JACK: Who are the members of the hard-core of Battleline and what are your wargaming backgrounds?

STEVE: That's kind of an awkward question. In one respect you might say that I am the only hardcore member in that I am the organizer, financial backer, and everything else from game designer to janitor. In another light, however, there are several people who have given greatly, not the least of whom is Mike Williford, the commercial artist who does virtually all of our visual design and graphics. Craig Taylor, designer and part-owner of WS&IM, is becoming more and more of a permanent fixture and is constantly presenting valuable new ideas to all aspects of our operation.

The three of us make up what most people would call the hardcore of Battleline Publications; but I don't think that it would be fair not to mention our network of twenty or so game players who perform the invaluable service of testing our games and contributing objective and constructive criticism, or my poor overworked wife, who alone has been responsible for the packaging and shipping of our games which in itself is a big job.

As far as wargaming experience goes, I started playing wargames in 1958 and have been hooked ever since. Craig started about the same time and [like picked it up in 1966--which gives the three of us a total of fifty years of game playing.

Craig and I both started designing games on an amateur level in the early sixties and even though many of our early games are ludicrous by today's standards, they have helped immeasurably in our growth as game designers.

CRAIG: Steve makes Battleline sound like a three-horse operation; and it is small when compared to SPI or AH but, after all, you don't have to be big to be good!

JACK: How did you get Battlellne going and what problems have you had and what problems do you have presently?

STEVE: Battleline was born in the spring of 1973 when I decided to fulfill a life-long ambition to publish a warqame. I had noticed for some years that there was a definite gap between the two leading wargame producers, AH and SPI. One of the original goals was to fill that gap which some day might be the case.

Our problems in the beginning were twofold.

Firstly, I had absolutely no experience in the field of printing. This problem has been overcome by three things; my gaining of knowledge; Mike's willing professional help; and the acquiring of Craig, who has several years' experience in the printing industry.

Our second problem -- and one that still plagues us -- is money. It took everything I had to produce SEVEN DAYS' BATTLES, which meant that I had to wait for sales to provide enough money to produce WS&IM, which in turn took all of that money. Now we will just have to wait on he capital necessary to finish our next game. And it's not a question of if we are going to do another game, but rather a question of when. Wargamers as a group have been "burned" several times by new companies and consquently they are a little slow to warm up to another new company. We are hoping to be able to make our next game available by winter/spring of 1975. A lot of people tell me that it's a hellava way to run a business and they're probably right -- but as long as I can break even there will always be a Battleline. We might not be able to afford to produce more than two or three games a year, but the long intervals of waiting gives us plenty of time to design, test, redesign, and retest which insures playable games with the absolute minimum of ambiguities.

JACK: Of your two games, SEVEN DAYS' BATTLES and WOODEN SlIPS AND IROIA MIEN, which do you prefer and why, and how has the public received your games?

STEVE: Being an American Civil War freak, I would normally say that I preferred SEVEN DAYS' BATTLES; but you have to realize that the two games are as different from one another as night and day. SOB has been received with open arms by Civil War buffs and with sone reservation by gamers who have little or no interest in the period. The game was aimed at a special interest group (AM buffs) within a special group wargamers). WS&IM, on the other hand, is being received favorably by almost everyone. Alhough we have had some unfavorable feedback concerning certain specific points of the game, we have never had anyone tell us that he did not enjoy playinq it. In cther words, I prefer to study and solitaire SDB; while I prefer to play WS&IM face-to-face.

JACK: What do you consider to be the strong as well as the weak points of WSIM?

CRAIG: As I see it, the game has six points that it excels in. One, the introcluctory game included in the rules permits a novice to catch on swiftly to the main thrust of the game and imnediately begin concentrating on its fine points. Two, the two-hex configuration of the unit counters is not only unique, but gives a high level of realism regarding the problems of moving a clumsy sailing ship around. Three, the combat tables, once you get the hang of them, are quite simple to use and understand and yet give an extremely realistic result, due to the amount of information and variables built into them.

Another strong point is the fact that the game has been thoroughly playtested prior to publication, which means that bugs and loopholes are nearly nonexistent. The point system, which allows the winner to be determined in large scenarios without the need of fighting to the last ship, is excellent. The game also allows players to create their own situations while keeping a good balanced gane. Lastly, is an excellent multi-player game.

It is, of course, somewhat difficult for me to be completely objective in finding flaws in the game, but there are a number of things that do present problems. For one, the set-up time for the larger scenarios can be rather lengthy. For another, the larger scenarios cannot be conveniently played by two players. A third problem is that, like any simultaneous movement game, WS&IM does not lend itself well to solitaire play: and finally, because of the SIMOV and various phases of play, the game is difficult to PBM.

JACK: Just how accurate do you feel WS&IM is? Why?

CRAIG: Like any other wargame, the rules of WS&IM are a series of compromises between absolute realism and playability. Basically, a game featuring absolute realism tends to bog down in the mechanics of play. So from this standpoint, I would not consider WS&IM to be as historically accurate as it could have been. On the other hand, however, a great deal of research went into the game, and this historical research is reflected in that the game does give the players a historically accurate "feel" of the era simulated.

JACK: Can you compare WS&IM to TRAFALGER or FRIGATE (SPI)?

CRAIG: Never having played TRAFALGER, it would be impossiblp for me to pass any foran of judgement on it; however, in comparing WS&IM to FRIGATE, I think that their geomorphic mapboard is an excellent feature and wish that we had some something along the same line. Where WS&IM concentrates on the more interesting, or "fun", aspect of the era, namely, tactical problems of close-in combat, FRIGATE seems to concentrate on simulating a higher level of operations, which I feel, while just as challenging, is less appealing to gamers. I also feel that our method of SIMOV notation is easier to use than the method used in FRIGATE.

JACK: There is talk of an additional ship counter sheet. What battles will there be and will there be any rule changes?

CRAIG: An expansion kit for WS&IM is a thought we have had in the back of our minds for some time, but feel that such an item would not be economically viable unless we could sell enough of the basic game and got some feedback to indicate that a demand exists. If done, though, some of the features I would like to include are:

1) Another set of unit counters.
2)More optional rules covering topics, such as hidden movement in conditions of limited visibility, land battles and forts, galleys and ships, boats, fireships, and mortar ketches.
3) More scenarios. I would want to include (among others) a "What If" situation on a sortie by the American steam frigate Demalogus attacking a British fleet in a calm; the Battle of St. Vincent; a solitaire on the Battle of Copenhagen; some "cutting out" operations; and some scenarios of privateers versus convoys and escorts. The scenarios included in WS&IM really just scratch the surface in exploring the naval operations undertaken in this era
4)An additional set of hit records and log sheets pads.

JACK: I recently pointed out that I felt Battleline had not really defined itself yet as far as a philosophy. By this I mean that John Hill's games have a definite flavor; so do the games by SPI, Do you feel your philosophy is still evolving? What direction do you think your company will take (or is taking) as far as playability, historical accuracy or simulation and flavor?

STEVE: The evolution of a particular Philsophy or "game direction" at Battleline can best be stated as the lack of a philosophy that would constrict which games we would be interested in producing. Currently, we wish to make games that are at least as realistic as any on the market, as well as enjoyable to play, and at the same time introduce new approaches and innovations to game mechanics.

Another major aspect of our operation is the belief that there is a vast untapped resource of excellent game designs available from the hardcore wargamers themselves. Unlike the other companies that look into themselves for new games, we are constantly looking outward toward the gane players for new designs.

JACK: What new titles do you plan to publish?

STEVE: As far as new titles are concerned, I really can't give you a definite answer. We have a number of game designs that are under serious consideration and testing; but until the capital is available. we don't feel pushed to make a decision. One of our greatest aids in picking possible titles and designs has been from our customers who have continually supplied us with an abundance of suggestions, ideas, and designs.

JACK: Of the wargames published in the last year or so, which do you really enjoy playing, other than your own? Which do you find most interesting because of innovative mechanics and play?

STEVE: I think that one of the best games to appear in a long time is John Hill's BAR LEV. It is unique in its mechanics and innovative in almost all other aspects; and although the twenty or so combat phases are at first overwhelming, they tend to make the game one of forethought and planning. All in all, it's a fun game.

Another game that I have recently enjoyed is SPI's ALPHA CENTAURI; it appears to be one of the best playing games to be produced by SPI.

JACK: What do you think of the hobby in general in the fall of 1974?

STEVE: Contrary to a lot of other people, I believe that the hobby has reached a temporary plateau and is leveling off right now. Wargaming's growth depends upon two factors: attracting more people and new developments in gaming. For years Avalon Hill put out a line of high physical quality games that were fairly similar to one another, and in those days the hobby grew at about the same rate as Avalon Hill; but they eventually reached a plateau in growth until SPI came bursting into the picture with new mechanics and twelve games a year, which started the growth on the upward curve.

Now the rate of growth is beginning to level off again and will probably remain faily constant until the hobby receives another shot in the arm. Since there are literally hundreds of games to choose from today, I believe that the next major boom will not come from another breakthrough in mechanics, but rather from some form of publicity that will attract non-wargamers' interest -- something like a wargame tournament that will attract non-wargamers' interest, something like a wargame tournament with cash prises in the thousands of dollars. It may sound a little farfetched right now, but we might well see the day when wargame pro's travel the world to compete in classic tournaments

More Slice of Battleline Publications

Introduction
Interview with Steven Peek and Craig Taylor
Comments on Wargaming and Battleline
Review: Wooden Ships and Iron Men