There is a problem in the hobby, one that we all face. With the tremendous number of games out there, it is difficult to find someone to play with who's played the same game twice! As a member and past president of AHIKS, the international play-by-mail organization (shameless plug there), I've seen the play go from matches between two good players, knowledgeable about the rules and strategies of the game, to matches between people just wanting to learn the game! That's how I'm learning Sixth Fleet and how I learned and reviewed Vietnam.

(A slight aside: AHIKS's most requested games, however, continue to be the AH Classics: Stalingrad, The Russian Campaign, etc., and you're up against experts in those!).

A corollary to this problem is the overall decrease in players out there. In my tenure as AHIKS's president, I saw the number of members in AHIKS dwindle tremendously. Among the officers, it was generally accepted that younger people were not getting into the hobby for several reasons.

First is the proliferation of video /computer games - why worry about tracking down an opponent when you can sit down at your convenience, be it day or night, and play. The games are fairly easy to pick up and much less hazardous to one's self-image ("You mean you lost Moscow in August, '41?? Nobody loses Moscow that early! You must really be dumb!").

The second reason is the proliferation of role-playing games. Call it what you want - acting out your fantasies, whatever - the RPG's get a lot of play. And in my experience, there are few people who play both board games and RPGs regularly. This is especially true of the younger kids.

Another reason that there are fewer players out there has been put forth extensively in other publications - notably Fire & Movement. This is the view that there are not enough "beginning wargames" being published. And to a certain extent, they are correct - it is difficult to interest someone in wargaming if they start out with one of the multitude of monsters out there. Imagine, if you will, getting someone involved in a friendly game of Vietnam, for example!

But there is a point here that needs to be made. It is easy to blame the dwindling numbers of gamers on the game publishers for not bringing out more "beginning wargames." However, it is my view (and experience) that ANY strategic game that can be played reasonably well solitaire can be used as a beginning wargame. Face it, when you're playing a beginner, you'll be playing solitaire anyway, right?? At least, until he/ she grasps the rules and basic strategies of the game.

But he/she will not remain interested unless we do our job as teachers!

We have to be able to both teach a beginner the game and keep him enthused and interested enough to continue. If we fail at this, we've lost a gamer.

Good Example

Here's a good example. A guy I know wanted to get his wife interested in wargaming. So he talked her into playing AH's Panzerblitz with him. (I know, I know, there are much better games to start out with, but read on ... ). I can't remember the exact scenario, but it was basically a German defensive position being assaulted by the Soviets. Guess which side he took? The Germans. (Already I can see you cringe).

After setting up, he invited her to move. "What do I do?" she asked. "Attack me," he replied. When that didn't completely sink in, he continued, "Move your pieces up so they can shoot at me." So she did. After all her pieces had moved, he took his turn, taking great delight (reportedly with excellent sound effects as well) in blasting everything he could see.

When at last the slaughter was over, he leaned back and motioned at her. "Your turn." She started moving all her units rearward. Stopping her, he asked, "What are you doing?" "I'm going home," she stated flatly. "This is no fun." End of game. End of gaming interest.

Sure, he was being really dumb. But that will happen if competition - proving your "superior" tactical and / or strategic skills is more important than teaching someone that games can be fun, exciting, educational and challenging. Competition has to be put aside until the beginner has grasped the idea. This is where "solitaire" games come into play. You make your moves, then you basically make his/her move, explaining what you're doing and why. A couple turns and you can let them make the initial moves and talk about them. ("No, if you move there, that leaves this gap that I can move through .... ) You get my point. Getting new players involved is less a function of "no beginning games" as it is a function of our attitude toward gaming.

This Issue

Before I tell you about what we've got for you this issue, a word of explanation/warning about terminology. Our lead article/ game concerns the Civil War. As with many wars, both sides had their own names for battles. Antietam/Sharpsburg, Manassas/ Bull Run, Pea Ridge/Elkhorn Tavern are good examples. Even the campaigns have varying names. Lee's 1862 invasion of Maryland has been called Lee's First invasion, the Maryland Campaign, the Antietam Campaign, the Sharpsburg Campaign, and the Green Corn Campaign (for the staple of Confederate diets on the march).

It gets worse. Did you know that there are at least 30 different names for the entire Civil War?? (War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance, etc.) With this proliferation of names, writers will choose whichever one they are most familiar with, which leaves us editors in a quandary of sorts. Which names do we use? Adding to the fun is the fact that I'm most familiar with the Northern names while Mike (a good ol' southern boy from Alabama) favors the Southern terminology. It's an editorial puzzle that we're still working on. Bear with us.

Our lead article on the Maryland Campaign is written by Dr. Thomas Izbicki, a history professor currently working at the Ablah Library at Wichita State University. His emphasis on leadership, including his sidebar on General G. S. Greene, will add a good angle on the entire invasion. Lee Invades the North game codesigner Rob Markham adds some thoughts on the game design and the units involved, while his partner Mark Seaman gives us a capsule version of Lee's second invasion in 1863.

Our second lead deserves a bit of explanation. I've included my own article on the Naval War in the Mediterranean for a couple reasons.

First, it's a good piece (blush ... ).

Second, it lets me spotlight three highly talented individuals in our hobby: Jack Greene (Quarterdeck games, Royal Navy, Destroyer Captain) and Vance von Borries (Decision at Kasserine, Rommel's War) who barely need introductions, and Martin Anderson, who does. Martin designed T.H.E game on the Mediterranean theater, entitled appropriately The Mediterraean Campaign. This game has been released in Japan and hopefully will see publication in the rest of the world. Having developed it for Mr. Greene, I can tell you it's an outstanding piece of work. Between the four of us, and all the overseas contacts we've made in years of study, you should get an excellent view of that much neglected theater of operations.

The third and final reason for including it stems from the fact that it's better to show someone than to tell them. Last editorial, I told you what I was looking for in articles for CounterAttack. My article in this issue will show you, even to the point of Martin's disagreement about the importance of Malta. I'll look forward to your feedback.

Enjoy.