Mail Call Dear Sir We all, of course, sympathise with Paul Morphine (Phoenix No. 4) in his complaint about inaccuracies in game scenarios. I risk adding my own two bits' worth to the discussion only after reading Tony Jones's review of Jerusalem! in the same issue. On first getting the game my own reaction was the same as his: from the point of view of its appearance the game is strikingly successful. It was only later that I became aware how deficient it is on the score of accuracy. A colleague and I have tried to deal with these matters in an article published elsewhere and it would be inappropriate to review the same comments here. I deal with one only: the map. Jones finds it to be an "excellent clear map" and to have "no obvious errors". Regrettably, this is not so. The notes with the game-tell us that one hex is 0.4 miles across. If we use this as the measure for the map but compare distances computed from it with determined from other maps of central Palestine (in, for example, Martin Gilbert's "The Arab lsraeli Conflict: Its History in Maps", Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1974) we find that the true distance from Jerusalem to Battir is 1.35 times as far as the map indicates; from Jerusalem to Kfar Etzion the factor rises to 3.15. The implications for movement allowances and weapon ranges of these distortions are obvious. One can understand the difficulties with detailed OBs - especially in a situation such as Jerusalem! portrays where the majority of the combatants were virtually irregulars (although see the comments on Verdun, also designed by John Hill, in Panzerfaust No. 67) - but why the map has to be changed I fail to understand. Perhaps there would be fewer complaints if designers were more forthcoming about the changes they consciously introduce into their games. J.B. Poole (Dr.) Dear Sir Having now received four issues of 'Phoenix' I feel it is time I wrote you a letter on it. So here are my comments: PHOENIX 1: Interesting, but one which would not have encouraged me to subscribe. The Musket and Pike scenario may just as well have been a blank page to anyone who did not have Musket and Pike. This is not how to write a "Scenario" article. The "Napoleon at War" was the best article and, as it has a scenario as well, is an example of how to write a scenario article i.e. with some sort of backup writing to interest those without the game. PHOENIX 2: Much better. The forte of the issue was "1st Global War', my congratulations going to Mr. Finch along with a request for more of the same, please. The "Oil War" article was a mixture of good and bad, with references to hex numbers (which I consider bad in an article) set off by flowing, interesting writing. The same applies to "The American-lndian Wars" - a good, flowing article, disrupted by curiosity-provoking abbreviations which, unless you have "Rifle and Saber" are meaningless. PHOENIX 3: As to "Tannenburg", I agree with Mr. Cole (P4, Mail Call). I feel that Mr. Newall could have cut out one or two "Sorcerer" spells from his article and written on the game itself instead. As it happens, I have the game and found the article as it was, good. But I sympathise with those who know nothing of the game and found the article bewildering! Incidentally, I noticed the very worn centre of the map in the photo attached to the (excellent) 'Napoleon at Waterloo' article. Players who haven't solved this problem yet should put clear sellotape over the 'cross' in seams. I find this works wonders. PHOENIX 4: EXCELLENT!! Visually exciting, well written articles, the first Phoenix letters page and even interesting adverts. My only quibble is about "Fall' 40". What is a BRP total? What is the 'Base rate'? Mr. Hind in "The First Casualty" had an S&T (55) article to explain his abbreviations and terms. Not so for "Fall' 40". Apart from that it was a good article. By the way, congratulations to Mr. Hind (The First Casualty), Mr. Hanlon (Mercenary) and Mr. Jones (Jerusalem) for articles which shame S&T article writers. So all in all, an excellent start (as if I'd say any thing else after Issue 4). But a word to writers. Remember, not everyone who reads the article will have the game. So don't use unexplained abbreviations and do give some idea of how the game works (either by describing a game e.g. Kasserine Pass in Issue 4, or by describing the game system as in the 'Invasion America' article, P.26, S&T 57). Ed Merryweather Dear Sir With regard to Dr. Hatton's question in Phoenix No. 4 concerning the game Crimea, the following points should be noted: (1) In reality an allied naval blockade of Sebastopol was not needed. The Russians sank a line of ships blocking the entrance to the harbour. This can be done in the game (Rule 23F) preventing Sebastopol's use as a supply source. (2) The allies only invested Sebastopol from the southern side of the harbour. The Russians being able therefore to trace supply across the harbour via the ferry (Hex 1122) and from there via the road to Mackenzies Farm and ultimately Odessa. (3) In order for rule 27 to destroy the Russian forces in Sebastopol, a complete investment of the city is needed, from both the Northern and Southern sides of the harbour. It is of the utmost importance for the Russian player to keep this supply line open. If he cannot, he will of course lose the game. D. Mylie Dear Sir A few comments on my feedback responses for "Phoenix 4". Question 43 (need for "Phoenix"). There is clearly a great need for a British produced board-gamers' magazine, partly to encourage the hobby in this country and partly as competition to S&T, to force the latter to maintain its already high standards. Question 45 (visual presentation). Issue 4 is a great improvement on Issue 3 - well done! Question 56 (Direction of "Phoenix"). The inclusion of Non-SPI material is to be welcomed and both "Buy the Book" and "Mail Call" are valuable features. What about articles on game design (as distinct from simply amendments to scenarios already in existence)? As an extension to the last point, let me express unqualified approval for the idea of printing SPI games in Great Britain. However, cannot SPUK go even further by encouraging British designed games? Not only might this be welcomed by British gamers (feedback question indicated?) it might also allow Britain to start to catch up with America in this respect. There must be a good deal of talent and enthusiasm lying untapped around this country. What about SPUK starting to utilise it with a venture into publishing its own games? A. McGee Dear Sir Feedback Backup "Phoenix" Issue No.3 In general (pardon the reference) the magazine is improving but still has to match the standard of the first issue. This is always the problem with starting a new magazine or anything like that. For the first issue you have all the time in the world to choose, write or rewrite the work but once it is going it is like kicking a ball down a hill. You have got to keep up. No sooner has one issue been put to bed than the next one has to be under consideration if not actually laid out. Nonetheless, despite a rather sad Issue Number 2, the magazine appears to be getting better all the time. Questions 28 and 29 Rating the overall visual presentation inevitably invites comparison with S&T, always to the disadvantage, at present, of the new magazine. This should not be taken as any slight on the work being done by the editor or his contributors, rather it is a reflection of the very high order of presentation to which S&T subscribers are used. Having said that, it should also be said that the presentation of the magazine is already starting to show a style which is its own and owes nothing to any other publication and this is already an achievement considering the starting point of the magazine. I rather resent question No. 29 since it asks us to make up the editor's mind for him. I believe that if an article requires visual support in its content the editor will ask the author to provide it or arrange for a contributor to do so (that's what editors are there for!) and so far what has been required has been there and there has been no excess "artwork" for the sake of artwork. Long may it continue so. Question 37 In the main "Phoenix" is intended to provide a British magazine for board gamers and it is doing that. What then is "the right direction"? In the first instance it must be survival and only SPUK and the editor knows about that. Secondly the direction, or rather the objectives, of the magazine must have been set by the editor for the time being anyway. If I may be allowed an informed guess, apart from surviving, "Phoenix" has also to grow to be self supporting provide a forum for discussion of our hobby (and to stimulate that discussion) to encourage the growth of the hobby which means not only encouraging internal growth and awareness of the converts and players of board games but also to bring new people into the ranks of the hobby. Finally, I believe "Phoenix" will see, cause and take part in, the most exciting part of the whole potential and that is the growth of a UK-based design research and development board game industry which will show that the establishment of game design in this country was a narrowly based and pretty well blind, deaf and dumb industry which has, through successive years failed in all the above categories. If that is the direction in which "Phoenix" is moving then, for me, it is the right one. Right now? I don't know. Question 38 At the moment I don't think so, but is that important? For the time being "Phoenix" is a sort of supplement to S&T and must surely be preaching mainly to the converted and that is how it ought to be until the child starts to grow away from the "parent". S&T is more than capable of doing the encouraging and "Phoenix" ought to be concentrating more on getting UK involvement. Hamish Wilson