Anti-SPI Article Errors

Gentlemen:

In an article published in the latest PANZEPFAUST, there were quite a few errors of fact and false accusations, etc. I would like to sneak to some of these.

The article was entitled "What I Don't Like About SPI", and was by a Tom Oleson. First, he made two major points in the first three paragraphs, both of which were totally in error.

1) He stated that S&T does not publish letters from subscribers. I would advise him to check a feature in Moves entitled "Footnotes". This appears every issue, and consists entirely of letters from subscribers. The Feedback responses to Footnotes (THEY ASKED!) have been greatly favorable.

2) He stated that he had found no material on game strategy and tactics in MOVES. Well, since he didn't read MOVES carefully enough to find footnotes, I'm not surprised he hasn't found anything else! By my count, some 25 articles concerning good Play, etc have been published in MOVES. It is a fact that most games are realistic enough so that tactics which were correct in real life will be correct on the game map. Thus, historical articles in S&T may be considered as good play articles also.

His third point is that there is not enough material on suggested strategies or their games. The feature entitled Designers Notes" often has such material. As far as publishing it in S&T is concerned, they have feedbacked this question. The response was negative. The Game Profiles in 14OVES are filled with this sort of material.

He has cited "a page and a half of closely spaced errata" as being proof that ARDENNES OFFENSIVE was hastily put together. I would like to point out that most of this errata consists of the historical designations of units coming onto the map, which does not affect the play of the name. As for terrain corrections, there were exactly 9 minor details which were incorrect, and it took a grand total of five minutes to make the changes.

Later in the article, Mr. Oleson resorts to the old criticism that SPI produces "cookie cutter games stamped out of a standard mold." This is hardly correct. SPI has a multitude of different game systems which cover warfare from biblical times to the future. Cnnsiderably better than Avalon Hill, who has attempted to fit exactly the same game system onto completely different periods.

In summary then, Mr. nleson's criticisms of SPI are based completely on errors of fact and false accusations. I hope I have done somthing toward setting the record straight.

Sincerely, Jon Southard

P.S. Mr. Oleson's knowledge of SPI is shown in full flower by his statement in "Panzerblitz Potpourri" that, "I regret that it ((Panzerblitz)) has not grown into a system of games." Panzerblitz is just one of 11 tactical games, all designed and developed by SPI.

I'm sure Tom meant a system of WWII tactical games with compatible rules. See "PANZER- BLITZ and COMBAT COMMAND: Incompatibte Brothers?" by Paul Mills in PF #55. --DSL

Confusion

Gentlemen:

I am writing you to mention something that left me, a newcomer to war gaming in total confusion. I read the article, Russian Victory in Origins. I have never seen or played this game, therefore I do not know the term "PF allocation". If the author had explained what "PF allocations" were I could have followed the article more closely.

Sincerely yours, Robert Engweiler

PF stands for "Political Factor". But, I doubt that knowing that helps you very much. The purpose of the article was not to exptain the game to people who haven't played it, but to propose a strategy to people who play it!--DSL

Quality Downhill

Dear Don,

Here is another one of those letters best mislayed or misplaced. Oh, were it paradise but for negative criticism.

I have watched a fine "zine" as developed by Greenwood go rapidly downhill. First, games were no longer included. Next, fewer quality articles were being contributed. Then more and more advertising crept in. Finally, a fair schedule of bimonthly publication was shot to hell.

Today you still have much work on the issues of publication schedule, advertising and quality articles. On the latter matter with issue 61, you seem to have turned a corner, but quality is something that is proven only in time, over and over again. If the discounts are to replace names with each issue, then why not make some fatter discounts? As is now, postage eats it all away. Subbers deserve a break!!

Lastly, I'm happy to see your anti-SPI crusade might well have ended. Such foolishness is always counter-productive.

Here's hoping that this can be seen as constructive criticism and not stimulus for an editorial tantrum.

Yours, Mike Bartrikowski

We haven't yet found anybody to deliver the game without charging for the service. However, we only charge postage and handling once per order, so the discount on games beyod the first is subsctantial.--DSL

Congratulations

Mr. Lowry:

I would like to congratulate and compliment you on the current issue of PF. The improved quality of printing and articles put it clearly above the bulk of its competition. Even for timely arrival it is improved. If you can keep up the good work and adhere to your advertised schedule of publication, you will have my resubscription. If only the merchandise delivery portion of your business could match your publication promptness on the last issue.

Enclosed is the 'Return Fire' from the current issue. More articles from Tom Oleson, please.

Yours truly, Nathan Mitchell

We'll try. --DSL