Twice now the Spring issue of Operations has carried the results of Dean's dead-reckoning industry survey. So you may be surprised when you don't see the same feature this year. Response to the survey, and especially the market share ranking of game publishers, elicited much waiting and gnashing of teeth. Not from you, gentle reader, but from some industry insiders. I didn't catch any of the incoming mail aimed at Homer, but I did read Chris Perello's response to the survey in Command 28.

Chris makes two entirely correct observations: the survey draws on distributor information and so fails to account for XTR's subscription revenue, and the estimates of revenue from wargames per se involve "wild assed guesses." Fine, but Dean already acknowledged both of these points in his first report, back in Ops 8, where he included the caveat, "Use the grain of salt you feel is appropriate." For that matter, Dean took care to point out just where the raw numbers end and the fudge factors begin. Perhaps the bad reactions to these industry reports stem not from a misunderstanding of what they are, but an over- i interpretation on of what they mean Dean's stated purpose was not to derive some sort of definitive sample "proving" which companies had what slices of the market, but simply to get a snapshot of some uncooked figures. Nevertheless, to forestall this sort of over- interpretation and avoid stepping on tender toes, Dean has refrained this year. Again our sincere thanks go to those distributors and retailers who have invested effort and trust in providing data for the surveys. As for our internal business report, keep your eyes on the Top Ten Sellers list and turn to page 6.

It you are on our mailing list as an Ops subscriber or anyone who has sent back a game feedback card, you should have received the Christmas goodie mailing on or about the 50th aniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. The package contained a sheet of replacenient and id variant counters, errata for all The Gamers games, and the necessary rules to upgrade Guderian's Blitzkieg to OCS 2.0. If you did not receive yours, contact Shirley here at The Gamers And if you call for any reason and reach the answering machine, please leave a message. Too often callers have not left a message and we can't help. Also, please leave a daytime phone number so we can call you when we are here.

The errata/variant counter sheet and the physical components of No Better Place to Die and Hunters from the Sky are your first tangible indications of The Gamers' move to new vendors. We are in the process of refining our suppliers to streamline and simplify production, lower costs and improve quality. (See Owen's article in this issue for more details.) Graphics finishing and packaging remains to be done on Austerlitz. Once that is finished, we will stick with 5,000-unit print runs for all games, at least until demand makes us increase this number. Right now, 5,000 copies of a game lasts about 2 years.

Dean has detected a shift in game complexity or, more accurately, in the definition of "complex." A game considered middle of the road a few years ago is now called "extremely complex," We don't know what to make of this trend, but The Gamers will not chase the lowest common denominator. We make games of moderate complexity for the veteran gamer (with the SCS thrown in to add depth and spice).

On a related point, I often wonder what, if anything, those Dr. McCoy sick bay bed indicator arrows for Complexity and Solitaire Suitability on game boxes are telling me. Most of the games on my shelf published from 1992 till now claim a complexity level on the high side of medium and solitaire suitability of high or better. Even some games at the SCS level of complexity give themselves a medium rating in this category. Anyway, I find a lot more variation among the games than among their self -assigned ratings. When SPI printed such ratings, the numbers came from player feedback. What basis today's ratings have, I do not know. But neither do I care. After all, how much does "Complexity: Low, Solitaire Suitability: Very Low" tell you about chess'?