DEAR SIRS:

I just finished mailing a letter to you inquiring about the whereabouts of my subscription to CONFLICT. Please ignore that inquiry, because today I received my first two copies of CONFLICT, and incidentally, I am very pleased with that magazine.

I also subscribe to S & T, and I find the personal touch and humor of CONFLICT refreshing, and the games look very interesting indeed. I look forward to great things from you in the future. Thank you and good luck.

Yours very truly, OFFICER CADET J.M. DONNELLY Victoria, B.C. Canada

DEAR SIR:

I have been actively involved in wargames for about 5 years and while I am no expert, I am familiar with the boardgaming and diplomacy facets of the hobby. I realize you aren't mapboard oriented (your first issue seems to indicate this) but do you feel that your readers are so infatuated with naval aspects that you should devote 50% of your articles to this sphere? I may be wrong but with the exception of a salt water fanatic most wargamers are interested in land actions and only secondly do they consider the high seas. I can support this position by pointing to polls taken by "International Wargamer", "The General", and "Panzerfaust".

The best part of the issue was the Diplomacy Cookbook. I would like to see this continue as a regular feature. The JUTLAND variants were good and the rest is of questionable value especially the Japanese Navy article.

All and all you have a good mag but it needs more diversity in each issue. You can really compete with "International Wargamer" and some local mags but you're half step behind the "General" and miles behind "S & T" & "Panzerfaust".

Very truly yours, Mike Clinton Helena, Montana

DEAR CLOWNS,

Congratulations on CONFLICT #2 -- It arrived, but just. Please! -- Use a stronger mailing envelope! Everything fell out when I picked up the envelope -- the same thing happened with #1. (I have no problem with S & T).

'Guerre a Outrance" is an excellent game. I'm an armour buff -- I would like a regular diet of tactical armoured games, including modern tank warfare.

'Diplomacy Cook Book' -- it alone is worth the price of the subscription.

Yours truly, R.S. Johnson Calgary, Canada

DEAR SIRS:

What in the heck is going on! I send for a bimonthly magazine for $8.00, get one issue and don't hear from you guys again after that. I wish you guys would get on the ball and get out your second issue. I mean, after all, it's been about four months since the first issue.

Now, on a kinder note, I want to compliment you on your first issue. It's great. The main article "1940 Campaign in France -- The Armoured Forces" was an excellent article. It was well written, easy to understand and very informative. The Organizational charts are considerably better than S & T's, mainly because of the longer, more detailed explanation accompanying each one. The armor sillouettes are also very much better than S & T's, mainly because of the larger size and more attention to detail. The Jutland variants sounded interesting. However, I can't really make any comments about them since I don't play Jutland.

The Japanese Navy article is another outstanding feature. It is a unique idea and as far as I can tell, it was very well handled.

Finally, your game was very good. Panzerblitz should have been designed in this way. Your game is considerably more accurate as well as being quite unique. However, I quickly discovered the lopsided advantages the Allies have. Unless the German player is a genius or the Allied player is a total idiot, the Germans cannot win. I feel that while the game itself is sound, the situation is not. A similar game on a more evenly balanced period of the war, would, I feel, be very interesting.

Your rules leave something to be desired, however. They are poorly written from the standpoint that they are not detailed enough and demand a considerable amount of previous experience to be understood. One point which I feel should be included, but was not, is close-assult tactics. Infantry should have some way of disabling armored vehicles.

I am anxiously awaiting your second issue.

Yours very truly, ROGER GRIFFIN, Gary, IN.

Your Honor:

I plead guilty to my second offense of not waiting just one more day before zipping off a complaint about not receiving merchandise ordered. I introduced myself to Simulations Publications with a letter complaining about my first order from them that was late in arriving; it arrived the day after I mailed the letter. Remembering this, I held my complaint to Simulations Design a full day - it didn't arrive the next day - I mailed it yesterday CONFLICT #1 arrived today. (How about "allow 8 weeks for delivery").

I am very impressed with #1; I say this even though I've had only 10 minutes to look it over. Your 1940: Campaign In France article/series looks to be a gem.

As to the 'Guerre 'a Outrance' game, it seems extremely interesting. However, the rules can be extremely confusing. It is good that you are eliminating redundancy in rules. But the important areas could have had a little more to it. After you or some other publication clears up any ambiguities, this should be one of the better games.

Respectfully yours, Robert G. Stalnaker

Dear Sir:

I have just received my first issue of your new magazine: It is excellent, showing superior layout and construction. The cutting on the counters is better than I have ever received from even AH.

I am very impressed and pleased with your use of charts and tables. One little point, try to avoid tables, etc. for games overlapping or crossing over the fold, I like to photostat all game parts. Keep up the superlative work.

Sincerely, G. N. Kemp

To Who Ever Cares:

I just received CONFLICT #2 and thought that I would let you have some feed-back. First some personal data: I am 27 years old; single; an Army vet; a political science major graduate of Pepperdine University; and am a computer operator for the B of A: I have been a wargamer since high school; I have all A -- H games plus S & T; most of my wargaming is of a solitaire nature: last but not least, I am most happy to see another magazine with sense get into the field.

Now for some ideas and criticisms of CONFLICT:

1. If you are going to expand your game offerings, why not adopt Bankamericard payments? It would make ordering a lot easier.

2. Games -- I am glad to see that you are not hung up on WWII; Why not develop STRATEGIC games which could be played on two levels; (a) the 'big' game could be used as a control game that would lead to different battle games (WWII game would have battle games for Stalingrad, D -- Day, Moscow, etc; Civil War game would use Gettysburg, Chancellorsville, etc; Napolean game would use Waterloo, Leipzig, Borodino, etc.) (b) the 'big' games could be played on their own without resorting to the battle games.

3. Conflict The magazine needs to be better organized in a standard format (keep all charts, maps, narrative, etc. together for each article); why not have a regular column on minatures? Keep up the many Variants, in fact why not develop Variant pamphlets on different games?

Well, that is a group of quick off-the-head ideas that I thought you might want to read. Keep up the good work.

Yours, Dale C. Murdough

Dear Yo-Ho's,

I received the second edition of Conflict the other day much to my surprise. I, like others it seems, presumed you had died. But it was pleasing indeed to find you were merely dormant.

The nicest surprise was that the envelope of issue #2 was intact upon arrival. The first one simply did not stand up to a trans-continental trip as provided by the Postal Authorities. When I reached into my mail box, I (ound most of the pieces lining the bottom of the box (the best job of die-cutting I've ever seen). There were a few Somuas lining the frontal Promenade and bower and perhaps a trail a la Theseus leading back to San Diego.

The letter from reader Dennis Sustare summed up most of my disappointments with Outrance's rules -the worst set I've ever seen (rom the standpoint of clarity (minsicule) and organization (lacking).

Yet a few things more need be mentioned viz:

1) Infantry is useless since it can't attack tanks, there being no provision for "close assault".

2) You don't even define what a "sum" is, thus confusing the HE rule which states HE is used (or 5 turns, yet fire occurs after each movement phase, so is HE fired 5 times or ten times in 5 turns?

3) You also have a case of an irresistible force, 81 rnm mortar, meeting an irresistible object, type C armor. The rules state "mortar fire always uses column A on the combat wheel". Yet "no German gun can penetrate C armor on Allied tanks. Since I do know that a mortar is not a gun, but in other ways am not an expert armorer, I find myself in a quandry and like Robert Benchley's it is growing.

I liked the Outrance maps and prefer them to Panzerblitz even if they aren't mounted. The Minuteman board is merely utilitarian, however. The counters to both Minuteman and Outrance are superior to S & T's with the Outrance tank counters being the best in war game history, bar none. The inside art work is adequate, it seems hazy at times and the print isn't always straight, but it is 99 44/100% readable.

Keep the variants coming. I enjoy messing with rules and OB's so this feature is fascinating, particularly when included are new counters like in issue #1.

In general Conflict is an outstanding effort and though there exists myriad areas (all) for improvment, it is still cheap at twice the price -- but don't get any ideas.

One of your all too few subscribers, Richard Browne

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com