If you've been buying wargames for a few years, you're probably beginning to find that while the number of games you own is steadily increasing, the number you play regularly is decreasing. The second phenomenon is, I believe, caused directly by the first.

Back in the 'bad old days' (the 60's), it was a VERY good year if two new games were released. In those bygone times, your play, of necessity. centered around the relatively few existing titles. Games were so limited, in both numbers and design variety, that virtually everyone became an 'expert' at the one or two simulations which suited him best. Games were not shelved just because the rules were flawed or full of omissions, for there were no replacement games available.

This led to some developments which, in light of the present state of the hobby now seem almost unfathomable. The best examples of which were the D-Day and Stalingrad cults. Hundreds of wargamers, this writer being one of them, strained, sweated, argued and meditated over those two games, devising strategies, set-ups, and variants almost ad infinitum. Both games were simultaneously unhistoric and unbalanced, yet we played them (brother, did we play them!). simply because they were the only simulations widely available on the two 'classic' campaigns of World War Il.

Today the case is extremely different. If a game doesn't satisfy the player for any reason, it can be retired and replaced by many of the scores of new titles now being marketed. Besides the virtual extinction of the expert, this new supply situation had had one other effect. Namely. many games lie inactive due to the fact that nobody is taking the time to correct their minor flaws. Why bother when there are so many other 'finished' games around to be played?

Three games in need of such help come immediately to mind: The Battle of Moxcow, The Destruction of Army Group Center and (despite the fact that SPI currently lists it as its number one title) World War II..

Battle of Moscow

THE BATTLE OF MOSCOW: Aside from the clumsy layout of the rules, the one thing that mucks it up is the victory conditions. They stink, and are only loosely historic at best. Keeping in mind the German and Russian plans, and the options open to them, I have devised a new set of conditions which seem more historic and more playable.

The German player wins. . .

1. If at the end of HIS last game turn there are no supplied or unsupplied Soviet units on the game board.

2. If at the end of the last game turn he controls both the Leningrad and Moscow hexes and has at least 70 unisolated factors left on the board. The two cities must be controlled in a supplied state in order to qualify for this condition.

3. If at the end of the last game turn he controls Moscow and has at least 90 un-isolated factors on the game board. (Moscow must be in supply.)

4. If at the end of the last game turn lie controls Leningrad, in a supplied state, and has at least 115 unisolated combat factors left on the board. Count units at face value, except for security units which count as 1/2 a point. Never count Finns. The two "40th Arrny Rule" divisions are not counted unless they were brought into play. The Soviet wins if he prevents the Nazi from achieving all of the above.

THE DESTRUCTION OF ARMY GROUP CENTER

Again, for the same reasons and with the same rationale, try these Victory conditions.

The Soviet player wins . . .

1. If he destroys at least 60 victory points of German troops and controls Minsk, in a supplied state, at the end of the last game turn.

2. If he destroys at least 90 victory points worth of German units.

3. If there are no supplied German units on or east of the 2500 row of hexes at the end of the last game turn.

4. If there is a Soviet unit in Warsaw (supply state doesn't matter) at the end of the last game turn.

5. If he has established an unbroken line of hexes stretching from the east edge of the board to the Baltic Sea Coast, which is covered with his units or their zones of control.

The last two conditions reflect the fact that Hitler expected the Soviets to try for much more than they actually did. The fact that they didn't try for more that summer (not to belittle what they did accomplish) was a tacit acknowledgement by STAVKA that they had a much firmer grasp of their capabilities than formerly. There is no reason they couldn't have 'shot the wad' though, and these last two victory conditions give you a chance to see what might have happened. (Beware; both options necessitate large, unsupplied operations toward the end of the game.)

The German player wins by preventing the Soviet player from achieving any of the above.

WORLD WAR II

Allow any player, in either the two or three player version to violate neutrals. The Anglo- Allied "good-guy" rule is absurd and unhistoric. Witness the British mining of Norwegian waters BEFORE the German invasion of that nation and its entry into the war; the planned British/French invasion of Norway, aimed at helping the Finns resist Russian (the operation would have been executed save for the fact that Finland capitulated the day before the transports were to sail), the joint Russo-British occupation of Persia; the British scuttling of the Vichy fleet; and the American occupation of Iceland. "Good Guys" my ass, we, like the Axis, fought to win. It was simply that our side's superior military position allowed us more leeway in observing international etiquette.

Russian Neutrality: There seems to be general agreement among historians that, even if not attacked, Stalin planned to take the USSR into the war eventually. A probable date would have been sometime after the planned Red Army reorganization, which was slated for completion by late 1942. Therefore, in the two player version, starting with the first quarter of 1943, assuming the Soviets still to be neutral, the Anglo-Allied player rolls the die once each turn. An even number brings Russia in, an odd leaves her neutral. Once Russia comes in she stays for the duration (the die rolling stops).

Capitalist Imperialist Variant: One of the Soviet Lables for World War II is "The Second Great Imperialist War." To give the game that exploitive flavor, at the start of the three-player game, each player antees up $5.00. At the end of the game, the "pot" is divided up according to the following schedule of countries and areas (for example, whoever controls Belgium at the end of the game gets 100 from the pot.) Areas and countries not listed have no cash value.

If more than one player has forces in a country, the player controlling the most hexes takes. the money. If a country is equally divided, the player with the greater number of supplied combat factors in that nation wins it. If the issue still doesn't resolve itself flip a coin, or go extra innings. The player who rips off most of Europe (in cash value) wins.

USSR - $3.00
Great Britain - $2.00
Yuqoslavia - 15 cents
Hungary - 20 cents
Italy - 60 cents
Rumania - 35 cents
Gibraltar 5 cents
Bulgaria - 10 cents
Albania - 5 cents
Netherlands - 15 cents
Greece - 25 cents
Belgium - 10 cents
Poland - 50 cents
France - $1.25
Lithuania - 5 cents
Turkey - 40 cents
Latvia - 5 cents
Palestine - 40 cents
Estonia - 5 cents
Egypt - 40 cents
Finland - 50 cents
Libya - 35 cents
Sweden - 75 cents
Tunisia - 10 cents
Norway - 30 cents
Algeria - 15 cents
Denmark - 10 cents
Kuwait - 40 cents
Germany - $2.30 (count East Prussia)

NOTE: The German player does NOT have to occupy a pro-axis neutral to get the dough. As soon as they enter the war on his side, transfer their cash to his pile.