I will be unable to attend this year's Origins in Ft. Worth, Texas owing largely to the distances involved and the July 4th weekend. I read with considerable interest your comments regarding the future of the Origins conventions in Operations #8. My own experience (since 1980) has been that the most successful Origins were those held in Baltimore in conjunction with Atlanticon. The 1991 Origins, for example, was quite good. I would hate to see Origins topple because of dissatisfaction among the publishers and hobbyists.

I suppose I am one of those gamers who does not equate successful conventions with game and tournament play. I play largely solitaire (except when I can manage a local opponent or two on a weekend), and value the conventions for reasons that go beyond competitive play. For me, the conventions are best described as "enthusiasm boosters" for my involvement in the hobby. I've been playing games since my high school days (early 1960's and the era of D-Day, Afrika Korps, and Gettysburg), and have maintained a largely solitaire enjoyment of the designs for about 30 years. The conventions provide me with an occasional reminder that I am not alone in this hobby. I find it absolutely thrilling simply to be in the midst of so many fellow enthusiasts who have such an obvious love for the play, study, discussion, and collection of the games, magazines, etc. My favorite locations at the conventions are the dealers' area and the seminars. I fear that the more competitive-styled gathers (Avaloncon and, perhaps, the "retreat" that you are promoting in September) will gradually siphon off the attendance at larger affairs such as Origins or Atlanticon. The larger gatherings are (for me, at least) an "event" that "restarts my engine" whenever I am able to attend.

I quite agree, however, that the combined Gen Con/Origins gatherings are questionable. My last such attendance at one of these occurred in 1988 in Milwaukee. I was shocked and dismayed at the rather cavalier treatment accorded the "historical gaming" side of the hobby. I certainly don't mind the FRP/Sci-fi arm of the hobby (although I don't have any interest in it), and enjoy seeing anyone delve into their hobby as do their devotees. But when I attend a "wargaming convention," I expect to see board-wargaming have a reasonable presence. Unfortunately, the Gen Con/Origins combinations do not provide it.

I had hoped to at least attend Atlanticon this June, but academic involvements will prevent me from doing so. I hope to attend next year's Atlaticon (1994), assuming that Origins is again at a distant location for me. I certainly will attend Origins 1995, which, I believe, maybe back in the Baltimore Convention Center. Of course, it is anyone's guess as to whether or not Origins will survive the coming years.

I fully intend to remain an active consumer, player, and hobby devotee for another 30 years or so (although I'm into reading glasses now at 46!) I realize that I may have to do so without attending future conventions. Still, I did not enter the hobby in an era of conventions and my interest in the hobby will not wane should the conventions pass.

So long as I have access to enjoyable games, periodicals, and fellow enthusiasts, I will continue to have a good time.

Dear Gamers,

Enclosed is an additional $5.00 for your most recent prepublication offer.

I'm not in the game publishing business and do not know the ins and outs of game manufacturing. But, it seems to me your return of my pre-publication order for a mere $5.00 is not a sound business practice. Is there a sound business reason for limiting the prepublication offer to the first 250? If so, perhaps you should consider devoting a few paragraphs in Operations for an explanation. [Ed. Note: Sure will, see below.]

My initial reaction to my returned check was "screw it." If my $55 wasn't enough for you, I'll support my local store and buy the game there. Most likely, I'd only buy the Afrika game then, as my interests in Napoleonic games is rather low. Will The Gamers be better off financially by accepting my initial $55 directly, regardless of how many others ordered the two games, or will your results be better after my purchase of only one game through a retailer?

Financial considerations aside, isn't your return of my order, and probably others, unusual for a company which leads the industry in service and public relations? And, for only $5.00?

You may think either question is moot as I am sending an additional $5. However, this $5 allows me to add my own two cents.

We don't get many letters like Mr. Alsen's. His brings up a number of important points which I'm sure he (and others) would like me to address.

Pre-pubs are one part of the equation which makes this company work. They provide cash when it is needed to pay off bills that come due about the time the game goes out the door. At that point, the distributor payments are at least a month away.

We allow 250 copies to go out pre-pub (a point Mr. Alsen and others are painfully aware of as we had to send some orders back this time--for the first time, I might add). We have done this since the very beginning for one simple reason. We are not in the business of competing with our retailers for your dollars. To do so would encourage retail outlets to dump our line (or at least buy minimally) and they would be perfectly justified in doing so. We drew the line to protect them (and the many sales they give us) and we will stick to it.

While we might sell 250 copies pre-pub, our distributors move something like 1,800 to 2,000 (2,500 in the case of Afrika!) in the first couple of weeks of a game's life. The funds those sales generate are what drives the engine here. We use the pre-pub money to take the edge off of some of the early production bills. The distributor invoices provide us the money we survive on.

If we were out for the quick buck, we would try to sell as many pre-pubs as we could lay our hands on. However, we try to think long term. The growth of our distribution and retail markets by the consistent good-will we try to show by not taking advantage of our ability to sell lots of games by pre-pub, will pay off inuch more over time.

In any event, we decidedly do not returnpre-pubs to "try to get the additional $5." We hold the line to protect our retailers (the guys in the trenches) and, hence, protect our long term growth.

Besides enclosing my votes for your games list, I wanted to comment on a certain trend that is happening in the industry. I believe this trend has a lot to do with our (the players) discontentment than with loyalty induced bias. While reacquainting myself with the hobby, I have purchased many updated and new games. While I am pleased with most of my purchases, I have come across a few companies whom I have no desire to ever purchase another title from. I have also found a few game stores I will no longer support. Most of this has to do with the fact that I purchase historical wargames and not the role playing or expensive "module" games. By "module", I refer to those games that the first game is required to play the next, and the next is required to play the one after that. Though I am a customer of these people, their interest is obviously in the "money maker" category. As a customer, I cannot understand why I am so poorly treated by these people. After all, I am removing "dead stock" from their shelves, so that they may restock all of their favorites.

The articles written by Dave Powell and yourself about the industry have proved enlightening, yet they do lack the perspective of the customer. This is not intended as an insult. I would like to point out a few things that I the customer, look for when purchasing a game today. My five criteria are:

1) Production quality: AH pieces included (maps, counters, rules, etc.) are legible, properly cut, and capable of standing "normal" usage.

2) Rules clarity: The rules are easy to understand and legible, without tons of errata.

3) Playability: Can the game be played repeatedly with differing results? There is nothing worse for a game than to have only one way to win it.

4) Customer support: Will I get any questions or problems resolved without hassles?

5) Company philosophy: What direction is the manufacturer heading? Will they support this product after release, or dump it?

These points help me pick the games that my friends and I will enjoy, while providing the best value for our hard-earned money. My belief is that if a company does not want to support their product, then they don't want my money. This is exemplified by my local game store. The employees there have decided that role playing games are "it." My type of gamer is made to feel very unwelcome and fewer and fewer of the historical wargame products are carried. This includes magazines, blank die-cut counters, blank hex sheets, and storage trays for counters. Since their "money" is tied up in role playing games, I'll mail order for my games. This attitude is rampant among the larger game companies. I feel (arid I'm sure other gamers do, too) that the smaller specialized manufacturers give me the best value for my hardwon dollar. Of course, there are always a few who do not live up to that expectation. As FGA-Rampart is proving, the dedicated gamer will not blindly stand by.

A good product with excellent support will win out every time.

The hobby has an embarrassment of riches. There are so many good games out that they overshadow each other.

Example: In 1992 we got Bloody Roads South. But then a summertime two-pack of Eastern Front games from The Gamers came along and distracted us. Now, it doesn't seem BRS is getting the attention it deserves.

This year, we got the "double-A battery," Afrika and Austerlitz simultaneously. Cripes, I haven't even punched my copy of Austerlitz yet, being so absorbed by Afrika. But I predict that the NBS game will be more talked about, once everyone gets around to it. Look at how long it took the hobby press to digest Guderian's Blitzkrieg.

Speaking of Guderian, I'm still a bit stunned that Stalingrad Pocket beat it for best WW2 board game. Sure, SP was a solid game, but GB is outstanding. With its good historicity and excellent replay value, Stalingrad deserves its popularity, but it also needed a dose of Okmed D'Ivad's pet peeve--post publication development. Nevertheless, the game gained its following before Dean repaired the victory conditions.

Blame the CSR ballot for not letting us weight our first second, and third choices in each category. I voted for BRS, Lee's Greatest Gamble, and SPQR (in that order of preference) for best pre-WW2 game. Likewise, I went for both GB and SP (along with Victory in Normandy) --one each of small, medium, and large--in their category. Funny how I ended up voting down my personal favorites.

These results helped put the Charlies in perspective: I'm not really to be talked out of my opinions by vox populi. The good news is that voting went a bit askew (as I see it) because of an overabundance of good games, and not a lack.

I've recently bought a few back issues of yours. In perusing a few articles on Civil War tactics, I've come across the recurring method of attacking in a succession of lines.

Now a brigade advancing with a second brigade behind it in support is an easy tactic to reflect in your CWB games, yet what about brigades attacking side by side in regimental lines (i.e. Operations #5, page 5 fig 2).The distance between the first and second lines would be unchanged, therefore needing two hexes to deploy a brigade in regimental echelon.

So how about using "extended line" markers to deploy a brigade in two lines? Your extended line rules have been clearly explained in Q&A as not restricting a brigade when it comes to deploying into extended lines. They are there to make sure no ambiguity exists between the extended line and its parent. By placing an extended line marker either in front or behind a unit (again with the arrow identifying the parent), and ignoring the extended line marker's depiction of facing (the parent gives the true facing of the formation), no additional rules need be modified, except (perhaps) that a brigade must retreat back into the hex containing the extended line should it be forced to retreat.

Anyway, maybe the suggestion has already been made to you, or its already part of the system and has escaped my understanding. (Napoleonics is my true fascination, yet The Gamers are single handedly responsible for my new passion in Civil War history.)

I look forward to the next Operations and future wonderful games.