Dear Don,

First let me thank you on the behalf of our co-op for the kindness and help you showed by running the feedback. While it is too early to tell the results of it, it has been helpful to us as members to get that sort of positive energy from people outside of the co-op. Thank you.

Let me also add that I thought Tyrone Bomba's review of Panzerkrieg was one of the best reviews I have ever read. It was in depth and reflected thought as well as being critical. Tyrone's point about OSG saying PK is not a "Rehash of John's old design..." and that OSG was throwing Madison Avenue "hype" is important. It is sad seeing a new company with such obvious potential and real talent ladling on the bull-shit. Ironically enough I had just finished an article for The Wargamer where I hit OSG for exactly the same thing. I guess telling the truth about something is out of date.

I also think it is good to see Tyrone being critical of PK in many places and being direct about it too. Yet he keeps it very balanced and you don't think (or so I hope!) he has an ax to grind, but was disappointed more than anything because not as many expectations were fulfilled as he expected would be. Often times the hobby is filled with reviews that are too goody tow-shoes.

Tyrone makes an interesting point about the way John Prados worked into the Kiev scenario the aspect that the Russians may only use the railroad one way. This was to subtly portray the political structure of Stalinist Russia at that time. It reminded me of a point Ian Curtis wrote an article entitled "Alternatives" (Perfidious Albion, #38). In it Ian hoped that games over a period of time would work into the very fabric of the game aspects of the nation-state that was running the war; something like national characteristics or the effects of mind like Hitler's. But instead of a "idiot factor rule" that could be easily removed or discarded, the game should reflect that factor in its core - one example that came to my mind was the portrayal of British two line fire tactics in Wellington's Victory. It is a formation that only the British units may use and it really cannot be uncoupled from the game itself. To put it another way, there are certain alternatives that the political structure of a society (or economic and the like) will forbid to its military. Often times the logical answer to a problem is a forbidden step because of the ruling powers of a nation or its very national society's structure. Of course it si a lot easier to ask for this direction and quite another for a game designer to create game rules to reflect this concept.

Finally, it was nice to see a MacGowan cover on Campaign.

Yours,
Jack Greene
Santa Barbara, CA

Mr. Lowry,

I'm afraid I'll have to take issue with Kevin Pollock's criticisms of Swords & Sorcery. Anyone familiar with the somewhat whacked-out world of science fiction fandom would have no trouble following Unamit Ahazredit, despite Mr. Pollock's distaste. Personally, I was delighted with the followers of the great ghod Corflu, with their collations and zeppelins and proselytizing. To be sure, Mr Costikyan missed a few things in their development - units should be armed with Remington Rolling Blocks and there should be a riverine counter named Courtney's Boat - but on the whole, he has captured the spirit of a fannish kingdom. As for its name - Ka-Chunk! - why that's the sound of a rex rotary turning out a Tyrannasourus Rex.

To be sure, Costikyan has produced a game laden with parodies, both of wargaming in general and of fantasy games in particular, and that's not such a bad thing. Fantasy games rooted in the S&S genre of Conan the Barbarian and similar stuff, tend to take themselves just a wee touch too seriously, and the occasional takedown - especially one done as artfully and thoroughly as Swords & Sorcery - is to be encouraged.

Sincerely,
Rich Bartucci
Saddle Brook, NJ

Yes, but is wasn't advertised as a parody, was it?! I don't know about Conan fans, but we Tolkien buffs do take our fantasy fairly seriously, and have just as much right to as WWII East Front freaks, or any other group. How would the average gamer have reacted to such lampooning had it been inserted, without prior warning, in, say, ATLANTIC WALL or NEXT WAR? But Kevin's gripe was that the game is neither fish nor fowl. If you want to do a parody, fine. Or if you want to do it straight, OK. But make up your mind, and do one or the other; they don't mix. - DSL

Don,

"Mail Call" is usually balanced and interesting. Would you consider printing a letter from Lorrin Bird Re: Armor --? Once in a while --?

Literally,
Gerry Thompson
Arleta, CA

If I get them once in a while. - DSL

Dear Mr. Lowry,

Though I rated this issue of Campaign a bit below average Campaign remains the one gaming magazine I look forward to. I echo the opinion of Bill Byron concerning "free games" to Wally Williams. Those games are not free; we pay for them, however indirectly.

Why didn't you just edit Lorrin Bird's letters into an article and pay him for it? In many ways these letters were the highlight of the issue.

George Leedom
Toledo, OH

Well, for one thing, I have to PAY for articles. Also, there wouldn't have been much of a "Mail Call" without them. Finally, I already have about a year's supply of articles from Lorrin. - DSL

Don,

In case you run my review of Brew Up in Campaign, you might like to also publish the following suggested revisions to the rulebook.

1. Brew Up, like many other wargame rules, does not allow for ricochets due to the ballistic shape (slope) of armor. In order to give tanks with greatly sloped armor the advantage they had over AFVs with similar effective thickness armor but unsloped plate, the following modifiers to the "to hit" roll should be used:

JgPzV, Panther, Hetzer, TigerII: -2
T34, Sherman, JzPz IV, M10: -1

The sherman modifier only applies to the frontal armor hits, since the flank armor was vertical (an approach similar to this can be used with other wargame rules).

2. While Brew Up does give armor penetration versus range data for various guns, it does not differentiate between low and extremely high velocity guns when it comes to accuracy. Since higher velocity guns generally have flatter shot trajectories than low velocity guns of the same size shell, thee is less guesswork involved in hitting targets and therefore a better accuracy.

The dependency of accuracy on gun type (relative velocity) can be reflacted by the following modifiers to the dice roll:

	Range
Gun Type	Short	Medium	Long
low velocity med. Velocity high velocity extremely high velocity	-1 0 0 0	-3 -1 0 0	-5 -3 -1 0

3. Since it might be somewhat unreasonable to allow a multiple shot weapon to run off two or more shots against a target that was only seen for a brief instant, only if a target was sighted for at least 40% of a turn can more than one shot be attempted by a weapon (tank or anti-tank gun).

4. The various factors that influence Russian tank guns such as lack of crew training, sighting procedures, etc., can be modeled by subtracting -1 from the rolls.

5. Since track hits were somewhat rare beyond 250 meters due to folds int eh earth, they sould be ignored beyond a one foot range.

Lorrin Bird,
Mechanicville, NY

Dear Mr. Lowry,

I was quite amused to see "The Confederate Navy, 1861-1865" article in your Campaign. Why would you reprint it from Conflict #4 without credit? At least you could have included the bibliography. I thought it was clever how you fitted the Confederate Ironclads onto pages 24 and 25 so you did not have to change the numbers from the original. What would you have commented if S.P.I. had done the same?

Sincerely,
Randall S. Sterrett
Honolulu, HI

Failing to identify the article as a reprint was an oversight. The bibliography was omitted because of considerations of space. The ironclads were not placed on pp. 24 & 25 to make the page numbers fit, but because the center spread was the most desirable place to put a layout that takes up two pages. I probably would not have commented at all if SPI had "done the same", since (a.) I can't recall when I ever commented, in print, about what SPI does in their magazine and (b.) I fail to see anything worth commenting on, pro or con. Perhaps you think we are "ripping off" SDC and their CONFLICT magazine. This seems to be your implication. If so, rest assured, we PAID SDC for the privilege of reprinting their article. Perhaps you think we're "ripping off" the readers? We polled our readers back about issue #82, on whether to reprint articles from CONFLICT: 29% approved, 40% didn't mind, 29% objected and 2% said they would not resubscribe. - DSL

Dear Don,

I was contemplating not renewing my subscription to Campaign once it ran out. However, based on the present issue and the last three, I intend to renew my subscription when the time comes for three more years.

You may have noticed that I rated #91 a "9" while giving no single article a higher rating than "8". The reason that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is that the overall effect of the issue upon me was excellent. The format of three reviews, a strategy article, and miscellaneous wargaming gossip is perfect.

While I am not a miniature's fan, Lorrin Bird's article was enjoyable reading.

Patrick Lucas,
El Cajon, CA

I am continually amazed to see the number of people who feel the need to make the overall rating relate mathematically to the individual ratings. At least one always average all the article rating to get his overall rating, exact to two decimal places. Others will rate two or three articles quite high but then give a mediocre overall rating because there were a few other articles or columns that didn't suit them. But is it really necessary that EVERY article be just your cup of tea to make the magazine worthwhile? It would seem to me that three of four articles or columns that turn you on would make any magazine enjoyable. Ah, well - to each his own. - DSL

Dear Don,

Although I have absolutely no access whatsoever to the files of the various wargaming companies (either major or minor in size), I would be willing to bet something substantial that most of the wargame devotees around the country are not on their mailing lists. No doubt fewer still subscribe to any of the industry'' periodicals, even the finest ones. In addition, for every wargamer who does subscribe (or even purchase across the counter at a local hobby store), there are probably a good half dozen gamers who borrow available copies from buddies. You have stated as much in your Campaign subscriber advertisements, and I seem to recall SPI's James Dunnigan mentioning the fact in a interview in Campaign in 1977. And, despite the fact that many of the games sold today in stores contain within them brochures and catalog sheets to encourage the purchaser to consider other company product, the percentage of those individuals who honor these mailers is undoubtedly in the single digits.

My own situation has altered radically of late, but only a year or two ago it was probably quite typical. I thoroughly enjoyed playing wargames (and had for about 5 years), but all of my purchases were through a fine hobby shop in my community. I subscribed to none of the periodicals, had never seen a "variant" let alone played one, had no idea of "errata" and "addendums", and had never even come into contact with a wargame (aside from chess and the like) that carried any other logo than that of AH or SPI. The hobby shop I frequented could be faulted for not carrying a broader inventory, but the AH and SPI games in stock didn't exactly disappear in droves either. I assume that the shop was just using its version of good business sense.

Now to the veteran wargamer reading this, I must sound like a relic better relegated to the joys of Monopoly or Chutes & Ladders. But I'd wager that every such veteran can claim to have encountered such amateurs, and that the hosts of similar ostriches are legion. In my case, however, the Age of Enlightenment dawned about a year and a half ago. Iwas sort of like what Joe Namath once said about reading defenses; one day he just walked up to the line of scrimmage and the heavens opened up for him. As for myself, it came when I stumbled across a couple of back issues of The General and Campaign in a used-book store.. I had heard of the General at least, but had never actually seen one, and so I spent literally hours pouring over the variants (wow, never thought of that) and the game replays (boy, that's a dynamite opening move).

Yet, in some ways the Campaign issues were far more enthralling. I saw in those back issues advertisements and articles on wargames and companies I had never known existed. The writing covered a wide spectrum of wargaming topics and suddenly I found myself making notes of all of the addresses and games of interest.

Since those early Dark Ages, I have become far more knowledgeable regarding the broad parameters of the wargaming hobby. I have added games to my collection that I value and play with equal regularity ot the more common AH and SPI titles. Just as importantly, I have learned to consider the rules and situations which accompany a wargame as just the beginning of the possibilities inherent in a game's design. Some of the variants and suggestions brought forth in magazine articles have now become all but standard features in my play (especially solitaire), and older games have had new life breathed into them.

The subscriptions and individual purchases of the wargaming magazines have meant as much, if not more, to me than the new games themselves. Reading these periodicals has given me a greater sense of being a part of an international hobby consisting of people who play and analyse the same games that I do. And for one who plays wargames predominantly solitaire, I enjoy the perspectives that people can bring to the games which I might never have considered alone. While I intend to try mightily to make it to ORIGINS V this June, I can at least relish the knowledge that, even if attendance on my part is not feasible, I will be able to read about it and get firsthand impressions of it through the industry magazines. Even though I have no great desire to participate in the competition, I can drool at the prospect of seeing new products and an entire area devoted to just the hobby itself.

My guess is that there are thousands of closet wargamers in this country who have only marginally discovered the enjoyments of the hobby. Aside from a massive (and prohibitively expensive) advertising campaign on the part of the companies and the publishers, there may not be a great deal that they can do to promote the hobby beyond what is already being done. Perhaps observations such as this one may help somewhat,, although anyone reading this is probably into wargaming beyond the point where he or she needs much convincing. On the outside chance, though, that a fledgling like myself may happen across this piece by chance, I'd like to add that the level of enjoyment wargaimng provides can be maximized substantially by regular reading of magazines just like this one.

Thanks for everything!
Terry Alan Maney
Post College
Waterbury, CT