Mea culpa. That Origins happens on and around Independence Day is an idee fixe for me. As usual, I missed Origins this year, but not because I expected it to be boring or disappointing. (And no, not because I showed up a week early, smart guy!) Dean reports that Origins was a good show this year (see page 6).

While reading issue 3 of ZOC, I reflected on the quantification so rife both in and around wargames. (BROG's generous use of simile, hyperbole, and puns instead of numerical ratings is the exception that proves the rule.) The Game Ratings Chart, that nowtraditional Ops feature, might deserve a few remarks. The numbers come from the minority of Gamers-brand game owners who return the feedback cards, plus the handful of players who vote on Gamers-brand and other titles. This sample is selfselecting and certainly not random, as it is drawn from that portion of the wargaming population most interested in Operations and The Gamers.

So what, if anything, do these ratings mean? If you assume that the voters are likely to share your tastes, the numbers can give you a fair indication of how likely you are to enjoy a given game. Or try this. Make a graph of all the games in a given series from issue to issue. For example, here are the ratings for the SCS.

Issue	SP	Afrika	Ardennes
7	4.556	-	-
8	4.444	-	-
9	4.123	-	-
10	4.183	4.603	-
11	4.231	4.600	-
Yom Kippur enters chart at 4.596
13	4.278	4.570	4.648
14	4.269	4.554	4.627
15	4.275	4.557	4.635
16	4.275	4.542	4.619
17	4.275	4.531	4.598
18	4.272	4.529	4.599

You will notice a "honeymoon period" for a new game, followed by a gradual decline a stable level. The debut of a new game in the series does not seem to affect this trend. The movement is in a very narrow band, so we shouldn't attach any dramatic importance to this trend. Nevertheless, the overall downward pressure on ratings is pretty clear. Another consideration besides score is ranking. For example, EatG dropped a little, from 4.804 to 4.785, between issues 16 and 17, but it still rose to first place (displacing Hunters, which took a "post-honeymoon" dip from 4.875 to 4.625).

Maybe the ratings trends show that, as you have seen more and more quality games come out in the '90s, your expectations have risen. Some chart-toppers from a couple years ago have now slid back into the pack. I'd consider it good news if the standard of excellence is getting tougher.

The other trend you may have noticed is that the chart has grown to about maximum capacity. No, you're not going blind with age: the type really has shrunk. I may have to raise the minimum number of votes to qualify for the chart, just to keep the thing on a single page. If so, you may see some games artificially (and temporarily?) drop back to the Not Rated list.

I hope you received the last issue in time to use the enclosed ballots, if you needed to. Issue 17 reached subscribers late in the month because of our protracted and still unresolved efforts to secure a Second-Class permit. We're making a good faith effort to follow the Post Office's rules, but until we can convince the postal powers that Operations is really a game support magazine, not just a 32-page advertising brochure, we'll continue to mail it at Bulk rate. In related news, Post Office rate increases mean that, even with our new shipping charge formula, The Gamers is taking a bath on shipping costs. Just when we thought it was safe to get back in the mailbox, costs rise suddenly to take a bite. Still, Dean has not called for any further increase in shipping charges.