Well, the magazine scene has run the gamut over the past few months from almost bear-like hibernation (S&T) to the frenzied activity of an interesting newcomer, “GameFix”. And right in the middle, plowing steadily forward, is “Command”. Before diving into the big pond, though, I do note the arrival of two “peripheral” newsletters. The first was an item entitled “Rally Point”, which hopes to cover a wide view of the hobby in short, snappy, media-like “sound-bytes”. Needs a bit of depth, but I’ve seen worse. They’re at 30 Cedar St., Jersey City, NJ 07305. And I started receiving “Wargames Monthly”, a newsletter similar in style to BROG but covering the computer end of the business. CGW it’s not; but it is not afraid of gaming the games and naming the names (an absence of which we discuss below). Write ‘em at 12 Metric Road, Iowa City IA 52240. “Command” #29 featured another of Ted Raicer’s WWI campaign games … all in preparation, one assumes, for Da Big One, XTR’s upcoming monster WWI epic, Great War in Europe. This time it’s 1914, Glory’s End. Our WWI expert, John Lazauskas, notes that the game covers the first 90 days of the war when, “… the usual suspects in spiked helmets marched into France.” John L pretty much liked the game, although he, initially, felt it had a rather disagreeably strong resemblance to its like-named predecessor from the dank, dark days of the late 60’s. While eventually changing his mind about that, he still complained that the game’s Victory Points were rigged to mirror history. As he notes, “… the German Player is penalized five points if the historical withdrawal of full strength units is not made on schedule.… [he] also loses fifteen points for Eastern Front reverses over which he obviously has no control. This last trick is what we in the accounting profession call a “plug”; the difference between the real value of an amount and what someone says that value is or wants to be …. The use of a plug, except in minute sums, is understandably acceptable. [Here} the plug is worth three cities/towns, definitely not small change.” Aside from this appearance of Design for Effect, John felt that, “ … most players [sh]ould … enjoy the game, as its mechanics are simple, there is sufficient action early on, and there are enough decisions, strategic and tactical, to be made throughout ….” Reaction to #30 was decidedly less enthusiastic. In that issue we were given - at least some of us were given; XTR mailed the game separately from the magazine, and some subscribers have yet to receive the former - Ben Knight’s view of the Gettysburg campaign of 1863, Across the Potomac. A bit of regression is occurring here: the map look like something from Mayfair Games in the 70’s - actually, I should say “maps”, as there are two of them, the game having an optional “Double Blind” system, as XTR dons its necromancer cap in an effort to bring back the dead - and the counters are rather cartoonish. Great magazine cover, though … great! As for the game, it’s the ACW meets Victory at Normandy. My feelings on this micro-management type of wargaming, wherein you move one unit, one hex, per turn - well, they can actually move a bit farther/faster, but not much - have been published before. So I sought opinion elsewhere. Mark Herman, despite being fearful that Chris Perello will never speak to him again, thought the game played like a dismal cardboard version of Bobby Lee. The BROG Crack Playtesters, dragooned into a playtest by the offer of free Chinese Take-Out, felt that the whole exercise was best used as a paper substitute for Valium. Not one of XTR’s better efforts. And then, to save the day - at least in terms of enthusiasm - the New Kid on the Block, “GameFix”, arrived from GPG. The brainchild of Jon Compton (fresh out of solitary confinement in Chateau Cambria) and Alan Emerich, the ebullient games editor for “Computer Gaming World”, GameFix is an attempt to provide small, simple, play-oriented “pocket” games (8”x 11” maps, 100 counters) in a breezy, not-too-serious format. A great idea, with the execution falling somewhat short in Issue #1. While it is grossly unfair to paint an entire operation from just one peek at what it can do, a few comments concerning #1 are à propos. (Half of you think I’m “grossly unfair” anyway, so why should I disappoint you?) Overall, this looks like something that might just grow into a strong player in the industry. The articles, if somewhat superficial (and what magazine articles aren’t) and a bit repetitious in subject matter - how many times are we going to have to read about the development of the Roman Legion before we all rise in Gracchus-like rebellion? - are nicely, and spaciously, presented, with some good (if rather lilac-tinted) visuals. The rules format is especially welcome, with pictorial and verbal examples placed in the right-hand column, glossing the text. For the game, we get two scenarios from Bill Bank’s “Ancients” system. The first, “Thapsos” (Caesar vs. the Senatorial army of Metellus Scipio in N. Africa) is about as bad as wargaming can get without having the designer escape in a white Bronco. Thapsus (as it is better known, in its Latin version) was a non-battle to begin with - the Senatorial army simply ran off the field when JC’s legions threatened to do them bodily harm; Bill manages to make it a non-game as well. For starters, the map is wrong. (The coast line around Thapsus does not resemble a New York street corner, and the Mediterranean seems to have been substituted for what is, in reality, a salt-marsh depression.) Now, this doesn’t affect play, but it does offend the senses. I mean, why bother to do any work if you’re not even going to do the basics? The game is nothing more than an exercise in seeing who can dieroll his opponent into oblivion first. Junk. Better, try the loopy “Alexandria” scenario, wherein the locals are trying to oust poor Caesar from the city. It’s got galleys, siege towers, marines, a rather nice map, and a classic piece of terrain advice, wherein the chart forbids galleys to enter swamps … which are 7 hexes inland. Who cares if the rules don’t cover everything; roll with it. It wasn’t intended as a doctorate thesis, and it’s pretty much the type and style of game upon which GameFix should set its commercial sights. It also helps if you totally ignore the icons on the counters, which seem to have wandered in from a Meeting of Thegn Local 101. There’s a rather large and stalwart looking Dark Ages type on the magazine’s front cover, too; wonder what he represents? Two of GF #1’s articles also deserve some literary notice. Editor Jon C provides us with a somewhat non-gaming look at Origins 94, in which he waxes banal - and for 3 pages, no less - on his rather sophomoric efforts to place a Geste de la Romance on John Kranz, with both of them acting like their nether regions were divining rods. This might have been fine for a paragraph or two - the human side of gaming, gamers actually do date, life isn’t all cardboard, etc. The only word that came to my mind was “jejune”. As Woody would say, heavy Jejunosity here. Some people have said they found it refreshing. Some people find Kool Aid refreshing. Pay your $6+ and find out. Less refreshing was the opening column of resident critic, Dave Wood. Now, far be it for ME to take anyone to task for being acerbic. I wish there were more of this ilk. However, there is a major difference between being acerbic and being dyspeptic … and, even more importantly, if you’re going to start pointing fingers, make sure they’re pointed at someone/something, not just waving wildly in the air, third digit prominent. Dave raises “coy” to an art form, ranting on for far too many paragraphs about transgressors in the world of publishing, companies who show a “… lack of professionalism in publishing … really quite bad.” That’s heavy stuff, and something with which I don’t entirely disagree. However, the reader searches in vain for whom or what he is talking about. He aims his sniper’s rifle at the boxcovers (not the contents, the covers) of three specific games, one of whose covers he insists reveals “… some of the ugliest [map and counter] artwork and colors ever to be seen in a wargame.” Strong stuff, but totally vitiated by not telling us exactly who this Majestic Malfeasor was. (I’ve seen some bad stuff in the last few years … but “the ugliest ever”? Wonders what he thought of some of The Wargamer issues in the ‘70’s?) Constructive criticism, critiques that uplift and instruct, is one of his avowed aims. But “aiming” means “pointing”, and no one learns when no one knows what you’re talking about. The overall impression I get is that Dave really doesn’t like gaming - he could only find 3 (out of a possible 200) topics that he had any interest in - and whatever minimal interest he has is in seeing whether or not the rules use the right fonts and the boxcover complies with the rigors of the editor’s manual and E.B.White’s “Elements of Style”. That is a level of professionalism I wholly applaud, and most fervently hope everyone achieves. But good editors, those who understand both the strictures of professional editing as well as the demands of creativity, earn far more than anyone in this industry does, or ever could. And here, like anywhere else, ya gets what ya pays for. And ultimately, how many of us are either truly interested in, or even vaguely troubled by, the right or wrong fonts, mislabeled tables, underlining instead of bold. A boxcover has one main function: to get the consumer to pull it off the shelf. To consider it from any other perspective is, at best, an exercise in pedantry. It all reminds me of two things: the critic who dismissed James Joyce’s “Ulysses” out of hand because it didn’t have any punctuation; and Ralph Waldo Emerson’s cogent observation that “… follish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Dave misses the point, methinks. Even with all of that, one hopes that Mr. Wood directs his not inconsiderable talents at what really concerns us herein: am I going to have fun for my bucks? It looks like, after an initial shakedown cruise or two, GameFix is in position to provide just that. I heartily recommend that you give it, at least, a 4 issue-sub shot. It’s only $19; that’s less than $5 a game! And just look how much you’ll learn about fonts! Drop GPG a line at 8795 La Riviera Dr #182, Sacramento CA 95826. And last, but certainly not least, congratulations to Rich Erwin’s “Paper Wars” for its Charlie. PW is a good, informative newsletter which should definitely be in the mailbox of anyone who has more than a passing interest in the hobby. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 15 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com