Europa Game IV, The German Invasion of Norway, April to June 1940.

Designed by Frank Chadwick and Paul R. Banner.

First Edition, September 1974

Initial publication. 12 x 15 zip lock bag, early games were shipped in a brown corrugated sleeve instead of a bag. Game Components:

  • one full and two partial map sheets (Europa maps 10, 5A and 11A, in white-black-blue colour)
  • two and a half sheets of die cut counters (Europa Countersheets 11, 12 & 13) (in 1st edition sheet #12 is a half-sheet)
  • one rules folder
  • one set of charts:
    • Norwegian Armed Forces Chart
    • Norwegian Initial Order of Battle
    • Allied Reinforcement Chart
    • Allied Unit Composition Chart
    • German Initial Order of Battle
    • German Reinforcement Chart
    • German Unit Composition Chart
    • CRT/Terrain Effects Chart (x2)
    • Turn Record Chart

The errata sheet for the game were dated September 1974, 1 November 1974, and 14 January 1978.

Narvik posed a problem for the Europa Series: the division-level approach of DNO made the operations in Norway trivial. Frank Chadwick determined that a detailed battalion-level approach would work on the Europa scale map of Norway. The result was an especially interesting study of invasion strategy in WW II. Narvik proved to be one of the favorite Europa games among GDW players.

Second Edition, February 1980:

Revision, reformat, and repackaging. Blue collage art box; the game was repackaged in a blue Europa Map box in October 1984. Errata sheets for the game were dated 21 April 1982 (which applied only to the first printing) and 21 April 1982. The 21 April 1982 errata is definitive.

Game Components of second edition:

  • two full map sheets (Europa Maps 10A and 5B, in white-black-blue-green-brown colour)
  • three sheets of die cut counters (Europa Countersheets 11A, 12A and 13A; for 720 counters)
  • one rules booklet (bound, without 3-hole punching, with black front cover)
  • one Norwegian and one Swedish "Europa-scale" double sided OOB/mobilisation supplement sheets
  • one set of charts:
    • Norwegian Armed Forces Chart
    • Norwegian Initial Order of Battle
    • Allied Reinforcement Chart
    • Allied Unit Composition Chart
    • German Initial Order of Battle
    • German Reinforcement Chart
    • German Unit Composition Chart
    • CRT/Terrain Effects Chart (x2)
    • Turn Record Chart

The second and subsequent printings of the 2/80 edition incorporated the map errata of the April 1982 errata, and thus the rules booklet dated 2/80 and charts dated 3/80. The 2/80 edition did not differ substantially from the 9/74 edition, but it did upgrade the maps to a multi-color format and incorporate the previously noted errata into the rules.

Print Runs:

  • (9/74) 4,895
  • (2/80) 8,420

Related Games

Narvik was succeeded by Storm over Scandinavia

Europa Play Aids Kit 3 was designed to expand Narvik.

References

The Europa Newsletter

An Europa-level Scenario: Operation Weserübung" by Gary J. Staglioano" in TEN #4

ETO Newsletter

Narvik Contest, ETO #10 and #ETO #11
Weserübung Süd – Adding Denmark to Narvik, A. E. Goodwin - ETO #53
Danish Armed Forces Chart (for Narvik), Bill Stone - ETO #53
Narvik counter graphics, Bill Stone - ETO #53

The Grenadier

Narvik review by Winston Hamilton - The Grenadier #11
Rules Variants in Narvik by Greg Novak - The Grenadier #3
Strategy and Tactics in Narvik by James Wells - The Grenadier #3

The Europa Magazine

Collector Series: Narvik Draft Rules. By Winston Hamilton. TEM 45
French and Polish Units in Narvik. By Jean- Guy Rathe. TEM 65
Narvik Report. By Winston Hamilton. TEN 3
Narvik: Errata, Addenda, and Rambling Commentary. By Kevin Boylan. TEM 16
Narvik Play Accessories. TEM 65

FAQs

Rule 13B – Reinforcements

Question:

Rule 13B (last sentence) says German air units may not start the game on Danish airbases. It doesn’t mention German ground units. May German ground units enter Denmark from the reinforcement chart in the ground movement phase? May they carry depots when doing so? May they use the Danish city as a port to enter the staging box?

Answer:

The only ways I see that German ground units and depot can enter Danish territory is by air transport or air drop. They cannot even enter Danish territory by naval transport give how “port” is defined in the rules. If you see a rule allowing German units to enter Denmark from the reinforcement chart in the ground movement phase, please cite it so that I can examine it.

In general, the rules tell you what CAN be done and do not list all the things that CANNOT be done, as the latter list is perhaps nearly infinite in scope. Some humorous examples: There is no rule stating that units cannot teleport themselves. However, they indeed cannot do. (If they could, there would be a rule on it.) There is no rule stating that units cannot time travel. However, you still cannot receive all your reinforcements on Turn 1. A more serious example: There is no rule stating that the Germans cannot deliver depots to Norway by submarine and avoid the chance of being sunk. However, even though this was something theoretically within their capabilities in some minor way, they cannot do this.

Source:

Answer posted by John Astell at Yahoo Classic Europa mailing list on 16.07.2013 23:40.

The Shetland Islands

Question:

Are the Shetland Islands in play, i.e. may the Allied player land there and after having done so can the Allies set up a frozen lake airfield there? Can the Germans land on the Shetlands? (I don’t think that would be possible.) Could the Germans bomb the Shetlands?

Answer:

No offense, but I don’t have time to answer open ended questions that require me to read all the rules to cover what I believe may be trivial issues. If you’re willing to cite specific cases, the rules that support the case, and why this is important, I’ll look at it. Off hand, I would suggest you look at the definition of a port and then consider how this affects the
Shetlands.

Source:

Posted on Yahoo Europa Mailing List by John Astell on 16.07.2013 23:40

Rule 17D

Question:

Rule 17D does not prohibit British Carriers, interdiction markers and CLAs from operating in the area east of the North Sea line (i.e. between Denmark and Norway), correct?

Answer:

Correct. Having played the Germans several times, in most cases I would particularly welcome any British carrier or interdiction marker operating in this area, where I would typically have maximum air power. Any short term advantage gained by RN here would likely be punished by VP losses due to bombing hits on the RN.

Source:

Posted on Yahoo Europa Mailing List by John Astell on 16.07.2013 23:40

Rule 14C: Firing AA at Airbases

Question:

I am engaged in a PBEM game of Narvik, and a point of contention has arisen between my opponent and I. I am attempting to bomb the airbase outside of Trondheim, and he has stacked a pair of CLAs in the little tiny piece of ocean in the hex, and attempting to fire AA at my bombers. Here is his argument: Per rule 14C

“Naval units may only fire against units bombing ships, ports or bases.”

Does this include “airbases” or only the supply “bases”?

Here is my argument:
Per 11B3: When referring to Allied supply bases, the rules consistently refer to Allied supply bases as a “base” or bases”. This consistency extends to rule 12C3c, where it again refers to Allied supply bases as “bases” or a “base”.  In most cases, when referring to an airbase, the rules either use the term “airbase” or “airfields”. There are a few references to the airbases as “base” or “bases”, however, the most common reference is “airbases’ within the context of the rules. “Base” references include “return to base”, or damage to the “base”.  Rule 14, in it’s example, also refers to an “Allied base”, to me, meaning an Allied supply base.

Answer:

I looked at it from two different ways and both exclude naval units from
firing AA at airbases.

1. Rule 11B3 states

“French, British, and Polish units receive bases from
which they may draw supply.”

Spot checking various other rules shows that the intention reference of “bases” is indeed these bases and not airbases. The occasional use of “base” to mean airbase is in the air rules, where “base” obviously means airbase. (“Return to base” for example is a standard
term used across a number of games and always means return to airbases. I agree in the context of Narvik with its Allied supply bases, it would be clearer if instead of “base” only “supply base” or “airbase” was used. However, rules writing was less strict back then, and I never got a rules questions that questioned the meaning of “base”.)

2. In reading the Antiaircraft Fire rule (14), it is clear to me that the intention is that naval units can fire AA only in the naval “domain”: at sea or at the sea-land interface (ports and supply bases, [supply bases must be placed in ports]). Airbases are typically more inland (sometimes much more so) and are outside the naval “domain.” “Domain” is just a term I am using here to get the concept across and is not used in Narvik.

Not only do I read this as the intent of Rule 14, but as the person who worked on the 1980 edition of Narvik, I know it was the intent of the GDW design team and how we actually played it.

Source:

Posted on Yahoo Europa Mailing List by John Astell on 15.07.2013 07:10

Rule 21 – Trucks

Question:

Trucks – rule 21 says “If all friendly (currently controlling) units are eliminated, then the trucks are eliminated as well. However, trucks never retreat. Thus if the currently controlling units retreat, the trucks are left behind and are captured by the other player.”

Situation: The Norwegian defenders of Trondheim suffered a DD (defender disrupted) combat result and as part of that they must retreat. However, they are surrounded and cannot retreat.

Rule 10D1 says “If a unit cannot retreat without violating these rules, it is eliminated instead.”

What happens to trucks where the controlling player’s units are eliminated by being unable to retreat? We can see this going either way.

Answer:

The trucks are eliminated. In effect, the surrounded status of the defending units cancels their retreat and instead they are eliminated (if a unit cannot retreat, it does not retreat). Since all the defending units are eliminated, the trucks are also eliminated.

Source:

Posted by Arthur Goodwin on the Yahoo Europa Mailing list on 13.08.2013 22:04.

What is a tank, anyway?

Question:

The stacking rule says “any two ground units (regardless of size or type), plus either one artillery battalion or two artillery batteries, pus an unlimited number of supply units, tank units (regardless of size), and company sized units.”

Nowhere in the rules are “tank units” defined. The unit identification chart has armor and armored cavalry, but no “tanks”. Being a tnaker myself I know these 1980 NATO symbols can mean different things at different times. Generally in WWII tanks would be identified by the armor symbol and recce/armored cars use the “armored cavalry” symbol. All the armor symbol units in Narvik are company or platoon (troop) sized. The Norwegian army has three battalions of armored cavalry. It strikes me as just wrong that three battalions could stack for free (an armored cav rgt). I take the “tank units (regardless of size)” to mean company or troop size units with the armor symbol, not the Norwegian battalion size armored cavalry units.

QUESTION: What units qualify as “tank units” in Narvik?

Answer:

The term “tank units” in Narvik Rule 8A (Stacking Limits) refers to those units with the “Armor” or “Panzer” unit type symbol (for which see the Narvik Unit Identification Chart); it does NOT include any other unit types.

Source:

Posted by Arthur Goodwin on the Yahoo Europa Mailing list on 25.07.2013 17:38.

 

 

 

Combined supply and disruption effects.

Question:

Units that are disrupted are ½ defense.

Units that are out of General Supply for 2 turns are ½ defense as well.

The rules do not address units that are both U-2 and disrupted. Are they ½
or ¼?

Answer:

Most Europa rules have a rule that explicitly says that all modifications to the strengths of a unit are cumulative. The Narvik ruleset seems to lack that rule; however, there’s nothing that says the modifiers aren’t cumulative, either. Common sense says that they should be cumulative, so provisionally we’ll go with that, but I will flag this question to be
review by the errata group.

Note that German units on the 2rd and later turns out of supply have their defense strengths reduced to zero rather than halved per Rule 11A2c, last sentence.

Source:

Posted by David Stokes on the Yahoo Europa Mailing list on 16.08.2013 05:30.

Disruption affect on AA.

Question:

Disrupted units may not attack. AA strength of ground AA units is twice their attack factors (attack strength is never affected by general supply). Can a disrupted AA unit fire AA? Is there anything else that affects AA strength?

Answer:
There’s nothing in the Narvik rules which modifies the AA strength.

Source:

Posted by David Stokes on the Yahoo Europa Mailing list on 16.08.2013 05:30.

Combat odds beyond the CRT?

Question:

A question has arisen in Narvik concerning AA fire. Unlike other Europa games Narvik uses an odds-based CRT, the same table is used for both AA fire and air-to-air combat. The table has ratios ranging from 1:4 to 6:1. When firing AA only the defender fires. In air-to-air combat both players exchange fire. Both AA and air combat are done using groupings of up to 5 air units. There are no DRMs for anything.

Our question is as follows – if AA fire results in less than a 1:4 odds ratio does the player roll for results on the 1:4 column or is there simply no chance of a result?

AA Example: 2 AA factors fire on a group of attacking planes with 10 air defense factors. This is a 1:5 odds ratio. Does this fire use the 1:4 column or is the fire ineffective (not rolled)?

Answer:

How are Odds columns determined when resolving AA fire in Narvik? There is no way to answer this definitively given the wording of the ambiguous Narvik rules without knowing the design intent. I have no idea what the design intent was here. This is one (of many) items I brought up to Winston Hamilton re the Narvik rules when Storm over Scandinavia was done. Winston said the Narvik rules were perfect and needed no update; he was the boss then so I dropped matter. Your current Narvik game is the FIRST playing of the game where any questions have been asked about the Narvik rules since then that I am aware of. Having said that, I’ll still take a stab at answering your question.

Per Narvik rule 14 (antiaircraft fire) you “Total the strengths firing, and resolve the attack on the air-to-air CRT, using the antiaircraft strengths as air attack strengths”. Then, per Narvik Rule 12E3 (Air-to-Air Combat Resolution): “The intercepting player totals all air attack strengths of his wave and compares that number to the total air defense strengths of the enemy wave. This is converted to an odde ratio corresponding to one on the air-to-air combat results table, rounding down in favor of the defender.” For AA fire this then means you total all the AA strengths of the one side and compare that number to the total air defense strength of the opposing wave to get a ratio, rounding the number down in favor of the defender. Nothing in rules or chart spelling out how odds under 1:4 are handled (or how odds over 6:1 are handled).

Wording in Narvik Rule 12E3 that “this is converted to an odds ratio corresponding to one on the air-to-air combat results table” would seem to imply that every potential antiaircraft fire MUST be resolved on one of those columns (implying then that odds less than 1:4 are resolved at 1:4). However, the immediately following verbiage “rounding down in favor of the defender” would also allow for arguing otherwise.

So either interpretation can be justified, I think. If you can’t decide among yourselves which one to use and want an outside party to choose, I would say AA fire in Narvik that is calculated as being at less than 1:4 odds is resolved using the 1:4 column as I strongly suspect that was the design intent given my vague memory of my one playing of Narvik (with Winston – who effectively was the “designer” for the update of Narvik in SOS) where I’m pretty sure that was the way it went.

Source:

Posted byArthur E. Goodwin on the Yahoo Europa Mailing list on 26.07.2013 18:26.

Rule 19.E 1st paragraph. First turn Airborne/Air Landing exploitation.

Question:

The rules allow airdropped paras and air landed units to move 1 hex. The airbase adjacent to Stavanger is 1 hex out of regular range of German based Ju52s. So, paras drop 1 hex short, move to the airbase, capturing it. Then two Bns of Infantry airland in the air return phase. Can this infantry then advance to Stavanger and initiate a battle or is this a leapfrog too far?

Answer:

This does not seem to be possible. The para unit per 19E gets its one hex movement in the air phase “immediately prior to the combat phase.” This cannot occur before the air return step, as then it would NOT be occurring “immediately prior to the combat phase.” So, the para unit can only move (and thus capture the airbase) after all air units have returned to airbase, so the air transports with the inf battalions are no longer around to land.

Source:

Answer posted by John Astell at Yahoo Classic Europa mailing list on 16.07.2013 23:40.

Gallery