Dear Don, I would like to reply to Jon Southard's criticism of my article on SPI, but first, let me say that if admiration for SPI can be measured by money and time spent on their Products, then few admire them more than I, but I don't consider them perfect; I do think Jim Dunningan must be a genius to have done what he has, not only as a game designer, but as an entrepreneur. Since I wrote that article, I am pleased to see MOVES devote more space to detailed analysis of the play of SPI's games. I still consider their approach inferior to articles such those recently in THE GENERAL on Guadalconal, and their Bulge replay. I would love to see studies of this depth on some of the SPI games which I personally prefer to Guad or Bulge. As for the question of errata, and "Cookie-Cutter" games, I could give pages of examples but in the end it is a subjective argument. I still do not believe that SPI prints critical letters, but rather mini-articles: with very few exceptions. When in S&T #33 they stongly insinuated that only they could design decent wargames, "Avalon Hill is in the thrall of SPI" how dramatic! - no rebuttal was tolerated. In order to give SPI the ENORMOUS credit and praise they are due, is it really necessary, and does it really help them or the hobby, to hold them above constructive criticism? Sincerely, Tom Oleson I would suppose that the main reason PF receives so many (unsolicited) articles and letters critical of SPI (our so-called anti-SPI "crusade") is because SPI wan't print them, or at least the writers didn't think they would. Some might say that we should't print them either. But I have to print something. It is not a case of the nasty old editor throwing out all the pro-SPI articles and only printing the antis. There aren't any pro-SPI articles being submitted (lots of letters most of which get printed)! After all, SPI has whole magazines of theirs in which to tell the positive side of their story. --DSL Dear Don, I have just finished reading issue #63 and I think that congratulations are in order. Every issue this year seems to be of better quality than the previous issue. It shouldn't take long at this rate before you will experience a "subscription explosion". Many of my friends were hesitant to subscribe in the past because of the physical qualities of Panzerfaust; but now, after seeing the last three or four issues, they seem to be changing their opinion. By now you should have received your review copy of Wooden Ships and Iron Men. I knw you will find the a game to be pleasantly different; and I hope that you will find it enjoyable as well. I was quite pleased with Mr Hamblin's review of our game, Seven Days Battles, although I have to take a little exception to some of his complaints concerning the game's play. Mr Hamblen seems greatly concerned over the fact that the Union supply points (especially White House) were not incorporated into the game. The solution to that problem caused me many restless nights, As you well know as does any serious student of this campaign, McClellan not only shifted his base of supply during the campaign; he PHYSICALLY MOVED the entire army's supply by wagon train (utilizing over - 5,000 wagons). Consequently, during the seven days that the game covers, the Union forces were rarely more than an hour's march from a secondary supply point and never more than a day's march from a secondary supply point and never more than a day's march from the army's primary source of supply. (McClellan may have always been slow and overly cautious; but he was well liked by his troops because his thoroughness concerning behind-the-lines logistics kept them well supplied.) As a result of this fact, I found that any supply rule other than a "capture the wagon train" rule was ineffective in dealing with this particular campaign; after all, we're dealing with ony a seven day period and the Army of the Potomac was carrying enough provisions to last a good deal longer than a week. The manner in which Mr. Hamblen arrived at the combat factoring for the infantry and artillery units in Seven Days Battles is wholly inacurate. Although part of the formula consisted of "counting rifles'.. there were many other variables included; and just in case you are interested the base combat factor (before undergoing any modifications) was 214 riflemen per combat factor for the advanced game infantry. As I said before, I was quite pleased with the overall review and in fact would welcome Mr Hamblen to review any of our games. He seems to be objective and thorough in his efforts. Sincerely, J. Stephen Peek, Battleline Pub. Dear Sirs: I feel that I must point out what I feel are some flaws in Mr. Chuck Hollands' article: SPI vs SDC in SEA. It seems to me that he was unfair to the S&T magazine in his article and chart. (He did seem quite fair in his last four paragraphs.) First, let me add some items to his chart: Item CONFLICT S&T Word/column 415 540 Column/page 2 3 Columns/issue 65 78 Words/page 830 1620 Words/issue 27,000 42,000 Next the games! Commenting on S&T's "Year of the Rat," Mr. Holland notes that it tends to become boring. He then states that the game forces you to do what the real life ARVN commander did - fortify, and rely on air/naval bombardment. Pretty realistic isn't it! As for Conflict, the back of the map has blank hexes--wow. (I like the blank sheet myself, but what does that have to do with making a good game?) And the counters are colorful. So? Mr. Holland is evidently more impressed by physical appearance than by content quality. Many of the photographs in Conflict are of poor quality (see page 4 of the copy mentioned) and the drawings are useless except to break up the copy (and fill the page). Evidently, Mr. Holland would rather read Grimm's Fairy Tales than Panzerfaust magazine. After all, Grimm has more pictures, drawing, and pages, to say nothing of the number of stories. He also would rather play Sorry and Ladders and Chutes than chess. After all, the pieces are more colorful, the rules are shorter, and look how fast things move in Ladders and Chutes. The point I am trying to make is this: When we write comparison articles, at least include all the important items and let's talk about information quality and quantity, as well a as physical quality and quantity. Mr. Holland - please write more articles, we need them, and what you do say is quite good, but also, please think about what you're leaving out too. Lest you think I am biased against Conflict, let me point out that I renewed my subscription with them after receiving the first five issues. After all, I get 6 issues no matter how long I have to wait, and they are quite good. Remember: When in doubt, publish. Glen W. Thomsen Dear Mr. Lowry: PANZERFAUST #63 arrived last week right on time. Congratulations on having licked a problem that dogged your magazine for the past year and more. Now if you could only do the same punctual job of delivering of mail order items. As a subscriber since issue #43 allow me to make a few comments on the content of the magazine. PANZERFAUST remains the best general gaming magazine extant. My personal preference would be for a gaming magazine focusing am exclusively on board-gaming, but if the majority of your subscribers disagree so be it. (when was the last time you surveyed their preferences?) The only notable weakness is in the historical articles. With a few exceptions, such as you ACW series, and the articles by Dick and Lundstrum, they have not been very well done. A major mason is that they am simply too brief to do more than superficially sketch in the outlines of their subjects. It takes an exceptionally good writer and historian to do a good job in the brief span of three to four pages. Unfortunately, the amateur historians who do most of the writing for PANZERFAUST are lacking the vital skills. A typical example is the effort by Antoni Munoz to discuss the operation of the German Army during the six months between June and December 1944 in the span of three pages. (This article also suffers from many errors of fact. Several divisions were double-counted as both Wehrmach and SS units while others were left out entirely). Finally, Chuck Holland's interesting camparison of S&T and Conflict deserves comment. While many of the points he makes are valid, others are open to question. The back issue cost of S&T has become ridiculous, amounting to $11 on what costs only $1.67 via subscription (excepting the box). I also agree that the physical product put out by SDC is quite impressive, superior by far to S&T. But it should also be pointed out that much of Conflict's glossiness detracts from its function as a gaming magazine or serves as a filler, or reduces its total content. For example, the print is so large, the margins so spacious, and the spacing between paragraphs so generous that total word content for its 68 large pages is considerable less than that for Panzerfaust's 48 pages, and infinitely less than S&T`s 48 cramped pages. I cannot agree that Conflict has a superior article mix, except for its game reviews, a field S&T seems to have abandoned. One of its greatest weaknesses is the content to which it duplicates S&T's two major historical articles and mix of smaller sections. The only differences are the letters section which S&T dropped due to lack of interest, and variants, which appear in a separate SPI publication: Moves. Conflict still has to estabiish its own identity in this respect. Chuck also states that Conflict shows "it is possible to publish magazines of higher quality and lower price than (S&T) would have one believe" This statement I would tend to disagree with, but there is no definite evidence either way. They are obviously in financial difficulties, hence their slow delivery of goods ordered and delays in delivering the magazine. A few months ago, they even sent out a letter pleading with all subscribe" to resubscribe immediately so they would have enough funds to continue operations. I have inferred, correctly or incorrectly, that the major sign for this problem is the great deal of money they spend on their glossy paper, length, use of many colors, reproduction of many photos and other graphics touches. This would be increased by their limited press runs, and fairly extensive advertising campaign. All-in-all, their per-issue expenses must be much greater than S&Ts yet they charge the same for subscriptions. Furthermore, S&T has stated many times that their their real money maker is the games; the magazine is primarily a means of getting and keeping peole interested in gaming. Conflict has no extensive line of games, having published only one, Dunkerque 1940 - (They do seem to have established some kind of connection with John Hill that may change this.) My conclusion from all this is that subscription prices probably do not pay the cost of the magazine and that unless cut back somwhat on the extravagance of their production, Conflict will either go under or be under new man agelpent. At present, the magazine impresses me as being designed for the newsstand - glossy and eye-catching, to compete for the viewer's eye with many other products. But it is not a newsstand publication, simply a limited circulation magazine purchased almost exclusively by all, for which such characteristics are largely irrelevant. Jim Costello I cannot agree with calling either CONFLICT or S&T a "gaming Magazine". They are "history magazines" with games attached. PANZERFAUST is a gaming magazine, as is MOVES. Other than that, I agree with your analysis. --DSL Dear Mr. Lowry I received a mailing today from the Toy Soldier informing me you'd sold your hobby business and were going to devote your full time to the publication of "Panzerfaust" and designing games. I have subscribed to "Panzerfaust" for approximately a year and a half now, and have made purchases from Lowrys Hobbies and I am afraid both businesses were suffering from your spreading yourself too thin, especially the hobby mail-order business. The magazine maintained a consistency of fine articles, but there was the long wait last winter between issues, and I for one had begun to think that Panzerfaust had gone under. I was wrong, and I hope I can look forward to even a better magazine. It as stated in the mailing that you were going to devote more time to designing games, I hope this is true. "Atlanta" is one of my favorite games, and I have been sorely disappointed to see not even an announcement of any new games forthcoming from you. I hope this will now be changed. I am eagerly anticipating the arrival of "PanzerFaust" #63 which should arrive any day now I and I hope you will seriously consider doing another game. I think your obvious talent will be better displayed now that you are concentrating on gaming. Sincerely yours, James L. Cole Primarily the business was suffering froma lack of money! We're not overstocked on that item, and it takes a lot to publish a game. Go out and get us more subscribers and maybe we can come up with something. --DSL Back to Table of Contents -- Panzerfaust #64 To Panzerfaust/Campaign List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1974 by Donald S. Lowry This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com