Mail Call

Re: Dave Mylie's review of Crimea ( Phoenix 1 ) Does anyone know an
adequate answer to i) Allied fleet to 0922; ii) let rule 27 destroy the
Russian forces? If not it is hardly a game, however accurate a
historical simulation it may be.

Thinking of history, is Albert A. Nofi (S&T 55) a fanatical Catholic?
Frederick of the Palatinate's acceptance of the crown of Bohemia is held
to be both 'foolhardy' and 'foolish' (p5 & 17), nevertheless it was the
best chance of securing a non Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor in modern
times and in fact checked (in the end) resurgent Catholicism. Folly nay,
rather rash wisdom.

Dr PHS Hatton


May I echo John Norris' (Phoenix 1 ) criticism of the inaccuracy of many
game scenarios and raise a plea for some sort of "scenario column" in
Phoenix whereby the worse offenders might come to revision? "Viking",
is, as Mr Norris points out, particularly prone to this disease, almost
comically so, for the historical notes to Qadisya run 'the battle
featured much use of the archer by both sides', though the Persians are
given no bowmen at all. SPl's "triple checking" cannot have included
their own material! The very next scenario, Tours, is just as bad for
here all the Arab troops are bowmen while all the sources I have
consulted are firm that the main strength of the Saracen army was
cavalry armed with lance and sword, and that the bow was generally
eschewed.

Curiously enough, though, Mr Norris seems to go wrong himself in his
treatment of Hastings. I don't know what "the sources" he uses are, but
J. E, Adair of Sandhurst, in "Battlefields of Europe" (ed Chandler)
agrees that two thirds of the Norman troops were infantry, and that,
though as Mr Norris says, they panicked after the first assault, they
were quickly rallied when William proved he had not been slain by taking
off his helmet. I am willing to concede not being a military historian
myself) that Mr Norris' sources may be superior, at least, I might if I
knew what they were.

The problem is, perhaps, that about such matters referring to those ill
documented days there are often two sides to the question, neither of
which can actually prove the other wrong. But while the SPI practice of
using a known engagement as an excuse for a fictitious scenario is
understandable in "Chariot" and in the Dark Ages, the same feeling
somewhat pervades some much later scenarios. While Brentford in "Musket
& Pike" is a nice little scenario as a game, it bears little relation to
the actual fight, which was more the sack of a town than a battle and
Staverton bears no relation to any engagement at all. Others are almost
as bad. And those strange little discrepancies that always nag - why in
Mr Widdows' Edgehill scenario have the Parliamentarians all the
artillery, when the Royalists outgunned them by a third again? Not only
did the King himself touch off the first field piece, but it was the
silencing of the Royalist artillery that did so much for Parliamentary
morale in the later stages of the battle (see C.V.Wedgewood: The King's
War).

Now after all this criticism you will say: can I do better? And I, as I
say, not a historian, admit I can't offer anything constructive. But I
would suggest that there must be those among Phoenix readers, who, given
the space, could easily contribute more accurate versions of existing
scenarios and also new scenarios - how about one for Navarette,
described by Martin Davis also in Phoenix 1 ? Such a feature in Phoenix,
would I am sure, be a popular and useful venture.

Paul Morphine, Edinburgh

Editor's Note: A challenge indeed Mr Morphine! The columns of Phoenix
are always open to contributors, be they of historical articles (with
details of sources, please), new scenarios, amendments to existing
scenarios as well as amendments to the amendments!


The main reason for writing is to broach a subject that I feel may be of
interest to readers and might be taken up by SPUK/SPI/Phoenix or all
three, which is that: 'everyone likes a realistic playable wargame', the
accent being on playability some times at the cost of realism. Plastic
counter trays help out, by keeping counters sorted by type and size,
etc., this reduces set up time (helps play ability) and therefore
encourages sometimes complicated numbers of counters/step reduction
counters. However, I for one do not like the plastic counter trays and I
think that the Z series packs reflect this. It's not the cost, for
myself I just do not like the things. How do I get round it?

For folio game counters the plastic mini-grip bags are just right, how
about S&T published games though? Can bags be made available to gamers
at a relatively low cost. In the meantime I use the plastic boxes one
gets film slides returned in, or plastic containers from my job,

For the larger games I collect either match boxes or staple boxes and
tape them together, as many as are needed for my purpose. A little
artwork on the back and front and I have a very convenient, sturdy
container. The reverse of the box could carry some relevant rule such as
the CRT or victory conditions. My problem is a supply of boxes, could
SPUK/Phoenix maybe make available unassembled boxes to subscribers,
again at a good price. Opinions please.

To sum up, I like to play games and complex ones, if I can have minimal
set up time with ease of selection of counters then a good game becomes
a popular game for me, and my circle of opponents.

Patrick Smyth LRO (T) P T Smith

Storage of games and components is very much down to individual
preference and I do not believe that we could possibly cater for
everyone. We can however comply with one of your suggestions, Z packs in
tuture will have two small minigrip bags included for counter storage.

Malcolm Watson (SPUK)


First of all I must say that the idea of Phoenix is a good thing, as
there seems to be a shortage of British wargaming magazines that deal
with board games rather than figures, and anything to plug that gap must
be welcomed.

However, it must be ensured that the new magazine moves in the right
direction, so I hope that these comments ....will in some little way
help it to do so.

1. Direction (Question 37). It is my personal opinion that the new
magazine should only include articles that have some relationship to
board war games, but of any make or subject. For that reason I feel that
articles such as 'Tannenberg' - even though it was interesting and well
written  - have no place in Phoenix. For an historical article to appear
there it must include some reference to a game on the subject - for
example the After Report articles in S&T or on a smaller scale, the
Salamanca - a new scenario for Grenadier article in Phoenix 2.

After all, I can read about Tannenberg in a history book, so why buy
Phoenix.

I believe that the articles in Phoenix should have any of the following
objectives: 

i) to help prospective buyers by giving reviews of games, old and new -
but particularly new - with an appreciation of the subject, content,
rules, completeness, length, etc.

ii) to encourage beginners to take up boardgaming

iii) to increase interest in boardgames--I found the Global War article
on Phoenix 2, though only one players view of the game, very interesting
.....

iv) to highlight methods of improving games,e.g. rules changes,
solitaire play,etc. 

v) to provide new scenarios for existing games.

Of these objectives, to me, no.i) is the most important as, I suspect
like most gamers, I buy games by post and select games based on a
subject, manufacturer...and reviews..I rarely am able to see games in a
shop or at a friends first before ordering.

2. Newcomers (Question 38). I do not think that Phoenix in its present
form would encourage new gamers into the hobby, as it assumes that the
reader is already familiar with board wargames.... New players need
articles to encourage them to acquire a game, and to tell them what the
subject is about. Particularly they need guidelines as to the type of
games they should start with.... Again, reviews such as those now
appearing in Games & Puzzles are essential.

David Cole

Editor's Note: The length of Mr Cole's letter neccessitated some abridgement.


Those of you who, like me, are short of table space may be helped by an
idea of mine which not only saves table space but can be quite
decorative.

The idea is to mount the counters on the board and the board on the wall
with 'Blue Tac' or a similar substance. (It can be purchased from many
shops and has the ability to adhere and be easily removed from almost
any surface.)

The counters are easily taken up and replaced during movement, etc., and
a game can be left set up for days if you haven't the time to finish it.

A valuable 'spin-off' is that a game-need no longer be abandoned after,
say, 5 hours by a care less knock or the need for the table to be laid
for dinner.

(Please note, however, that it is not suitable for some surfaces such as
painted wallpaper, especially if left a long time, and all users should
check the advice on the packet first.)

Ken Newall