AFTER BRIEF DELIBERATION, I have decided that I represent the "fringe gamer" everyone denies being. This, therefore, is my personal crusade/tirade in defence of wild-eyed minorities who like the game everyone else condemns, ridicules, or ignores. Any "fringer," to coin a word, who disagrees with me should remember that no two lunatics are alike, and should write his own article.

I'm the guy who gave Scrimmage an "8" on the Feedback Acceptability rating, and a "6" to Battle for Germany. I'm the one who continually asks for more games about the Dark Ages. I love F&SF games and loathe WWII. In short, I'm one of those people nobody caters to, except in dribs and drabs. My viewpoint is poorly understood, and I've a suspicion I don't comprehend the "mainstream gamer" either. My comments should be heard with care and a bushel of salt for safety's sakeI'm a looney.

What is this strange malady that prompts mild-mannered gamers to attack the games, articles, and opinions of other companies? For that matter, what prompts a person to dislike a particular game? In my case, it's usually boredom. In my childhood, I vaguely recall seeing movie after movie after movie about WWII. Even the T.V. situation comedies were about WWII. I rapidly became saturated with the subject, especially as I realized that most of them ignored physical laws, not to mention history.

When I finally discovered the virtues of war games, it was too late. Even today, I can't work up much enthusiasm for WWII or modern period combat, which is much the same thing. Nonetheless, I don't hate the games specifically, and if I perchance play such a game, I'll give it my best, and rate it high if it plays well and is an innovative treatment of the subject.

From time to time, SPI gives feedback ratings concerning topic preferences for future games. Invariably, WWII is at the top of the list. This confuses me greatly. There appear to be a million games on the market about WWII and only 5 or 6 about any other single war in the history of Mankind. And you people want more WWII? Are you crazy? I've seen articles and letters in several magazines (SPI's included) panning S&T for publishing too many "weird" topics in the magazine, where people can't refuse them. I would disagree; there are too few. Let's not quibble, though. Why are the weird games disliked?

One reason could be lack of information. Scrimmage achieved the dubious distinction of hitting the bottom of the heap on its first feedback, and Dixie seems to have repeated the performance. Both games were published in S&T without accompanying articles. Many excuses could be made, but I think the main one is that nobody knew what to write. I realize most wargamers aren't sports gamers, but surely some of you must like football. An "historical" article on pro-football might have generated enough interest to save the game. I, who never watch sports, bought Scrimmage from a friend who hadn't even punched out the counters, and find it to be a very interesting, playable game. Dixie suffers from an even greater handicap, as there is no definitive SF novel on the alternate universe of a Confederate victory. [How about Bring the Jubilee by Ward Moore?-DSL.]

The game might as well have been Tactics II, except for the map. The game system was interesting, which saved it in my eyes. I would like to have seen the article.

What's wrong with Combined Arms and Sixth Fleet? Sure, the map and counters are a little bland, but what about the versatility of the Combined Arms game system? With a little fudging, I can use all those blank counters I bought, plus the blank maps and my TANK! game to produce the most incredible tac module system for modern games you've ever seen. And I frankly can't see the flaw in 6th Fleet. Is it unrealistic? Define realism. I'm an ecologist, not a military expert, so I can't tell. The game plays well, though.

I've occasionally seen complaints that there are too many games on the market today; that SPI should slow down and produce fewer games of higher quality. There are many companies manufacturing war games today; it seems to me that SPI's great distinction is its incredible production rate. Another thing is their feedback system of title determination. If they limited themselves to 3 or 4 non-magazine games a year, they would be mainly WWII, Civil War, Napoleonic, and Modern period games. With 12 non-S&T games per year, the 5% minorities (myself included) stand a chance of seeing our favourite subjects in print. Certainly other specialty companies, such a TSR and Metagaming Concepts can handle my more exotic desires, but I like variety. And to those who wish to buy every game in sight (whatever for?), I say "tough!" If you can't afford to buy, you can borrow or trade. For that matter, do you play all those games you buy? Do you play any of them?

One debate I've followed recently has concerned combat systems in general and CRTs in particular. The main argument seems to be that the simulations are not realistic, and are, therefore, evil and should be replaced with another system which has equally glaring faults, but which is at least familiar to the writer of such tirades. "Unit elimination" cries one adherent; "step reduction" calls another, as in an old CERTS commercial. The fact is, both systems have merits, depending on the intent of the game designer. Unit elimination usually occurs in fast-moving games; step reduction in the slower, more complex systems.

Take a look at one of your game units. Suppose it's a 4-4-6 mechanized infantry division. (I'm making this up; don't look for it.) Just a cardboard counter, right? Wrong! It represents more than 10,000 men, their weapons, transport, and supporting elements. Now look at the same "DE" resuit from two different viewpoints.

UNIT ELIMINATION

The counter is removed from the map and is never seen again. Yet, chances are that fewer than half the men in that division are dead. Some are captured, some wounded and sent to hospitals, and some have escaped unharmed. For simplicity's sake, the game designer has ignored all this and destroyed the unit. For those who quibble, he may suggest that men killed in adjacent units are replaced by survivors from the late 4-4-6.

MINIATURES SYSTEM

2000 men dead; 800 captured; 4000 wounded; 100 vehicles wrecked. Remaining combat forces: 4300. On the map, the miniatures gamer replaces the 4-4-6 with a smaller unit; merely as an indicator. Actual unit strengths are recorded separately, and no balanced combat occurs on the strategic map.

Quite a difference, yes? But the same event was simulated. Step reduction is not a poor idea, though it is sometimes poorly handled. The game designer visualizes the division as re->resenting several brigades working together; he merely represents them as a single counter because they are working together. They don't have to die together, though, hence step reduction. It's a good idea; a bit cumbersome at times, but useable.

Another problem is the "Objective Standard CRT" debate, which stems from the 4 tables provided in War in the East. It is suggested that the counters themselves represent the actual combat factors; that the same CRT apply to both sides. Okay: In 1941, as the German player, I rush into the USSR and shoot everything in sight, because I'm better trained, have more of everything, and so on.

Then comes the winter, and the Soviet player puts on his heavy fur coat, and I put on my thin cloth coat, my gun jams, my fingers freeze, and I can't do a thing. By objective standards, we remove all the Russian counters from the map during the snowfall, and replace them with different units adapted to winter. To represent the German troops, we have a new set of somewhat smaller units. And so it goes. By the time we're finished, we've added about 1000 counters to the already burdened sheets. At this point, I snort in disgust and find another game to play. This one has too many counters.

Is it really better to stipulate an objective CRT, when you have to use the game as a whole anyway? Isn't it saner to design an integral system which deals with the problems of unit differentiation over time in an elegant way? See how easy it is; when winter comes I just look at table 4 instead of 1, while you have to exchange all those counters. Seems a lot of work to achieve a rather dubious realism. What does it matter that the CRTs are unbalanced? The couter-strength method doesn't change -he fact that the armies were unbalanced. The mechanism is different, that's all.

There, now it's out of my system and I can go back to playing games instead of screaming incoherently. (sigh...)