Best of Times, Worst of Times

Please allow me to introduce myself. I am the classic case of the so-called closet gamer who has made a New Year's resolution to come out of the closet, if you will. Don't worry--Mongo straight. I have been playing for two out of my three decades now and own hundreds of games (don't ask how many--I don't know myself), but I rarely go to conventions, call or write game companies or magazines, fill out feedback cards, etc. So one of my resolutions (besides getting married this year) is to become much more vocal and involved.

The purpose of this letter is to get out into the open some of my pent-up feelings about The State of the Hobby--the issue that seems to have been dominating the discussion in certain magazines for a rather long time now.

At this point in time I mainly purchase and play games from The Gamers (of course), GMT, Clash of Arms, and GRD because I think they represent the best the hobby has to offer. I generally avoid Avalon Hill, the recently passed 3W [Ed note: or is it?], and Decision Games, and rarely purchase magazines other than ZOC, Operations, and C3I (but I do not subscribe any of to them). I spend approximately an average of $50 a month on wargames, depending on what is out there.

As far as my opinion on the hobby as a whole, I have rather mixed feelings. Certainly there is a lot of junk out there --just look at the entire 3W line that clogs up store shelves and you see what I mean. [Ed note: Maybe you have been reading BROG too. R. Berg noted this point in an editorial there.] Same goes for the last few years of S&T magazine and most Avalon Hill stuff (with the magnificent exception of Balkoski's Civil War series). ASL is a hopeless waste of time because it is so damn legalistic and complex--what a far cry from the original Squad Leader I loved back in the 70s! I also don't care much for Command or GameFix magazines, although both look great. Much of what is being published is simply dredged up from the old SPI or People's Wargames vaults--like we really need 15-year-old games now. It doesn't have to be good to be a classic.

But just because there is perhaps a glut of junk on the market does not mean that the hobby is sinking. Far from it. As far as game quality and graphics are concerned, I think the hobby is at one of its highest points ever. Give me CoA maps and computerized counters over Red Simonsen's maps and dull matte counters any day.

Also, I think the hobby has moved away from such an overwhelming emphasis on the Civil War and WW2 into a broader appreciation of all military history eras, no matter what I think about certain specific games. Game mechanics are also much better than ever before. Your OCS and CWB are about the smoothest systems I have ever seen in their respective areas--much better than anything made by the almighty Jim Dunnigan & Co. or the Great Battles of the American Civil War series (even before Rich Berg screwed it up). Avalanche has the finest battalion-level WW2 system out there--bar none. GMT has more magnificent games out there (as well as some clunkers, of course), and GRD's Europa series is also quite impressive (albeit expensive).

We can whine about how much we miss the old SPI. We can bitch about Avalon Hill not being what it used to be or Victory going kerplunk. We can complain about how much games cost now versus then and how we can't afford to mortgage the house to buy the latest ASL module. We can also cry about the lack of new or younger gamers, even though everybody that I play games with is approximately my age, 20s to 30s. We can even pity ourselves because we are not "cutting edge" like computer games are.

But none of these things is either true or even relevant. The old SPI had its junk (quite a bit if I remember correctly). Avalon Hill was never really all that much in the hobby anyway, simply because of the company's "nobody's out there except us" attitude. Computer games are just as expensive as paper wargames, not even counting the damn computer, and are possibly even more likely to be junk (not to mention the fact that computer AI stinks in most games--even the best ones). Computer maps are pathetic compared to most wargames.

So for now and for the foreseeable future you can count me a loyal and faithful boardgamer.

Let's face it--there aren't many of us there. How many people have the interest, the time, or the--let's face it--brains to read a rule book and play a wargame? Not many. We are a small bunch and have to get used to the fact the "golden age" is over. Keep away from fads like role playing and cards, stay loyal to your customers, and you will have a loyal, if comparatively small following for years to come.

Don't Panic--and Remember Your Towel

The reason for my letter is to compliment you on two particularly excellent articles that Operations has published.

The first came in issue 16 and was Dean Essig's "Mastering the OCS." Anyone who really wants to play OCS well had best commit this article to memory. Rather than regurgitate all of Dean's admirable comments, I will elaborate on one point that he made, specifically, the last portion of his study focusing on the psychology of losing. If there is one thing about OCS that I have seen many fine players forget are these two simple words--Never Panic. Several times I have seen excellent OCS players, with more skill than myself, become dejected and defeated because of a few poor surprise die rolls or because of a failed overrun. In the OCS players always have options.

The quintessential example occurred during the recent playtest of Hube's Pocket at HomerCon 95. I was the German player and on the receiving end of a particularly nasty Soviet attack and encirclement. I had rashly attacked (my conservative style of play demonstrated again), and the Soviet counter-attack threatened the entire southern portion of my line with encirclement and destruction. During the process of my being mauled, the Soviet player had a couple of overruns go unexpectedly against him--multiple shifts against the attacker on the surprise roll.

Suddenly my opponent became sullen and almost despondent. I had taken substantial casualties and was in full retreat. Yet... my opponent had set his expectations so high that suddenly a serious German defeat wasn't enough and my mere survival was perceived as some sort of victory! The point is that in OCS you are never truly defeated unless you believe you are beaten.

Never quit.

Virtually every active gesture by a player requires at least some consideration by his opponent in the OCS system. If your opponent seems to pay no attention to pin-pricks, then so much the better--it will eventually catch up with him. An example might be a series of small-scale air attacks on enemy supply dumps that only inflict an average of 1T damage per attack. In a recent game of Tunisia I had the opportunity to observe a "defeated" player induce a local supply shortage on his opponent over the course of several turns of these pin-pricks. The supply shortage was a significant factor in stopping an attack that could have been fatal for the "defeated" player. As it was, the halt provided breathing space and allowed the situation to be stabilized.

I also wanted to comment on the article in Ops 18 written by Don Nelson. I too was initially attracted to Gamers games for many of the same reasons that Mr. Nelson listed. As a former combat arms officer, I can also say with complete confidence that the most frustrating command results in the CWB or the TCS only pale in comparison to some of the debacles I have seen actual troops manage to create. In other words, don't assume for a second that failing to roll that 7 or higher for that Ops Sheet acceptance ten times in a row is just impossible. In fact, it is not even a good start on the sort of weird stuff and predicaments that real troops are capable of getting into.

Air Warfare in OCS

Matanikau Fine-Tuning

I am reading pages 269-271 in Frank's Guadalcanal and the 12th Co, 124-18 was ordered to seize a position on the east bank of the river at the one-log bridge. On September 26th, Puller's force reached the river and advanced downstream. At about 1125 hours the leading elements of the 12th Co. brushed with Puller's column, but neither side recognized the size of the other. Puller continued north and the 12th Co. moved to establish positions on the east side of the river.

On the 27th, the Raiders moved south to the one-log bridge. They came under fire from the 12th Co. in well-chosen positions on the east bank. That afternoon, part of the 1st Bn, 7th Marines landed near Pt. Cruz. Col. Oka immediately ordered the 2nd Bn, 124th, then about a mile west of the landing site, to attack and the 12th Co. (facing the Raiders) to reinforce II/124. So the 12 Co, 124-18 needs to be part of Scenario 5.0 but should be in reserve at the start. Based on the map on page 314 of Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal: History of USMC Operations in WW2, I would have them start within 2 hexes of 11.20.

In addition, 3 accounts (The Guadalcanal Campaign by Zimmerman) of Scenario 5.1 show that the landings at 1300 hours were unopposed, so perhaps the IJA should start inland. The famed rescue later with the Higgins boats resulted in losses to men but not to the boats. So make the boats unsinkable and treat the contents as in protective terrain. Area fire on the boats can cause casualties to the contents. In addition, the troops on board were able to fire their MGs to cover, so let them fire at 1/2 strength.