I have, of late, been quite dissatisfied with many of the new games being put on the market by the game companies for the last couple of years. I needed to share my frustration and thought this diatribe on some of the points I deem necessary in a good game would calm me down. Game companies take note. I may be only one of many in the hobby crowd but I suspect many would agree with me.

Clear and concise rules is a must for any good game. For all the years that games have been produced many still have problems with retreat rules and supply rules. Retreat problems usually Involves what ZOC can or can not do. Any designer who does not clearly state if ZOC can stop retreats and/or block a retreat path should be sent to work for the government. Games with easy supply rules get my attention and perhaps a repeat play. Games with no supply rules has potential to end up on my favorite list. AH's old BATTLE OF THE BULGE game had what I consider excellent supply rules by simply allowing only so many attacks per turn and unused attacks may be saved for later turns. Effective and thought provoking. Compare that with S&T THE TIGERS ARE BURNING supply rules. Too complicated and cumbersome in play.

Uncluttered map graphics is unfortunatly becoming a thing of the past. I applaud RBM graphics experimentation but have been disappointed with some of their results. S&T MANCHU game map is a clutter and a mess. S&T KOREAN WAR game has a spaghetti road man not seen since early SPI days. Look at VG's THE KOREAN WAR map to get an idea what should have been done. Lets stop playing with color choices and get back to the basics.

Game counters has always been a GDW speciality and all other companies should swallow their Dride and follow GDW example. I prefer silhouettes if at all possible, although if siihouettes are used the image on the counter needs to be sharp. Not blurred like recent 3W games. Some TSR/SPI games come with counters that are also slightly blurred.. Owners of any games produced by HOBBY JAPAN will know the kind of quality I am talking about. Keen the numbers on the counters BIG.

Reading THE STRATEGIST each month is as small of print I would ever hope to encounter. Historical designations on the counters adds a lot to any game. One of the reasons I play wargames is the historical lessons they can teach. I would rather move the 1st Minnesota regiment in a Gattysburg game rather than regiment number 36.

Colors for the counters should be the traditional. Red for the British, blue for the French, Gray for the Germans are all good solid choices. Lots of flag counters is a nice idea to mark control of cities or VP hexes.

Each playing of the game should reveal new strategies to try or perhaps a small change to a current plan that did not quite work. This type of game makes me thirst for another play. A common situation that usually works is a initial attack by one side followed by heavy reinforcements to the defending player allowing him to go on the offensive to regain lost ground.

When I play a good game I often find myself identifying with some of the lost units. If I only had saved this tank unit I could of done this or that. This happens to me a lot in PANZERBLITZ/PANZERLEADER. It also happens a lot in VITP/WAS. Ever lose the Akagi and Kagi as the Japanese player and wish they were still around on the next turn during raider movement? A game that does that to me will get replayed.

Minimal bookkeeping is preferred. I hate statements such as "on a scratch piece of paper record this, that and the other thing". A nice track on the map to keep a record of these kind of things is ideal and adds color to the play of the game.

If you make a list of the games you have played most often you will find they share many the above qualities.