From S&T#166 BALKAN WARS (S&T 164) Q: Charging seems like a sure thing for an attacker with plenty of National Morale points to burn, as is certainly true of the Balkan League. Should something be done about this? (6.4) A: Yes. See the official errata for the new approach, which requires the attacker to get at least a 2:1 ratio of total Shock Value in its favor if both sides Charge in a combat. Otherwise, the defender receives the charge modifier. Q: It sure seems like the Turks are completely outclassed in National Morale, simply because there are so many individual nations with separate National Morale totals in the Balkan League. Is this accurate? (10.3) A: Yes. The designer seriously considered giving each side a single "merged" National Morale track, but decided this was too abstract and failed to reflect the considerable advantage the Balkan League possessed in being able to "gang up" on a single isolated opponent (whether Turkey or Bulgaria). Admittedly, this can produce an unbalanced situation. The generic solution to this problem is to play the same scenario twice, with players taking opposite sides in each round and comparing their relative success as the "advantaged" side. Q: In the Scenarios, why is every city and town worth victory points, no matter how insignificant and out of the way it may be? It certainly is cumbersome to keep track of relative success during the course of the game! A: Historically, all sides in the wars sought to do more than just sit in Fortresses and fend off blows. Such a passive posture would have caused grave internal dissension, even in the Ottoman Empire. Spreading VPs across the countryside so to speak encourages players to consider bolder, riskier strategies and thus behave in a more realistic fashion. NB submitted by John Kula (kula@telus.net) on behalf of the Strategy Gaming Society (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/~sgs), originally collected by Andrew Webber (gbm@wwwebbers.com)