[Ed. Note: The following is condensed from a rather lengthy letter. I have consolidated here the variants and house rules used by Mr. Stricker's group.]

I recently came across the premier issue of Operations, and since I currently have five of your games I decided to pick up a copy. I noticed that in your "InBrief" article you asked for help in two areas: subscriptions and letters. Well, you will find my payment for a one year subscription enclosed. And, since you are one of the few game companies who have asked for our comments, the rest of this letter contains the thoughts of several players in my gaming group. Let me preface these comments with some background on our group and where our areas of interest and expertise are.

Currently, all of our group are assigned to the Intelligence Directorate of United States Central Command. Although we did not have as much time to game as we would have Red over the past year (wars tend to disrupt your routine), we have enjoyed several of the simulations published by The Gamers when we have found the time. In particular ' the Tactical Combat Series has produced many hours of enjoyable play and much discussion. As an Army officer who has been a Battalion/ Squadron and Brigade S-2, I wish this series had been available when I was using other wargames as training tools for the officers in my units.

As I rotate back to Saudi Arabia for 90 days (yes, there are still over 40,000 US personnel in the Arabian Gulf area) I will be taking Bloody 110 and Force Eagle's War along with me. I hope to obtain a copy of Objective: Schmidt from my local game store before I leave, since I understand it has the new second edition rules. So much for background, the following reflects some of the changes and additions we are now using.

Our feeling is that the TCS is one of the best simulations of tactical level modern and World War II combat on the market. Obviously, the command system is a strong point as are the infantry rules; however we have decided to make some modifications to the armor rules. First, we have started to use the "overwatch marker," "facing" (in a modified form), and "mode change in movement" rules which were proposed in a recent Moves article written by Mr. John Kisner.

[Ed. Note: The mode change in movement rule was applied to TCS in the addenda in our last issue and in the Omaha game rules. I still disagree that facing has any place in a game with 20 minute game turns!]

There are many flawed wargames which just collect dust on my closet shelf, but the virtues of the TCS system outweigh areas where we feel the rules might be weak.

[Ed. Note: The original letter here explained why Mr. Stricker developed a new Point Fire Table. I have omitted that section as an "official" new Point Fire Table is proposed in this issue. His table (while using two dice) has much the same probabilities and feel as the one printed on page 19.]

As I mentioned earlier, we have made a few changes to the TCS rules. Here are some additional rules we are using:

Armor Platoons: We came up with this rule to cut down on the number of counters on the map, and bring in some of the doctrinal characteristics of particular nationalities (i.e. Soviets.) Instead of vehicle units having only one step, the vehicle counter on the map represents a vehicle unit of up to a platoon (2-5 steps.) Step loss markers are placed under the counter to indicate the number of vehicles in the unit. For combat purposes, the vehicle unit is generally treated as individual vehicles occupying the same hex. The unit will, however, conduct actions together. Use of the platoon rule is optional for some armies, but others must use it. We have all modern Soviet tank units operate in platoons with three steps. Unlike US armor platoons, the Soviet units may not break down below the platoon level. Additionally, we force all steps in a Soviet platoon to engage the same target. If this is point fire and there is more than one target in the hex, the Soviet player must designate the vehicle being engaged. We have also found that this rule forces Soviet units to operate on frontages which are more doctrinal.

Wheeled Vehicles: We have modified the movement rates for non-truck wheeled vehicles [Ed. Note: roughly x112.] This cuts their cross-country movement, but we changed the primary road movement rate to 1/4 and the secondary road movement rate to 1/3. We felt that the off-road rates which you gave were too high.

Rate of Fire: We changed the "permission to fire" roll for overwatch fire to a number which varies with vehicle type. Now a Sherman with its fast turret traverse will get off more shots (since its subsequent overwatch fires will be allowed on a roll of 4-6) than a slower firing Tiger 11 (roll of 6 only.)

Modifiers for Flanking Fire: We use all of the facing rules proposed by Mr. Kisner with the exception of his modifiers to defensive strength. We use one modifying situation for the defensive strength of the target-if the incoming shot is not entering the target's hex through the 60 degree frontal hexside, then the target's defensive rating is cut in half (rounding down.) We felt this was easier than keeping track of three different target aspects as required by Mr. Kisner's rule.

Direct Fire HE: We found that the area attack values for point firer type units seemed low. We use the cannon size of each vehicle and allow the weapon to fire its artillery firepower for that caliber out to nominal range. As with artillery, range effects do not apply. Now a 150mm SP gun can attack with a seven firepower. Without this rule it has less attack strength against area targets than some 75mm guns.

[Ed. Note: I believe this change is incorrect--rhe values in the current version of the game take into account both the limited HE ammo in tanks and the multiple machineguns available (usually) for fire at closer ranges. That is why tank guns when firing at area targets use the same range effects as other units.]

More Tactical Combat Series Wargame

TCS Forum Introduction
Some TCS Ideas
TCS Terrain Effects Chart
TCS New Fire Point Table