I am not much of a write-a-letter-to-the-game-company sort of person, but having, within the past three months, received copies of Stalingrad Pocket, Guderian's Blitzkrieg, Matanikau, GD'40, and Austerlitz, I thought I'd write to say how much I appreciate The Gamers' business philosophy.

Mashahiro Yamazaki, designer of Stalingrad Pocket, at Origins '94.

The Gamers have a well-deserved reputation for publishing solid, enjoyable titles, strong graphically with game systems that never fail to be both innovative and soundly designed. While I don't care for some of the games-Guderian's Blitzkrieg is too complex and the CWB-NBS is too much of a tactical hybrid (that is, by trying to cover both regimental and brigade-level tactical niceties. it ends up doing neither well)-what I find most admirable is your willingness to accept criticism and learn from it to produce better games.

I work with Richard Berg and am a contributor to Berg's Review of Games (I was the reviewer for Omaha) and in that capacity I have been able to watch the Tactical and Standard Combat Systems evolve from the appealing, yet imperfect, designs of Bloody 110 and Stalingrad Pocket into the vastly improved Matanikau/(GD'40 and Afrika/Ardennes, along the way fixing the Tactical system's cumbersome artillery rules and sharpening the Standard system's Combat and Supply sections. This is refreshingly different from the philosophy of some companies, which seems to be, "This is a great game and if you don't like it, it's your fault for being so closedminded."

Your customer support is also a pleasant surprise. Games published on time, replacement parts (i.e. spare maps and counters) mailed out quickly and efficiently, errata and variants readily available. and timely responses to rules questions all add up to a superior level of customer service, another rare trait in the gaming business these days. The result of all this is confidence that a Gamers' title will be well worth your money a feeling that has largely been missing since the good old days of SPI. So, again, my compliments on creating and maintaining The Gainers' reputation its a customer-oriented game company. I wish you continued success.

(Ed. Note: Typically we do not print the sort of "Atta-Boy" letter Mr. Fox has sent. I made an exception in this case clue to his standing in the industry (it large and because of some empty-headed chatter heard on one of the computer nets which placed customer-service (is a "weakness" shown by companies who "had" to do it--in other words, "if the games were any good, they wouldn't need to support them like this: they'd treat us like trash like everyone else." Oh. Really? What a great plan ...)

Marine Corps Training

I just wanted to let you know how I've incorporated your games into some of our training in the Marine Corps. I work at the Marine Corps Institute, in our nation's capitol, developing correspondence courses for our men and women in uniform. Working in an office five days a week can become monotonous, especially for a grunt like me. To help brek the monotony, I organized professional military education classes for my department.

Fridays are usually slow days here because we all have to work in the evening as part of the Friday Evening Parade at Marine Barracks, 8th & I. So every Friday, I get the three troops that work in my office together for classes. We started out with classes on military history--Khe Sahn, the Easter Offensive, Guadalcanal, Waterloo, USS Constitution, D-Day, and so on. After a couple of weeks. I decided the best way for my Marines to learn about battles, strategy, and tactics was to have them play the battles out.

First, I had to decide which game to bring in. It had to be relatively simple because none of my Marines had ever played a wargame before. The time period had to be fairly recent so they could relate to the weapons and tactics used. It had to be short (four hours or less). And, it had to have something to arouse their interest. I finally decided on Matanikau. Why didn't I start out with a simpler SCS game? The SCS games have a larger unit scale and I didn't think my Corporals and Lance Corporals would relate well to that scale. Ideally, a squad level game would be appropriate. The TCS was closest to it. Besides, I would handle most of the game mechanics as referee-gamemaster. The players could concentrate on sound tactics. Plus, Matanikau, involving Marines, really aroused their interest.

The first game pitted my Lance Corporal, as the Americans, against my two Corporals, as the Japanese, in the Tank Assault scenario. Right off the bat, the half-track 75s wrecked a couple of tanks and the American artillery started pulverizing the Japanese infantry. They kept coming but by turn three it was over. The few American losses were caused by their own artillery fires and some Banzai charges. The Japanese had one infantry battalion destroyed and lost all but one tank. The Corporals conceded. My Lance Corporal was gloating. He said he was ready to take me on next time. The Corporals complained about the game balance, but they were hooked. They all enjoyed it and started looking forward to next week's match.

That next week, we played the Kelly's Heroes scenario with the Lance Corporal as the Japanese this time. After three hours of play, the Americans were forced to conduct an amphibious withdrawal to save what was left of the battalion. The Japanese lost heavily in some last-minute attempts to prevent the withdrawal, but had clearly won. Again, the Lance Corporal was talking trash and the Corporals complained about the play balance (Chesty Puller defeated, never!).

We are continuing to play our Friday matches. Marines from other departments are asking to get in on the action. I've brought in Objective: Schmidt and GD'40. The troops don't seem to mind that there are only army dogs [Ed. Note: Hey!) in those games (but they do seem to root for the Germans). It was surprising to see how quickly these rookies picked up on the game rules and mechanics. I didn't explain anything to them. We just dove into it with me handling all the game mechanics and telling them what they could or couldn't do. But, by the end of the first session, they were resolving fires and assaults by themselves.

So, my troops are learning military history, practicing small unit and combined arms tactics, and providing me with new recruits to the gaming community. And having fun at the same time. What more could I ask for?

[Ed. Note: We could all take a lesson from Staff Sergeant Chacon's teaching of beginners--the last thing you want to do to a beginner is what happens all too often--the vets ignore the new guy and then, eventually, toss him a copy of the rulebook to figure out for himself. Simpleton games made to bore my five year-old will not turn on a new guy nearly as much as a real wargame he can ease himself into under the guidance of an old pro as in the above. Try it sometimes. It works and you'll never be short of opponents again.]

Authors with second thoughts OR Someone made a Booboo Dept.:

Turn 17 Soviet Reinforcements: 1x Tank Bde, 1x 12-3-2 Inf Div (249), 2x 10-2-1 Inf Div (358, 362), 1 x 8-1-1 Inf Div 179)

Dirk Blenemann and Elisabeth Schneider at the MiH booth at Origins '94.

Since the time I originally submitted the article, I've done some further playtesting and refining on the CWB Random Events tables that appeared in OPS # 13. Players should note these changes if they plan to use the tables for August Fury, Barren Victory, or EAW.

August Fury: Evans can only take command of a Right Wing Division led by Hood, Kemper, or a Repl Leader. Also, Evans' command value should be a 1.

Barren Victory: The "Rosecrans' Map" result has been changed; ignore the column shift for orders already issued. Instead, when this event occurs, Rosecrans is prohibited from issuing orders that turn.

The "D.H. Hill Resurgent" result needs to be better explained. The Confederate player may choose the three-wing option only on a turn when this result is rolled. He must currently meet all the conditions for breaking the army into wings (i.e. Longstreet must be on the map). Thus, the Confederates may not hold the "D.H. Hill Resurgent" result in reserve for later use.

Here's a further BV variant, one that makes use of the Hardee counter included in the Christmas 1992 countersheet. At a cost of 3 VPs, the Confederate player can place Hardee in charge of H Corps instead of Hill. Hardee was originally an Army of Tennessee corps commander who had been sent to Mississippi to reconstitute Pemberton's post-Vicksburg army; D.H. Hill came out from the Carolinas to take his place. When Hardee is a corps commander, the Confederate player can automatically choose the three-wing alignment after Longstreet arrives, and the "D.H. Hill Resurgent" event is ignored.

EAW: When using the Random Event Table in place of the Hood Addiction Table, the Confederate player must also roll a die for Hood every Command Phase. On a 1 or 2, Hood may not issue any orders that turn. This roll brings the Random Event Table closer to the probabilities of the Hood Addiction Table, in terms of hamstringing Hood's ability to command the star-crossed Army of Tennessee without being driven to suicide. And yes, I know it's unlucky to cross the Goddess of Probability-or at least the editor of this journal !!

(Ed. Note: Gee:, try to give the Rebs something to hope for...something to lighten the load ... something to spice up play...)