HOW TO MAKE A BETTER WARGAME (or at least how to avoid making a bad one) by Roger Eastep Before starting, I should make couple of things clear. First, this is not being written by someone who has ever designed or published a game, but rather, and more importantly, in my viewpoint at least, by someone who has bought and played a lot of them. That explains why this isn't a how-to on getting a game published. Second, this is not directed primarily to novice game publishers, it's really written as advice to such industry "giants" (and perhaps "giants-to-be") as Avalon Hill, TSR, GDW, SDI, etc. (hereafter referred to generically as the "ACME Game Company"), since despite many years of publishing games, they don't seem to be quite as consistent with some basics as one would expect them to be. What I'm going to talk about here is how to MAKE a wargame, NOT how to research, design, develop, or playtest the game. The assumption is that ACME has done all that and is now prepared to cut, paste, box, and wrap the product. This is, therefore, a discussion on designing the components and packaging so that they are first and foremost functional, but also aesthetic. So with that said, let's jump right in and start from the outside of the game product: THE BOX. There are many different types of containers for wargames, including ziplock plastic bags, albums (e.g., the Yaquinto games), plastic trays (e.g., those used by SPI), the one of a kind chest-of-drawers (ala the old Rand series of games), and cardboard boxes of all shapes and sizes. Obviously, the latter type of package predominates for games published today, probably because it tends to be the most functional. Gamers have their own preferences (personally, I liked the SPI plastic trays best), but even if games are packaged in cheap containers such as plastic bags, the type of container has not been particularly controversial (assuming the price of the game is appropriately lower for cheaper packaging). So, I think it's safe to limit this discussion to cardboard box containers. Clearly, at least in so far as the selling potential of the product is concerned, the box the game comes in is probably as important as the game itself. If the box isn't attractive, some impulse sales are going to be lost. Granted that because of the nature of the product we're talking about, impulse buying may be less of a factor than with other consumer goods. But even for wargames, unpremeditated buying is not insignificant and certainly can't be discounted if a game publisher is seeking to sell as many of its games as it can. What makes a box attractive? Basically, the graphic design, including in most cases the illustration on the front of the box, an illustration that hopefully has something to do with the battle the game simulates. Most game publishers today are doing a fairly decent job with regard to this, but it's worth mentioning because of the few embarrassments that still come up now and then. The test is easy: which game boxes would you feel comfortable in showing to a non-gamer, particularly a person you were trying to recruit? Would you show them GI's KING OF KINGS box, which has scantily clad (and not especially well drawn) women on the cover? How about SGP's AT THE GATES OF MOSCOW, Avalon Hill's FIREPOWER, or any other game with particularly amateurish art on the box cover? Or any of the games that are rather heavy in the use of the German swastika flag? Probably not, and in most cases because of the unprofessionalism of the art or bad taste (at least, as considered by some). My recommendation to the ACME Game Company is to hire an experienced graphic artist (e.g., Rodger MacGowen, whose name may be on as many games as Jim Dunnigan's, certainly comes to mind), who can create original art or use a painting or picture to best effect (e.g., the covers of SDI's games, such as 1862, are is exceptionally attractive). As for taste, avoiding such things as swastikas and sexism would seem to be a matter of common sense. Of course, the illustration on the cover isn't the only important aspect of the box graphical design. It should be standard that the back of the box contains not only a fairly detailed description of the game, but also a list of components, an indication of the complexity level and solitaire playability of the game, and actual pictures of the counters and map. Avalon Hill does an excellent job of this and should be used as the reference standard. Another important consideration with regard to the box is the appropriateness of its size. There is a sort of standard bookcase box size that measures 8 1/2" by 11 1/2" by 2" (Avalon Hill's SQUAD LEADER size), but this "standard" size varies by up to an inch in any direction (or even more, such as with the strange Avalon Hill ADVANCED SQUAD LEADER (ASL) module boxes that are, for no obvious utilitarian reason, 10" by 11 1/2" by 2 5/8"). The flat boxes (e.g., GDW's FIRE IN THE EAST, TSR's A LINE IN THE SAND, and many of Avalon Hill's games) vary even more. Although we wargame buyers may have some personal preferences with regard to the shape of box we like best (i.e, bookcase, flat box, or something else), I think we all agree that any game box should be as serviceable as possible. Obviously, the game companies have gotten it down pretty well that the game components should fit in the box. Something that the game companies occasionally forget, however, is that the volume needed for the game components increases significantly after we've punched and sorted the counters, and put them in plastic trays. For many games, extra box space is frequently needed. An example is TSR's Second Edition WWII, which has 1200 counters that, when punched, fill about three plastic trays. TSR clearly saw the need for additional space, and packaged the game in a three inch thick box, even though the game does not include plastic trays. (I should mention here that the box for TSR's WWII, Second Edition, is the best example I can think of as having all the best features of a game box discussed above: it's very attractive, functional, and professional.) Game boxes are rarely too large, but in some cases they may be a bit too big in one direction. For example, the Avalon Hill ASL module BEYOND VALOR is wider than most bookshelf game boxes, which means that if you use the standard size plastic trays (about 8" by 11") in it, they're going to slide around in the extra space. Not a big deal, but it seems that the extra cardboard could have gone to make the box deeper to hold more trays since the game comes with almost 2500 counters. Admittedly, there are probably some money reasons for having the boxes the size that they are (smaller and more standard are cheaper, I would assume), but you can sacrifice functionality only so far. That said, let's open up the box and take a look at what's inside. First: THE RULES. The basic function of game rules is to explain to the gamer how to play the game. Simple in concept, yet as we all know, extremely complicated in execution. Granted, some games have such convoluted mechanics that Ernest Hemingway couldn't make the rules for them easy to understand, but there are several fundamentals that would help. Plain and simple, all rules (of at least a half a dozen pages in length) should have a Table of Contents, an Introduction, a List of Components, a description of the Sequence of Play, a Glossary of Terms, Examples (preferably illustrated), all necessary Tables and Charts (these are usually preferable on separate cards, but if they must be in the rules, they should be conveniently located, not scattered, such as in 1862), Design Credits, a facsimile of the unit counters (i.e., a picture of what the counter sheet looks like before it's punched out), and an alphabetical Index. Art work, Designer's Notes, Hints on Play are optional. Self evident, you say. Apparently not to many game designers/developers/rules editors/publishers. An example is the very same TSR WWII, Second Edition, which received my laudations because of its superb box. The rules for WWII lack something absolutely essential for any 48-page rule book: an alphabetical index. The case index on the last page is a poor substitute. The omission is more frustrating given the complexity of the game and the inadequately written rules. Examples, which are probably the clearest way of explaining rules, are unfortunately still pretty uncommon. (To its credit, WWII does have a separate eight page booklet with a complete and profusely illustrated sample turn.) The rules for Avalon Hill's BATTLE OF THE BULGE (1981 EDITION) contain well illustrated examples for all of the major rules concepts at the end of the booklet, while the rules for West End's SOUTH MOUNTAIN have the diagrammed examples inserted throughout the booklet with the rules they explain. The latter style is somewhat better, but I'm usually happy if there are any examples at all. The rules should generally be in an outline or case format, with decimal numbering (as with most of the games I've mentioned thus far), particularly if they are above minimal complexity and length. Narrative rules, as were and still are used in many of GDW's games, may read better, but they are not nearly as user friendly with regard to looking up things. Save the narrative style for the family games. There should also be a rational order to the rules, e.g., it's not a good idea to explain combat rules before you explain how units get into combat situations in the first place (i.e., via movement). Needless to say, the rules should be written so they can be understood, and with a minimal amount of words. The best example of well written rules I can think of are those for SOUTH MOUNTAIN. The game mechanics for SOUTH MOUNTAIN aren't particularly complex, but there are still a lot of details to the rules. The rules are presented in a very clear fashion, with several examples, and they can be understood with ease. The real proof in the quality of the rules to this game is how infrequently they have to be referred to after you start playing the game. An example of not so well written rules are those for Avalon Hill's TURNING POINT: STALINGRAD (TP:S). The rules for this game are relatively short (although this is somewhat deceptive because very small print is used), but they take a lot of re-reading to comprehend. My impression is that the TP:S rules may have been the victim of a multiple patch job, i.e., as problems and omissions were found, "clarifications" and revisions were patched into the initial rules, and eventually the person responsible for the rules lost sight of the fact that they had become muddled. Anyway, it would seem that the best way to iron out the rules before publication would be to give the playtester-proofed copy to someone who has never seen the game before and ask him or her to read them for comprehension. If this was done for TP:S, it doesn't show in the rules that were published. Rules frequently include Basic Game rules, Advanced Rules, and Optional Rules. This is fine if the Basic Game rules are just that: basic. Just cover the main concepts of the game using as few rules as possible to do it. It is always preferable to only have to read a few pages of rules before you can play the game to see if you like it. Avalon Hill's MBT and TAC AIR are good examples of this. Dividing the rules into too many sections usually makes them more confusing, e.g., Avalon Hill's ANZIO, Fourth Edition, which has Fundamental Rules, Basic Game Rules, Basic Game Optional Rules, Advanced Rules, and Advanced Game Optional Rules. What happens in the different levels of rules in this game is that rules from a previous level are changed, sometimes more than once, so it's very difficult to remember what version of a particular rule you are playing under (the rules have also been patched to an excessive extent, adding to their incoherency). Before I leave game rules, I'd like to mention a few examples of nice touches that have impressed me. Victory Games has used a couple of them. In PACIFIC WAR, which has a 56-page rulebook, every even page has an abbreviated alphabetical index of the entire booklet at the bottom of the page. This is very helpful (particularly since there isn't an overall, more detailed index). In HELL'S HIGHWAY, the rules are presented in the left of two columns on each page, and the right column is used for rules notes and exceptions, i.e., a sort of annotated rules. Several other Victory Games games use this same feature. In SOUTH MOUNTAIN, designer notes explaining the rationale for particular rules are interspersed throughout the rulebook. This helpful device is also used in some of the XTR games, such as NATO, NUKES, AND NAZIS. PLAYER AID CARDS, AND SCENARIO BOOKLETS OR CARDS are essential for most games, and of course are actually an extension of the rules in a convenient reference format. The Player Aid Cards should contain all the tables, charts, order of battles, and summaries that will be used frequently during the game. Straightforward. However, the arrangement of things on the cards should be carefully considered so that such errors as putting the turn record track on the back of a scenario card or data card (e.g., Avalon Hill's PANZER LEADER and more recently, MBT) are avoided. The Player Aid Cards should only supplement the main body of rules, i.e., rules not mentioned or described in detail in the rulebook should not appear in the Player Aid Cards. Obviously, however, the Scenario Booklet or Card, may (and usually does) contain new rules specific to the scenarios. Next: THE MAP Obviously, the MAPSHEET on which the game is played is no less important than any other game component. Mapsheets are made from a wide variety of paper, cardstock, plastic, or even cloth, and come in a lot of different sizes. Frequently, the mapsheet is mounted on some type of cardboard. I'm not sure whether anyone has ever done a poll on wargamer preferences with regard to paper mapsheets versus mounted mapboards, but my guess would be that a large majority like mounted maps. It seems to be what most companies aspire to (even SPI, the company that made paper mapsheets an acceptable alternative, tried some games with mounted mapboards), but apparently because of the expense few ever publish a game with mounted maps. There are probably more advantages to mounted maps than unmounted maps, but clearly the latter are at least acceptable to those of us who prefer the former, or there wouldn't be a lot game publishers in business besides Avalon Hill. My personal preference for mounted maps is primarily because of their convenience: you just open mounted mapboards and play; with unmounted mapsheets, you've got to tape or tack them down, or you have to have a piece of not so cheap plexiglass or some other transparent cover to put over them. Mounted maps are not advantageous, however, it they are of poor quality, e.g., those for several of the Avalon Hill games published a few years ago, such as AIR FORCE, PANZERKRIEG, PANZERARMEE AFRIKA, CIVILIZATION, etc., which invariably warped and stayed warped, as well as having a propensity for not holding together for long. Although I still prefer the type of heavy, taped-together mapboard used in the early Avalon Hill games (e.g., AFRIKA KORPS), the separate section mapboards currently used by that company for most of its games (e.g., MBT, ASL, etc.) at least avoid the problem of misaligned hexes where the sections meet. Anyway, the bottom line here is that a poorly mounted mapsheet is usually inferior to an unmounted map. Paper or cardstock mapsheets should meet some minimal level of quality, particularly with regard to thickness and durability, too. A mapsheet that tears the first time it opened (such as happened with the one in my copy of TSR's WWII, Second Edition), obviously is not meeting an acceptable standard. Probably the thicker the mapsheet, the better, since the thicker ones, such as those used in Columbia Games' ROMMEL IN THE DESERT, almost achieve the quality of mounted maps. Mapsheets vary greatly in size, and the dimensions are not usually especially important. But, it's better not to have several small pieces for a game since that makes it more difficult to tack them down. With regard to what's printed on the map, it's always seemed ironic to me that one of the most unambiguous, yet attractive game maps I've ever seen is the one for Avalon Hill's AFRICA KORPS, which was first published over 25 years ago. The irony is that in the face of such a long available "standard", too often game maps published since then have been poorly rendered, both functionally and aesthetically. For example, it would seem manifest that the terrain on maps should be unambiguous as to what type of terrain it is (all maps should have a terrain key) and which hexes include what types. Apparently this isn't manifest to all game publishers. For instance, SDI's 1862 mapsheets, which are otherwise very attractive and practical, have several hexes of woods where it is arguable whether they meet the errata requirement to be woods hexes, "those that are 'predominantly' (i.e., have more than just a bit of) woods." Decisions on the predominicity of terrain types in a hex shouldn't have to be made by the gamers. Avalon Hill's GETTYSBURG (1988 edition) otherwise relatively simple map is rife with terrain ambiguity to the point where connecting woods and hill hexes had to be listed in errata (and there are still some that are unclear). Rivers, roads, trails, and other inter-hex terrain features are also sometimes a source of confusion, but more often because of inadequate explanation in the rules rather than being poorly depicted on the map (e.g., if a river ends in a hex, is it still considered a river hex for movement and combat purposes?). The rivers and roads in the ANZIO map meander precariously close to hexsides and corners more than just about any other game map I've ever seen, and determining exactly which hexes they actually go through is frustrating at times. The more different types of terrain or ground levels on a map, and the more situations where more than one type can be in a hex, the more important the art work becomes. Choosing the colors is probably as consequential as anything else that is done in this regard, and is obviously also vital to how pleasing to the eye the map is. Muted colors seem to work best, particularly when multicolored unit counters are used. Redmond A. Simonsen, who did most of the graphics work for the old SPI, used very bland colors for the SPI maps, at least early on, and they were very functional, albeit not as attractive as some of today's maps. Really dark or bright colors make the map busier than necessary, particularly when there is a lot of map terrain. Avalon Hill's BATTLE OF THE BULGE (1981 edition) is an example of a game with a map that appears busier than it should because of the darkness of the colors used. Avalon Hill's ANZIO also has problems in this regard (and in a lot of other regards, as have already been mentioned and will be further discussed), with a gaudily colored map that looks more like a pizza that's been in the refrigerator long enough to grow a lot of exotic microorganism colonies. A lot Strategy and Tactics Magazine games from the late SPI era to the present also had problems in this area. (These difficulties were compounded, at least aesthetically, by the fact that during the '80's, apparently orange, pink, and red map paint were available too cheaply for the TSR and 3W owners of the magazine to avoid using overabundantly in the maps published.) The most recent game published in that magazine, OBJECTIVE: TUNIS, has a mapsheet that looks a bit garish, as well as having some utilitarian problems. Strangely, hill hexes are solid brown, but the differently colored rough terrain and mountains, are blotches. Roads on the OBJECTIVE: TUNIS map are yellow (major - solid, minor - dashed), and unless they go through hill hexes, you're going to have a tough time seeing them. Wadis, which are probably those blue streaks between some hexes that are difficult to see, are listed but inadvertently not pictured in the terrain key. The mapsheet for West End's SOUTH MOUNTAIN has several different terrain levels, and distinguishing them is enhanced by the use of different shades of the same color (unfortunately the color is pink). An example of an extremely handsome and relatively functional map is Avalon Hill's RUSSIAN FRONT. I can't find in the credits who did the art work, but it's one darn nice map. Next, a few words on the hexes (if the ACME Game Company game uses areas instead, skip this part). First, make the hexes big enough. (Actually, hex size is usually determined during the game design process; but, it's still within the scope of this article because the game publisher does have the option of making the entire map bigger.) Hexes the size of those used in games such as Avalon Hill's PANZERKRIEG are unacceptable. The "standard" hex size used in most games past (including the Avalon Hill "classics") and present is adequate in most cases, unless the unit density is particularly high, such as in Avalon Hill's GUNS OF AUGUST and THIRD REICH. Larger hexes (e.g., as used in GDW's THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR, Avalon Hill's SQUAD LEADER and ASL series, SPI's BLUE & GRAY Quads, West End's SOUTH MOUNTAIN series, and many others) is preferable. (I haven't given exact measurements for the various size hexes because some are in inches and some in millimeters.) My other comment on hexes is that there should be a federal law requiring that they be numbered, since evidently there are still game companies that don't understand the importance of this. Grid numbering is a poor substitute, particularly with large mapsheets such as in Avalon Hill's SIEGE OF JERUSALEM, although it's better than no hex identification at all. It should be abundantly clear by now to anyone who wants to publish a game that we gamers will try to play by mail any and every game, and hex numbering is essential for this. Hex numbering is also useful for situations other than play by mail, such as when you have to put an in-progress face-to-face or solitaire game away for a while. The ACME Game Company shouldn't consider publishing a game without numbered hexes, even if it makes it more difficult to prevent the map from becoming too "busy." Too, make sure the numbers are going to be legible, e.g., the white print against a light beige background on the GDW THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR map is virtually unreadable. Whether to use only numbers, or a combination of letters and numbers doesn't matter a lot, although I prefer the latter since I find it a tad easier to remember general map areas with letters/numbers. There isn't much to say about the printed information on the mapsheet, other than that it should be large enough and contrast well enough with the map colors to be read easily. Also, it should face whoever has to read it. AFRIKA KORPS does an excellent job of displaying the printed information on the map. The named places are printed both ways so that each player can easily read them, while the information that is most importance to one player or the other, such as the reinforcement order of appearance, faces only that player. The ANZIO map has all of the cities printed in Italian, which is OK, I guess, but also has the words for roads, gulfs, lakes, etc., in Italian, which isn't so OK. The real problem, however, is that it has the names of places generally printed perpendicular to both players. My understanding of Italian drops off dramatically when I have to look at it from a 900 angle. Tables and charts on the mapsheet are useful, and in fact the frequently referenced ones should be there rather than only in the rules. As with other printed information on the map, facing and legibility is important. Also, as I mentioned with regard to player aid cards, information on the map shouldn't be unexplained in the rules. Turn record tracks, reinforcement schedules, replacement boxes, unit type descriptions, are also useful to have on the map if they fit. That's all for the mapsheet; on to THE COUNTERS. It's almost enough to suggest to the ACME Game Company that it take a look at the counters XTR produces for its games and do its best to emulate them; they are that good. The XTR game counters have virtually all of the features described below that make for good counters. Counters, which are most often die cut, made of cardboard and either 1/2" (standard) or 5/8" (e.g., SQUAD LEADER vehicle) square, or occasionally larger or other than square (ship counters are often rectangular), are almost invariably made of cardboard. As they should be, the counters are usually laminated, which tends to make them more resistant to the wear of handling them with your fingers. All of the print on the counters, not just the usual combat-movement numbers which are traditionally on the bottom of counters, should be as large as practical for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, unit identifications are frequently shortchanged with regard print size, and I frequently find that I have to pick the units up off the map to read them (e.g., Avalon Hill D-DAY or SDI 1862 counters). Such information on the XTR game counters (e.g., those for the Command Magazine games INCHON: MacArthur's Gambit, KRIM, OPERATION SOLACE, etc.) is about as big and legible as it can get. Granted, there is a very limited amount of space to work with, but all of it should be used to the best advantage. An innovation that has both helped stretch the amount of information that can be fit on the counters and made them easier to use on the map is color striping. Horizontal stripes (as used in the counters for the SOUTH MOUNTAIN series games and TSR's edition of TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD) or diagonal stripes (as used in the counters for the TSR edition of WELLINGTON'S VICTORY) in colors different from the background color on the counters help distinguish units belonging to the different parent organizations. Similarly, colored background dots and boxes are used to provide more information, e.g., the counters in Avalon Hill's SQUAD LEADER series games and GDW's BATTLEFIELD EUROPE. Shading of the overall counter colors can also be used for this purpose, but fewer differences can be represented. Designation of the various unit types is usually done by using standard military symbols, e.g., an "x" in a box for infantry, although silhouettes are not infrequent, particularly for smaller size military units. Which to use is probably more a matter of personal preference than of practical consequence, although silhouettes seem to be more appropriate for pre-20th century games. The counters for XTR's Command Magazine game, KADESH have very attractive paintings of various ancient fighters and this helps add period flavor to the game. The choice of colors for the counters should be made with consideration to the visibility of the counters on the map (i.e., don't make units the a same color as map terrain) and distinguishing them from each other (e.g., the New Zealand units in ANZIO are wearing the same uniforms as the German units). Bright colors are best. TSR's WWII, Second Edition, uses a different color for each of many disparate nationalities, and to the extent that this is practical, this is preferred. The color of the print on the counters, as with the print on the map, should contrast with the background color adequately to assure legibility. Back-printing of the counters is fairly common these days, and for most games, especially those which use step reduction, it is imperative. If games such as Avalon Hill's ANZIO had back-printed counters, you'd only have half the counters to set up. And a more recently published Avalon Hill game, BULL RUN, would have greatly benefitted by back-printing the artillery counters for battle state versus movement state. If the back-printed side represents a step reduction, it's also useful to have a different color shade or some other marker such as a stripe to make those units more obvious on the map. Two final words on the counters: they should be thick enough (those for some of the Clash of Arms games such as THE GREAT INVASION and THE EMPEROR RETURNS, which are about 1/32nd of an inch thick, are not by any stretch of the imagination acceptable; they should be at least about 1/16th of an inch thick, as most counters are) and the die cutting should be accurate. One of the worst jobs of die cutting that I've ever seen is, ironically, in a game published by the company that has touted the quality of its games more than any other: Avalon Hill's BULL RUN. In that game, there are some huge (well, relatively, at least) differences in the widths of the counters, which are particularly noticeable and bothersome because several units can be stacked in a hex. Moving the stacks with fingers or tweezers is tough. (As an aside, that game is also unusual for one published by Avalon Hill in that neither the board nor the counters are laminated. Needless to say, I don't put my can of cola anywhere near the board.) Most often, the primary dilemma with inaccurate die cutting is that it lops off some needed information, or at least makes it much more difficult to read. Also with regard to die cutting, the deeper the cut, the better. Sometimes the cut is so shallow that you have to cut the counters out with a scissor if you don't want to risk tearing them. Deeper cuts also reduce the bane of obsessive gamers like myself, counter nubs. Granted, poor die cutting is a production problem, not a design problem, i.e., ACME Game Company wants the best quality counters it can get for the money, but sometimes the subcontractor (or in Avalon Hill's case, it's parent printing company) does a crummy job on them. Even so, the chances of having such problems can be greatly reduced by dealing with reputable subcontractors who have a track record of producing quality products (e.g., find out who does the XTR game counters). About all that's left to discuss are a few MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENTS. Dice fall into this category, even though they are certainly essential in most games. Not much to say here, except that the pre-inked dice are certainly preferable. With regard to cards, which seem to be a more common game component these days, it would be nice to have them standard size (approximately 2 1/4" by 4 1/2") and of decent quality. The cheap (and unpreferred) ones are those that are thin and die cut, and you have to punch them out yourself, such as those used in Avalon Hill's NAVAL WAR and ENEMY IN SIGHT. The cards in 3W's MODERN NAVAL BATTLES aren't much thicker, but at least they're already separated. If they require any shuffling, better caliber cards are more important. The NAVAL WAR cards are difficult to shuffle both because they are too thin and too small (1 3/4" by 2 3/4"). I realize that cards are a particularly high cost component, but frequently they are the most handled items in the game, and therefore demand higher quality. Mayfair Games and GDW have managed to put out very acceptable cards in EXPRESS and RED EMPIRE, respectively, at competitive prices. Plastic trays, the last component I'm going to mention, are a nice extra, but not a must. In CONCLUSION, I hope the foregoing discussion on making better games is helpful to game publishers. I realize that basically it's the game design and development that will determine whether a game is a good simulation and fun to play. Further, considering the limited sales that can be expected for any wargame published, I understand to make any kind of profit (or perhaps more likely, to keep losses to a minimum), compromises in the product quality are inevitable. Quality components, well designed, can only help, however, not only in terms of game sales, but also in enhancing the enjoyment of playing the game. Overall, I'm actually fairly impressed with the caliber of the game products put out today, even by new companies such as GMT and SDI. Even so, I think there's room for improvement, and the thoughts of a typical gamer presented above may be useful to the ACME Game Company when it proceeds to publish its first or next game. Roger Eastep 3/18/91 AFTERWARD: I have tried to use as many examples as I could think of when discussing the components, but I attempted to cite those games that people might be most familiar with (that's the reason Avalon Hill games are mentioned most often). The frequency of mention of any company's games in this article does not, therefore, intentionally represent any bias on my part for or against that company or its products.