Dear Editor,

First off, congratulations on an excellent issue. ((#54)). I enjoyed just about every article (at least there were no travesties like "Blunderovsky..." and "The Battle of New Orleans", as in the previous issue). The quality the quality this last issue ((#54)) was very good and very even; With this kind of quality, you can eventually fill the gap left by S&T -- that is, a truly excellent magazine for all wargamers and not just a specialized service mag.

Ah yes, the S&T question. I think that all of us have certain misgivings about S&T. At least I do. It isn't that "conflict simulation" nonsense that bothers me. (My definition of conflict simulation would be "one of a number of wargaming cliches foisted on the wargaming public by the S&T staff for no particular reason other than to confuse the hell out of it. See "state of the art" "what if", etc. What really got me was a MOVES article in which none other then Red Simonsen gave a set of "standard" Pentagonese terms to use concerning wargames, er, conflict simulations. Too bad about Red.

But no, such complaints about mere words are superflous. More important is the S&T approach to such things as game play (as it relates to game design) and consumer services. To begin with, I don't think it is fair to judge Jim Dunnigan on the negative merits of the few truly unplayable games he has designed. (Might as well list all 3 of them -- 1914, JUTLAND, and BASTOGNE.) To the contrary, most S&T games are playable, sometimes very playable -- but here comes the big question, "Are they fun to play?" Yea, that's right. Do the French enjoy getting wiped out in FRANCE, 1940? Do you like being the U.S. in Midway (USN mini-game)? Do you enjoy seeing your Pfalzes getting shot out of the sky in FLYING CIRCUS? In other words, do you like playing a game in which, as surely as the sun sets in the west, one side will win no matter how the other player tries by biting, kicking and screaming?

If there is one place where Jim Dunnigan's identity as a non-player stands out, it is here. The S&T staff seems to regard wargames as nothing more than glorified puzzles -- mathematical "problems to be "solved", in which winning and losing are irrelevant.

Well anyway, here's to PANZERFAUST...

Yours, Bill Riggs

Maybe "playable" and "fun" mean the same thing....? --Editor

Dear Don;

... As to Tom Trinko's letter, I must admit he has some good points. Some things puzzle me, however. For instance, "first I disagree with the statement that tactics is the main point of player interest" can be contrasted with what he says in almost the same breath "A good deal of the interest of a game is contained in the task of determining optimum tactics..."

I should also point out that historical accuracy does not mean reduced playability. Or the other way around. However, I would prefer STALINGRAD to 1914 any day. Why? I play to enjoy a game, not to cull out historical data. I still like an accurate game, however. In FRANCE, 1940 the French player is weaker than the German in all respects except that of mobility. You'll find that the French can retreat faster then the Germans can pursue. The problem in the actual campaign was the French inability to do this! In DUNKIRK there is no such problem.

Then he asks "What of What Ifs?" Well, like I've pointed out, these are supposed to balance the game. FRANCE, 1940 does a rather cock-eyed job of simulating my favorite period of history. Once the game is played out it becomes more interesting, and it does have the advantage of being shorter than DUNKIRK.

My complaint about tactics was centered mainly upon the lack of the tactics, not on "non-trivial tactical systems". FRANCE, 1940 is largely a blundering rush or the opponents at each other, whereas DUNKIRK requires a little finnesse. Can I help it if I prefer the game with a little class? I only wish DUNKIRK had the physical excellence that FRANCE, 1940 has. Then I would really be happy with the game...

Peace, Harold Totten

Dear Don,

Harold Totten's interesting article on ANZIO in the March-April PANZERFAUST recommends building two forts "at C-14 and D-12 for a last ditch stand at Genova in case the Gothic line crumbles." Page three of the "Battle Manual", under "Victory Conditions", states that Genoa does not have to be captured, so long as it is isolated from the northeast edge of the board. Of course, one might interpret "northeast edge" as the entire northern and eastern edges, however, Avalon Hill has clarified this to mean the northeast corner of the board, e.g., where the road (route 127 heading northeast from Verona leaves the board.

If this were not the case, German victory would be so easy as to render the game pointless. The Germans receive, on the average, 24 forts. With these they could build a series of defensive rings around Genoa and just forget the rest of Italy; there would be no need to hold more than a bit of the Po River valley, the goal of the whole campaign.

This observation is not meant to disparage a most worthwhile article.

Sincerely, Tom Oleson