs when you are attacking. I should have remembered– the same rule is in March to Victory.
I think we both fell into the old trap of using our air forces for either Ground Support or Defensive Air Support. Looking back, I should have started attacking your railroads sooner, especially the one high volume rail line. I’m not sure what the Chinese should do, but I think it wouldn’t hurt to try some naval patrol missions or port strike attacks. While their bombers aren’t very good making their chances of sinking Japanese naval units pretty small, this isn’t Second Front and the Japanese don’t have very many Naval Repair Points (especially if they are having to repair damanged LCs), so any hits hurt. Attacks on port capacity might be a good idea, too. I know I ran into issues with port capacity.
Weather plays a big role in the game. The rainy weather really hurt you in the Hong Kong scenario and the clear weather helped me. I think in the longer scenarios, the Chinese would be well advised to try to run out the clock until the arrival of the monsoon.
I need to spend some time looking at the interactions of various naval units. The Chinese might be able to use their naval units to impede Japanese movement along rivers.
I think you put too many of your good troops in Shanghai and neglected your flanks. I think it would be worth using your factional or unsupported units in the full or partial city hexes, in the hopes of getting some exchanges and trading easily replaced units for Japanese casualties. Like we talked about, it would be very worthwhile putting some supported units along the rivers to discourage amphibious landings (I also realized after the game that you can’t move along rivers if the enemy controls both sides of the river– I don’t think this would have changed our game).
Having said that, you did do a good job of defending Shanghai. I launched the amphibious invasion because it was going to take a lot of time to dig out your troops. I don’t remember how many factional units you had, but it would have been worthwhile to have left some of them behind in Shangai to act as a rearguard when you pulled out.
Using engineers to negate or reduce negative modifiers for city hexes is really important. As usual, neither side has as many engineers as they would like…
I misunderstood the international concession rules, thinking that the hex was off limits for all combat…It also functions as a port, that would have really helped the Japanese. I don’t know if the Chinese could get enough strength to make an attack on it, but it might be worthwhile to try.
I probably should have landed north of the Yangtse sooner. Opening up a second front helps to stretch the Chinese.
Whampa (the port NE of Shanghai) is a really important hex. I don’t know if you can set up troops in it or if you can use the first turn to move troops to defend it, but making the Japanese fight for it is a good idea. Taking that port really simplified my logistics.
Tim and I were able to get in three sessions of War of Resistance (WOR) on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday. It’s amazing how some level of moderation in beer consumption, and lack of viable evening movie options, can increase the time spent gaming.
We played two sessions of the Attack on Hong Kong scenario, with full Chinese intervention, and one using the Fate of Nanking scenario. I’ll use the “old” spellings throughout.
Hong Kong is referred to as the game’s introductory scenario. That’s true if you have never played the Europa system before. The Fate of Nanking involves all aspects of the Glory rules system used in WOR. I hoped my playing of The Damned Die Hard (TDDH) would prepare me for WOR. That was not the case, as the supply/logistics, guerilla, reaction and command rules are far more detailed and extensive than those featured in TDDH.
I played the Japanese in the first session, limiting the forces committed to attacking Hong Kong to the OB’s designated assault force. Too many troops were allocated to defend the assault force’s flanks and rear from the two Chinese armies situated to the east and north, as well as the guerrillas located to the west. In addition, I left out one attack supply factor, which limited my full strength assault attempts to two (2). The result was failure to take the city in the time allocated.
We switched sides for the second session. Tim loaded up his assault force and with a successful role for his reaction phase – which allows the non-phasing player to move and attack – during my first turn was able to take Hong Kong in two (2) complete game turns (because of the Reaction Phase and the Japanese player plays first, he had three (3) attack turns). My Chinese attack on his forces to the north had an initial success, but the game was over before they could attack again.
Japanese Take Hong Kong (Why Have I Circled The Wagons in the North?)
The Fate of Nanking was another matter.
The Japanese must land, assualt and secure Shangai, and then move west and take Nanking. The Japanese have significant, but management intensive, naval resources. The Chinese player has strong forces near Shanghai, but weaker forces in the Nanking area.
Supply management is critical for the Chinese player, he must juggle the need for attack and general supply, as well as utillizing resource points for construction and repair. This is a typical challenge in Europa. But in WOR, the very limited number of resource points – which can be converted to attack suppy which, in turn, can be converted to general supply (yes, this is confusing… it confused the hell out of me) – combined with a problematic transportation network, has a direct and significant effect on what the Chinese player can and cannot do. Unless the player is thoroughly comfortable with these rules and their application, a disproportionate amount of time and effort is spent with logistics, with combat operational planning adversely affected.
Guerilla bases and units are another aspect of WOR that is a challenge. While these units were included in both scenarios, we didn’t use them. One reason was that we had our hands full with other aspects of the game. Another was that our games, for the most part, involved urban combat, and guerillas cannot enter cities. As we play longer scenarios, I’m sure we will start using bases to recruit guerillas, for attacking lines of communication.
Reaction can only be used if there is a Army (Japan) or War Zone (Chinese) command unit available. Each Army or War Zone has as command radius, and success die roll. If the die roll is successful, then all units within the command radius can move and fight in the reaction phase. This allows the non-phasing player to maintain momentum generated in his phase of the turn. Tim did an excellent job of applying continual pressure on my units defending Shanghai.
Attack and general supply points can also be stacked with a command unit. This is an effective way of efficiently using supply points, as the ratios needed are far less than the one (1) point per regimental equivalent (RE) typically used. Neither of us consistently took advantage of this capability to improve our logistical support.
With the exception of a small contingent stationed in the international section of Shanghai, all Japanese combat and logistics assets must be transported from Japan to China. The number of naval transports and landing craft vary from turn to turn. In addition, landing craft can be damaged during operations, and removed from further play. Tim said this was a constant concern, and limiting factor, in his operational planning.
I decided to hold Shanghai in strength, which is what happened in 1937. Tim built up combat power in Shanghai and methodically attacked my units at odds of 3:1 or greater.
Initial Chinese Forces
Stalemate In Shanghai
As the fighting in Shanghai developed into a battle of attrition, Tim launched an amphibious assault along the Yangtze River. This prompted a long discussion on the rule limitations on naval transport, river movement, and amphibious assault. We’re still thrashing this out.
Amphibious Landing Along The Yangtze
The game ended with Tim consolidating and building up his beachhead, and with me starting a fighting withdrawl from Shanghai to the west.
Japanese Advance Along The Yangtze Force Chinese Withdrawal From Shanghai
Lots of good game play and challenges. A fun time! We’re planning another go at the Nanking scenario in early December.
Finished up my last play thru of the Luzon Scenario in The Damned Die Hard. Earlier sessions are described in a previous post. I played this scenario at least six (6) times, and in each playing the Japanese fail to make any appreciable progress towards Manila. Seems ahistorical.
However, there are administrative reasons for the first few failures. Which is a polite way of saying I displayed some, well, incompetence.
I neglected to thoroughly read the scenario rules. Not the first time this has happened. For the first couple of games I missed the mandatory US setup adjacent to the Japanese lodgment at Lingayen Gulf and then the mandatory two (2) regimental equivalents (RE) “within two (2) hexes of 1718”. These constraints prevent any initial defense in strength along terrain blocking the axis of advance towards Manila,
OK, tried it again, assuming that “within” was inclusive of 1915. Once again, the Japanese made little progress. However, in the middle of the night it dawned (no pun intended) on me that maybe “within” wasn’t inclusive. In these situations I go to Experten, and the Experten in this case is Tim. His response was that “within” was not inclusive.
OK, tried it again, this time with 2 REs of units back from the MLR. Same bloody result.
OK, tried it again, this time making the assumption that units shown in T/O as “Battalion Groupings” were not “Small Battalions” that have lower RE strengths and reduce possible GS air strikes. Same damn result.
There are several reasons for this. One, the best odds the Japanese can get are 4:1 on 1915, the hinge of the US defenses. This assumes that none of the Japanese forces are disrupted in the mandatory check before combat. Second, the impact of airpower is minimal since the rules limit ground support (GS) to one unit per two (2) REs, excluding artillery. Given the scale of the game, the Japanese have only 4.5 REs (exclusive of artillery) in their hex. Third, while the Japanese movement advantage in rough translates to a +1 to their die roll, it is negated by the -1 for the rough. So, it takes a six (6) to blast a hole in the US line.
Initial Dispositions – See Next Photo For “Corps” Composition
Corps Composition – OK, It Was Dark And I Was Using My Iphone
So, why the angst?
A successful disruptive Japanese attack during the first critical turn is highly unlikely. Any result less than a DE allows the US Reserve Force (two (2) hexes north of Manila) to move up after the attack and plug any gaps as well as reinforce the MLR. The ability of the US player to begin assembling Philippine divisons and a light armor cadre further reduces the chance of any Japanese success.
According to The Fall of the Philippines, the official history of the campaign. The Japanese made significant progress before Jan 1, forcing the US forces to retire to Bataan. I confirmed this in the West Point Atlas of American Wars, which has several maps on the campaign. Based on my experience and reading of the scenario and rules, there is just no way this can happen.
Oh Well……My, My….
All told it was time well spent. I enjoyed the opportunity to really dig into the rules and replay a scenario several times rather than a more typical “one and done”.
I’m hoping this familiarity with The Glory game system will hold me in good stead when I travel to Portland next week to play the Hong Kong Scenario in War of Resistance with Tim.
She’s away with the trailer this weekend and my salmon hunting expedition postponed (the biomass has not moved into the Columbia yet), so I’ve set up two games on the dining room table.
The first is another try at the Luzon Scenario from The Damned Die Hard (TDDH). The second is an old Europa Magazine scenario, Operation Icarus.
I found a nice TDDH series replay at a fellow Oregonian’s site.
The Icarus scenario is one that I’ve played before. As Hitler is quoted in The Eagle Has Landed, it’s a “simple matter of logistics”. How to get German units from Norway to Iceland, repair ports, build airfields, resupply what units you have, and, yeah…….stop the British. If only I had one more para unit!
Tim and I decided our next FTF game will be a scenario from War of Resistance (WOR), one of two games in HMS/GRD’s Glory series.
I have both games, so he took the rules for WOR, and I set up the Luzon scenario from The Damned Die Hard (TDDH). Interesting scenario, with the US player having to decide where to defend against a relatively strong but disorganized Japanese invasion force that is already ashore, and then a fighting withdrawal further south through terrain that is no easily defended. To make things tougher, the Japanese have air supremacy.
As the British say, “All battles occur at the junction of two maps”, and this game is not an exception. The break between the two map sheets is right across the best initial line of defense. I’m going to get copies made and scotch tape the damn things together.
The unit sizes are small – battalions, reduced battalions, and regiments. ZOCs are reduced for many units, and the smaller artillery units can only support one Regimental Equivalent (RE). Special rules for jungle, and jungle rough terrain that provide the Japanese with some real advantages, as well as exploitation movement for light infantry and certain infantry units based on their intrinsic movement factors. So, while it looks like Europa, it isn’t Europa. Closest Europa comparison I can come up with is Winter War. The similarities that come to mind are small unit size , ZOC limitations, and special terrain features having a real effect on play.
Here’s the link for the WOR designer notes. These notes are detailed, and give a good feel for the rules.
Company’s coming over so I had to take the game down. Here’s a picture of the Dec IV turn after the Japanese pushed through the initial US MLR.
Seems like a fun game, and I am looking forward to setting it up again late this week.
Finally getting around to posting up about last weekend’s Europa game. It was a hard-fought contest, coming down to the last impulse. The scenario uses a modified Europa turn sequence, with a non-phasing reaction phase placed between the phasing player’s movement and exploitation phase. It’s air-on-demand, regardless of impulse. The scenario involved the Dec I through Jan II turns.
Victory points are awarded to the German player if able to exit units off the North map side (Brussels/Antwerp), or if the Allied player activates either the 9th or 3rd Armies. For the Allied player, it’s simply a matter of avoiding German VPs. We did not play the Boddenplatte option – which also involves VPs. Too much for the time available.
Tim’s axis of advance was South to North, using high-odds armored attacks to shatter outlying US units. As Allied commander, I decided to activate either the 9th and/or 3d Army only as a last resort, way too many VPs involved. The Allied reinforcement schedule is fairly generous, and it looked as though it was worth the risk to attempt a bend-but-not-break defense.
By mid-game, Tim’s pressure forced me to abandon Aachen in order to shorten up my defensive line, in order to create minimal reserves if needed to plug gaps of support weakened units. The modified turn sequence saved me. His January I attack attrited my unsupported southern units, forcing them to fall back. However, during the reaction phase, I was able to reinforce these faltering units and seal off a penetration that would have given him access to the road grid leading to Brussels and Antwerp, and victory.
Early last week, Tim sent me an e-mail summarizing his impressions of the game. Here they are…..
We forgot to halve the bombing factors of aircraft during the snow weather turns….oops…one for your rules screw-up files. We’d even talked about it during the set up.
I wonder if it would be more useful to have the Luftwaffe fly harassment. They did help some on the attacks, but if they’d been halved, they wouldn’t have been all that useful (of course, they’d be halved for harassment, too). Making it harder for the allies to move up reserves would be a very good thing.
I didn’t do a very good job of handling negative modifiers– I should have been a more cognizant of whether a defending stack was capable of AECD and if it wasn’t, used enough infantry to bring the attack below the threshold for ATEC. ATEC is very hard to overcome during bad weather. Of course, using more infantry lowers the German combat power. The other option, which I did use later in the scenario was to throw in more half capable units (I guess the Germans knew what they were doing when they made their panzer divisions into panzergrenadier divisions by detaching the panther battalions).
I know we talked about it, but I was really surprised when you gave up Aachen. I was thinking that the allies would be very reluctant to abandon the first German city they’d captured and a west wall hex to boot. Given that the scenario didn’t penalize that decision, it was a good one.
It was a bummer that my commandos got killed…I was hoping they would negate some of the negative modifiers from terrain and weather.
I think I spent too much energy attacking the weak southern part of your line. I like to think I’m pretty good about focusing about what wins a scenario or a game, but not this time. In better weather, I might have been able to turn your flank, but its hard in the snow (and the axis fuel shortages hurt, too).
I think you’re right that the Germans have to take some low odds attacks in order to try to crack the allied line.
BTW, the game involves a lot of counters in a very small area. Tim liked that. We did not use the black and white larger hex insert that accompanying the magazine. Here’s the usual crummy picture, shot early in the day, so the beer mats are not yet in use.
