Mail Call During the last year I have purchased "War in the East" and "War in the West". I wrote to SPUK asking for the rules and playing aids required to join the two games together. It seems that SPI have stopped marketing these - even though they are advertised in the latest SPUK catalogue! Could you help me get a copy or photo-copv of the rules - perhaps a reader of Phoenix would oblige? Failing that could you tell me the set up for War in Europe of the Russo-Finnish conflict and the flexibility allowed for the Russian player in preparing for the German attack. Also does the 'liberation' of the baltic states from Russia count towards the political point total and how does Finland and the Ukraine count on this issue. As suggested in Feedback, I would like to see a regular page dealing with game problems - especially the big games which give you the chance to rewrite history. Thanks for listening. Andy Surplice Can anyone help Andy on this? We will gladly forward any material - Editor Torgau: Some Problems of Interpretation In the expectation that the response to A.McGee's request for a column on problems with rules [Mail Call, Phoenix 9] will be a positive one, may I ask for the help of players of GDW Torgau? I had hoped that Tony Dinsdale's article in Pnoenix 8 might help but it did not cover my queries. These are: a) Ought not a morale test to be made when a unit in an adjacent hex is eliminated? b) When is a routing unit only a disordered unit? There is clearly a distinction but both are branded in the same way; note that their move ment capabilities are very different. c) What is the offensive power of disordered units (cavalry and infantry) in a melee? One quarter? d) How does one compute offensive artillery fire at range? How many shots are allowed? One per MP spent within range by an enemy unit? e) Is it not unrealistic to deny artillery defensive fire at range? (It may be that some or all of these matters are covered in recent errata lists but GDW never responded to my letter for them). It is a great pity that the company persist in writing rules rather like a series of afterthoughts. J.B.Poole Until we have sufficient material on a regular basis to run a separate column any queries such as the one above will be included in "Mail Call" - Editor Congratulations Ralph Vickers on an interesting and accurate review of SPl's North Africa Quads (Phoenix 9). I would, however, like to correct one or two blunders: 1. The rules do in fact state that supply for combat is determined at the instant of combat [see general rule 12.0] 2. The list of omitted units in the Crusader errata refers to section 19.3, ie The Dash to the Wire scenario, 3. Ground Support points can be used twice per game turn - "When he is the non-phasing player he may use these same points as FPF (see Procedure - 9.0). Apart from these discrepancies, I consider Ralph's article to be one of the best I have read in Phoenix to date. William Barber ......I am sure I detect anti-British bias in S&T. The recent game proposals (Great British Disasters Quad) and certain disparaging remarks about BAOR made by Ms, Mullholland in Outgoing Mail disconcerted me. The 'Arnhem' article moves me to action. The comparison between XXX Corps and Patton is a case in point. Patton risked his men for the 101st . Against an enemy such as at Arnhem (9th and 10th SS Panzer), he would probably have either been smashed or trapped along with the units they were rescuing. XXX Corps moved slowly because of the heavy resistance and bad terrain. Montgomery, with much less reserve manpower than the US Army, also had to try and save lives that would be lost. There is also the matter of the Guards Armoured. They got off to a slow start because of terrain traffic jams and resistance. After relieving the 82nd (American) Airborne, they stopped. The way the battle for the Nijmegen bridges is described, I should imagine that the soldiers were tired. Also Guards had no supplies. We know now that there were no Germans around. But Guards didn't. If there had been and Guards was taken while advanc ing on Arnhem, supply-less and exhausted, that would have set back the operation more, and more paratroops would have fallen or been captured than actually were. Despite what Mr Kosnett says, XXX Corps fought well and did their job! I agree with him about the narrow front, but, as Supreme Commander, Eisenhower must take the blame for that. Theattack on the British Intelligence is unforgivable. This same service pulled off the 'Enigma' and 'Fish' coups, nothing like which was done by the Americans. If the British ignored spies, they had good reason. The Dutch soldiers in Britain wouldn't have known about the operation beforehand (because of security) and afterwards was too late to inform the authorities of terrain. As to the Fifteenth Army escapes, they might have been resting, or transferred to the Eastern Front. In the confused retreat, they could easily have been lost by spies. Apparently Mr Kosnett hasn't bothered to see if there was any reason for it. The 'Allied' fighters he refers to, must have been American, because the Americans flew by day and the RAF by night, according to the histories of WWII I have read . I note that wherever American failures are involved it is invariably referred to as one of 'the Allies' failings, for example, the Nijmegen Bridge. The Americans have never been noted for bravery. (My own opinion of their anti-Britishness is jealousy). Our own SAS, Long Range Desert Groups, and Paratroops have consistently outperformed the Americans. One last point for the British. In a recent exercise BAOR out-manoeuvred and would have smashed the Americans pitted against them, but for the end of the exercise. So much for the all-conquering Americans and Ms. Mullholland's worries about BAOR. The Americans tend to win in games like 'Firefight' but if the evidence is to be believed as presented, BAOR will wine and dine in the Kremlin one day. The American designers must not over-rate their forces in future. And I'm sure I speak for Phoenix readers when I say 'And so say all of us'. Ed Merryweather ....The most remarkable thing in this issue (7) must be, however, Mr Gilham's letter. I fully recognise the value of this gentleman's contributions to the magazine, but I view with alarm his apparent wish to turn the Phoenix into something approximating to a cross between the "Daily Mail" and a fan magazine for the Bay City Rollers. Of course many of the articles in the magazine are involved - they deal with involved subjects, as will be obvious to anyone who looks at the rules of any current SPI game - but this is scarcely a criticism, since the articles must aim to communicate, not to boost the author's ego. Nor is there any question, in Mr Gilham's inelegant phrase of "ripping off" MOVES. As he points out, the amateur nature of the magazine prevents this. What is, or should be, happening is simply that British board wargamers are exchanging ideas of mutual interest, and it seems to me that whether they use their full names or initials for this purpose is utterly immaterial. ...."Phoenix'' is a splendid magazine and is likely to remain so as long as the eccentricities of individual writers are firmly subjugated to the benefit of the readers. A. McGee SPUKORGY A short note to say 'Thankyou' for organising yet another pleasant weekend at Hale. Not only did I personally enjoy myself but the boys who came with me thought it a marvellous experience. I think the general atmosphere of friendliness and general camaraderie came as something of a surprise to them, even though I had briefed them in advance not to be shy about teaming up for a game. Certainly my other hobby, sailing, which is supposed to be a great leveller has nothing on a BOARD wargames get-together. Footnote: Sunday night in Harrogate. Gentlernan behind other glass, asking about the weekend: I see; and I suppose you have tournaments and competitions and things? Self: Good God, No! We just, well, walk in and sit down and have a game with someone and enjoy ourselves. G.B.O.G: Oh! Donald Mack