Firstly, some apologies. Yes, this issue is appallingly late. For excuses I can offer the fact that just as I was finishing off putting the basic articles together my computer power supply went down, and in a bout of vile fratricide took out the hard disk in a final fit of pique. This means that the issue in front of you is not what was originally intended. Colonial players please be patient a little longer. In addition I now have the pleasure of being once more gainfully employed in the 'real world' which severely curtailed the time available in which to put this issue back together (and I also have a wife who likes us every now and then to make a stab at having a social life!)

All of the above has meant that I have fallen rather badly behind with correspondence. I do try to make a point of replying to everyone who contacts me, whether it's an article, letter or just a quick note. If you are currently waiting for a reply please don't despair - I'll get back to you eventually.

In the light of the above this issue features articles by the 'old faithfuls' Mark Bevis, Derek Henderson & John Barratt (can a magazine that is only four issues old have 'old faithfuls'?). However over the past three months many of you have kindly submitted articles and sent letters all of which I've enjoyed immensely. Just because what you sent in hasn't appeared in this issue doesn't mean it won't appear in the next. I hope more of you will contact me, either with articles or a simple letter. You will notice that this issue includes an expanded letters section. Communication, discussion and the swapping of ideas are I believe essential both to 'Battlefields' and the well being of the hobby. I hope more of you will be encouraged to write and share your ideas & thoughts. So far all your letters have been extremely positive (phew!) and all your comments and ideas are much appreciated. The scenario which has generated the most response is Route 66 (Issue 1). I find this encouraging for two reasons, firstly because it was a little different from the standard ambush type game and it's good to see new ideas being so warmly received and secondly because it struck me that it was one of those games which was quite easy to describe 'face to face' but rather harder to get across on the page. Judging from your remarks this appears to have been successful.

If you have an article then can I just repeat that in a 'ideal' world these would be in ASCII with a hard copy included. If you don't have access to a computer don't worry - wend what you've got and we'll put it together (it might take a little longer to appear however). Can I remind you that we are not merely interested in scenarios but also pieces on tactics, doctrine, battles and ideas on wargaming (to list but a few).

Whilst on the subject of communications I am delighted to announce that Bob Giglio has volunteered (or been press ganged!) into taking the role of American editor for 'Battlefields'. Those of you across the pond can contact him at:

2016 Amherst Road, Hyatsville, Maryland MD 20783.

Bob is also happy to discuss advertising with any of you (hurrah!)

With regard to this issues' 'Wargames Forum' Derek Henderson returns to some issues I tentatively raised in issue 1 concerning command control & the warmer. It is not a 'how to do it' piece but rather a discussion on some of the issues involved. It appears in this issue for several reasons, not least because I found it thought provoking and trust that you do to - indeed I hope that it will encourage you to respond either in the shape of articles or letters, thereby bringing about a general discussion on command control (which is a subject dear to my heart). The other major reason is that I would like the 'Wargames Forum' not just to be about rules mechanisms but also rules concepts. I need to know if this also interests you - so please tell me!

Finally, I hope this issue has been worth the wait. If it has then please tell me, if it hasn't then tell me anyway!

Looking forward to hearing from you, Ben