1. Received a check from MAGWEB for the second quarter of the year 2000... a paltry 39 dollars. The REVIEW fell way down in the 'hit' poll... we were 22nd in line out of about 70 or so total entries on the MAGWEB, compared to our 5th place position in the first quarter..
The big winners, of course, were COURIER and MWAN and LONE WARRIOR.
2. I occasionally visit the internet e-group site which focuses on PIQUET. There are really two PIQUET groups, one which asks a lot of questions about the rules as they currently exist, and the other, which dubs itself PIQUET HERETIC, purportedly looks at potentially radically changes to the rules.
Of interest is that most of the messages on both sites concentrate on the PIQUET sequence, and its inert 'action' card deck. I enclose the term 'action' in parenthesis because it produces more inertness than action. It would seem that everyone is aware that something should be done to liven up the game... but all I hear is talk, talk, talk.
To my mind, after participating in a couple of games and intensely observing another halfdozen, the sequence possesses two key faults. First, the decks themselves contain so few action cards, that the participants tend to twiddle thumbs instead of 'playing' a game.
Second, the way the sequence is structured, one side or the other, via a series of lucky dice throws, may continually keep on winning the initiative, with the result that the opposition runs out of thumbs to twiddle.
At HISTORICON, I spoke to the author, Bob Jones, about his request for comments on a suggestion he proffered on the internet site which would tend to 'even out' the sequence, ensuring that one side couldn't swamp the other because of bad dice throws. I was impressed because I thought that Bob was actually contemplating a change in the sequence, responding to his audience.
The impression I got, however, was that Bob's suggested changes would be oriented solely toward the beginning player, the better to introduce him to the game. And then, of course, after he became familiar with the rules, he'd have to assume his position tableside along with the other, more experienced, inert players.
3. On occasion, Fred Haub and I will each grab several units, the particular era being unimportant, each unit ranging anywhere from 3 to 8 stands, and run through a sort of CROSSFIRE type of sequence.
CROSSFIRE, like PiQUET, doesn't contain a simple you-go/1-go sequence, wherein each side is assured that its turn will come at the beginning of the next bound, but focuses on an everchanging initiative system. In CROSSFIRE, by doing 'bad things' to the opposition, a side keeps the initiative. In PIQUET, the initiative shifts, not because of what's happening on the field, but according to a series of dice throws.
Fred and I are trying... with little success... to adopt the CROSSFIRE procedures, which were designed for small single-squad actions, to larger scale unit actions. Every so often, you might hear one of us say: "I think I've got it!", but alas!, it always turns out that we don't got it.
Back to PW Review June 2000 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 Wally Simon
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