Dear Editor:
To publish an unfavorable review is, of course, your privilege. However, to publish one that has factual errors, opinions presented as facts and outright slander is irresponsible.
The errors start off right away with the title block. The game was released in 1982, not 1983 and the retail price is $14.00 not $16.00. The reviewer states that this game has no solitaire suitability. If this is so, it makes our game unique among all two- player war games. I have never seen a game that could not be played solitaire, except for the new double-blinds. This kind of opinionated inaccuracy sets the tone for the whole review.
First it is necessary to note to your readers that this is the third game out on the subject and that both Fire & Movement and The Journal of Twentieth Century Wargaming gave it favorable reviews, calling it the best on the subject.
The reviewer states the components are "not very good" andyet the box and map art are comparable to any produced at the same time and the counters are considerably better. They axe back printed in three colors and axe lacquered. Each plane and ship has an accurate silhouette and the land counters have standard unit symbols, yet they are "about as interesting as the unit designators on a military map." Someone ought to tell this reviewer that standard military symbols are what most companies DO usel I have several letters from gamers saying the counters were "fantastic." One wonders how many war games this reviewer has actually played (or looked at for that matter) when statements like this are made.
The rules are constantly slammed through the article for "oversimplification" and "lack of realism" yet there is not one example of these hideous crimes. Then a truly strange statement is made. "Although the rule book is twelve pages, there are only six pages of rules." The rest, we are told, are merely explanations of the sequence of play. Besides the fact that this is not wholly accurate, someone ought to tell this guy that explanations of the sequence of play ARE rules!
Appropriately enough, the sequence of play is the next item to come under attack. Specifically, the reviewer did not like the naval sequence which has two phases for which there Is "little reason," the submarine movement. No Mr. Davis, they were not included for "ease of play" but to allow the submarines to react to enemy surface movement.
Naval stacking is the next item under the gun. The stacking limit was put at six ships for several reasons. First, despite our naval expert's opinion, most modern fleets don't steam around all crammed together. Second, since many ships in the game axe carrying cargo that goes under the unit itself, tall stacks became a problem. Third, since all naval combat is conducted adjacent or at two hex range to the enemy, the six ship limit was no detriment to realistic combat.
I have been a rated officer in the U.S. Air Force for over ten years. I only state this so that my expertise in the next area is recognized. The reviewer believes that an air field could combat launch more than three squadrons of aircraft over a two day period. He has never seen what a hassle it is to maintain, repair and launch aircraft on a combat mission, especially older, more breakdown prone aircraft like the A-4. The three unit limit is there for just such a reason. No air force can have all their aircraft in the air at one time. The maintenance, support and flight crews are just not available.
Then we are criticized for having errata that don't correct all the horrible "problems" the reviewer thinks the game possesses. Your readers may be interested to note that the errata corrects only two things that should have been done at publication time. One rule that was mistakenly omitted is put in and the naval order of battle is updated because the British were not releasing anything at the time. Everything else in the errata are extra rules added not to correct or clarify but to make the game even more fun than before. The so called "problems" the reviewer thinks should be corrected are not really problems at aA but his opinions of the rules as written. That is the basic problem with this whole review, Mr. Davis wants this game designed the way he would have designed it not the way I did. A reviewer is supposed to evaluate a game according to the designer's intentions not the reviewer's.
Thank you for this opportunity to make my case. I would like to impress upon your readers that I am not taking issue with this review because I am afraid of losing money. The game paid for itself long ago. Rather I felt that the review was blatantly unfair and had to be addressed in that context.
Thanks for the corrections on the release date and the price. Mike Davis has reviewed other Products for GAME NEWS He is a senior in college and has been a wargamer for almost ten years. -Editor
Back to Table of Contents -- Game News #10
To Game News List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1985 by Dana Lombardy.
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