Alan Sharif I have played both the Polish titles sold by Boulder Games since my last e-mail. They are both poor in my opinion. ROK 1920 is the least worst to my tastes. I have given some thought as to how to improve the combat system from ROK 1920 (similar to the WW1 title but no moral checks but with step losses possible) which seems the main problem area to me. There is no penalty to the attacker for an unsuccessful attack. What follows are just thoughts and have not been tested or anything. I have sent them to you as I wondered if these might be of any interest to PA readers once tested. When a successful combat is achieved a loss figure is given. I am proposing to give each terrain type a figure, say 1 for clear, 2 for woods and so on. This figure would then be taken away from the figure obtained as a combat result. The defender must then make a retreat that number of movement points, taking the path of least resistance, with a minimum of a one hex retreat. If the figure exceeds the unit's movement allowance then a step loss is taken and the unit retreats as far as its MPs allow. If the result is a zero I am considering some sort of counter-attack or "in hex" combat. While if the result is a minus figure the attacker takes a step loss or two depending on how big a minus figure results. A successful attacker will be given the same number of MPs to advance as the defender retreated but after the vacated hex may choose to advance in any direction. This will increase losses in the game but if you have played ROK 1920 you may agree that more replacement units are received than there are units to replace, in my experience. Losses need not represent just casualties I suppose. Have you any ideas to add to the above? CHV: try them as published the supply system is where the casualties repose (I think). Geoff Barnard Thanks very much for the PA #100 just received, and many congratulations for your seeing it through to such a milestone. Thanks also for the WWII heavy issue, which actually forced it's way through my other current interests and made me think I might even take some new interest in wargames without waiting for my retirement (not THAT far away now, as I hit the dreaded 50 this year). I did look through the review of Normandie 1944 with some interest, especially the notes towards the end about 'unit stuff'. I was intrigued about your comment regarding Guards Armoured. I don't know if the game is wrong on that point, but Guards Armoured has two brigades ONLY. 6th Gds Tank Brigade is nothing to do with Guards Armoured Div. The Div had Shermans and Cromwells for the Recce Regt. 6th Brigade had Churchills and were trained in the infantry support role and spend most of the battle working with 15th Scottish towards the west of the British zone). Also, you refer to the British 3rd Div being missing from Keegan's list of 'arrivals' - maybe that is correct, if the list is of 'reinforcements', as 3rd Div was one of the initial assault divisions. If Keegan's list also excludes 50th Northumbrian and 3rd Canadian, then that is consistent. If those two ARE in his list, then his list IS wrong as you say. You comment on the disparity in combat strength between the British (and Canadian I'm sure) and the US divisions. That does seem a little odd, as the numbers of tanks were not that different, and the British had the plus of the Fireflies. Just looked in a book, and the US div had 186 medium tanks, the British div 180 - the extras are not that different either. Oh, just remembered I had a copy of that Keegan book. Hm. Yes, 3rd are NOT listed. 50th are listed as D-Day which is fine. 51st are listed as D-DAY which is marginal (they started landing late on that day). 49th are listed as D-Day which is very dubious. Most amused to see his list for the Americans shows 29th Div as 7th June - ho, ho, maybe he should be told how many soldiers from the 29th died on Omaha beach (the assault was about 50-50 1st Div and 29th Div). Just checked history of part of 49th Div. Still passing through Victoria (station) on the 10th June. Arrived off Arromanches on the 11th. Div recorded as being 'complete' on the 14th!! Dare I check some of the others?? Also, 7th Armoured did NOT have 300 tanks. Then again, what's a 'tank'? They had three regiments in an armoured Brigade just like the other division, but the tanks were Cromwells, and the Recce Regt was also Cromwells so that made maybe 240 tanks. Add SP guns and various other light tanks (Honeys etc) and maybe there were 300 'armoured fighting vehicles that might pass for a tank at a distance'. Enough of this petty quibbling. Paul Kondritz It is my desire to become one of the cognoscenti who subscribe to Perfidious Albion. CHV: Same here, but I think they have some kind of secret handshake. Derrick Atwell Congratulations on your 100th issue. I was interested in your last issue to see that there is a game on the Burma Campaign. Can you tell me where I can obtain it? Sheffield is a lost cause as far as any wargaming or gaming magazines are concerned. I was actually in the 1943/44 Campaign on the Arakan. I was with 81st West African Div - in the next year we were joined by the 82nd Div and there was an East African Division. We went across two ranges of high jungle covered hills to the Kaladan River made bamboo rafts and sailed down - we surprised the Japs. You mention transport - we were supplied by Dakota airdrops. They did try to supply us with (a) Mules, but they eat a lot, and (b) Buffaloes - difficult to load if you don't know them well - we sent both lots back. We had complete carrier companies of very large Africans - and were easily the most mobile division in Burma: very useful if called upon to retreat. (CHV: Unfortunately the game (Burma from The Gamers) only covers the Imphal/Kohima down to Mandalay campaigns. I think 3rd West African brigade appears (but as part of an Indian div). So for the Arakan you would need to try Operation Cannibal from Avalanche Press). Steve Thomas I see Mark Herman is going to redo For the People. In his notes on the new version he talks about addressing the three big issues that were problems in the old game. I am not convinced he has really understood peoples concerns. Some of his comments are little more than a self- justification along the lines of "the game is fine, it is the players that are the problem". Perhaps if you play FtP six or more times you may work out some of these strategic issues. No doubt there are some lucky individuals who get to play every week and can devote hours to analysing a game and its strategy. With the shortage of gaming time I'm lucky to get to play a game once a month these days. Given the variety of games available, a game has got to be pretty good for us to play it more than a few times in a year. Perhaps there is a way round the 'Washington' issue but the problem is it dominates the learning curve and acts as excessive constraint on both sides. Keep some kind of rule about Washington if you want but downgrade its importance. There are still things he seems to have missed. One of my major complaints was the ability of the Confederates to produce killer stacks that virtually couldn't lose. There should always be some element of chance in a battle. Plus there isn't enough variety in the arrival of leaders. In a game with random events it is a major contradiction to have leaders arriving to a rigid schedule. CHV: Much though I see Mark Herman's point on this game I feel his solutions grate unduly, but will he accept this? Back to Perfidious Albion #101 Table of Contents Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2000 by Charles and Teresa Vasey. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com