I appreciate your taking time a little while ago to respond to my letter. It's taken me a little while to write back.

You asked me what I meant by "examples of play." What I had in mind was a description of a couple of turns of actual play. This probably would only work well if you could include pictures of the map at several intervals. It also would work best if it covered only an isolated part of the map; something like Hooker's attack at the beginning of Antietam.

[Ed Note: This type of detailed play example has been on my "things to do list" for a long time- -someday, I hope to get such an article written.]

Maybe this wouldn't be helpful to most players, in which case I wouldn't expect you to print it, but I find it useful to look at the tactics other players employ. Similar articles have also made me realize a couple of times that I was making minor rules mistakes.

I also found the article on your Omaha game in the second issue of Operations (which was even better than the first) to be excellent. The description of an actual playtest, by showing how a game might go-i.e. showing what a player could expect to be doing- is about the most helpful information I can think of in aiding me to evaluate whether I want to buy a game. (How many times has a game review left you with the impression that the reviewer never played the game?

[EdNote: Naw, 1 won't take that bait...])

It's also very helpful in getting me started thinking about the sort of strategies (or grand tactics) I might want to employ. Personally, I can't think of a better source of information about a game than the people who playtested it.

I also wanted to respond to your comments about the business practices of wargame publishers. I'm relieved to see that a lot of people in the hobby are becoming very conscious of the need for improvement in that area. XTR and Decision Games have both preached about it, and I notice that FGA promises to replace the defective components in Operation: Crusader. (Of course, Richard Berg promised to provide real counters for Guns of Cedar Creek and never did, so I'll reserve final judgement.) Personally, I put wargame publishers into three categories:

1. Honest and Efficient: Companies that meet their production schedules and deliver what they promise. The Gamers is the prototype for this category, but XTR seems to be doing quite well, especially for a magazine publisher. (I don't, however, share their Nazi fixation.)

2. Honest but Inefficient: Companies that announce production schedules they can't meet, often not even remotely, but they don't take people's money until they are sure they can deliver. Most of the hobby falls here.

3. Slimeballs: Companies that take people's money and don't deliver at all or deliver only after unreasonable delays. Pacific Rim and SDI spring to mind, 3W is getting there. I suspect that the problem may often be that some companies finance their projects through advance sales. I have serious objections to this practice. When I send my money off, I do so as a purchase, not an investment.

I find the "Honest but Inefficient" companies aggravating, but I put up with them. I won't, however, order anything in advance from a company until I have some good reason to believe it can be trusted, and I won't get burned twice. For instance, I decided it was OK to order in advance from The Gamers when you published August Fury ahead of schedule (I still can't believe it.) I stopped ordering in advance from SDI when First Blood was six months late.

The point of all this is that everybody in the hobby suffers every time somebody gets ripped off. Until I had dealt with your company some, to me you were just another small company that might be trustworthy and might not. And I'll bet there are plenty of wargamers out there who are more suspicious than I am, because I've been luckier than many: I didn't buy Blood and Sand; I've never bought anything from Pacific Rim; nor have I ever taken out a lifetime subscription to anything. The unfortunate experiences that so many wargamers have had are bound to have a continuing impact on the sales of even the most scrupulous companies, so I'm glad that you and others are speaking up as well as doing something about it.

I hope this hasn't bored you. I feel as though I should encourage the people who are doing things the way they should be done.

Thank you for your comments in 'OutBrief.' As a veteran gamer weaned on D-Elim in the 60's, I'm very happy to finally read an editorial from a game designer who recognizes that the central point of the hobby is fun. Most gamers of my generation couple this fun with a sense of history, comradeship, and playability. I am looking to enjoy my games, win or lose, and spend a pleasant evening with people of similar persuasion. The sweep of history and armies provide the fodder for the imagination; any time spent nit-picking rules, or just trying to figure what they really mean is wasted, dead time to me.

The recent whining in the industry about a gamer's duties-to bring in new members, support products that don't interest us, provide continuous feedback, etc., etc-is becoming very tiresome. Another crab I am hearing concerns the lack of introductory games, something which is just factually untrue. Today I counted 56 historical games ideally suited to beginners, including most of the D-Elim games that started me off. These comprised some 10-15% of the total products available and covered most periods-Rome to Iraq. I had 7 games to choose from when I started!

I imagine I will buy wargames until I die; I will certainly continue to purchase products that interest me. I will also continue to not buy products that are poorly designed, over- ruled, under-developed or not in my areas of interest. If this causes the companies who publish these games to close shop--so be it. That's free enterprise-swim or sink-and I do not apologize; it's my money to spend.

Most of the people I play with (including, gasp!, that rarest of all creatures--female wargamers) enjoy these games for the magnificent sweep of history or thunderous clash of armies they provide. This is what separates our hobby from Monopoly or Bridge. You are absolutely right when you say Low Intensity Conflict games are boring. Boring! Boring! Boring! If I want the "thrill" of LIC, I'll hand around a constituency association! No, thanks, I'll stick to Alexander and Guderian no matter how often I'm importuned by various trade publications.

I would like to suggest "Juno Beach" as a possible companion to the upcoming game Omaha. With the mighty 3rd Canadian Division, I'm sure this would be very popular North of the 45th Parallel..

I just finished reading the first issue of Operations and since you invited comment, here it is. For starters it was a pleasure to see the magazine since I've always enjoyed the house organs of different companies. The style and tone reminded me of the mags put out by companies such as OSG, Yaquinto, and Battleline in their day and it was a welcome change of pace.

As for actual comments and answers to various things raised in the magazine...

1. I would like to see the following battles in a Napoleonic Series. The B attle of the Pyramids, the lines of Tortes Verdes, Talavera, Eylau, Albuera and Auerstadt.. As you can see, I lean toward the Spanish theater. I've loved it ever since I beat France as the Spanish player in a game of Empires in Arms.

2. 1 question whether the OCS system is going to be workable in the format you describe it. I simply do not believe that any system can cover the period 1900-1950 due to all the changes in technology, doctrine and equipment. For example, how would you account for the far greater lethality of a NM howitzer as compared to a WWII howitzer, even though they fire the same caliber shell.

I believe that there is simply too great a mass of information and detail to be covered in a generic set of rules and any special rules would be so full of special cases that it would make playing the game a chore.

Certainly all previous efforts to expand game systems to cover multi-period episodes have not been very successful. To wit, SPI's Ancients and Medieval games, Arab-Israeli Wars, and attempts to produce a modern game using first the Squad Leader and then the Tank Leader systems. Indeed, having looked at both Objective: Schmidt and Force Eagle's War, I feel that the latter is the weaker game.

3. I'd like to suggest the following optional rule for Barren Victory. Instead of having the Confederates locked into having Longstreet and Polk as Wing Commanders, allow him to choose one of the following combinations:

A. DH Hill and Polk
B. Bragg and Longstreet
C. Longstreet and DH Hill

Further, if DH Hill is a wing commander, have Polk serve under him.

4. Regarding Dave Powell's article "Forest for the Trees." I agree with him that woods did not affect losses in any significant manner. Indeed up to WWI losses in woods actually increased over time due to the increased power of weapons, particularly artillery. As far as Dave's proposed rule, I suggest that th efiring units also add one to their straggler rolls

[Ed Note: I'm not sure if he's saying that whenever a unit fires it also makes a straggler check itself or not.

I believe that this is valid since the accounts that I have read all indicate that the main problem faced in woods was the thick smoke that did not dissipate and the reverberation in the woods from the sound of gunfire. Both problems affected command control and made it difficult for men to hear their officers or really see what they were doing or what was going on around them.

5. Page Layout-A minor point but it would be useful for people who own several of your games to have errata all on one page in each issue. Also, if Questions and Answers and errata can be placed on opposed pages it will help, as well, since it will cut down on any photocopying the players have to do.

[Ed.Note:See this issue.]

6. Regarding "OutBrief"-I have several comments to make.

A. I think your attitude regarding new games and the support of game companies is a little rough. This is a specialized hobby that is also very small. As I'm sure you know, it is difficult to produce a game on a subject that will appeal to a large enough segment of the hobby to make it commercially viable. And this has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the game or how "good" it is (which is an extremely subjective call to make), but simply a question of taste and numbers.

I think the biggest problem in this area that wargaming has vis a vis hobbies such as doll houses, plastic models, and figure kits is the lack of a strong hobby group. Yes, over the years we've had organizations such as GAMA, The Game Designer's Guild, and The Academy of Adventure Gaining, however, these are all trade organizations and promote the activities and interests of trade, not the hobbyist. This is not to say that we should not have these trade organizations, all fields of business endeavor have their corresponding associations, I think we need a hobby organization similar to say IPMS that support and promote the interests and concerns of the hobbyist. If such an organization ever comes into being I believe that it will go far towards solving many of the problems that the hobbyist encounters today, be he an old grognard or a brand new member of the hobby.

B. Regarding Low Intensity Conflicts-I fail to see why you are ill-disposed towards them. Many of the conflicts of the [last] 15 or20 years have been LIC in nature and would [make] interesting simulations/games with the right system. And I believe that the old GDW double-blind is one that could readily be adopted to support an LIC game. It is the right scale and also solves that problem that you mentioned of the guerrilla player having his clocked cleaned. Further any such system would have to include political rules. After all, the majority of these conflicts are very political in nature and the support of the populace is often more important in determining who won/lost than actual combat results.

C. In terms of alternative history, I feel that the trend is more toward games that are science-fiction in nature with a historical wrapping to make them acceptable to the public. I really question the historical basis and veracity of some of these games and the events that they portray as being possible. While I certainly feel that there is a market and basis for alternative history games (by the way we can thank the science-fiction book market for that term) I prefer these games to be more in line with titles such as 3W's Fight on the Beaches.

This letter is intended as a further clarification to my earlier comments regarding system games (see the letter above.)

I believe that there is a basic difference between game systems that are designed to simulate (or portray if you prefer) a particular conflict-whether that conflict involves one or more battles, and systems that are designed to simulate multi-conflict events. Examples of the former are Advanced Squad Leader, the La Bataille series, and The Gainers own TCS series.

When working with a common system for a series of games the problem that one encounters is that eventually one begins (indeed one may find one almost forced into) designing games to fit the system, as opposed to designing games to fit the event that the game is intended to simulate or portray.

When working with such [a system] as La Bataille or TCS one get[s] around this problem by the inclusion of the "special rules" folder that is so common in series games.

However, I believe that one is designing a multi- conflict system as the basis for a game series that sooner or later one will find that they cannot surmount the problem of forcing the game into the system. If we try the special rules approach we often find that the special rules are longer and more complex than the system rules (this was certainly my experience with Modern Tank Leader) and we often end up with a game that [fails to?] convey the historical flavor and in fact was intended to deliver. This was certainly the case with SPI's Ancients and Prestags games, to name just one example.

In thecase of Force Eagle's War, I felt the game played more like a World War II panzer romp, than a hypothetical modern armor/mechanized encounter.

In the case of Force Eagle's War, Prestags, and the Ancients series it is obvious that the games were designed to fit the system and I believe that all three suffered for it. Although, I must admit that of the three examples cited Force Eagle's War does contain the most "historical" flavor.

I do not mean to say that an existing system cannot be used as the basis for a game in a different era, or a new system. After all, that is how probably 60-70% of the games on the market were born, however, I believe that one must be working to put in extensive work to achieve mating the game with the system and that at the outset one must accept the possibility that [one] will finally reach the point that one must accept that the system is not going to work with the event it is intended to portray and that one must start over. [Ed. Note: Whew!]

I hope that these [statements] further clarify my position on [this] issue (one that I'm afraid has the potential to generate as much letter writing and mud slinging as the old playability vs. realism issue), and that you do not take these comments to mean that I do not like the games produced by The Gamers. I wouldn't own as many as I do if they were not worth the money.

Enjoyed your first issue of the new magazine. I like the size and the layout. It's different, it's appealing-to look at, to read and to enjoy.

Back page, I agree with your sentiments, so we don't presumably mention Joe Miranda, right?

Concerning future contents, would it be possible to include some sort of playaids, [applicable] to existing games. For example, I own Bloody 110th and have lots of trouble sorting out the German order of entry onto the map--I could do with some sort of card or set up sheet to cope. It's my inexperience. There's so many options, could readers write in with their 'best' solutions? A Kind of forum perhaps? I expect there must be someone who has done a do- it-yourself kit to overcome this setting up task? [Ed. Note: Any takers?]

Then did I read about you requesting ideas for other WW2 simulations? I have just finished reading Famous Tank Battles by Col. R.J. Icks. He described a clash between India and Pakistan in September 1965. 22 days. Set in Kashmir, the area in dispute between the two countries. Tanks included the AMX 13 which I think might be French, M4, M4a4, M48, Centurion 5-7, and Russian T54a. Here's a mix of tanks from several nations, all fighting along side each other. Some of the Shermans had upgunned Canadian 76mm guns. Any good for a game?

If we must have another WW2, how about Russians vs. Japanese at Khalkin-Gol? Or how about the Allies vs. Japan at Mandalay Plain, Burma Feb-April 1945? All good armor and mech conflicts. River crossings, bridge blowing, great stuff. Sorry I'm not a designer! But I'll help with research if I can.

Finally, I like the idea of the Standard Combat Series. I think this might be designed with me in mind! Probably the degree of intensity I'm most happy with.