Craig Grando cgrando@gte.net

Craig is a graphic artist and gamer. He produces publications for a major Midwestern university. He is the new Art Director of Wargame Design Magazine, and has recently completed the first installment of the OSG Web Page, concentrating on the Napoleonic Tour.

Christopher Moeller Moeller@aol.com

Chris is a writer/illustrator and creates cover art for comics such as "Shadow of the Bat." He is also writing and illustrating the military sf miniseries "Sheva's War" for DC Comics (release date: August'98). He has found time to create the box cover painting for "1806," as well as the Set-up Tables for that game and the Unit Manifests for "NAB." Another painting of his graced the cover of the second issue of Wargame Design. Chris will be creating the cover art for "La Guerre del'Empereur."

Mike Bowen mjb@crow.crippslaw.com

Mike is at work on a prototype Aspern/Essling game using the Six Days-1806 system. He also made major contributions to NAB.

Brent V Cooper COOPERFAMILY@prodigy.net

Brent has recently signed-on to participate in the 1812 project. He "has been waiting on a good simulation of the campaign for most of those 37 wargaming years."

David Schubert dschubert@infoam.com

Dave lives in Baltimore and participated in playtests of "1806" and "La Guerre de I'Empereur, " and has taken on the web-page for OSG games.

Mark Bailey markbail@ix.netcom.com

Mark is giving "La Guerre de I'Empereur" a tremendous polish. He has recently completed work on the multi-player version, and will be resting up from the graphic production for the components by the time you read this.

John Metzger jmetzger@ddiworld.com

John has written the rules to LGE among many other contributions made along with brother David Metzger and the members of the Pittsburgh club, "the bunker."

Chris Perleberg chris.perleberg@symbios.com

Chris made a great contribution both to the Battle options in NAB (Wargame Design #2), and to " 1806, " mainly editorial corrections.

Richard G. Simon NDanger666@aol.com

Richard, who is well-known to visitors to Kranz' Virtual Wargamer Web Page, is coordinating the Massena in Portugal Project.

The Sansculottes

The Sansculottes are volunteers helping us with the best part of the job, participating in the design, development, proofing and playtesting of the catalogue of games we have planned. Some of the games are nearly ready for publication, while others need more playtesting, and yet again others need development and contributing design work. The following individuals have stepped forward offering their help and bringing to the process all the skills required to produce a wargame.

Steve Carey

Steve is a police officer who lives in Burbank, California. He'll be working on our upcoming one-map Pacific War title.

1. Interest Area:

War in the Pacific 1941-1945. I wrote my thesis in college on the Battle of Midway. However, I enjoy all periods of military history especially Ancient Rome, the U.S. Civil War, the Napoleonic era, and World War One.

4. Gaming experience

Started with "PanzerBlitz" in January 1974. Played many SPI games during mid-70's to 1980. Have played and analyzed games from Battleline, GMT, Conflict, GDW, etc. Got into the "Magic" craze, but abandoned that monstrosity and returned to board games. Current subscriber to "Command" and an occasional issue of the improving "Strategy & Tactics."

5. What do you think makes a good wargame?

My opinion today is different than it would have been two decades ago. I really enjoy 'series' games that have a common base (and rulebook) so that I don't have to learn a new system every time. A good game has a balance between historical details and playability. Ironically, the topic is not really of major concern to me; I'd take a solid design on the Franco-Prussian War over another hack job on the Battle of the Bulge. Personally I like random events or strategy chits in a title as it helps with the unpredictabilityy factor. A game which is playable solitaire is a bonus, too.

6. What makes a great one?

In addition to the above, a game which is of playable size (I or 2 maps being best) is very helpful; too many gamers I knew were awed by I monster' games, but these titles rarely got played. A game that pushes the envelope ("To the Green Fields Beyond" comes to mind) by introducing new concepts ("Napoleon at Bay" also), and conveying a sense of presence and history to the player, is what allows a great game to rise above the crowd. Not many games reach 'great' status; "Third Reich" "Napoleon's Last Battles" "The Great Battles of Alexander", and "Squad Leader" are all acknowledged classics, to name just a few. 7.

What makes a game worth going to the trouble to fix flat tires in the design?

Time is the most precious commodity for today's remaining cadre of wargamers. Unless it was my job to do so, I'm not inclined to extensively Ex a game, no matter how interesting it possibly may be. How many games have been sunk by mounds of errata or incomplete development? The consumer is much more demanding than in the past; we pay good money to purchase games, and it is expected that the involved parties (designer/developer/publisher) have all done their jobs.

8. How do some games persuade you to set them up on first inspection?

The obvious answer to this question is a game's graphic appeal, especially the map. "Six Days of Glory" grabbed me this way because the map was interesting, and there weren't that many pieces to set up; next thing I knew, I was playing it solitaire. A huge game with a zillion pieces will get looked at, then tossed back in the box.

9. Why do People Play Wargames?

Reading an article or book on a subject goes along nicely with playing a game on the same topic. Every gamer is inevitably going to be a historian as well. Second, there is a social as pect to gaming. Multi-player games (e.g. "Settlers of Catan") are fun and offer a lot of social interaction. Third, competition seems to be a driving force for some folks. They really get a kick out of beating an opponent at the gaming table. Fourth, people get vicarious enjoyment I by setting up and playing a game; you too can be Rommel or Napoleon (what advertiser hasn't exploited this aspect!) To round out the top five reasons, I'd say some individuals really get visual enjoyment out of a game that is beautiftil to behold (Clash of Arms, with their great graphics, have gotten a lot of mileage out of this); kind of manipulating a work of art, so to speak.

10. What proportion of Wargaming is MathlGeometry/History?

Here, again, history is going to be the key-say 80%. Geometry, I assume you mean the details like'how many troops can march into this hex' is only a minor concern to most normal players-say 5%. Math is more important to most gamers than they realize-say 15%. I like area movement/restricted intelligence games now because I hate marching hexes and counting factors in order to achieve maximum odds. Also, look how some people agonize over the ratings of troops ("you should have rated that ME-109 as a 4 instead of a 5 "). If a historical wargame is poor in its historical presentation, it will be soundly criticized and will probably fail. However, most people will be willing to overlook an anomaly in geometry or math.

Paul Dallas dallas@edieng.enet.dec.com

Paul is a software engineer living in the United Kingdom. He is involved in the Massena project, The Campaigns of Frederick the Great, the 1812 project, and Stonewall in the Valley.

1. Interest Area:

18th+19th Century Warfare (roughly 1700-1918) especially: War of the Spanish Succession; Seven Years'War; American War of Independence; French Revolutionary Wars; Napoleonic Wars; American Civil War; World War 1

4. Gaming experience

About 20 years but with gaps. Interest rather than ability (I still lose more than I win) 5. What do you think makes a good wargame? *For me, one that makes me feel I'm a specta- tor watching a real battle unfold.

One that doesn't cause me to say "That's ridiculous ". A game must be consistent within its rame of reference (e.g., in a computer game a legion can sink an ironclad battleship!)

One that allows the exact historical actions to produce the exact historical outcome, but which allows for a myriad of alternative strategies/tactics, so that you can "explore" the battle.

6. What makes a great oneT

If I knew that, I'd be a designer, not just a player. Ed: be careful: it could happen to you.

7. What makes a game worth going to the trouble to fix flat tires in the design ?

A combination of innovative design features with the scope of the options available to each side. For this reason, most of my favourite games are "monsters", because they explicitly raise the number of options.

8. How do some games persuade you to set them up on first inspection?

This is the only place where graphics come in. It is the board design and counter layout which persuades me to set up a game first. Once I have played a game once, it is the mechanics which will persuade me to replay it.

The criteria which persuade me to buy the game however are:

1: period; 2: scale; 3: mechanics; 4: designer/ company; 5: complexity; 6: price; 7: graphics.

9. Why do people play wargames? (List as many as you can.)

Competitiveness. War is the ultimate challenge. Wargames give some of the "thrill" without the danger. This is what produces the play- balance fans. The players must start out with an equal chance in order to prove who's the better player. (Not my top reason.)

Social interaction. People do list this, although it has never been one of my reasons.

Military history. This attracts people who want accuracy over balance or playability. This is my number one reason. It tends to produce players who are happy to play games solitaire, more for the thrill of watching the battle than the competitiveness.

10. What proportion of wargaming is math, what % geometry, and what % history?

Not sure how to answer this. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I like a game which is 100% historically accurate. If this means that it needs to have more calculations involved, so be it.

You didn't ask what makes me like a wargame, but here's a list (not exclusive) of some of the features. If a game is deficient in all of these, I would be very unlikely to buy it.

Accurate Orders of Battle (for games with generic units, the proportion of troops in each arm and in each army should be accurate).

Units take casualties, they do not just vanish.

I don't in general like CRTs with AE, EX or DE results.

Design for Cause, not Design for Effect.

Command Control

If present, reflects the historical constraints, not some arbitrary mechanism to prevent complete control.

Games with lots of technical "chrome".

Among my favourite wargames are:

Command Perspectives' "Road to Washington" and "Sharpsburg" -very detailed tactical level, with numerous gun types listed.

SPI's "War Between the States"-flawed but fascinating

Battleline's "Shenandoah "-great use of VPs, cavalry, "hidden" movement.

The Gamers' "DAK"-very original system

OSG/AH's "Napoleon at Bay"-this is one of my favourite FtF games, because it is so exciting. I don't think it's as historical accurate as some of the other games in my collection, but it is fun. However, it is not as good as the others for solitaire.

David Gregory dhjg@onaustralia.com.au

David is involved in the Massena project; so far he has provided extensive OB material for the project, and is at work on a unit and leader manifest for the campaign.

Matthew Hayes hayes.matthew@lmcs.co.uk

Matthew is currently evaluating a couple of WWII design submissions, and is coordinating the 1812 project, as well as participating in the Massena Project and Stonewall in the Valley, which he calls "one of the most intriguing campaigns in the ACW. "

1 Game playtesting, development (possibly), proof reading

4 c 25 years (started with early/ mid-period S&T and AH (Stalingrad/Panzerblitz) then a 5 year or so break (while married) and now started again for the last 3 years.

5 In my opinion the ideal wargame is one which generates a narrative in the mind of the players consistent with historical accounts of the events being simulated (plus it helps if the situation being simulated is one in which both players have interesting choices to make).

6 A great wargame is one where the combination of graphics, situation, rules, etc., totally immerses the players in the situation being simulated so that they will remember the game ir terms of the tactical/operational/strategi( choices made rather than in terms of die rolh or rules points.

7 Showing signs of 5 or 6 but the overall impression is just spoiled by a few areas that are not working-particularly if the playtester/developer can see some ways in which the problems might be solved.

8 In order (most important first) map graphics, counter clarity, rules clarity, interesting subject matter (or at least not one that actively turns me off), intriguing description on the back ol the box.

9 Interest in military history; Wish to improve on a commander's performance in a particular situation; As a form of aggressive competition; As a social activity; As a problem-solving exercise.

10 Depends on the game! Ideally: less than 5% math (maybe some calculation of odds); less than 5% geometry (only if its a tactical game requiring LOS calculation) ; 90% history

David Horton david_horton@i-co.co.uk

David has been assisting Matthew Hayes, a regular gaming partner who, like David, lives in London. David is currently working through a Napoleon at Bay campaign game with Matthew. He will be working on the 1812 project.

1. Interest Area System Development for Tactical and Operational Napoleonics and Operational WWII

4. Gaming Experience:

La Bataille System, Old SPI Monsters (Wacht Am Rhein, Highway to the Reich, CNA, Op Typhoon, Atlantic Wall, War in the Pac, War in Europe), Yaquintos Thin Red Line and Great Redoubt

5. What makes a good wargame?

I think this has to do with 1) the right subject matter 2) an elegant design that flows easily and intuitively yet provides a good simulation of the issues, events, strategies and tactics.

6. What makes a great one?

A good wargame that gets you playing it again and again. This is where choosing the right subject matter makes a big difference. I like fairly evenly matched situations the best where both sides has the resources to inflict terrible damage quickly. Slugfests are not as interesting. I also prefer the glory side of war so I often look for simulations where elite troops made a difference (cavalry charges and paratroops usually).

7. What makes the game worth going through the trouble to fix flat tires in the design?

If the design can be fixed with new rules or even a new chart or table to make it a great game then its worth it. If new components like different counters are required then I usually don't bother. Usually it is fairly tough to make big changes in a produced game.

8. How do some games persuade you to set them up on first inspection? Usually if its not to play the game then its to understand the OOB and the general dispositions of the opposing forces.

9. Why do people play?

The challenge to do better than history. To satisfy an interest in a battle or a period it is very helpful to study simulations of the conflict. Usually the difference between different simulations depends on the historical situations that were driving the events and it is interesting to see how these types of issues are simulated without distorting other issues associated with the conflict. Wargames makes it a lot easier to understand why 'they' won and why 'they lost. It allows one to tinker with history. Usually you read a historical novel and there are a few ideas the author puts forth as decisive factors in a situation and there is little one can say about his opinion. Consim forces designers and developers to assess the capabilities of units on a more level frame of reference and then recreate the dispositions and situation as accurately as possible/practical so that more realistic and defendable 'what ifs' can be explored. I guess I am getting more into why I play but I think the idea is mutual among many of the people that I play with.

10. What proportion of wargaming is math? geometry? history?

To me its all about history and what was possible under the same situational environment. In the end its there just to satisfy ones interest in and curiosity with history.

Alan Moorhouse alanm@lanbase.com

A Network design Consultant, Alan spends most of his time in London. He has contacted Chris Moeller about doing the development on Napoleon's Eagles. His idea for a Crimean NaB/ 6DoG game is getting there slowly.

1. Interest Area:

WWII (Operational, Strategic) WWI (Strategic) Political-Economic,Strategic; Multiplayer Medieval Strategic, Napoleonic (Tactical, Operational and Strategic); British Wars (Roses, Civil War, Jacobite, Colonial); Dark Ages RPGs. Complexity is not a problem for me as long as it is justified in the simulation. With the exception of WW2 and Napoleonic, I tend to lean towards strategic gaming.

4. Gaming experience:

I was introduced to wargaming when I was 8 after my father bought me Kingmaker (Ariel version) for Christmas. At school at 11, I spotted 2 of my friends playing AH's Tobruk. I joined in, soon picking up Squad Leader and then Third Reich. I stuck mainly to Avalon Hill games Luftwaffe, Guns of August, Origins of WWII, Civilization and Gettysburg. Tried Panzerblitz and hated it (I couldn't come to terms with a troop of tanks having a defense value after SL), touched on SPI with Invasion America, TSS and Sorceror and Yaquinto's Ultimatum. Took a 2 year break at college and joined again through a Wargaming Club at university. Got into the leadership of the club and became responsible for procurement of "hex" games. At this time I came across Victory Games (they didn't do a game I disliked) as well as the more social games like Britannia, Cosmic Encounter and Junta. At this time I played SoN a few times. After University, I lived in Australia, and was fortunate to live close to the main players in the Australian Design Group. These guys introduced me to some elder games I had missed (mainly SPI) as well as involving me in the further development of WiF; notably 5th edition and Days of Decision. Once back in England I started gettrig into the new Gamers and Clash of Arms games.

5. What do you think makes a good wargame?

Original design, good presentation, good historical effect and a strong event flow (i.e.logical turn sequence that becomes second nature). And it has to be ftin.

6. What makes a great one?

The game has to make you feel that you are in command of something real and tangible and not just pushing cardboard around. This quality is difficult to quantify and is an esoteric personal opinion. Even the most successful game has numerous detractors, so its a case of pleasing as many people as you can. The game has to facilitate the historical flavour (not necessarily the historical event sequence) of the occasion, but without it being submerged in ridiculous levels of detail or abstraction. That balance I think is the key. You can get good complex games and good abstract games but the greatness is in the middle ground. My best example is probably Squad Leader or NAB.

7. What makes a game worth going to the trouble to fix flat tires in the design?

Two reasons here really, firstly if the game is the best (or only) simulation of that particular situation you are interested in and secondly, if serious hard work is evident on the design but the game flow is not quite there and requires a few nudges. I appreciate the effort made in producing the game.

8. How do some games persuade you to set them up on first inspection?

The historical situation, colour, presentation, soothing and encouraging designers notes, small introductory scenarios, good reviews and low numbers of charts in that order.

9. Why do people play wargames? (List as many as you can.)

To learn about history. To have fun. To pretend you are a military commander. To work out the basis for todays world structure. To improve their understanding of today's military current affairs. To expand their intellect. To be competitive without physical exertion. To find out why it happened that way. To assure themselves that some turkeys do get to the top. To see if it was all really worth it. To understand cultural differences better. To be able to control Darwinism. To experience the thrill of making order out of chaos on a grand scale.

10. What proportion of wargaming is math, what % geometry, and what % history?

If we are talking ideally then I'd say 30% math, 30% geometry and 40% history. In fact most wargames seem to be in the ratio 35%, 40%, 25% in my opinion.

John Teixeira teixeira.acpd@acpd.co.albemarle.va.us

A police lieutenant who lives in Charlottesville, Va., John is especially interested in the 1814 campaign and so will keep up with issues involving NAB. He is also available for playtesting at the latter stages of development.

1. Interest area: playtesting

4. Gaming experience: over 12 years of both minatures and boardgaming(l prefer the later). Usually play twice a week against very good opposition. I own about 50 board games and 15 computer games and have won some local tournaments.

5. Ease and clarity of rules. A sense of "ebb and flow" in the game,with play balance and a simple "fog of war" system. Columbia's "Bobby Lee" is an example of a good wargame.

6. Replay value and an interesting premise such as AH's" Hannibal" * I will scream if I see another D- DayGettysburg,or Waterloo game come out. I have to have decent counters-too much data is both bothersome and distracting.

7. 1 think that one should be interested in the specific battle or war. I have found that people should concentrate on what is enjoyable to them. For example, I have almost no interest in modem warfare, but find Napoleon's 1814 campaign endlessly fascinating. I would work on that for quite some time.

8. The map layout and the number of pages in the rulebook. Usually the game company influences me (I don't think much of Omega Games, but am willing to bend over backwards for Command magazine games). Also, I think that the key to getting someone to initially set up the game is being organized.

9. The chance to be "God", to change history to be a heroic leader, to lead a specific unit (e.g.,the Iron Brigade),to fight against impossible odds (and maybe even win !),The challenge of head to head combat involving ego's", to dream the impossible dream" (to quote Cervantes), and cause its FUN !

10. 50 % history, 30 % geometry, 20 % intagibles

Dick Vohlers dvohlers@mindspring.com

"As with the original grognards, baubles and glory are what motivate us." Dick worked for Strategic Simulations as Manager of Software Development, and also tested and helped and develop games for GMT, PWC, Decision, CoA, MiH, and others. Dick is on the list to read the last draft of all rules.

1. Interest Area: Hmmm... Am I supposed to put these in order? If so, it would be Design, then Game, then Graphics (I'm not much of an artist.) To look at it another way, I'm interested in the system used to model a situation (how the parts interrelate) and whether a game is faithful to history (is the OOB accurate? Are historical tactics rewarded? etc.)

4. Gaming experience

Playing since I picked up D-Day in'65. As mentioned in my earlier post, I worked for Strategic Simulations for almost 3 years as Manager of Software Development. I've also designed and developed games for GMT, PWG, Decision, CoA, MiH, and others.

5. What do you think makes a good wargame?

a. The system is appropriate to the situation. b. The components accurately reflect the historical situation. c. It's fun to play. d. It's on an historical topic of interest to me. e. You can tinker with it if you want. (I don't mind a game with some blemishes. If I get interested in the game, the small flaws entice me to go in and ffix them, sucking me further into the game and period.) Ed: A good game has an infinite number of "surfaces, " so it's impossiblefor the designer to have gone over every one of them. By "surfaces" I mean a conceptual plane formed by three or more intersecting rules. If you can envision a set of rules as a geometrical solid.

6. What makes a great one?

In addition to the above: a. Great graphics (I may not be much of an artist, but to spend lot's of time on a game it sure helps for it to have a pleasing appearance.)

Ed: I think our gamers have gone overboard on demanding beauty; I long for the days of clean and uncluttered visual systems that only exist to make a point.

b. A system that is easily internal ized-that doesn't require you to constantly reread the rules to make sure you're doing things right.

Ed: I guess the best way to do this is to make it based on objective reality, and then give enough background that people can see the fix.

7. What makes a game worth going to the trouble to fix flat tires in the design?

If the game is sound at the base level, and has inspired me to research the period/battle/campaign more. With increased knowledge, it's fun to go into the system and come up with your own rules. Inside every garner is a game designer. 8. How do some games persuade you to set them up on first inspection?

a. The system looks interesting. b. The subject looks interesting. c. The graphics are acceptable. Ed: I think there's something more visceral to this.

9. Why do people play wargames? (List as many as you can.)

a. To learn more about the subject. b. To exercise their minds/solve puzzles. c. To be competitive.

10. What proportion of wargaming is math, what % geometry, and what % history?

For me, the primary drivers of a game should be history and logic (system again). I can accept various levels of the secondary supports (math, geometry etc.) to whatever extent they're needed to support the primary drivers.

Ed: When I said geometry here I was thinking about the map. "If I could only get a guy in THAT hex, I'd have him surrounded, " is geometry in motion. When I say math, you're either trying to get Victory Points, or accumulate Administrative Points, or garner a preponderance of Strength Points, to put together a winning equation.

To me, the complexity level of a game depends on what is being simulated. Some games work great at a simple level, and more complexity would just dirty them up. Other games require complexity to work right, and simplifying them would cause problems. For example:

1. DAK is not a simple game, and I've never had the stamina to try CNA. However, my game buddy with whom I played DAK recently has played CNA. He noted that in DAK, when the Germans arrive there is nothing to keep the Brits from pulling back ASAP to Tobruk. In CNA, there were breakdown rules that precluded such hasty movement. Since DAK is already fairly meaty, there should have been a rule that put some kind of brake on the Brits. It didn't have to be as complex as I understand the CNA rule to be (requiring bookkeeping), However, the lack of that rule skews the historical situation.

2. On the other hand, I also got a copy of "Great War at Sea." I've played several battle scenarios of this game and found them fun and instructive. I've noted that Chris Perleberg has written a bunch of add-on rules for the game. While these rules are interesting, and look like they should work, I don't think the game needs these extra rules. The 'feel" is right at its current level. And I learned something from the scenariosnamely, why everyone was so worried about the Goeben going over to the Turks. It was one potent ship.

Kevin Zucker kzucker@charm.net

It seems I'm constantly working on this company, even though I take lots of breaks, and spend lots of energy unproductively. I've been working on games professionally for 26 years, since the first issue of "Conflict" Magazine. [The April '98 issue of "Strategist" had an article on this early game-in-each-issue magazine. Contact George Phillies, 87-6 Park Ave., Worcester, MA 01605. Of course, I have taken breaks from active game publishing. During the time off for a couple of years in the seventies, I studied music in New York, where I also worked at SPI (197277). 1 took the year of 1977 off from games, and at the end of that year I designed NAB and decided to start OSG (the first time). I left the company in 1979, and went to work at AH through early 1981. I have lived in Baltimore, Maryland (a small town in the eastern coastal megalopolis) ever since. I then worked freelance, developing games for AH, and doing game graphics, (including a year's worth of maps for Keith Poulter's Wargamer magazine). In 1984 I started working on Graphics for Ad Agencies, and got away from gaming for a while. I even burned my unpublished manuscripts, and sold all my wargames. That was an important step, because they were getting to be a real waste of time. I love playing games and designing games if they (& I) have something to say, but not just to dally with if I'm not learning anything. Wargames were in a total doldrums then for a variety of reasons. The next year, Ed Wimble and Steve Rawling of Clash of Arms came to visit me, with fire and vision, and one boxed game in hand. I agreed to design The Emperor Returns on the spot. Some find the game to be flawed, or missing something; and indeed it is, missing Administrative Points and Attrition, two aspects of NAB that give it's distinctive flavor. We'll, not to run on ... So now, I've got to try to take time off from gaming in little doses, and go, like, walk the dog instead of obsessing on ...

What I was up to during one week in February:

Monday Our Service Bureau in Pennsylvania had problems with the disc containing the "1806" box cover. We had to convert the job from five- to four-colors.

Tuesday Sent out the email announcement of the Tour Web Page. Worked on a freelance map project.

Wednesday Still dealing with the Box Cover; front is all done, but the back had problems resulting from slight variations in the version of Illustrator being used, and in converting the jpgs to color. Received a UPS package from Pennsylvania containing bluelines of the "1806" rules, set-up charts and TR/RC. Proofed them and set corrections.

Thursday Received map proofs for " 1806 " and final laser proof of box cover from Fed Ex. Had to have yet another set of negs made for the box back, due to absence of some type. Checked over the map proof and emailed corrections to Joe Youst. The map is to arrive in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, and with that, all the components are at the printer and/or die-cutter.

Friday Spoke with Mark Bailey re: playtest copies of La Guerre (in progress). Prepared list of 1806 orders for shipping.