Goodfan Lowry:

Though you seem to eschew the title "professional," I'm inclined to accord you the classification nevertheless, particularly in comparison to the reviewer freelancing now and then. In the course of writing bimonthly for publication as both editor and reviewer, you have achieved a status shared only by a few men in the wargaming profession. I take no critic's view of a newly- published work without the nominal grain of salt, but I'm more inclined to respect the opinions of those who exhibit experience and consistency in their writings.

In my last letter to you, I confused the authorship of Tunnels & Trolls (FB), stating that Steve Jackson rather than Ken St. Andre had written the rules. Thank you for correcting me.

In the same vein, however, I offer you a small correction. You stated in your reply that "Panzer Blitz predates all the games (I) mentioned," specifically Sniper! Patrol! and FireFight, as if to imply that Avalon Hill, in publishing PanzerBlitz, was the father of tactical board gaming. I direct your attention to the designer's credits in the PanzerBlitz rules booklet. If memory serves, that work, possibly the most popular board wargame in the history of the field, was designed by Jim Dunnigan, with art direction by Redmond Simonsen and development and playtesting by the SPI staff and crew of grognards. It was a development of SPI's Tac 3 game, polished to a high gloss and presented to Avalon Hill neatly packaged and ready for publication. Avalon Hill's best-selling wargame continues to be a product of Simulation Publications., Inc. design and development.

I feel justified in claiming that SPI offers the gaming public the broadest spectrum of wargames. With their "shotgun" technique of publishing large numbers of new games each year, they can provide something to suit the tastes of every group of board wargamers. Even though they have their share of losers, they produce more than their share of the best, and - as I said before - it is doubtful if the boys from Baltimore would ever have moved to produce (or purchase) games of the quality they now offer had not the SPI crew built a bonfire under their britches.

As for Dr. Kanterman's letter on Starships & Spacemen, I'm moved to say that it was my interest in science fiction in general that prompted me to purchase S&S, and my background in SF and role-playing games that leads me to proclaim, loudly and with feeling, that it's a turkey.

I'd be interested to hear your opinion of the latest Avalon Hill sales tactic, the "Gamette". When I heard of Squad Leader and its sequellae, the Gamettes, memories of Dungeons & Dragons and its interminable supplements immediately came to mind. I began to consider: "Squad Leader costs $12 for the basic rules, counters and four mapboards. Then comes the first Gamette, Cross of Iron, also $12 with one additional mapboard, more counters and some charts, to be followed by - Great Ghu! - five more Gamettes."

At that point I sat back in awe, pondering the brilliance of Avalon Hill. I smiled ruefully and shook my head in wonderment. The equations were so simple, so elegant:

(a) Squad Leader x 1 = $12
(b) Squad Leader x 1 + Gamette x 6 = $84

If P.T. Barnum really was right and there really is one born every minute ...

I would certainly like to buy stock in Avalon Hill. With their certain knowledge of the addict-like gamer personality, they should go far. Surely I have something to invest in their company, because I know that at least twelve dollars of mine won't be spent on Squad Leader Enough is enough!

Sincerely,
Rich Bartucci, D.O.
Saddle Brook, NJ

I'm well aware of who designed Panzerblitz, but your specific question was, "--would Avalon Hill ever have entered tactical gaming if SPI hadn't broken the ground with Sniper!, Patrol! and Fire Fight? " My answer is that they already had, with PzBlitz. Regardless of who designed it, AH did publish it, and before the market for tactical games was proven by the games you mentioned, or any other. In fact, it was PzBlitz that proved the market and SPI that rushed in to exploit it - not vice versa.

Also, I didn't say AH publishes a broader spectrum of games than SPI, I just disagreed with your statement that SPI publishes a broad spectrum, and AH doesn't. I contend that they both do! I agree that competition from SPI, and others, has led to an increase in AH's variety, quality and quantity. I believe they've said as much themselves in some of their ads.

As for the gamette idea, I believe that all values are relative. There is at least as much material, as far as counters, etc., and research & design effort in COI as in SL. Whether it's worth as much to you. or me, depends on our own tastes and values. Personally I wouldn't pay $12 for either one, because I'm not interested in tactical boardgames. But if you really like that sort of thing, I would think they're both well worth it. Anytime you can get hours and hours of fun for $12, you've found a bargain! A few years ago everybody was making and selling variants to AH games. Why shouldn't they be allowed to make and sell them themselves. Those who don't want them don't have to buy them! Meanwhile, invest your money elsewhere, for nobody in the wargames business is getting rich, I can guarantee it.

DSL

Dear Don -

#88 was like all Campaigns - very absorbing!

I found the COL review interesting, even though I'm in the minority too dull to appreciate Squad Leader. Not everyone is as well informed on armor as Lorrin Bird, and I would've appreciated explanations for a few of the terms used.

About a decade ago I used to think of Tyrone Bomba as "King of the Variants," so it was a pleasure to see his article, although two statements therein ware surprising to me from such an experienced gamer: "I announce the advent of a balanced historical simulation" - Yalu is certainly not the first such! And then, he boasts of "how many different approaches I've tried." It's my opinion that if Yalu is as good as he says, it will take years of play among many gamers before one can be sure all the "strategic plans" and "operational techniques" are discovered. I'm sure that many good gamers have had the experience of playing, with someone new, a game they thought they knew inside-out, only to find that there were plans and techniques they'd overlooked.

Your review of Operation Crusader was perceptive. Personally, I love these monsters, but I'd be astonished if 1% of those who buy them ever play them through even once They are in a way more adornments than functional games.

Sincerely,
Tom Oleson
Madrid, Spain

Don,

While I know this letter doesn't fit in with the usual horde of letters regarding Origins versus GenCon, SPI against the game players and all the small companies, and the role of profits in the business world, I thought you might need some filler to round out the "gossip call" section.

I've done further research regarding the results of the COI tank combat statistics, and they definitely put the "crash boom" ATG in the turret of the T34/76, a sloppy error that only CinC that their Stalk I miniatures rules avoided (Brew Up, WRG, Panzer Blitz and Hendricks' 1944 all put the wrong gun on the T34/76, although Tactics did get it straight which should make you happy).

During the preparation of some of the articles I've sent to Campaign recently, particularly the ones dealing with armor miniatures, one very simple problem dealing with the issue of target aspect completely evaded my thoughts, and perhaps same of your readers might be interested in what I missed (besides the "boat").

The current miniatures rules for Stalk I, Cross of Iron, Brew Up, Panzer Warfare and WRG's Armor & Infantry define whether one gets a front or flank hit on the basis of hull orientation, regardless of which way the turret is facing. I believe the implications are fairly apparent, and it's an obvious bit of trivial detail that can make a difference every once in a while.

What I'd like to do is to suggest that when a turreted AFV offers turret and hull profiles that differ with respect to front/flank/rear definition, that a die be thrown to determine which part of the vehicle was hit (a throw of 1 through 2 for turret hits might be good for starters, with changes to the range dependent on the players view of the situation).

It's funny that sometimes the most obvious little things slip our minds, and the inclusion of this letter in your magazine will round out the things that I've put forth in the article on miniatures that were submitted to you (even if you don't print them the turret/hull facing anomaly is interesting in its own right).

While Campaign is not really oriented towards any one type of gaming in particular, let alone miniature armor gaming (which it hardly ever has an article on), I think it would be quite interesting if "Mail Call" could serve as a forum on any game design "tidbits" that the readers might like to discuss short of submitting a fullblown article to the magazine, and maybe a word or two from you to encourage your readers might help. It would certainly beat the present MO where every two months you publish some good, bad and indifferent articles, and the only feedback you receive is on the previous letters that appeared in "Mail Call."

Lorrin Bird
Round Lake, NY

Glad to print 'em - if I get 'em.

DSL

AN OPEN LETTER TO METRO DETROIT GAMERS

Gentlemen,

Some time has passed since I talked with Mr. Woods on the phone. At that time I was asked to return the H. G. WELLS Award for BEST ROLE PLAYING GAME that had been awarded to Dungeons and Dragons and which, as co-author, I had received at the award ceremony. At that same time, two other awards for Dundeons and Dragons had been given to a representative sent by the other co-author of this set of rules. I was informed by Mr. Woods that TSR Hobbies had lodged a complaint with him about my receipt of the award some time after the awards ceremony. I was informed that traditionally all awards were given to the company that had published the winning game, or set of rules, and not the author, or designer.

At the time of my conversation with Mr. Woods I informed him that I would not return the award that I had been given at the ceremony. My reasons were as follows:

1. At no time was it stated during the ceremony or within the convention program that the awards were meant only for the publisher and not the author and or designs.
2. I was, in fact, given the award at the ceremony without comment from the convention about passing it on to D&D's publisher.
3. I compared such a procedure to BANTAM BOOKS receiving the awards for J.R.R. Tolkien's works or 20th Century Fox, Star Wars' Oscars.

I informed Mr. Woods that not only would I not return the award but that I also wished to have copies of the other two awards that D&D won, sent to me as co-author. This seems only fair since I am sure that Scott Boden received a copy of the award that his Empire rules tied D&D with, in the balloting. (Or did he?)

I am only an individual game designer and a free lance one at that. I am not a large company nor a club which I can use to put forward my case. I will, however, not allow such an abnormal state of affairs to continue if I can possibly do something about it. If awards are for publishers as a statement to their marketing success and not the actual creative aspects of a set of rules or a game, then it should be made clear to all those voting g for the awards and receiving them. If the state of this hobby has already reached a point where creativity is neither recognized nor appreciated, then something should be done about it.

So in closing I await your reply on this matter which I hope is forthcoming along with the two missing D&D awards.

Sincerely,
Davis L. Arneson St. Paul, MN

P.S.: As an update to the enclosed comments about the ORIGINS '78 H.G. Wells Awards, the following has transpired:

TSR HOBBIES, INC. has received a copy of the H.G. Wells Award I received at ORIGINS '78 as they demanded. Needless to say I was not so fortunate as to receive any copies of the two awards I failed to acquire at ORIGINS '78.

I have been informed that in future DESIGNERS will be the ones receiving the awards and not the publishers. However, only time will tell if this will turn out to be true.

It seems quite evident that other designers have also not received their awards from the publishers who accepted the awards on the designers' behalf. It stands now that if you want to receive the award for the game you designed, you are best advised to be there to run up (and I do mean RUN) and get it, for you will certainly be unlikely to get it any other way.

DLA