The General Staff Archives

Europa Games and Military History

FAQ Tag: Unit

Rule 24B1: Can a units that has a special OP planned do other moves after having its op cancelled?

Question:
Can a units that has a special OP planned do other moves after having its op cancelled?

 

Answer:
When a special operation is planned for a unit it allows that unit to participate in special operations; it does not interfere with the unit doing something else, per se. Actions by the unit may cancel its ability to participate in the special operation, but it is not limited to only doing that special operation with regards to actions that do not require pre-planning.

So in all your examples, the fact that the 101st Airborne has a special operation planned for it does not interfere with its ability to be moved by air transport to a friendly owned airbase. Of course, its special operation must be cancelled if it can no longer fulfill the requirements for that rule after the air transport to the newly captured airbase, but this cancellation could take place after it had moved to the airbase; perhaps it is now in a ZoC, or perhaps there are no air transports based there (after staging) to provide air transport for the units.

The important concept to remember is that having a special operation planned for a unit is an enhancement of its abilities; it does not deny the unit the ability to perform any other actions normally allowed. Note that units are not prohibited from performing actions that can cancel the special operation; the special operation is simply cancelled if the unit does these things or if it is no longer able to meet the requirements of the rules regarding planning (Rule 24C).

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 22: Is intrinsic AA cumulative for individual units?

Question:
Is intrinsic AA cumulative? For example, a 20-10 SS Arm XX would have 3 points (1 pt for unit strength, 1 for SS, 1 for Axis C/M). I say yes, but we want to make sure.

Answer:
No, intrinsic AA for units is not cumulative for the individual unit; if the unit satisfies any of the conditions listed, then it has one point of light AA, period. Intrinsic AA from map features is cumulative, but the rules say this specifically so that is not a problem. Since the rules do not say unit-based intrinsic AA is cumulative, we can assume it is not. Note also that in the example to Rule 22A.3, the British infantry division is listed as having one point of intrinsic AA; note well that this could easily be a 9-8 or stronger British division, but the note ignores that issue. Obviously then, the division is getting its one point of AA by virtue of being an Allied division, the strength of the unit is ignored. Therefore, we can conclude that satisfying one condition grants the unit the AA, but satisfying more than one condition does not increase the AA strength of the unit.

Source:
TEM 59/60

 

Rule 10: AEC/ATEC incabable units

Question:
Units covered by Rule 12D neither “have” nor are “capable” of AEC/ATEC and therefore ATEC cannot be used if one is attacked by such units. Is this statement correct?

Answer:

The units are counted as having “no capability for AEC/ATEC capabilities”; so in the case of loss of AEC through lack of supply, their participation in an attack would not trigger the use of ATEC.

Note that for both weather and terrain, re: ATEC, the rules say that ATEC may be used if the attacking units are capable of ½ or more AEC, even if they cannot employ it in this specific instance. So a tank brigade attacking into a swamp is still capable of AEC, it just can’t employ it to advantage; ATEC may still be used.

In poor weather when AEC is reduced or negated, the same applies, the units with AEC are still capable of AEC, they just can’t use it, fully, or only at reduced effectiveness, and ATEC is triggered.

However, supply restrictions differ in that they instruct you to treat the units as having no capability, this is quite differente than treating them as AEC capable but ignoring that capability, as is the case with weather and terrain effects.

Treat a unit for which lack of supply has restricted the use of AEC/ATEC as being incapable of any armor effects. It has no capability, and thus cannot trigger the use of ATEC, nor interfere with the use of AECD.

Source:
TEM 76

 

Luftwaffe Alarm Units Withdrawal

Question:
When are Luftwaffe Alarm units withdrawn from play?

Answer:
Same as other call-ups of Axis Strat Air units — at the end of the player turn in which they were called up/made available. 

Source:
TEM 74

 

Luftwaffe Alarm Unit Deployment

Question:
Luftwaffe Alarm, Axis OB – Exactly how does this work?

Answer:
It works per Rule 26B, with the number of air units and air replacement points as listed on the Invasion Reaction lines of the Greater Germany Strategic Air OB. The Luftwaffe alarm, however, does not count against the fivetimes-per-year limit for calling up the strategic air assets. 

Source:
TEM 43/44

 

German Alarm Units

Question:
Is there any game significance to Alarm units, as opposed to infantry, or is this purely for historical information?

Answer:
Purely historical information.

Source:
TEM 43/44

               

German AT Bataillons – development

Question:
I am guessing that, as illustrated above, the equipment is relative and changes over time without any player effort (a 1-10 AT II in 1939 is equipped with 37mm ATG, while the same unit in 1943 would have 5cm or 75mm… ?)

Answer:
Yes. Europa assumes all sides are incrementally upgrading their equipment throughout the war, so that a 1-10 AT II vs. a 2-1-10 Tk II in 1940 could be a 37mm vs. a Pz II/III, while in 1944 it could be a 75mm vs. a late-war Pz IV, etc. Thus, most evolutionary equipment changes are not shown (otherwise we’d probably need triple the number of counters!) but revolutionary equipment changes are (for example, the appearance of the Panther tank). 

Source:
TEM 53

German AT Bataillons

Question:
What sort of equipment difference is there between a German 1-10 mot AT 1I and a 1-2-10 mot AT II? They appear in the same time frame.

Answer:
Antitank and Tank Destroyers:
1-10 towed and early SP AT guns.
1-2-10 Nashorns.
2-1-10 Hetzers.
2-8 Elefants.
3-6 Jagdtigers (underequipped battalions; had sufficient Jagdtigers been available to fully equip a battalion, rating would be 3-4-6 or 4-6).
3-8 Jagdpanthers.
Source:
TEM 53

British Infantry Division Cadres

Question:
Why do British infantry divisions form stronger cadres than divisions of equivalent strength from other nations?

Answer:

When the SF OB was almost finished it became clear that the US and British counters were very similar – too much so considering their differing characteristics. I suggested the change in cadre values in the British – not because of the ‘thin red line’ and all that rubbish, but rather that:

1. British infantry divisions had a formidable defensive capability that is not really reflected in their attack value (and simply splitting their attack/defense ratings did not work either) since they possessed:

a. very powerful anti-tank strength (at least twice that of an US division) especially after the introduction of towed and self-propelled 17 pounder; b. a strong MG battalion – the Vickers MMG being best in set piece attack and defense situations; c. a full ‘combat-motorized’ recon II – most useful as a last string emergency reserve (apart from its recon role).

2. British infantry formalized a ‘left out of battle’ structure in which at least 25% of men and almost all second in commands were not used in an attack. In Europa terms this meant that strong cadres remained in the division even after horrid losses.

Note that only British and Commonwealth infantry divisions get this benefit, and only after they convert to their highest rating, after getting machinegun, recon and AT assets.

Source:
[TEM 59/60]

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.

 

 

 

© 2025 The General Staff Archives

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑