Dear Don,

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on Lorrin Bird's article on Squad Leader in your September-October 1978 issue. On the whole this is a well written informative article. However, Mr. Bird makes some statements with which I would like to take issue.

Mr. Bird appears to believe that, since there is no rule regarding Russian armor command control, it is not included in the game. However, I think that this item is represented by the lower Russian hit mumbers. I also relize that these lower numbers represent a variety of other factors including crew training, gun laying systems, etc. It would seem that, given the other problems which the Russian player has, to force him to examine individually whether or not tank X may fire at target z, which was spotted by tank Y, is simply asking too much. Such a rule might better be used in a multi-player game in which one player is responsible for only the armor. It certainly bears thinking about in this context.

Mr. Bird's comments about the relative effectiveness of bazookas and flamethrowers are quite good. I agree with him when he says that the bazooka's potency has probably been downplayed in the interest of playability. His suggestions for the use of flame and bazookas are definitely good. However, I think that the flamethrower's main use should be to attack infantry in buildings or trenches.

Another aspect of Mr. Bird's article with which I disagree is his assertion that "... the tactical expertise and greater mobility of the Germans over the Russians has not been built into the game..." If one examines the game closely it is apparent that the expertise and mobility are built in, even if not explicity mentioned. Leaders, when stacked for an entire turn with infantry squads, give a movement bonus to those squads. Given the greater number of German leaders is is clear that this numerical superiority translates directly into greater tactical mobility. The same reasoning applies when tactical expertise is considered. The greater number of German leaders helps to prevent large numbers of squads from breaking. This, in turn, assumes that the Gbrmans are better able to attain their objectives.

On the whole Mr, Bird has done a good job on his article. I merely wished to take exception to a couple of points, not to cast aspersions on the article as a whole I am looking forward to more articles by Mr. Bird.

Dear Mr. Lowry,

I'd like to thank you and Kevin Pollock for the sterling review of Perilous Encounters published in issue 89 of Campaign. I'm very pleased that other people find as much fun in the game as I do, but this letter is mainly intended as a second to Lorrin Bird's letter of the same issue wherein he suggests that "Mail Call" can serve as a forum for game design "tidbits". And I'm putting my money where my mouth is by addressing aome of the points raised in the review of P.E.

I suppose the main reason I designed P. E. was because most of the miniatures rules then available gave me headaches. While putting Perilous Encounters into words, I bent over backwards to keep it simple, and in some respects I guess I did bend a little too far, I intended for the rules to be minimal so that people could develop styles of play to suit their own tastes. Since fantasy is such a personal thing, the "one true way" school of thought seems particularly repugnant to me in fantasy games. It's my experience that the people who run into troubles using P.E, do so because they're trying to read too much into the rules. At any rate, here are some clarifications, additions, and improvements over the original rules.

1. An infantry hedgehog may only move 2 inches per friendly movement phase, as is given on the charts.

2. A rule allowing shields to provide cover against missile fire is more important than I thought, and I would state one this way: If the target figure has a shield, and is receiving a missile attack from its front or shielded flank, subtract one point from the die score for that attack.

3. Concerning the possibility of circling an engaged opponent, the rules are precise. A figure which is engaged at the beginning of a friendly movement phase must successfully disengage before it can move. To say the it can change facing does not imply that it can move out of place. Since movement in Perilous Encounters is sequential, there would hardly ever be a frontal attack in a one-to-one situation if a figure were allowed to freely circle an engaged opponent. I know this seems as unreasonable to Kevin as it does to me, since he has correctly answered his own question.

4. The magic rules state that conjured troops can be brought onto the tabletop where ever the player pleases. This should be amended to say that conjured troops must be brought onto the tabletop in contact with the magic user who summons them. If you check notes v. and w. of Appendix II, you'll see that Archdemons, Demons, and elementals can be "killed" by superheroes, heroes, and magic users, and have relatively low saving throws to boot.

5. If a figure moves up a slope during a charge move, it may not add a charge bonus to the melee die score in the following melee phase.

6. Here is an improved N.T.A. Targeting Table. Distances are incorporated intc the initial roll, and not rolled for separately as in the original rules.

2D6 Result

2 Falls 2" to left
3 Falls 4" short
4 Falls 3" short
5 Falls 2" short
6-8 On Target
9 overshoots 2"
10 Overshoots 3"
11 Overshoots 4"
12 Falls 2" to right

7. Cheryl P. Lloyd has objected to the simplicity of the movement rates. I've been developing a graph which will give rates according to creature size, armor and type of movement being executed, but there are still some bugs to be worked out. Here are some movement rates that vary with the figure's armor:

Armor Inf Cav

None 7" 14"
Partial 6" 12"
Full 5" 10"

8. Greg Stafford has a 15mm Roman legion and Don Dupont has a 15mm Greek army. They like to get together to duke it out, but Greg wasn't satisfied because his legionaires weren't authentically effective against Dupont's pike phalanxes using the basic Perilous Encounters system. This is a rule we developed to simulate the use of pila and franciscas, "If a figure is armed with a javelin or throwing ax, it may use that weapon to make a missile attack durinq the missile fire phase after it has contacted an enemy figure, but if it makes such a missile attack it receives no charge bonus to its melee die score in the following melee phase."

In closing, I'd like to say that the "Goon Squad" is known as the "Monster Mob" around these parts, and if you or Kevin are going to be attending DunDraCon IV, I'd certainly like to meet you face-to-face. Thanks again.

Dear Don,

I've just finished reviewing your article "Starweb Part II: Opening Moves" and my initial reaction wes "ho-hum". That is until I remembered that the article is taken out of context from your series, that this was the first official SW game and that after going through it myself several times, the opening moves (1-3 or 4) might seem routine. It is important to remember that the success of these first moves can greatly effect relative strength throughout the remainder of the game. This is a point that you illustrate well in pointing out the failure of some players to recognize that they could build and move on the first turn. I am certain that your relative success against neutral home fleets and your ability to transport RMs to your homeworld at an early turn without greatly limiting your ability to expand proved important in the later turns. The key to success in the early turns is free and non-agressive expansion. I look forward to you comments on the next and equally important stage of the game "Expansion and Diplomacy."

Dear Don,

I'm not sure I can accurately convey to you the depths of frustration I feel over the way Advanced Fighter Combat has been totally ignored. I mailed off 35 review copies and so far only Tony Adams has given any acknowlegement that the game exists. Considering the fact that his publication reaches a good solid 40 people, I can not consider the coverage sufficient at this time.

Is my memory playing tricks on me, or did I recall you saying at the Pacific Convention that I was one of the few people who continuously supplied you with review materials? Whatever the case, the fact that only one has mentioned a title I've poured my heart into over a 6 year period, is exceedingly hard to accept. While other product reviews have been slow in coming, this is the first time there appeared to be a genuine concerted effort to IGNORE ZOCCHI. Am I so blinded with designers prejudice that I can't see that this is the biggest turkey ever published and that by ignoring it, you all think you're doing me a favor?

At the moment, I suffer from the delusion that this game offers a great number of designing break-thrus which no other air game has. Because Air Foroe and Dauntless are played on hexes, there is no way that a speed loss of only 5 mph can be depicted. This is no slam intended against any designer, only an effort to point out why Advanced and Basic Fighter are played as tabletop designs and what was gained by doing so and what could be lost by following the trends taken by titles already in print.

The more G forces a plane pulls when turning the tighter it can turn. If you look at Air Power, you'll find that each aircraft turns by using an A, B, C, D, etc template, but pilots are not given the option of racking around in tighter turns, at an increased loss of energy, which is exactly what they do in real life.

To the best of my knowlege, no air game in print today, shows the exact rate of roll for each of the WWII fighters as they provide. Not only do we provide rates of roll, but you can read out speed loases to the single mile per hour, if going to all that hassel presses you.

Basic Fighter & Advanced Fighter allow aircraft to accelerate in each game turn, based on their weight to power ratio. What other game in print goes into this much detail?

A Math Saver has been provided which automatically prefigures most of the increased stall speeds for pulling any number of G forces at every altitude the aircraft could reach. What other game goes into this much detail?

The faster an aircraft flies, the larger the amount of altitude needed to make an Immelman. Sorry to say that again, I know of no other title which covers this detail.

To make a split "S" in real life, the pilot must roll the aircraft into an inverted position, chop the power and suck the stick back into his lap. Because no other game in print defines the rate of roll as precisely as we do, they can not accurately simulate this maneuver.

I've spent years learning aerodynamic formulas and play testing to assure that these games portray as accurately as possible, what really happens in Air to Air combat. What other game in print shows you how to trade off your power for zoom climbing capabilities? Messerachmitts & Mustangs by Russo, is a fine design, crafted by a knowlegable author but as good as he is and fine as his game is, the smallest element of speed his aircraft can portray is 35 mph because his little wheel in the back is what is used to gage velocity. In other words, each time the black line on that wheel comes around, you've moved 35 mph and you either move 35, 70, or 105 mph, but can not go 65, 75, 85 or 90 because the wheel is not read out that definatively.

Because I have the actual, real life stall speeds for each fighter, I was able to calculate the slowest apeed at which each of them could turn while pulling 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Gs. Those little 5 mph speed differentials become mighty important and significant when the higher mumber of G factors are being pulled. What other game in print makes this as clear as Advanced Fighter?

At the back of the rules I told how to create a campaign game and I don't recall any other tactical set of rules or tactical games which bothered. Furthermore, I went into detail on the last 7 pages of Advanced Fighter and explained every one of my formulae and how you could create additional aircraft to put into this system. What other game has gone to this extreme?

Since I've gone on for two pages telling you what'a right with Aduanced Fighter, perhaps it would have been better if instead, you told me what's wrong with it and why it's being ignored. What did I do wrong?

Believe it or not, Lou, there is no conspiracy of silence against you (at least not on our part). But, white you may be one of the few who regularly sends me review copies, there are many who eend them irregularly. I'm literally innundated with new games to review. Which is one reason I've asked Jeff Jones to help by reviewing the role-playing and related material. It seems every other gamer has become a game publisher. Probably one reason your ADVANCED FIGHTER COMBAT hasn't been reviewed yet is the relative unpopulariity of air war games (especially with me). Another reason is that I haven't even gotten around to your BASIC FIGHTER COMBAT yet. Meanwhile, perbaps your letter will serve as a "review" of sorts. DSL

Don:

After reading your cute little line from "Baretta's" theme song to my last letter, I had no intention of writing again - but, because of my last sentence in that letter, I feel obligated to write again. SPI has donated a 4-issue subscription of S&T to the library of the River Junction Correctional Institute in Chattahoochee, FL, and as a result, the library administration has agreed to pay for an extension when the 4 issues run out.

The main reason that I was so critical of SPI's callousness stems from the last 2 paragraphs of the 1st column, page 45 of S&T #46, in which the editors patted themselves on the back in front of the 28,100 subscribers of that date for their policy of sending free games to prisoners who solicit them. I knew gamers in 3 different institutions who had taken the trouble of asking for games and filling out all the required forms, then never heard from SPI.

It seemed to me that while SPI was busy bragging about their policy, and not living up to it, the smaller companies with no multi-thousand subscriber house organs, were extremely generous in their gifts which were greatly appreciated by myself and others. In closing, I would like to thank the people of SPI on behalf of the men at R.J.C.I. for the free issues of S&T.

I was not aware of the SPI policy, and you did not mention it before. I'm afraid I don't see the logic in giving away to the convicted what the law-abiding have to pay for. It seems these days that virtue is not only its own reward, but its ONLY reward. --DSL

Dear Don:

I have just received the last issue of my CAMPAIGN subscription. I do not intend to renew my subscription and I thought I would tell you why, as if my complaint is going to change the situation. I am sick and tired of reading such excessive amounts of anti-SPI material. You people are beating a dead horse. I realize that you are probably saying, "I have a right to my opinion." OK, if one does not like SPI, one does not have to play SPI games, but this anti-SPI hysteria has reached such ludicrous proportions that it implies that thone who like SPI are idiots. When one exclaims that a game is a turkey, he implies that those who like it are also turkeys. Well, this is one turkey you have lost as a subscriber.

What did I say now? -- DSL

Don,

Just a little note to clarify things. On Nov. 17, I was in a serious car accident, which has left me temporarily "crippled" due to 2 broken legs and 1 broken arm, and I shall be unable to write ANY articles for about 7 months or so (I rescind my offer to review wargames).

I figured it was best that I let you know of my predicament before my past offers tie me into something I couldn't complete. I hope you understand.

At any rate, you may be glad that you won't be getting any more extraneous articles from me and I'm sure Greenwood was tired of my half baked views on COI/SQUAD LEADER.

Being really incapacitated, reading is about the only enjoyment I get, and my CAMPAIGN is the highlight of my life.

Don't worry, Lorrin, you' ve already sent about a year's worth of articles. However, you said you only broke ONE arm... Anyway, take it easy and get well soon. DSL