No One Cares Why SPI "Demised" Anymore
Mark T Pitcavage
Everybody who ever once tossed a dice while playtesting an SPI game has come
out with their "if you buy me a beer I'll tell you why SPI -really- died"
story, and whether it is Dunnigan or Simondson or Costigan or Berg or any of
the others, it happened practically a generation ago and had far less impact
than anyone would have thought at the time.
Kevin J. Maroney
Thank you for this ever-so-helpful and ever-so-polite contribution to
this topic. You could have actually contributed something of
substance, but instead you chose to snark and stab.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Philip M. Hall
Kevin J. Maroney (kmar...@crossover.com) wrote:
: mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
:
: >Everybody who ever once tossed a dice while playtesting an SPI game has come
: >out with their "if you buy me a beer I'll tell you why SPI -really- died"
: >story, and whether it is Dunnigan or Simondson or Costigan or Berg or any of
: >the others, it happened practically a generation ago and had far less impact
: >than anyone would have thought at the time.
Actually you should care about why SPI died. Your favorite game company
may be next.
The people most directly involved in the collapse of SPI all have a
different reason for it, usually involving the lack of support from the
gamers. The real truth is quite simple. They stopped making enough money
to continue in existence.
All successful game companies have one thing in common. They all have a
cash cow. AH has ASL, TSR has AD&D, Mayfair has 18xx, Columbia has its
block game system, The Gamers have several systems that are similar. SPI
never had a cash cow that it could fall back on. They depended on
quantity to pull them through. This is what 3W tried and like SPI, they
failed. GDW had a cash cow in the form of Traveller and Twilight 2000,
but eventually weren't providing enough support for them and went under
when the cash flow wouldn't support the company, and that is why
companies succeed and why they fail.
'
So the moral is simple, but not simple in its execution. If you are going
to stay in business, develop something that is yours and will attract a
loyal following and then support it with product. That will allow you to
make the less popular games that will get others to look at the main
product. But never, never, never forget the cash cow your business is
built on.
Phil Hall
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4tmjop$d...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Philip M. Hall <sun...@prairienet.org> wrote:
>: mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>:
>: >Everybody who ever once tossed a dice while playtesting an SPI game has com
e
>: >out with their "if you buy me a beer I'll tell you why SPI -really- died"
>: >story, and whether it is Dunnigan or Simondson or Costigan or Berg or any o
f
>: >the others, it happened practically a generation ago and had far less impac
t
>: >than anyone would have thought at the time.
>:
>
>
>Actually you should care about why SPI died. Your favorite game company
>may be next.
It may well be. However, it will not be for the same reasons that SPI died.
>
>The people most directly involved in the collapse of SPI all have a
>different reason for it, usually involving the lack of support from the
>gamers. The real truth is quite simple. They stopped making enough money
>to continue in existence.
Yes, that puts it concisely.
Paul Haase
sun...@prairienet.org (Philip M. Hall) wrote:
>All successful game companies have one thing in common. They all have a
>cash cow. AH has ASL, TSR has AD&D, Mayfair has 18xx, Columbia has its
>block game system, The Gamers have several systems that are similar. SPI
>never had a cash cow that it could fall back on. They depended on
>quantity to pull them through. This is what 3W tried and like SPI, they
>failed. GDW had a cash cow in the form of Traveller and Twilight 2000,
>but eventually weren't providing enough support for them and went under
>when the cash flow wouldn't support the company, and that is why
>companies succeed and why they fail.
>'
Is the "cash cow" idea really supported in the financial records of
game companies? As I understand, SPI went under because they badly
underpriced their games sold to wholesalers for retail distribution
(see the #80s S&T's for more details), not because they didn't have a
single high-selling title. (And in any case, S&T magazine of the later
70s, which is when it began to turn a reasonable profit, was their
cash cow and primary advertising outlet combined. But a small cash cow
if that's important.) For a couple of years at least SPI apparently
lost money on each title sold in stores. So as sales increased through
expanded retail distribution, their losses mounted. Compounding the
problem was that distributors don't pay right away, so SPI required a
bigger cash "float" to continue paying overhead, printing, etc.
Eventually they got so far behind that raising prices and fixing the
underpricing problem couldn't raise enough money for new products and
salaries fast enough (hence the frantic efforts to raise cash near the
end via increased sales of lifetime subscriptions, special services,
etc. All things they'd get paid for right away and have to deliver on
later, when hopefully the temporary cash crunch was over). They
eventually took out loans to pay the bills, but failed to get enough
money to pay on them, either. So TSR bailed them out and then suddenly
foreclosed, taking over the assets lock, stock and barrel.
You're right in the SPI was founded economically on ever-larger sales
of games, etc--it was not designed as a small-scale stable outfit like
say the Gamers probably is. That's how Dunnigan and Simonsen could get
SPI going on so little money--they moved it around very fast, plus
more was always coming in. When sales leveled off in the later 70s,
cracks began to appear in this foundation. The subsequent expansion
into retail sales and the major foray into SF/Fantasy were attempts to
grow the company again. Probably the efforts at recycling proven
systems in new (stupid?) series games like "Victory in the West" was
partly inspired by this, too--to reduce design costs. But the initial
underpricing of retail products doomed these efforts to failure,
because as they increased sales- the "cure"--they also increased
company loss--the very "symptom" higher sales were supposed to
alleviate. And the company didn't have the fiscal resources to weather
the storm, as it had during the economic downturn in '73 or so (when
SPI was smaller and much less cash outlay was required to "wait it
out". I'm not sure exactly what happened then, but I think a few
individual investors, i.e. the people working for SPI, stepped in to
cover the bills via reduced salaries, investment of personal savings,
and the like). The debt was just too big to cover this way in 1980. So
it goes.
You can find out much more about all this in the Outgoing Mail columns
of S&T magazine #18-89, in which the financial details of the company
were described in detail (too much detail, according to many comments
at the time). Annual financial reports were printed in the magazine
too, for many of these years. Finally, SPI's 1977 book "Wargame
Design" includes a chapter on the economics of it all, SPI- and
70s-style (economic climates have changed somewhat since then, but
many of the principles hold). Apparently Dunnigan worried over the
financial end extensively, which only makes sense since it was his
baby up until a year before the end.
Lastly, are you sure these "cash cows" you name really make all that
much money? AH's best seller, last I noticed (a couple years
back--check your Generals), was Outdoor Survival(!), which sells lots
of copies to a wide range of people (compare with ASL, which sells
some copies of many linked add-ons, each of which costs much new $$ to
create, to some dedicated fans). Who would call Outdoor Survival a
cash cow, yet it was picked up from Dunnigan et al in the early 70s
for just $5000-10000 and keeps on selling. Things may not be the way
they appear for these other companies, either... But yours is an
interesting idea, nonetheless.
Paul Haase
Kevin J. Maroney
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>What would I have contributed?
Well, in this post you actually contributed three ideas: that a lot of
SPI games weren't very good, despite their reputation; that, for some
reason, it _did_ serve to bring a number of talented people into the
industry; and that SPI did innovate in realm of f&sf wargames and it's
a shame that no one noticed.
You also state that there was a "wargaming renaissance" of the 80's
and 90's, which others have discussed but I have yet to see really
backed up.
Your original post was _pure_ snarkery, implying (without stating)
that anyone who still had an interest in SPI was being self-serving,
self-important, or self-deceiving.
Philip M. Hall
Paul Haase (pau...@sonic.net) wrote:
: sun...@prairienet.org (Philip M. Hall) wrote:
<Big snip>
:
: Lastly, are you sure these "cash cows" you name really make all that
: much money? AH's best seller, last I noticed (a couple years
: back--check your Generals), was Outdoor Survival(!), which sells lots
: of copies to a wide range of people (compare with ASL, which sells
: some copies of many linked add-ons, each of which costs much new $$ to
: create, to some dedicated fans). Who would call Outdoor Survival a
: cash cow, yet it was picked up from Dunnigan et al in the early 70s
: for just $5000-10000 and keeps on selling. Things may not be the way
: they appear for these other companies, either... But yours is an
: interesting idea, nonetheless.
:
: Paul Haase
:
Paul,
I'm not sure of the sales figures for ASL, but I suspect that the sales
figures are based on individual sales and not on sales of the system,
that is that each part of ASL is counted seperately instead as part of ASL.
I would imagine that when added together ASL and its additions outsold OS.
The cash cow theory actually holds up pretty well. All of the mentioned
companies support to a large degree their cash cow. Those that don't
usually go under. You will also find that if you think of one of these
successful companies that you first think of them as the "company that
makes_____". And that is a mixed blessing depending on how you feel about
that game. In fact, these companies become so associated with that
particular system, that anyone doing something similar will be compared
with the original company in almost the first paragraph of any review.
The cash cow is also a fallback revenue producer. You should always have
something in the pipeline that can be sped up to produce more cash if one
of the current other projects fails to be a hit with the public. Keeping
the cash cow going is an art. You must keep the consumer wanting more,
and provide it at the right time to keep him from getting bored.
(Personally I'm waiting for A5A II that AH announced in their Nov.95
catalog. Not a cash cow game, but I'm getting bored waiting for it. I
have noted that AH has put a lot of effort into the Stonewall Jackson's
Way system which implies that it is a bigger money maker than A5A).
The problem with a magazine as cash cow is the inability to produce more
of them if the situation demands. SPI was depending upon quantity to
stave off the inevitable, and as you pointed out that only got them
deeper into the mire. It also resulted in a lower quality game in both
design and graphics, which resulted in lower sales which meant publish
more games which lead to... you get the idea.
The other thing about the cash cow is it is usually very high quality for
what it is. The Gamers have been redoing the graphics in their Civil War
Brigade series games to keep up with the newer techniques and it has paid
dividends. Columbia improves the graphics of the maps with each release.
Some companies, like TSR and Games Workshop, hook the customer in and
then change the rules ( I have never understood people who fall for this,
but they do).
If you could check the financial records of these companies for several
years, I think you would find that a significant amount of their income
has come from their cash cow.
Phil Hall
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <31fe7458...@news.crossover.com>,
Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>
>>story, and whether it is Dunnigan or Simondson or Costigan or Berg or any of
>
>this topic. You could have actually contributed something of
>substance, but instead you chose to snark and stab.
What would I have contributed? Another in a long line of conspiracy theories?
Another tired discussion of wargaming markets in the 1970s and 1980s? A rehash
of SPI's _Dallas_ game? A hidden frame of the Zapruder film showing Jim
Dunnigan?
Let's get real, here. SPI died a decade and a half ago. It had an impact
primarily as a prep school for designers who went on to better things. Its
games have turned out to be mostly over-rated; few have held up over the years.
The wargaming renaissance of the 1980s and 1990s has completely eclipsed SPI.
SPI will probably longer be remembered for _The Campaign for North Africa_,
_Tito_, _Drive on Stalingrad_, _Dixie_, and similar "gems" than for
_Panzergruppe Guderian_ and its other infrequent classics.
Ironically, the area in which SPI showed the most imagination was in the arena
of sf and fantasy wargames, a niche which unfortunately has basically
completely died out.
Chris Camfield
Be that as it may, I think the discussion threads about the industry
been among the most interesting I've read on rec.games.board.
Chris
--
Christopher Camfield - ccam...@uwaterloo.ca - BMath Joint CS/C&O
"And the Crow and the Jackal and the Jackfish
Are suited up to go another round / I'll be up to my ticker in dead-beats
When the cold steel hammer swings down" (BRJ)
Paul Haase
I doubt the "cash cow" is as critical to success as you say. After
all, SPI did last for 13-14 years without one, setting some new
standards for research, graphics, design, low price (and perhaps
professional turkeys). Certainly not for every game, or maybe even
very often, but they were the industry leader and thrived a good long
time. Who know, they might still be around if they hadn't bungled the
pricing of their retail games in the late 70s so badly. Of course
they'd have had to change their business approach from fast growth to
stability/slow growth to keep with the realities of the hobby. But it
wasn't lack of a cash cow that did them in. It pretty clearly was a
too-crude accounting system that didn't reveal true costs until too
late, as far as available records indicate.
The world is a diverse place and there are many, many ways to succeed.
Failures are easy to disect and attribute to some clear cause;
assigning a positive, active reason for success is difficult if not
impossible (Fitzgerald's "Beautiful and the Damned" is interesting on
this point from the human viewpoint angle, and S.J. Gould's "Wonderful
Life" gives an intruiging discussion of the mechanistic, evolutionary
aspects). Not that we shouldn't try to find causes for success, of
course, but that our feeble abilities in this area should be
considered as well.
Paul Haase
(If I don't respond for a while its because I'm on vacation away from
the call of the computer).
Jim Smolen
***** Lurk = Off *******
gand...@unlinfo.unl.edu (gary anderson) wrote:
>I gather that while those playtesters you mention were tossing dice,
>you were probably tossing teething toys; but to those of us who
>were conscious and involved, the reminiscences of "Costigan" and
>"Simondson" and the rest are plenty interesting.
Agreed.
Another old SPI playtester from the Friday night follies.
Jim Smolen
***** Lurk = ON *******
gary anderson
: >: >Everybody who ever once tossed a dice while playtesting an SPI
: >: >you why SPI -really- died" story, and whether it is Dunnigan
: >: >or Simondson or Costigan or Berg or any of the others, it
: >: >happened practically a generation ago and had far less impact
: >: >than anyone would have thought at the time.
Yeah, I guess you're right -- several hundred posts on this thread
proves nobody cares....
Stuart L. Dollar
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>What would I have contributed? Another in a long line of conspiracy theories?
Nothing of substance so far, from what I've seen...
>Let's get real, here. SPI died a decade and a half ago. It had an impact
>primarily as a prep school for designers who went on to better things. Its
>games have turned out to be mostly over-rated; few have held up over the years.
>The wargaming renaissance of the 1980s and 1990s has completely eclipsed SPI.
What wargaming renaissance? Have I been sleeping for the last 10
years and woke up in a parallel universe? The board wargame market is
smaller than it has ever been, and AH's parent company is in chapter
11, The Gamers retail distribution is doing so well they are going to
mail order only, GDW has been gone for 7 months... Although I
disagree with some of the conclusions, I find SPI's death to be
relevant and interesting...
>SPI will probably longer be remembered for _The Campaign for North Africa_,
>_Tito_, _Drive on Stalingrad_, _Dixie_, and similar "gems" than for
>_Panzergruppe Guderian_ and its other infrequent classics.
I disagree...you're just being negative to get a rise out of people.
Just 3 weeks ago I played a couple of the old ACW quads with a guy. I
have PGG in my closet, After the Holocaust, and a number of other
truly great games. Yes, as I've pointed out, SPI did turn out some
clunkers, but hey, so does every other game manufacturer...
>Ironically, the area in which SPI showed the most imagination was in the arena
>of sf and fantasy wargames, a niche which unfortunately has basically
>completely died out.
Actually, your remarks tell me that you don't know too much about
SPI...or what wargaming was like in the late 60's & early 70's when
there was basically nobody but AH...
We'd still be playing nothing but the old AH Classics if it weren't
for Dunnigan, Simonsen, et al. The first tactical game was
Panzerblitz... it was a Dunnigan design which he sold to AH. SPI
pushed the envelope of game design about a 1000% compared to AH's
aged, decrepit, Classics system... SPI set the standard for game
design for a long time. They tried things that nobody had before, and
in some cases that nobody has done since...
They sold more games than AH for virtually their entire existence.
Several game companies, such as GDW, built themselves on SPI's model
and lead. They also forced AH to try new things, or lose even more
market share than they did... I can assure that if it weren't for
SPI, you'd have never seen some of the innovative things that AH did,
such as SL... Yes, they failed, but this was not a reflection,
IMNSHO, of poor designs as much as it was of undercapitalization,
which meant that they hemorraged design staff as well as $$$ in later
years...
Stu
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Isaac Asimov, from "Foundation"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This tagline brought to you by Big Ed's Taco Emporium, conveniently located next to
Bob's Pet Shop.
Stuart L. Dollar sdo...@goodnet.com
Stuart L. Dollar
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>>: mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>It may well be. However, it will not be for the same reasons that SPI died.
Actually, when you consider that EVERY game company runs on shoestring
budgets (except for TSR, and they are in the red), It is VERY likely
that they will die in a very similar manner to SPI...
Neal Sofge
> Ironically, the area in which SPI showed the most imagination was in the
arena
> of sf and fantasy wargames, a niche which unfortunately has basically
> completely died out.
Hey, thanks for your support.
--
Neal Sofge (home: ne...@aol.com) I speak for myself, not RAND.
Fat Messiah Games Web: http://www.io.com/~wasson/fmg.html
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ts24i$i...@news.goodnet.com>,
Stuart L. Dollar <sdo...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>>primarily as a prep school for designers who went on to better things. Its
>>games have turned out to be mostly over-rated; few have held up over the year
s.
>>The wargaming renaissance of the 1980s and 1990s has completely eclipsed SPI.
>
>What wargaming renaissance? Have I been sleeping for the last 10
>years and woke up in a parallel universe? The board wargame market is
>smaller than it has ever been, and AH's parent company is in chapter
>11, The Gamers retail distribution is doing so well they are going to
>mail order only, GDW has been gone for 7 months... Although I
>disagree with some of the conclusions, I find SPI's death to be
>relevant and interesting...
Apparently you equate sales with quality. Too bad for you.
>
>>SPI will probably longer be remembered for _The Campaign for North Africa_,
>>_Tito_, _Drive on Stalingrad_, _Dixie_, and similar "gems" than for
>>_Panzergruppe Guderian_ and its other infrequent classics.
>
>I disagree...you're just being negative to get a rise out of people.
>Just 3 weeks ago I played a couple of the old ACW quads with a guy. I
>have PGG in my closet, After the Holocaust, and a number of other
>truly great games. Yes, as I've pointed out, SPI did turn out some
>clunkers, but hey, so does every other game manufacturer...
>
The vast majority of SPI games were "clunkers." People bought them because for
much of SPI's existence, there were few other games to buy.
>>Ironically, the area in which SPI showed the most imagination was in the aren
a
>>of sf and fantasy wargames, a niche which unfortunately has basically
>>completely died out.
>
>Actually, your remarks tell me that you don't know too much about
>SPI...or what wargaming was like in the late 60's & early 70's when
>there was basically nobody but AH...
>
>We'd still be playing nothing but the old AH Classics if it weren't
>for Dunnigan, Simonsen, et al. The first tactical game was
>Panzerblitz... it was a Dunnigan design which he sold to AH. SPI
>pushed the envelope of game design about a 1000% compared to AH's
>aged, decrepit, Classics system... SPI set the standard for game
>design for a long time. They tried things that nobody had before, and
>in some cases that nobody has done since...
>
>They sold more games than AH for virtually their entire existence.
>Several game companies, such as GDW, built themselves on SPI's model
>and lead. They also forced AH to try new things, or lose even more
>market share than they did... I can assure that if it weren't for
>SPI, you'd have never seen some of the innovative things that AH did,
>such as SL... Yes, they failed, but this was not a reflection,
>IMNSHO, of poor designs as much as it was of undercapitalization,
>which meant that they hemorraged design staff as well as $$$ in later
>years...
Ho hum. We all know the good things SPI did, yattadah yattadah yattadah.
That's no reason to ignore the fact that it was the 3W of its time; it's just
that there wasn't enough competition in the early 70s for people to know it.
SPI has been dead a long, long time. Perhaps it's time to stop the
necrophilia.
Mark E. Johnson
In article <4ts24i$i...@news.goodnet.com>, sdo...@goodnet.com (Stuart L.
Dollar) wrote:
> Just 3 weeks ago I played a couple of the old ACW quads with a guy. I
> have PGG in my closet, After the Holocaust, and a number of other
> truly great games. Yes, as I've pointed out, SPI did turn out some
> clunkers, but hey, so does every other game manufacturer...
All this talk made me realize that I actually know very little about the
golden age of wargaming (early 1970s?). I'd love to read what some
oldtimers in the hobby have to say about that period, about the quality
and consistency (or not) of SPI's games, the emergence of GDW, WEG,
Yaquinto, and others, the reponse of AH, and so on. I've been gaming since
about 1979, but it's almost always been of the science fiction and fantasy
variety, with The Space Gamer as my source of historical information (a
good mag, but never intended to cover the historical marketplace).
Oh, and I'd really prefer to read this history from people who did *not*
work for those companies at that time.
> Yes, they failed, but this was not a reflection,
> IMNSHO, of poor designs as much as it was of undercapitalization,
In broader terms, I think we've seen a lot of game publishers stuggle and
fail due to poor business management skills. And no wonder--an industry
this small doesn't bring in a lot of nongamer business school graduates.
Instead, it too often relies on good, creative game designers also having
enough business savvy (or at least the personnel management skills to hire
the right staff). I'm afraid that hasn't worked out too often.
-MJ
--
Mark Johnson joh...@ccnet.com www.ccnet.com/~johnson
John Kula
I care.
Stuart L. Dollar
joh...@ccnet.com (Mark E. Johnson) wrote:
>All this talk made me realize that I actually know very little about the
>golden age of wargaming (early 1970s?). I'd love to read what some
>oldtimers in the hobby have to say about that period, about the quality
>and consistency (or not) of SPI's games, the emergence of GDW, WEG,
>Yaquinto, and others, the reponse of AH, and so on. I've been gaming since
>about 1979, but it's almost always been of the science fiction and fantasy
>variety, with The Space Gamer as my source of historical information (a
>good mag, but never intended to cover the historical marketplace).
I can give you my perspective on it. I bought my first games in 1976.
I was 12 years old at the time. There was a store in a mall near
mine, a fabric store... She dragged me along so she could buy fabric,
and I decided to lose myself in the hobby shop a couple of doors
down... I actually went to look at the old plastic model stuff, and
the place had a lot of HO & N gauge railroad stuff, which I collected
at the time... They had reshuffled some of their stock, and I
stumbled upon the wargame aisle by accident. I got hooked on the old
Jedko title: The Russian Campaign, which was later republished by
Avalon Hill... I was hooked. I didn't buy it then, but saved
lawnmowing money and bought it a couple of weeks later, when I was
finally able to con my mom into taking me back there... It's still 1
of my favorites, and I'm on my second copy at this point...
Most of the early games I bought were AH & SPI... The 2nd edition of
3rd Reich, After the Holocaust. The Starforce trilogy games,
Sniper... 1 of the stores I used ot hang out at in the early days was
Flying Buffalo Games. Flying Buffalo was a company that specialized
in PBM computer wargames (they still exist), and also sell the Nuclear
War series, as well as the Tunnels and Trolls line. At that time they
ran a game store as well. There were a ton of companies at that
time... Columbia Games, Battleline, Jedko, GDW, Conflict, Rand, SPI,
Simulations Canada, GDW, TSR (yes they had published D&D, but they
made several unsuccessful cracks into the board game market as well)
AH, Yaquinto, and others. A few of the more obscure titles in my
collection: Yaquinto's Nuclear War Game, A game called Second Empire
(can't remember the publisher without pulling a box out of mothballs,
A Jedko edition of Russian Campaign, etc.
The nice thing about the hobby is that it was very affordable in those
days. You're average AH bookcase game went for about $10, depending
on title, and the SPI bubblepacked stuff usually went for about $8.
Even for a kid spending his lawn-mowing money, this made the hobby
very affordable... Since I didn't go to the store too often (mom
would only make so many trips, after all...), I'd frequently save up
$30-$40 dollars, and buy 4 or 5 games...
1 of the other things I remember was that you could find wargames in
the strangest places then. Heck, they practically sold some of the AH
bookcase stuff at 7-11. They did sell them at several of the
department stores. Additions to my collections came from a number of
sources in those days: local hobby shops, a couple from JC Penney,
and I distinctly remember buying my first copy of Panzer Leader at a
Walgreens Pharmacy, of all places...
I can assure you that those days are never coming back...
My first experience with GDW was the RPG Traveller, which I still play
and GM... I later bought a number of their historical and SF games,
including Imperium, a couple of the Europa series games, Trenchfoot, a
number of the Traveller related SF board games, and some other titles.
A particular favorite of mine from GDW's early days is Fifth Frontier
War, a Traveller based wargame that had the most fascinating command
and control rules I'd ever seen in a wargame...
Although I've played a number of the AH classic series over the years
at conventions and such, the only Classic that I own is Afrika Korps.
I'm not as old as some of the grognards (I'm 32 now), but I've played,
and met some almost old enough to be my father... Most of my gaming
opponents then were older, although I developed a number of opponents
who were my age at high school. I distinctly remember advertising for
opponents in the General, and meeting a guy who was 30+ at the time,
in town from out of state on business, who came over to my family's
house, and we proceeded to trounce each other at Panzerblitz off and
on for most of a Saturday and Sunday afternoon... I remember that
this really blew away my folks that a 30+ year old guy would come over
to play a 13 year old a wargame... :-)
Another thing I remember about the early days was the number of really
wild startup companies there were out there at the time. Companies
were even less stable then than they are now. Rand was a prime
example of this. They published 3 wargames, 2 of which were flops,
and folded their tent and stole quietly away into the night... Some
companies would design 1 or 2 games sell them to a bigger company, and
then fold up shop... Others would go it alone until they would put
out a dog and died. There were probably at least a dozen companies
out there that others could name that I didn't rattle off earlier who
fit this mold.
I remember distinctly when I heard that SPI folded. I was very upset.
I had enjoyed a lot of their games, and there were other titles out
there that I would have loved to have added to my collection. I heard
about the TSR foreclosure at the time, and harbored a resentment about
TSR that I carry to this day (they haven't got a dime of my money
since...right or wrong). I for one, never heard the full story, and
that's the reason I've enjoyed the SPI "I was there" thread so much.
Some people frame their childhood around what they were doing when
they heard that Kennedy was shot, for me it was what I was doing when
I heard that SPI was gone... :-(
I'm sure that some of the grognards could add a lot more detail to the
Shelby Foote style account I gave you, but I don't want to bore you
any longer...
Stu
>Oh, and I'd really prefer to read this history from people who did *not*
>work for those companies at that time.
>> Yes, they failed, but this was not a reflection,
>> IMNSHO, of poor designs as much as it was of undercapitalization,
>In broader terms, I think we've seen a lot of game publishers stuggle and
>fail due to poor business management skills. And no wonder--an industry
>this small doesn't bring in a lot of nongamer business school graduates.
>Instead, it too often relies on good, creative game designers also having
>enough business savvy (or at least the personnel management skills to hire
>the right staff). I'm afraid that hasn't worked out too often.
>-MJ
>--
>Mark Johnson joh...@ccnet.com www.ccnet.com/~johnson
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Isaac Asimov, from "Foundation"
Stephen Graham
In article <4tuk5j$q...@news.goodnet.com>,
>
>days. You're average AH bookcase game went for about $10, depending
>on title, and the SPI bubblepacked stuff usually went for about $8.
People in this thread are losing track of the relative worth of the dollar
over time. US$10 in 1976 was the equivalent of US$27.60 today. It's not
that hard to find an equivalent wargame for $30 today. (one map, ~300
counters)
--
Stephen Graham
gra...@ee.washington.edu
gra...@cs.washington.edu uw-beaver!june!graham
Lance Squiddie Smith
sdo...@goodnet.com (Stuart L. Dollar) writes:
>1 of the other things I remember was that you could find wargames in
>the strangest places then. Heck, they practically sold some of the AH
>bookcase stuff at 7-11. They did sell them at several of the
>department stores. Additions to my collections came from a number of
>sources in those days: local hobby shops, a couple from JC Penney,
>and I distinctly remember buying my first copy of Panzer Leader at a
>Walgreens Pharmacy, of all places...
The first wargame I ever got (but never played, which fits well within
the original thread) was AH's Luftwaffe bought at a Ben Franklin drug
store. I recall it was a toss up between that and Panzerblitz and I
eventually went with Luftwaffe because the shrink wrap on the Panzerblitz
was slightly torn.
The majority of my early games were bought at St Paul Book and Stationery.
For some reason they decided to stock a wide selection of the SPI flat
tray games. They were sorted by era and were racked on end and face out
like records. I didn't know a lot about them early on, so I bought many
based on the name and cover art. Hard to ignore that orange cover on
Sniper.
Also, I began subscribing to S&T when I saw a commercial for it on
TV. I think they ran in our area on Saturday afternoons, usually with
Star Trek re-runs. Anyone else recall these ads? I still recall when the
UPS delivered my first issue (Punic Wars, unfortunately) which came with
a copy of Waterloo and some little squad game they were just starting to
send out to new subscribers. Pretty heady times.
============================
Lance "Cr2O3.2H2O" Smith | "What!?! I don't care if you've replaced his
(squi...@winternet.com) | monocle with a cybernetic eye that shoots death
I have a trench coat, | rays. This is just silly. I'm killing this series
but I refuse to wear it | now!" _Mr Peanut 2099_ #1, page 1, panel 1
Stuart L. Dollar
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>In article <4ts24i$i...@news.goodnet.com>,
>Stuart L. Dollar <sdo...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>>>Let's get real, here. SPI died a decade and a half ago. It had an impact
>>>primarily as a prep school for designers who went on to better things. Its
>>>games have turned out to be mostly over-rated; few have held up over the year
>s.
>>>The wargaming renaissance of the 1980s and 1990s has completely eclipsed SPI.
>>
>>What wargaming renaissance? Have I been sleeping for the last 10
>>years and woke up in a parallel universe? The board wargame market is
>>smaller than it has ever been, and AH's parent company is in chapter
>>11, The Gamers retail distribution is doing so well they are going to
>>mail order only, GDW has been gone for 7 months... Although I
>>disagree with some of the conclusions, I find SPI's death to be
>>relevant and interesting...
>Apparently you equate sales with quality. Too bad for you.
Quality is great... But tell me there isn't a game designer out there
who wouldn't like to sell a few more copies of his latest design...
Tell me that somebody is ever going to have the kind of success with a
wargame again that AH had with SL/ASL. Since the total number of
board wargamers is declining, its not going to happen... Take a look
at it... The last big thing was Magic: The Moneygrubbing... It has
about as much resemblance to board wargaming as checkers... Most of
the hobbystores I go to now make their living off of CCG's. They sell
a little RPG stuff, and for the most part, the wargames collect dust.
Hell, 1 of the stores I go to still has a lot of SPI, Yaquinto, 3W,
etc in stock NEW... If you don't think there's a bit of relevance,
you're lying to yourself...
Board wargaming, as with any other enterprise, is first and foremost A
BUSINESS. You can build the best game since Chess, but if there isn't
somebody out there buying it, you aren't going to publish too many
more efforts...
>>
>>>SPI will probably longer be remembered for _The Campaign for North Africa_,
>>>_Tito_, _Drive on Stalingrad_, _Dixie_, and similar "gems" than for
>>>_Panzergruppe Guderian_ and its other infrequent classics.
>>
>>I disagree...you're just being negative to get a rise out of people.
>>Just 3 weeks ago I played a couple of the old ACW quads with a guy. I
>>have PGG in my closet, After the Holocaust, and a number of other
>>truly great games. Yes, as I've pointed out, SPI did turn out some
>>clunkers, but hey, so does every other game manufacturer...
>>
>The vast majority of SPI games were "clunkers." People bought them because for
>much of SPI's existence, there were few other games to buy.
The vast majority of wargame designs are clunkers. Take a look in
your closet. How many games do you have? How many have you played
more than 1 time? 5 times? 10 times? 100 times? I doubt more than
a dozen have captured anybodies attention to play more than about 10
times...
Again, you just prove your ignorance about the early years of the
hobby... Ever hear of Yaquinto? GDW? AH? Simulations Canada?
Conflict? Rand? Metagaming? Task Force Games?
There were more companies, and more titles in the hobby then than
there are now... Not to mention the fact that the games were cheap
enough that you could frequently buy a couple at a time, and I say
this as a kid who bought my first games with lawnmowing money...
>>Actually, your remarks tell me that you don't know too much about
>>SPI...or what wargaming was like in the late 60's & early 70's when
>>there was basically nobody but AH...
>>
>>We'd still be playing nothing but the old AH Classics if it weren't
>>for Dunnigan, Simonsen, et al. The first tactical game was
>>Panzerblitz... it was a Dunnigan design which he sold to AH. SPI
>>pushed the envelope of game design about a 1000% compared to AH's
>>aged, decrepit, Classics system... SPI set the standard for game
>>design for a long time. They tried things that nobody had before, and
>>in some cases that nobody has done since...
>>
>>such as SL... Yes, they failed, but this was not a reflection,
>>IMNSHO, of poor designs as much as it was of undercapitalization,
>>which meant that they hemorraged design staff as well as $$$ in later
>>years...
>Ho hum. We all know the good things SPI did, yattadah yattadah yattadah.
>That's no reason to ignore the fact that it was the 3W of its time; it's just
>that there wasn't enough competition in the early 70s for people to know it.
Nice... real classy. I make an argument you can't refute, and your
response is to insult me...
>SPI has been dead a long, long time. Perhaps it's time to stop the
>necrophilia.
Not necrophilia, reverence for the dead... There's a world of
difference...
Stu
Stuart L. Dollar
gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
>In article <4tuk5j$q...@news.goodnet.com>,
>Stuart L. Dollar <sdo...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>>I can give you my perspective on it. I bought my first games in 1976.
>>
>>The nice thing about the hobby is that it was very affordable in those
>>days. You're average AH bookcase game went for about $10, depending
>>on title, and the SPI bubblepacked stuff usually went for about $8.
>People in this thread are losing track of the relative worth of the dollar
>over time. US$10 in 1976 was the equivalent of US$27.60 today. It's not
>that hard to find an equivalent wargame for $30 today. (one map, ~300
>counters)
Yeah, problem is that wages haven't gone up as inflation, so your
argument is flawed in some ways... All I know is that the few titles
that I bought then for $8-10 which are still in print, run about
$35-40 today...
In addition, nowadays, that $30 game you talk about is going to be on
a paper map, with matte finish counters, in a flimsy paper box. In
those days, the bookcase games were mounted, and the die cut counters
were gloss finish, which hold up much better to finger prints. Until
77-78, the game companies even gave you countertrays with a lot of the
games... I remember distinctly an apology from AH regarding Squad
Leader in the general because the volume of the mapboards and
countersheets made it impossible to put countertrays in the box...
Plus, you missed the whole point of my argument, which was just to
give perspective about when I entered the hobby, in your rush to give
me an unneeded (and unwanted) economic lesson.
Stu
Stephen Graham
In article <4tvkol$18...@news.goodnet.com>,
Stuart L. Dollar <sdo...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
>>In article <4tuk5j$q...@news.goodnet.com>,
>>over time. US$10 in 1976 was the equivalent of US$27.60 today. It's not
>>that hard to find an equivalent wargame for $30 today. (one map, ~300
>>counters)
>
>Yeah, problem is that wages haven't gone up as inflation, so your
>argument is flawed in some ways... All I know is that the few titles
>that I bought then for $8-10 which are still in print, run about
>$35-40 today...
And I didn't include a discussion of the price of paper, which has gone
up faster than the rate of inflation.
>In addition, nowadays, that $30 game you talk about is going to be on
>a paper map, with matte finish counters, in a flimsy paper box. In
>those days, the bookcase games were mounted, and the die cut counters
>were gloss finish, which hold up much better to finger prints. Until
>77-78, the game companies even gave you countertrays with a lot of the
>games... I remember distinctly an apology from AH regarding Squad
>Leader in the general because the volume of the mapboards and
>countersheets made it impossible to put countertrays in the box...
These threads originated with a discussion of SPI, which gave you a
paper map, matte finish counters, and a "flimsy" paper box. The 1996
game I have next to me has: a paper map that's been treated for water
resistance, gloss-finish counters, and a paper box that's sturdier than
the Squad Leader box I have on a shelf.
Besides, some of us don't like mounted mapboards.
>Plus, you missed the whole point of my argument, which was just to
>give perspective about when I entered the hobby, in your rush to give
>me an unneeded (and unwanted) economic lesson.
It wasn't directed specifically at you. I merely used your post as a
starting point. Note that I changed the Subject line, which usually
indicates a new thread.
Daniel Blum
Stephen Graham (gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu) wrote:
> In article <4tuk5j$q...@news.goodnet.com>,
> >
> >days. You're average AH bookcase game went for about $10, depending
> >on title, and the SPI bubblepacked stuff usually went for about $8.
> People in this thread are losing track of the relative worth of the dollar
> over time. US$10 in 1976 was the equivalent of US$27.60 today. It's not
> that hard to find an equivalent wargame for $30 today. (one map, ~300
> counters)
And inflation has hit paper products hardest - look at how much book prices
have increased in the same amount of time (they were around $1.25 or so in
1979/80, as I recall, and go for $5-7 today).
> --
> Stephen Graham
> gra...@ee.washington.edu
> gra...@cs.washington.edu uw-beaver!june!graham
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@mcs.net
"I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."
_______________________________________________________________________
Jim Pritchett
In article <4tns7t$6...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Mark T Pitcavage writes:
> Ironically, the area in which SPI showed the most imagination was in the arena
> of sf and fantasy wargames, a niche which unfortunately has basically
> completely died out.
That is utter nonsense. It was the mad dash into SF/Fantasy (and Dallas, etc...)
that sealed their fate. It is hard to do a good SF/Fantasy game when you really
hate and despise them. It showed in their SF/Fantasy games. Although they had a
few good ideas, they didn't make them work. They probably needed some outside
designers for them. As for SF/Fantasy being dead, you've got to be kidding! They
are out there in force.
While SPI was the best wargame company (and none of the new ones seem any better),
they did themselves in. The market tired of "formula" games where complexity was
added again and again simply for its own sake. How many people have actually
played CNA, for example? (The "politically correct" dogma got pretty thick in
some of the games too - e.g. South Africa, etc.) They got themselves deeply in
debt and left their customers in the dust trying "anything" to find a mass market
to bail them out. They didn't find it. It was a shame to see them go. While
TSR's actions seem pretty unscrupulous (to put it kindly), they merely precipitated
an event which was going to happen sooner or later...
IMHO, of course.
I've read some of the "inside" accounts of the demise. While the facts are correct,
the interpretations and whys are usually blurred by the "inside" viewpoint. I could
wax elephants for some time about things SPI did wrong, but that wouldn't bring them
back. Some of their people are still doing games. Others have gone off to do other
things. The last I heard, Simonsen was an executive at a small computer peripherals
company. I think it went under. I don't know what he's doing now. I assume most
people know what Dunnigan, Berg, etc. are doing.
Has anyone played Panzergruppe Guderian lately?
Jim Pritchett
UUCP: j...@caleb.lerctr.org "I am the way, the truth, and
rowdy.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp the life; no man cometh to the
j...@caleb.uucp Father, but by me."
Jesus Christ
Dave Kohr
In article <lPNZy*r...@caleb.UUCP>, Jim Pritchett <j...@caleb.lerctr.org>
wrote:
>In article <4tns7t$6...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Mark T Pitcavage
>writes:
>> Ironically, the area in which SPI showed the most imagination was in the
>> arena of sf and fantasy wargames, a niche which unfortunately has
>> basically completely died out.
>
>That is utter nonsense. It was the mad dash into SF/Fantasy (and Dallas,
>etc...) that sealed their fate. It is hard to do a good SF/Fantasy game
>when you really hate and despise them.
Let's see, SPI was the first (and I believe, the only) company to create a
gaming magazine with a game in each issue (Ares). They developed their own
fantasy and sci-fi RPG systems. They created what many believe was the
definitive game on Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_. They started a line of
sci-fi/fantasy minigames (the "capsule" games). They had been publishing
full-size boxed sci-fi and fantasy games for most of their existence (some
of the earlier efforts included Sorceror and the StarForce trilogy). Sounds
not a bit like a company which "hated" the SF/F genre. And I'm leaving out
a lot here.
The facts just don't support you, Jim. Sure SPI made lots of bad business
decisions, but claiming that they weren't serious about this genre is just
plain ridiculous. Between the mid-70's and their demise in the early 80's,
they put as much effort into this area as any company there was.
>Although they had a few good ideas, they didn't make them work.
SPI had their share of successes. Games like "Creature That Ate Sheboygan"
were quite innovative, had high replay value, and were popular. Their RPG
lines were doing OK at the time, they failed because the company failed
(and couldn't support them anymore, and TSR wouldn't), not because they
didn't work. "War of the Ring", "Freedom in the Galaxy" (another SPI
design), and "BattleFleet: Mars" still get discussed on this group, and
still get played. I still sometimes run across fans of some of the more
interesting Ares issue games, like "Albion".
Dave Kohr Hacker/Researcher Argonne National Laboratory, MCS Division
Building 203, Room C-246 Phone: (708) 252-4243 E-mail: ko...@mcs.anl.gov
See also my WWW Home Page: http://www.mcs.anl.gov/home/kohr/index.html
"Surfing the Silicon Prairie."
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4tuhbv$i...@news.goodnet.com>,
Stuart L. Dollar <sdo...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>The vast majority of SPI games were "clunkers." People bought them because f
or
>>much of SPI's existence, there were few other games to buy.
>
>The vast majority of wargame designs are clunkers. Take a look in
>your closet. How many games do you have? How many have you played
>more than 1 time? 5 times? 10 times? 100 times? I doubt more than
>a dozen have captured anybodies attention to play more than about 10
>times...
>
>Again, you just prove your ignorance about the early years of the
>hobby... Ever hear of Yaquinto? GDW? AH? Simulations Canada?
>Conflict? Rand? Metagaming? Task Force Games?
You assume I am "ignorant" of the early years of the hobby, but you are in fact
quite mistaken. Read my quote above, which says that "people bought them
because for much of SPI's existence, there were few other games to buy." Now
go find out the years in which SPI was in business. Then find out when
Yaquinto, GDW, Simulations Canada, Conflict, Rand (ugh), Metagaming, and Task
Force Games started, and how many games they put out when they first started.
Guess what you'll find: a large period of the 1970s when SPI had little
competition except Avalon Hill, which very slowly released games.
People bought SPI games because, like Mount Everest, they were there.
>
>There were more companies, and more titles in the hobby then than
>there are now... Not to mention the fact that the games were cheap
>enough that you could frequently buy a couple at a time, and I say
>this as a kid who bought my first games with lawnmowing money...
Name the wargaming companies that existed in 1974; compare them to the number
that exist now.
As for the price of games, that is determined largely by the price of paper,
which has gone up considerably above the rate of inflation.
>
>>>Actually, your remarks tell me that you don't know too much about
>>>SPI...or what wargaming was like in the late 60's & early 70's when
>>>there was basically nobody but AH...
>>>
>>>We'd still be playing nothing but the old AH Classics if it weren't
>>>for Dunnigan, Simonsen, et al. The first tactical game was
>>>Panzerblitz... it was a Dunnigan design which he sold to AH. SPI
>>>pushed the envelope of game design about a 1000% compared to AH's
>>>aged, decrepit, Classics system... SPI set the standard for game
>>>design for a long time. They tried things that nobody had before, and
>>>in some cases that nobody has done since...
>>>
>>>such as SL... Yes, they failed, but this was not a reflection,
>>>IMNSHO, of poor designs as much as it was of undercapitalization,
>>>which meant that they hemorraged design staff as well as $$$ in later
>>>years...
>
>>Ho hum. We all know the good things SPI did, yattadah yattadah yattadah.
>>That's no reason to ignore the fact that it was the 3W of its time; it's just
>>that there wasn't enough competition in the early 70s for people to know it.
>
>Nice... real classy. I make an argument you can't refute, and your
>response is to insult me...
You made an irrelevant argument, and I did not insult you.
>
>>SPI has been dead a long, long time. Perhaps it's time to stop the
>>necrophilia.
>
>Not necrophilia, reverence for the dead... There's a world of
>difference...
Compulsive dissection of long-dead corpses is not reverence.
Casimir Paul Krakowski
OK,
Since a lot of you others are doing it........
I bought my first game 3R at SEARS!!!!!! in 1972 at the age of 15. I was intrigued
by the box and title (My father had some interest in Military History and luckily passed
it on to me). I bought a bunch of ah and then SPI titles. Living in the Delaware
Valley at the time, I drove to AH to 'visit' and was put off by their attitude. I also
didn't care for their output of titles either. I became enamored with SPI, for several
reasons. Their output was much larger than AH's. They tried everything and anything
back then. A lot of their games were good solid ones, some clunkers and some gems.
They had magazines with games and without, series games, simple games, complex games,
etc. Their games were reasonably priced (not cheap, but not out of reach either). Plus
their attitude when I stopped by there was very friendly. Yes, there were a lot of
other companies starting (and some stopping); Rand, Battleline, Yaquinto, etc.etc. It
is an age that will never return, but one that gives me many happy memories. It will
never return, but we do have some excellent companies today, and some excellent
independents as well. The Gamers, GMT, Columbia, and others have put out some of the
best games (IMHO) ever, and should be supported so that we are not talking about them in
20 years like we talk about SPI today.
Time to get off of my soapbox. Thanks for listening. :)
Casey
Jay Martino
gand...@unlinfo.unl.edu (gary anderson) wrote:
>I gather that while those playtesters you mention were tossing dice,
>you were probably tossing teething toys; but to those of us who
>were conscious and involved, the reminiscences of "Costigan" and
>"Simondson" and the rest are plenty interesting.
While Pitman often posts things I don't agree with, there's no call
for that comment. I've seen his name involved in wargaming for many
years, particularly the Europa "community" (which he seems to be a bit
off right now). Before you assume anything about someone I suggest you
check your work.
Jay
***If you are responding to my comments on
a newsgroup, please do not send me a private
e-mail copy of your reply unless you intend
carry on the discussion privately.***
mjma...@igs.net
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <lPNZy*r...@caleb.UUCP>, Jim Pritchett <j...@caleb.lerctr.org> wrote:
>In article <4tns7t$6...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Mark T Pitcavage writ
es:
>> Ironically, the area in which SPI showed the most imagination was in the are
na
>> of sf and fantasy wargames, a niche which unfortunately has basically
>> completely died out.
>
>That is utter nonsense. It was the mad dash into SF/Fantasy (and Dallas, etc.
..)
>that sealed their fate. It is hard to do a good SF/Fantasy game when you real
ly
>hate and despise them. It showed in their SF/Fantasy games. Although they ha
d a
>few good ideas, they didn't make them work. They probably needed some outside
>designers for them. As for SF/Fantasy being dead, you've got to be kidding!
They
>are out there in force.
This post is such a tempting target that I am at a loss to know where to begin.
Your first point, that a "mad dash" into sf/fantasy "sealed their fate" is
unprovable, and I notice you offer no support for that assertion. The number
of sf/f games they offered was relatively limited, and included a number of
very good games that still hold up today, where most of their historical
wargames do not. Here I can think of _Freedom in the Galaxy_, _Albion_, _After
the Holocaust_, _Swords and Sorcery_, _The Creature that Ate Sheboygan_,
_Outreach_, and _The Sword and the Stars_, to name a few. Others are now
outdated but at the time were significant entries, such as _Starforce_, or are
what you might call flawed masterpieces, such as _John Carter_. Their
role-playing game _Dragonquest_ still has adherents today, amazingly. I am
unaware if _Universe_ ever caught on.
I'll skip your middle points and go straight to the end, your peculiar
statement that "as for SF/F being dead, you've got to be kidding! They are out
there in force." This is simply patently untrue, unless you include card games
and Games Workshop games. When was the last time, for instance, a wargaming
company released a series of games like _Fifth Frontier War_, _Azhanti High
Lightning_, _Dark Nebula_, _Triplanetary_, _The Clone Rebellion_, _Snapshot_,
and _Imperium_? Or the SPI games listed above? How many true science fiction
wargames have come out in the past five years? The answer is hardly any--just
the occasional fluke like _Gateway to the Stars_, by a third-world company.
<tired speculations on SPI's demise deleted>
ThMaverick
In article <4tvkol$18...@news.goodnet.com>, sdo...@goodnet.com (Stuart L.
Dollar) writes:
> I remember distinctly an apology from AH regarding Squad
>Leader in the general because the volume of the mapboards and
>countersheets made it impossible to put countertrays in the box...
Speaking of apologies.... I have a letter that was included in the
flatbox copy of Foxbat and Phantom around 1973 in which SPI apologized for
having to omit dice because of the oil crisis!
the Mav
Lance Squiddie Smith
thmav...@aol.com (ThMaverick) writes:
Yes, you got a sheet of counter-like number chits instead. I think the letter
explains that the chits are more expensive than the die.
I always wondered why they bothered. SPI always used such small dice in their
tray games. I don't think any of my friends bothered with them at the time,
prefering their own dice. I swear I never met anyone who used the chits.
===========================
Lance "Cr2O3.2H2O" Smith | "It looked like a big peanut, sir. It came at us
(squi...@winternet.com) | and did a dramatic pose. Then it gritted its teeth.
Excerpt from Image's | We didn't know what to do so we just blew it up."
_Mr Peanut's Strikefile_ | "Good thinking, soldier! Outstanding job!"
dutchman
On 3 Aug 1996, Lance Squiddie Smith wrote:
>
> Also, I began subscribing to S&T when I saw a commercial for it on
> TV. I think they ran in our area on Saturday afternoons, usually with
> Star Trek re-runs. Anyone else recall these ads? I still recall when the
> UPS delivered my first issue (Punic Wars, unfortunately) which came with
> a copy of Waterloo and some little squad game they were just starting to
> send out to new subscribers. Pretty heady times.
>
My first exposure to SPI was through an ad in a SF magazine (Analog, I
believe?). I soon ran across the magazine in my local library, which was
available (believe it or not!) for loan with game included! Heady times,
indeed...can you imagine Command magazine available at your local library?
ThMaverick
In article <squidboy....@winternet.com>, squi...@winternet.com
(Lance "Squiddie" Smith) writes:
>I always wondered why they bothered. SPI always used such small dice in
their
>tray games. I don't think any of my friends bothered with them at the
time,
>prefering their own dice. I swear I never met anyone who used the chits.
The SPI dice are nothing compared to the mini-dice that were included in
Metagaming microgames (before they started leaving them out and marking
out the word die on the back of the box with black ink.)
But the all-time worst dice size has to go to the micro-mini 20-sided dice
used in some of the FGU role-playing titles. Smaller than a marble and
good luck reading the numbers!
the Mav
Markus Stumptner
In article <8391125...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>, ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov (Dave Kohr) writes:
>In article <lPNZy*r...@caleb.UUCP>, Jim Pritchett <j...@caleb.lerctr.org>
>wrote:
>>In article <4tns7t$6...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Mark T Pitcavage
>>writes:
>>> Ironically, the area in which SPI showed the most imagination was in the
>>> basically completely died out.
>>
>>That is utter nonsense. It was the mad dash into SF/Fantasy (and Dallas,
>>when you really hate and despise them.
>
>Let's see, SPI was the first (and I believe, the only) company to create a
>gaming magazine with a game in each issue (Ares). They developed their own
>fantasy and sci-fi RPG systems. They created what many believe was the
>definitive game on Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_. They started a line of
>sci-fi/fantasy minigames (the "capsule" games). They had been publishing
>full-size boxed sci-fi and fantasy games for most of their existence (some
>of the earlier efforts included Sorceror and the StarForce trilogy). Sounds
>not a bit like a company which "hated" the SF/F genre. And I'm leaving out
>a lot here.
In fact, Redmond Simonsen, one of the founders, was intimately involved
in many of SPI`s SF and Fantasy projects (designing some himself).
--
Markus Stumptner m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Technische Universitaet Wien m...@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria vexpert!m...@relay.eu.net
You may just have missed your last chance for incremental garbage collection.
Markus Stumptner
In article <4ts29h$i...@news.goodnet.com>, sdo...@goodnet.com (Stuart L. Dollar) writes:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>
>
>>It may well be. However, it will not be for the same reasons that SPI died.
>
>Actually, when you consider that EVERY game company runs on shoestring
>budgets (except for TSR, and they are in the red), It is VERY likely
>that they will die in a very similar manner to SPI...
Which would pretty much indicate that the demise of SPI changed nothing,
because the very factors that companies are suffering from today were
present in the 1970's. End of discussion.
Kanda' Jalen Eirsie
Greetings...
On 5 Aug 96 02:33:28 GMT, squi...@winternet.com (Lance "Squiddie" Smith)
wrote:
>>Speaking of apologies.... I have a letter that was included in the
>>flatbox copy of Foxbat and Phantom around 1973 in which SPI apologized for
>>having to omit dice because of the oil crisis!
Ah, yes, I too had one of those from Foxbat and Phantom, Got another one
in Barbarossa!.. I just used the dice from Richtoffens War (my "OTHER" game)
>I always wondered why they bothered. SPI always used such small dice in their
>tray games. I don't think any of my friends bothered with them at the time,
>prefering their own dice. I swear I never met anyone who used the chits.
Actually, the people in the group I was in at the time (Cape Cod
Wargamers) loved those tiny SPI dice.. You put one in an Airbrush paint
bottle with the cap on and had a wonderful die roller that didn't roll across
the board or upset stacks. The little die bounced for about 2 seconds inside
the bottle before settling down and the glass of the bottle magnified the die
so it was very visible. That and it made such a cute little jingle sound
when you shook it...:) And the bottles were just the right size to fit into
your typical AH bookcase box..
The chits we used as backings for pasting those new counters published in
AH's General for various games. Back then, finding blank counters wasn't as
easy as it is today...
ll
[*=- From Deep in the Dungeons -=*] Kanda'Jalen Eirsie
[*=- Of Kanda's Lair -=*] The Lord High Mage
[*=- Dragonseekers Always Welcome -=*] kan...@iti2.net
http://iti2.net/kandaje/ <-- Under Construction but it's there!
The Impossible Asynchrony of the Mind can sculpture the Dazzling
Space-Time continuum, if one can look beyond the ordinary...
- Steve "Banner" Richardson,1983 Random cutouts of Omni Magazine
Stuart L. Dollar
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>In article <4tuhbv$i...@news.goodnet.com>,
>Stuart L. Dollar <sdo...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>>Again, you just prove your ignorance about the early years of the
>>hobby... Ever hear of Yaquinto? GDW? AH? Simulations Canada?
>>Conflict? Rand? Metagaming? Task Force Games?
>You assume I am "ignorant" of the early years of the hobby, but you are in fact
>quite mistaken. Read my quote above, which says that "people bought them
>because for much of SPI's existence, there were few other games to buy." Now
>go find out the years in which SPI was in business. Then find out when
>Yaquinto, GDW, Simulations Canada, Conflict, Rand (ugh), Metagaming, and Task
>Force Games started, and how many games they put out when they first started.
>Guess what you'll find: a large period of the 1970s when SPI had little
>competition except Avalon Hill, which very slowly released games.
>People bought SPI games because, like Mount Everest, they were there.
OK... I'll grant you this up until about '73. Although I would amend
it to read...
People bought SPI games because like Mt. Everest, they were there, and
they were better than the tired, recycled crap that Avalon Hill was
putting out.
By '74, GDW had started, Conflict had started, Rand (ugh) had started,
and was a year away from dying, Ironbottom Games started... There was
more than the big 2... TSR was trying to break into the board game
market, and had published something called Dungeons and Dragons...
>>There were more companies, and more titles in the hobby then than
>>there are now... Not to mention the fact that the games were cheap
>>enough that you could frequently buy a couple at a time, and I say
>>this as a kid who bought my first games with lawnmowing money...
>Name the wargaming companies that existed in 1974; compare them to the number
>that exist now.
Perhaps a better question might be... Name the wargaming companies
that existed in 76-77, and name the ones that exist now...
>As for the price of games, that is determined largely by the price of paper,
>which has gone up considerably above the rate of inflation.
You will get no argument from here...right on the money...
>>>>Actually, your remarks tell me that you don't know too much about
>>>>SPI...or what wargaming was like in the late 60's & early 70's when
>>>>there was basically nobody but AH...
OK, obviously you know a little about the early years as well...
>>>>We'd still be playing nothing but the old AH Classics if it weren't
>>>>for Dunnigan, Simonsen, et al. The first tactical game was
>>>>Panzerblitz... it was a Dunnigan design which he sold to AH. SPI
>>>>pushed the envelope of game design about a 1000% compared to AH's
>>>>aged, decrepit, Classics system... SPI set the standard for game
>>>>design for a long time. They tried things that nobody had before, and
>>>>in some cases that nobody has done since...
>>>Ho hum. We all know the good things SPI did, yattadah yattadah yattadah.
>>>That's no reason to ignore the fact that it was the 3W of its time; it's just
I would say that it was more than the 3W of its time. Without
somebody going up against AH before and having some success, (and
probably a little more failure), 3W might never have started... And I
didn't really find 3W's line all that interesting...
>>>that there wasn't enough competition in the early 70s for people to know it.
>>
>>Nice... real classy. I make an argument you can't refute, and your
>>response is to insult me...
>You made an irrelevant argument, and I did not insult you.
Maybe not, but you dispute my argument with an irrelevant comment.
Sarcasm is not a rebuttal...
>>>SPI has been dead a long, long time. Perhaps it's time to stop the
>>>necrophilia.
>>
>>Not necrophilia, reverence for the dead... There's a world of
>>difference...
>Compulsive dissection of long-dead corpses is not reverence.
First of all, I'm not compulsive about it. This is the first time
that I've kicked over this particular corpse. I am however willing to
stand for something I believe in, and when somebody tells me that
discussing something I've never discussed before is unworthy of
discussion ON WHAT IS A PROPER FORUM FOR SUCH DISCUSSION,
I'm liable to take offense... I probably wouldn't have argued it this
long, but I think that your opinion (that nobody cared about the
topic) was definitely in the minority, especially since NOBODY has
echoed it. Frankly, since I wasn't aware of the goings on intimately
at the time of SPI's demise, it has given me a point of view on the
topic I would have never seen otherwise.
I did not pick this argument, you did. I wasn't the 1 who interrupted
a thread which had seen a 100+ postings with a "No One Cares" flame.
In the interest of bandwidth, this is my last posting on this
particular thread topic. If it wasn't tired when it was on topic, its
very tired now that its only peripherally on topic at all.
Stuart L. Dollar
Casimir Paul Krakowski <krak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>independents as well. The Gamers, GMT, Columbia, and others have put out some of the
>best games (IMHO) ever, and should be supported so that we are not talking about them in
>20 years like we talk about SPI today.
Nice point, Casey... ;-)
Stu
Stuart L. Dollar
squi...@winternet.com (Lance "Squiddie" Smith) wrote:
>Yes, you got a sheet of counter-like number chits instead. I think the letter
>explains that the chits are more expensive than the die.
>I always wondered why they bothered. SPI always used such small dice in their
>tray games. I don't think any of my friends bothered with them at the time,
>prefering their own dice. I swear I never met anyone who used the chits.
I used the chits. Whenever I lost a counter, I'd flip over a chit,
put a unit symbol and the combat strengths on it, and whammo...
replacement counter... :-P
But, no, I never used the chits. I did find 1 use for the little SPI
dice though. They made good low budget miniatures for nameless
faceless bad guys in RPG's...
Kevin J. Maroney
mjma...@igs.net (Jay Martino) wrote:
>While Pitman often posts things I don't agree with, there's no call
>for that comment. I've seen his name involved in wargaming for many
>years, particularly the Europa "community" (which he seems to be a bit
>off right now). Before you assume anything about someone I suggest you
>check your work.
Actually, the Europa mailing list is thriving these days.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Kevin J. Maroney
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>Name the wargaming companies that existed in 1974; compare them to the number
>that exist now.
Name the wargaming companies that existed in 1981; compare them to the
number that exist now. Or, even more entertainingly: list the
companies that existed in 1981 as wargame companies that *still* exist
now.
Avalon Hill.
Task Force--now effectively a one-game company.
FASA--now effectively a one-game company.
West End--out of wargames entirely.
Mayfair--ditto.
Steve Jackson--almost completely out of wargames until Car Wars comes
back.
Anyone else?
There are a handful of new companies publishing work worthy of
attention--The Gamers, GMT, GR/D, Columbia--but compared to the
extremely fertile period from 1980 to 1985, it's a bloody wasteland.
Kevin J. Maroney
squi...@winternet.com (Lance "Squiddie" Smith) wrote:
>I always wondered why they bothered. SPI always used such small dice in their
>tray games. I don't think any of my friends bothered with them at the time,
>prefering their own dice. I swear I never met anyone who used the chits.
In StarForce, you *had* to use the chits, since d10s weren't yet
invented and d20s weren't widely available.
dutchman
On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Casimir Paul Krakowski wrote:
> Living in the Delaware Valley at the time, I drove to AH to 'visit'
> and was put off by their attitude. I also didn't care for their output
> of titles either.
This is a very familiar complaint. I too experienced the arrogance of AH
at GenCon/Origins '88. Talking with Steve Jackson, or J.D. Webster, or
Frank Chadwick, one left the conversation with a distinct feeling of
warmth and friendship. Speaking (at separate occasions) with Don
Greenwood and S. Craig Taylor, I was left with the distinct impression
that they wished they could be anywhere else in the world than talking to
a bunch of the people who supported paying their salaries. "Arrogant" is
the most polite word that comes to mind when thinking of TAHGC's attitude.
However, at the time I was hooked. I had a collection of 100+ games, and
at least 50% of them were AH product. I still love games like WIS, VITP,
WS&IM, Submarine and (faith and begorrah!) ASL. However, the late 80s
gave birth to dogs like Flight Leader, Tac Air, MBT, Firepower; just to
name a few. I've not bought a non-ASL TAHGC product in over 5 years.
Siege of Jerusalem occasionally tempts me, but I've yet to see a copy
priced anywhere near an amount that I want to spend.
Stuart L. Dollar
thmav...@aol.com (ThMaverick) wrote:
>In article <4tvkol$18...@news.goodnet.com>, sdo...@goodnet.com (Stuart L.
>Dollar) writes:
>Speaking of apologies.... I have a letter that was included in the
>flatbox copy of Foxbat and Phantom around 1973 in which SPI apologized for
>having to omit dice because of the oil crisis!
Interesting... Never had Foxbat & Phantom to see this one...
Stu
Kevin J. Maroney
j...@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) wrote:
>In article <4tns7t$6...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Mark T Pitcavage writes:
>That is utter nonsense. It was the mad dash into SF/Fantasy (and Dallas, etc...)
>that sealed their fate. It is hard to do a good SF/Fantasy game when you really
>hate and despise them. It showed in their SF/Fantasy games. Although they had a
>few good ideas, they didn't make them work. They probably needed some outside
>designers for them. As for SF/Fantasy being dead, you've got to be kidding! They
>are out there in force.
I wandered over to the next office and told Greg ("Creature that Ate
Sheboygan", "Vector 3", "Sword and Sorcery", "Death Maze") Costikyan
that everyone at SPI despised f&sf. He said that it was funny how
memory plays tricks on one, since he's *pretty* sure he liked them...
Considering that Red Simonson's major design was Star Force: Alpha
Centauri, we can conclude that *at least someone* at SPI liked f&sf.
Markus Stumptner
In article <4tuhbv$i...@news.goodnet.com>, sdo...@goodnet.com (Stuart L. Dollar) writes:
>>The vast majority of SPI games were "clunkers." People bought them because for
>>much of SPI's existence, there were few other games to buy.
>
In other words, the demise of SPI did not change anything. I think
that was his thesis.
>Take a look in
>your closet. How many games do you have? How many have you played
>more than 1 time? 5 times? 10 times? 100 times? I doubt more than
>a dozen have captured anybodies attention to play more than about 10
>times...
Actually, that is a sign that the wargame industry is, on the whole,
not worse off than it was fifteen years ago, and probably better.
I have games that I played fifty or a hundred times. Now, ten is
a lot. Not because the games are worse than they used to be, but
because there are so many that are good enough to be bought.
>Again, you just prove your ignorance about the early years of the
>hobby... Ever hear of Yaquinto? GDW? AH? Simulations Canada?
>Conflict? Rand? Metagaming? Task Force Games?
Jagdpanther, OSG, Dwarfstar, Heritage USA, Phoenix,
Well, I have... Btw, AH and TFG are still around, as is
Columbia. And of course Excalibre is reprinting Yaquinto's
old games.
>There were more companies, and more titles in the hobby then than
>there are now...
Really, by any significant margin?
The Gamers, GMT, XTR, GamesUSA, Avalanche, Pacific Rim, 3W/Cosi (yes,
still lurching around), Decision Games, One Small Step, Terran Games,
Moments in History, Spearhead, Excalibre, Omega Games, Clash of Arms...
what was it you were saying? And this is not counting the small and
"amateur" outfits like Sierra Madre, Fat Messiah, or SDI (or is it SDC?
I always confuse those two), or the exotics (from your POV, I guess) like
Alea, Vae Victis, AWE, Simtac. And I've left out the "unstable" companies
which you mentioned existed in the 70's and which flicker up nowadays in
the same manner, some producing crap and disappearing (FGA), some producing
good stuff and disappearing (Rhino, or the guys that did Alexander at
Tyre). I don't think it's all that different - or at least counting the
disappeared companies does not make the difference appear that large.
>Not to mention the fact that the games were cheap
>enough that you could frequently buy a couple at a time, and I say
>this as a kid who bought my first games with lawnmowing money...
Can't really dispute this, but then I'd assume lawnmowing is
generally less effective for accumulating riches nowadays. The other
factor that I will acknowledge is the much reduced availability of
wargames in stores. But since retail sales apparently were fraught
with problems back then as well, I don't see where the difference lies
there. Finally, I'd assume that one reason why games tend to be
more expensive nowadays is that even if lawnmowing or wages have
not kept up with inflation, printing costs probably have - and
components in wargames today are usually much more colorful and
with more intricate graphics than back then(*). Yes, only AH does
mounted boards nowadays, but isn't that exactly how it was in 1980?
A mounted board in an SPI game means you got the "deluxe edition".
(*) Btw, I'm not saying that "more intricate graphics" necessarily
means "better", but when I read reviews or listen to comments on new
games in this group, it is obvious that to a large degree flash is
what sells. I'm not free of that, either.)
Dave Kohr
In article <32063e53...@news.crossover.com>,
Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
>squi...@winternet.com (Lance "Squiddie" Smith) wrote:
>>I swear I never met anyone who used the chits.
>
>In StarForce, you *had* to use the chits, since d10s weren't yet
>invented and d20s weren't widely available.
Speaking of which, does anybody out there have an opinion of StarForce? It
was one of the first SciFi games I bought, but the one time I played it, we
found it moved very slowly due to having to plot your moves. Also my
opponent just rushed in and attacked my main star system, which didn't make
for very interesting strategy. (BTW he won : -) .)
Joe Shaughness
>OK,
>Since a lot of you others are doing it........
> I bought my first game 3R at SEARS!!!!!!
Mine was Panzerblitz bought at a hardware store that doubled as my
small hometown's mail order center. Next was Blitzkrieg bought at a
drugstore after I had my broken arm set. This was back in the early
70's. As far as inflation goes I remember subscribing to S&T from an
ad in a 15 cent comic book and mail ordering 12 25mm Hinchliffe
Byzantines for $1.99! Nowadays I just bought 3 GW dark elf cold one
knights for 25.00 for my kids. As the old quote goes: "Nostalgia
ain't what it used to be.
Joe Shaughnessy
j...@iamerica.net
Danny Holte
kmar...@crossover.com (Kevin J. Maroney) wrote:
>Name the wargaming companies that existed in 1981; compare them to the
>number that exist now. Or, even more entertainingly: list the
>companies that existed in 1981 as wargame companies that *still* exist
>now.
>There are a handful of new companies publishing work worthy of
>attention--The Gamers, GMT, GR/D, Columbia--but compared to the
>extremely fertile period from 1980 to 1985, it's a bloody wasteland.
On that note:
Make a list of restarants that were in business in 1981. Now
list the ones that are no longer in business, that were then.
If you looked at a list like that, you could probably guess that soon
there would be no more restaraunts.
-Danny
Lance Squiddie Smith
kmar...@crossover.com (Kevin J. Maroney) writes:
>squi...@winternet.com (Lance "Squiddie" Smith) wrote:
>>I always wondered why they bothered. SPI always used such small dice in their
>>tray games. I don't think any of my friends bothered with them at the time,
>>prefering their own dice. I swear I never met anyone who used the chits.
>In StarForce, you *had* to use the chits, since d10s weren't yet
>invented and d20s weren't widely available.
I was thinking specifically of the 1-6 chits and not the specialty chits.
Yes, at the time I would have considered 0-9 to be a specialty chit.
Still, I recall having to get on a waiting list in order to get a pair of
20-siders. (Red and white. Sharp edges. Uninked.) Had to ride ten miles to
the other side of town to get them.
Life was tougher then. You tell kids today and they don't believe you...
=============================
Lance "Cr2O3.2H2O" Smith | "Why can't we do it? Traffic did it, didn't they?"
(squi...@winternet.com) | "Traffic's was based on traditional music."
We're through | "So we're just modernizing it a bit, zats all..."
being cool | The Writing of "Mr Peanut Must Die"
Danny Holte
Whoa! 'Tried out a spell checker and it undermined my typing! That's
_restaurant_ - It came up with two different spellings, too! <g>
Philip M. Hall
My first *desire* for a wargame was in '58, I believe. The Sears
Christmas catalog had Gettysburg and Tactics in it. Mom wouldn't go for
it since they were for " 12 years and up" and I was only 10. My first
*real* wargame was Bismarck in '64. I think the movie was just out and I
saw the game in a local toy store. You talk about a complicated set of
rules!! Wow!! Took me several readings to figure it out and con my
brother into playing it. Next was Midway followed by Waterloo followed by
anything AH put out, which was about one a year. I didn't find out about
S&T until they had published issue 32 and from then on I was a game
buying freak. Didn't play many (so many games, so little time), but I
sure bought them with the intention of doing so.
Phil
Steve Hutton
Stuart L. Dollar (sdo...@goodnet.com) wrote:
: joh...@ccnet.com (Mark E. Johnson) wrote:
: >All this talk made me realize that I actually know very little about the
: >golden age of wargaming (early 1970s?). I'd love to read what some
: >oldtimers in the hobby have to say about that period, about the quality
: >and consistency (or not) of SPI's games, the emergence of GDW, WEG,
: >Yaquinto, and others, the reponse of AH, and so on. I've been gaming since
: >about 1979, but it's almost always been of the science fiction and fantasy
: >variety, with The Space Gamer as my source of historical information (a
: >good mag, but never intended to cover the historical marketplace).
: I can give you my perspective on it. I bought my first games in 1976.
: I was 12 years old at the time.
For me, it was about 1974 and I was about 11. A history teacher who was
big on the US Civil War showed us a copy of Gettysburg by Avalon Hill.
A few of us started playing war games on our own and were soon fanatics.
One of the great things about the gaming hobby was that it gave bright
kids (who certainly weren't being intellectually stimulated at school)
something to do with their time. Role-playing games, computer
games and CCGs later filled the same need.
: Most of the early games I bought were AH & SPI...
We mostly bought AH games. The SPI games we bought seemed like they
hadn't been playtested.
This was a time of enormous creativity in the gaming hobby. I remember
games like Richtoffen's War, Third Reich, Wooden Ships and Iron Men, and,
of course, Squad Leader. AH designed their own games and also bought
games from outside designers and cleaned them up (better play balance,
clearer rules, and nicer components).
: There were a ton of companies at that
: time... Columbia Games, Battleline, Jedko, GDW, Conflict, Rand, SPI,
: Simulations Canada, GDW, TSR (yes they had published D&D, but they
: made several unsuccessful cracks into the board game market as well)
: AH, Yaquinto, and others.
And one of my favourites, Eon Games. They published simple, fun, and
very innovative games including Hoax and Cosmic Encounter. (Yes, the
original CE without expansions, was a simple game.) I was very sad when
Eon went under.
: I remember distinctly when I heard that SPI folded. I was very upset.
At the time, I didn't really care because I thought that their games
were mostly junk. In retrospect, this was a major milestone in the
decline of the gaming hobby.
--
Steve Hutton [speaking only for himself]
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <32063c03...@news.crossover.com>,>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>>Name the wargaming companies that existed in 1974; compare them to the number
>>that exist now.
>
>Name the wargaming companies that existed in 1981; compare them to the
>number that exist now. Or, even more entertainingly: list the
>companies that existed in 1981 as wargame companies that *still* exist
>now.
Why? The point I was making was that SPI's "golden years" were years in which
there was little competition. Talking about post SPI years is pretty
irrelevant.
>There are a handful of new companies publishing work worthy of
>attention--The Gamers, GMT, GR/D, Columbia--but compared to the
>extremely fertile period from 1980 to 1985, it's a bloody wasteland.
You forget Avalanche, MiH, GamesUSA, ADG, DG, etc., as well as companies such
as COA that produce much better works now than then.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <8392930...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>In article <32063e53...@news.crossover.com>,
>>>I swear I never met anyone who used the chits.
>>
>>In StarForce, you *had* to use the chits, since d10s weren't yet
>>invented and d20s weren't widely available.
>
>was one of the first SciFi games I bought, but the one time I played it, we
>found it moved very slowly due to having to plot your moves. Also my
>opponent just rushed in and attacked my main star system, which didn't make
>for very interesting strategy. (BTW he won : -) .)
StarForce had a great many cumbersome mechanics, but this is not surprising
given what a pioneering effort it was. And SPI always wanted to stick in that
third dimension in their sf games. :)
Dave Kohr
In article <4u7mcr$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>The point I was making was that SPI's "golden years" were years in which
>there was little competition.
This just doesn't hold up. In the mid-late 70's there was GDW, AH was
getting a clue, Metagaming was going strong, Battleline was putting out
many fine games which would soon be picked up by AH, Yaquinto had some good
titles, TFG had a diverse line instead of the 2-product line they have now,
and there were numerous smaller companies (like SimCan). It's true that
the overall standard for games has risen since then (due to improved
technology and experience gained from existing designs), but it's also the
case that as far as quality goes, SPI more than held their own during their
"golden years".
There are many reasons why a comparatively small fraction of their games
have remained popular, not involving a lack of quality in the games
themselves. A big one is that, since SPI went under and TSR failed to make
use of the titles it possessed, the games totally lacked support so people
stopped buying them (except for collectors). Another is that SPI had a
habit of selling some of their best designs to AH, so they don't get proper
credit for them (e.g. PanzerGruppe Guderian, Panzer Blitz, Freedom in the
Galaxy). Finally, SPI's product line was so huge that they rarely gave
even their best titles the support they deserved, unlike AH and GDW which
put out new titles at a slower rate.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <8393529...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>In article <4u7mcr$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>The point I was making was that SPI's "golden years" were years in which
>>there was little competition.
>
>This just doesn't hold up. In the mid-late 70's there was GDW, AH was
You can stop right there. SPI had lived more than half its life by the
"mid-late 70s."
Bruno Wolff III
From article <8392930...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>, by ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov (Dave Kohr):
]
] Speaking of which, does anybody out there have an opinion of StarForce? It
] was one of the first SciFi games I bought, but the one time I played it, we
] found it moved very slowly due to having to plot your moves. Also my
] opponent just rushed in and attacked my main star system, which didn't make
] for very interesting strategy. (BTW he won : -) .)
I thought it was OK, but I generally preferred Outreach though. I thought the
randomization result of combat and overshifting was a neat idea.
Dave Kohr
In article <4u89qt$s...@uwm.edu>,
Bruno Wolff III <br...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>From article <8392930...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>, by ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov
>(Dave Kohr):
>] Speaking of which, does anybody out there have an opinion of StarForce?
>
>the randomization result of combat and overshifting was a neat idea.
Hmmm, I found Outreach to be worse, if anything. :-) It seemed incredibly
bland (no flavor of different races or technologies, extremely abstract
combat and economics), and the entire trick to winning seemed to be to do
some simple optimization of expansion so that you could manage a nearly-
exponential growth rate.
Then again, this was based on only 1 playing, so I don't put much stock in
my own opinion. What did other people like about Outreach?
Dave Kohr
In article <4u84au$4...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <8393529...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
>Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>In article <4u7mcr$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>>Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>>The point I was making was that SPI's "golden years" were years in which
>>>there was little competition.
>>
>>This just doesn't hold up. In the mid-late 70's there was GDW, AH was
>
>You can stop right there. SPI had lived more than half its life by the
>"mid-late 70s."
No, it's a perfectly reasonable time at which to make the comparison,
because SPI was at their peak then. They had started to get into
SciFi/Fantasy games and RPG's, had refined many of their older tactical
lines (compare "Desert War" with "Sniper"), had done most of the "monsters"
like CNA, and were doing political/economic games like EotMA and "After the
Holocaust". (To name a few major lines.) Of all the SPI S&T issue games,
the ones from this period are the ones I liked the best. It's because of
all this stuff that I call the mid-late 70's the "golden years" for SPI. It
would be ridiculous to disparage SPI for their less-productive earlier
years, while overlooking how they were the clearly dominant company in a
later period when there was a lot of competition in the industry.
Jeffery S. Jones
My first bump into semi-wargames was the MB games (I think) Dogfight,
and War Between the States (or was it The Blue and the Grey?). However,
sitting in the same mainstream toy store were other, more interesting
looking games, such as Luftwaffe, Anzio, War at Sea, etc. (al AH games,
I think that they had good enough non-specialty store distribution then
to let this happen). As a teenager, it was tough figuring out the
rules, but once I got it worked out, I was hooked.
I don't know that this would happen as easily any more. I'd guess that
for those into more complicated games, RPGs, CCGs, and other non-
wargames are more visible in hobby stores, and very few real wargames
sit on the shelves.
The exceptions are always good, but you have to hunt up those stores. A
look in any random toy or hobby store doesn't show a wide variety of war
games, and many have none at all. I could be wrong, maybe game
specialty stores are the best places to find these things; a problem
with long-term involvement is that you lose track of how new players are
found.
--
*-__________________________ | *Starfire* | _________________________-*
Jeff Jones email:jef...@execpc.com *//* Amiga Lives! |Born Again 1996
*TFG* *Starfire* Design Studio \\//http://www.task-force-games.com
--
Philip M. Hall
Aforandy (afor...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <4u7nn3$9...@hppadbk.waterloo.hp.com>, hut...@waterloo.hp.com
: (Steve Hutton) writes:
:
: >TSR (yes they had published D&D, but they
: >: made several unsuccessful cracks into the board game market as well)
:
:
: Andy Daglish
:
Andy,
If I remember right that is the magazine game and was already in the
pipeline. TSR published most of the stuff that was nearly done, then
bailed out.
Phil Hall
Alan H. Yngve
ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov (Dave Kohr) wrote:
>In article <4u89qt$s...@uwm.edu>,
>Bruno Wolff III <br...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>>From article <8392930...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>, by ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov
>>(Dave Kohr):
>>] Speaking of which, does anybody out there have an opinion of StarForce?
>>
>>I thought it was OK, but I generally preferred Outreach though. I thought
>>the randomization result of combat and overshifting was a neat idea.
>
>Hmmm, I found Outreach to be worse, if anything. :-) It seemed incredibly
>bland (no flavor of different races or technologies, extremely abstract
>combat and economics), and the entire trick to winning seemed to be to do
>some simple optimization of expansion so that you could manage a nearly-
>exponential growth rate.
>
>Then again, this was based on only 1 playing, so I don't put much stock in
>my own opinion. What did other people like about Outreach?
I must agree with your "review" of OUTREACH ... although I ought to also
admit that this subject takes me back quite a few years ... :)
but I had very great hopes and expectations for this game. Unfortunately
it did not take very many games to realize the exponential-growth route in
OUTREACH, and even when we tried to test alternative strategies, eg. to do
something that might have a detrimental effect upon your opponent(s), we
found nothing at all.
I'm still disappointed at the promise that this game concept had that was
not fulfilled!
... there is always Stellar Conquest! ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Yngve (a-y...@nwu.edu) voice: (847) 491-8792
Northwestern University; Evanston, IL (USA) fax: (847) 467-2486
Erich Schneider
In article <4u7mi5$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>StarForce had a great many cumbersome mechanics, but this is not
>surprising given what a pioneering effort it was. And SPI always
>wanted to stick in that third dimension in their sf games. :)
Porting _Starforce_ to a computer network is another one of those
projects I'd like to do someday. Heck, even SPI proposed doing it
in one of the feedback sections of _Ares_ ... but they would have
been porting it to Apple II and TRS-80 systems. The complex plotting
and calculation would just melt away...
Speaking of SPI's attempt to do "realistic" space games: I was looking
at my copy of _Battlefleet: Mars_ a while ago and realized that while
it did try real hard to simulate the realities of moving around the
solar system and seemed to do a good job, there was one aspect where
they just punted. One rule states that to get logistics points one
needed to have a certain number of catapults at the home planet
and a certain number of catapults and miners in the asteroid belt.
However, they didn't seem to realize that with the Hohmann orbits
the canister of ore, etc. would be travelling, it would be months to
years before those "logistics points" made it back to Earth or Mars.
In the rules the transfer seemed to happen instantaneously.
--
Erich Schneider er...@bush.cs.tamu.edu http://bush.cs.tamu.edu/~erich
"The Hierophant is Disguised and Confused."
Aforandy
Bruno Wolff III
From article <8393652...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>, by ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov (Dave Kohr):
]
] Then again, this was based on only 1 playing, so I don't put much stock in
] my own opinion. What did other people like about Outreach?
We mostly played the multiplayer version where you tried to get to the center
of the galaxy. This was sort of multiplayer solitare. We played an occassional
two player mix it up game as well. I found optimally managing your empire fun.
The tech rules were pretty broken. By squaring your tech level they made the
break points huge. Most games were over about the time people were starting
to have their tech levels go up. So it didn't make the game unplayable.
Stefan Patejak
Stephen Graham (gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu) wrote:
: In article <4tuk5j$q...@news.goodnet.com>,
: Stuart L. Dollar <sdo...@goodnet.com> wrote:
: >I can give you my perspective on it. I bought my first games in 1976.
: >
: >days. You're average AH bookcase game went for about $10, depending
: >on title, and the SPI bubblepacked stuff usually went for about $8.
: People in this thread are losing track of the relative worth of the dollar
: over time. US$10 in 1976 was the equivalent of US$27.60 today. It's not
: that hard to find an equivalent wargame for $30 today. (one map, ~300
: counters)
I can remember sending a big order to SPI when they announced they were
raising their price from $5 to $6 apiece. And they came in those great
flat boxes with a built in counter tray. As far as I'm concerned it's the
best way to store games I've ever seen.
Stuart L. Dollar
ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov (Dave Kohr) wrote:
>In article <4u89qt$s...@uwm.edu>,
>Bruno Wolff III <br...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>>From article <8392930...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>, by ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov
>>(Dave Kohr):
>>] Speaking of which, does anybody out there have an opinion of StarForce?
>>
>>I thought it was OK, but I generally preferred Outreach though. I thought
>>the randomization result of combat and overshifting was a neat idea.
>Hmmm, I found Outreach to be worse, if anything. :-) It seemed incredibly
>bland (no flavor of different races or technologies, extremely abstract
>combat and economics), and the entire trick to winning seemed to be to do
>some simple optimization of expansion so that you could manage a nearly-
>exponential growth rate.
Bingo, very, very flavorless...in a genre that usually has all kinds
of flavor, if anything...
>Then again, this was based on only 1 playing, so I don't put much stock in
>my own opinion. What did other people like about Outreach?
Not much. I found it odd to build a game with a 32" x 28" mapboard,
then have most of the scenarios take part in 1 tiny portion of the
map, and I just thought the game lacked flavor...
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <8393652...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>In article <4u89qt$s...@uwm.edu>,
>Bruno Wolff III <br...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>>From article <8392930...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>, by ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov
>>(Dave Kohr):
>>] Speaking of which, does anybody out there have an opinion of StarForce?
>>
>>I thought it was OK, but I generally preferred Outreach though. I thought
>>the randomization result of combat and overshifting was a neat idea.
>
>Hmmm, I found Outreach to be worse, if anything. :-) It seemed incredibly
>bland (no flavor of different races or technologies, extremely abstract
>combat and economics), and the entire trick to winning seemed to be to do
>some simple optimization of expansion so that you could manage a nearly-
>exponential growth rate.
>
>my own opinion. What did other people like about Outreach?
Outreach has a great many attractions, if one plays the random start scenario
with three or four people. How fast should one attempt to get to the core?
How much do you spend on economy vs. defense? How does one bring a chit out of
the core successfully, especially when there are interceptors lurking about?
What if you get the "x" chit? When should you roll on the "fate" table? Will
your encounter with a human player be friendly, neutral or hostile? And so
forth. While it has its drawbacks, Outreach can be quite enjoyable. When I
was in high school, a friend of mine introduced it to me and I liked it so much
I went out and got my own copy. I introduced it to three other people and they
all liked it so much they went out and got their own copies.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <839439...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>In article <4uabb3$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,>>It was SPI's early years that are generally acknowledged to be the
>>more productive in terms of innovation.
>
>No they're not. It's true that some of their most enduring titles (like
>PGG and PanzerBlitz) came out early, but those have survived largely
>because they were sold to AH. Almost all of the SF/F and political/
>economic games that people recognize on rgb as innovative came out
>later.
Whether or not they "survived" or were sold to AH is irrelevant to the point
being made; largely too is whether or not the titles were "enduring." Many of
their most innovative titles didn't survive very long but contained design
concepts now standard. All of their sf/f and political/economic games were
innovative, but unfortunately, were an evolutionary dead end, because sf/f
wargames have basically disappeared.
In terms of historical wargaming, SPI's most creative years were 1969-1974 or
75; after that, they were no more creative or original than their competitors.
Of course, as I mentioned in my earlier post, during their "creative" years,
they basically had no real competitors except Avalon Hill.
Kevin J. Maroney
dan...@earthlink.net (Danny Holte) wrote:
>>There are a handful of new companies publishing work worthy of
>>attention--The Gamers, GMT, GR/D, Columbia--but compared to the
>>extremely fertile period from 1980 to 1985, it's a bloody wasteland.
>
>On that note:
>
>Make a list of restarants that were in business in 1981. Now
>list the ones that are no longer in business, that were then.
>If you looked at a list like that, you could probably guess that soon
>there would be no more restaraunts.
Excellent and hilarious point!
But wrong. Not only are the big companies from 1980-85 gone, there are
*fewer* game companies now than there were then, and generally they
are much smaller, with lower sales. *Web and Starship*, which is a
brilliant and award-winning game, and had just about the worst sales
of any West End game in the 1980's. The number of copies it
sold--around 2500--was comparable to the sales of successful games
from current companies.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Dave Kohr
In article <4ualvn$e...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <839439...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
>Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>In article <4uabb3$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>>Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>>It was SPI's early years that are generally acknowledged to be the
>>>more productive in terms of innovation.
>>
>>No they're not. It's true that some of their most enduring titles (like
>>PGG and PanzerBlitz) came out early, but those have survived largely
>>because they were sold to AH. Almost all of the SF/F and political/
>>economic games that people recognize on rgb as innovative came out
>>later.
>
>Whether or not they "survived" or were sold to AH is irrelevant to the point
>being made
I was guessing that you were trying to support your argument on this basis.
That's why I mentioned it. It's not relevant, as I pointed out and you
repeated.
>All of their sf/f and political/economic games were innovative
Thank you for conceding this point, and therefore the argument. This is
precisely what I was saying, and it happens to be true that most of these
games appeared *after* 1975
>but unfortunately, were an evolutionary dead end, because sf/f
>wargames have basically disappeared.
Not only would it be irrelevant if this were a "dead end", but it's also
just not true, as plenty of sf/f games have appeared recently. M:tG is
just one example.
>In terms of historical wargaming, SPI's most creative years were 1969-1974
>or 75; after that, they were no more creative or original than their
>competitors.
Now you're trying to narrow the scope of the discusion to "historical
wargaming", but even on this point, I beg to differ. Some of those
innovative political games (like EotMA) are "historical wargames" also.
_Terrible Swift Sword_ was published either right at the end or after the
"the most creative years" you claim, and it's one of their most influential
designs. Likewise for _Sniper_ and _Air War_. The later monster games
were influential also. And I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot.
>as I mentioned in my earlier post, during their "creative" years,
>they basically had no real competitors except Avalon Hill.
Except that your definition of "most creative years" is wrong.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <8393648...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>In article <4u84au$4...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,>>In article <8393529...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
>>Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>In article <4u7mcr$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>>>>there was little competition.
>>>
>>>This just doesn't hold up. In the mid-late 70's there was GDW, AH was
>>
>>You can stop right there. SPI had lived more than half its life by the
>>"mid-late 70s."
>
>No, it's a perfectly reasonable time at which to make the comparison,
>because SPI was at their peak then. They had started to get into
>SciFi/Fantasy games and RPG's, had refined many of their older tactical
>lines (compare "Desert War" with "Sniper"), had done most of the "monsters"
>like CNA, and were doing political/economic games like EotMA and "After the
>Holocaust". (To name a few major lines.) Of all the SPI S&T issue games,
>the ones from this period are the ones I liked the best. It's because of
>all this stuff that I call the mid-late 70's the "golden years" for SPI. It
>would be ridiculous to disparage SPI for their less-productive earlier
>years, while overlooking how they were the clearly dominant company in a
>later period when there was a lot of competition in the industry.
It was SPI's early years that are generally acknowledged to be the
Stuart L. Dollar
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>Whether or not they "survived" or were sold to AH is irrelevant to the point
>being made; largely too is whether or not the titles were "enduring." Many of
>their most innovative titles didn't survive very long but contained design
>concepts now standard. All of their sf/f and political/economic games were
>innovative, but unfortunately, were an evolutionary dead end, because sf/f
>wargames have basically disappeared.
>In terms of historical wargaming, SPI's most creative years were 1969-1974 or
>75; after that, they were no more creative or original than their competitors.
>Of course, as I mentioned in my earlier post, during their "creative" years,
>they basically had no real competitors except Avalon Hill.
My heavens, Mark, we agree on something... :-)
In terms of game mechanics, and finding different approaches to
wargame design, Mark's timeperiod '69-'75 or so was definitely when
SPI got more innovative... This was the period in which the trashed
the AH Classic (I move, I fight, you move, you fight) turn sequence,
the hard ZOC, and other AH concepts and tried other innovative things.
Yes they did some creative stuff later, but I'd say their biggest
contributions were in the 1st half of their existence...
Dave Kohr
In article <4uabb3$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>It was SPI's early years that are generally acknowledged to be the
>more productive in terms of innovation.
No they're not. It's true that some of their most enduring titles (like
PGG and PanzerBlitz) came out early, but those have survived largely
because they were sold to AH. Almost all of the SF/F and political/
economic games that people recognize on rgb as innovative came out
later.
Dave Kohr Hacker/Researcher Argonne National Laboratory, MCS Division
Danny Holte
>>On that note:
>>
>>Make a list of restarants that were in business in 1981. Now
>>list the ones that are no longer in business, that were then.
>>If you looked at a list like that, you could probably guess that soon
>>there would be no more restaraunts.
>Excellent and hilarious point!
>But wrong. Not only are the big companies from 1980-85 gone, there are
>*fewer* game companies now than there were then, and generally they
>are much smaller, with lower sales. *Web and Starship*, which is a
>brilliant and award-winning game, and had just about the worst sales
>of any West End game in the 1980's. The number of copies it
>sold--around 2500--was comparable to the sales of successful games
>from current companies.
Kevin,
Well, it's not "wrong", but I'll let that slide. What are you trying
achieve here? Would you like everyone to jump up now and
say "Yes, Kevin, you're right. Wargaming is dead and you
knew it. Now, everyone throw your games on the fire" ???
C'mon! I'm not trying to ride you, and I know you've got
a point about companies possibly diminishing somewhat,
but they -are- still there. Here's a thought for everyone
who thinks the hobby is dying and still wants to play:
Buy a game!
Myself, I bought several games the past week (+ some used ones):
THE GREAT WAR AT SEA - ordered direct from Avalanche
KOREA '95 - GMT - mail order
ARCTIC STORM - GMT - mail order
KRIEG - Decision Games - local game shop
And, I re-upped my GENERAL subscription
I certainly hope that I didn't buy these games in vain, and
that someone is going to come to my door and order them
burned, because "wargaming is dead".
;-)
After opening the boxes and starting to play THE GREAT
WAR AT SEA and now the _superlative_ 'KRIEG',
I get the feeling that it's very much alive.
-Danny
ABTreon
the thing I remember most about the early 70's(70-73) was James F.
Dunnigan producing more brillant designs in any of those years than AH
could in 3 years.I am ,was and and always will be a big AH fan but from
'67 to about '73 AH put out 3 decent designs..Luftwaffe,Anzio,and 1776.
Everything else was designed by JFD(1914,p-blitz,Jutland,even Outdoor
Survival for godsake) If AH wasn't pounding out trash like Kreigspiel SPI
would not have had a market.But AH relied on distribution and ignored
design for half a decade.
Philip M. Hall
earthlink.net>:
Organization: Prairienet
Distribution:
Danny Holte (dan...@earthlink.net) wrote:
:
:
: Kevin,
:
: Well, it's not "wrong", but I'll let that slide. What are you trying
: achieve here? Would you like everyone to jump up now and
: say "Yes, Kevin, you're right. Wargaming is dead and you
: knew it. Now, everyone throw your games on the fire" ???
:
: C'mon! I'm not trying to ride you, and I know you've got
: a point about companies possibly diminishing somewhat,
: but they -are- still there. Here's a thought for everyone
: who thinks the hobby is dying and still wants to play:
: Buy a game!
:
: Myself, I bought several games the past week (+ some used ones):
:
: THE GREAT WAR AT SEA - ordered direct from Avalanche
: KOREA '95 - GMT - mail order
: ARCTIC STORM - GMT - mail order
: KRIEG - Decision Games - local game shop
: And, I re-upped my GENERAL subscription
:
: I certainly hope that I didn't buy these games in vain, and
: that someone is going to come to my door and order them
: burned, because "wargaming is dead".
:
: ;-)
Danny,
We haven't declared board wargaming dead, we are just preparing the wake
and trying to figure out why it's necessary. There has been a decline in
the number of games put out and the sales figures of companies producing
wargames. I was associated with GDW through the Blue Max game. When it
was first published in '83 they ran 5000 copies and sold them in 3 years.
5000 was the standard run for most games then since the distributors
would pick up about half of the run. When it was republished in '89 they
ran 3000 copies, which took 5 years to sell. 3000 had become the standard
run by then. It's most recent incarnation was a print run of 2500, of
which 1200 sold, 2500 being the standard run. I also live near The
Gamers, and had a chat with the person who was in charge of production.
He stated that they were still running 7000 of everything and were out of
warehouse space because they couldn't move that many of them. Recently
they have decreased print runs to 2000-2500 depending on what they think
they will move of that game. And they are going to mail order only in an
attempt to make a larger percentage off the games.
I think we have determined that there are fewer board wargamers out there
because:
1. There has been a decrease in leisure time.
2. Inovation in board games has decreased.
3. There are other things for youngsters to do.
4. There are fewer "real dollars" to invest in gaming.
5. Families don't play games together anymore.
6. There is less interest in war as a game.
7. It is harder for the average person to find a wargame. (Major
companies where you would expect to find them, such as Kaybee and Toys
'R Us, don't carry them).
8. The complexity level of games increased to a point that they didn't
attract anyone but those already playing games, which resulted in a
stagnation and decline in the number of people playing.
There are probably a few more that I missed, and certainly not everyone
agrees with every one of the reasons I have listed, but we do all seem to
be in agreement that board wargaming is in trouble.
Phil Hall
ABTreon
conflict games! Forgot all about them.Anyone out there ever played/had
opinions about"Outrance"," Miniteman"
"Assassin","Norad","Alamo","Khahalkin-Gol","Dien Ben
Phu","Hue","Rifle-Musket","Cromwell","Jerulsulm" or "Dunerque,1940"??
Dave Kohr
In article <4uatsd$8...@news.goodnet.com>,
>wargame design, Mark's timeperiod '69-'75 or so was definitely when
>SPI got more innovative... This was the period in which the trashed
>the AH Classic (I move, I fight, you move, you fight) turn sequence,
>the hard ZOC, and other AH concepts and tried other innovative things.
>Yes they did some creative stuff later, but I'd say their biggest
>contributions were in the 1st half of their existence...
I just don't see it this way. Sure, there were some basic mechanics
developed during that earlier period (like untried units, plotting of moves
in advance, and LOS in tactical games), but there were a lot of
developments from the second half of their lifetime, like political/
economic systems and detailed supply and logistics rules, which still have
an impact. Given that most of the SPI games I would still want to play
date from the second half, I'd say the relative "contribution" of their
later phase is at least equal to the earlier one.
Dave Berry
ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov (Dave Kohr) writes:
>developments from the second half of their lifetime, like political/
>economic systems and detailed supply and logistics rules, which still have
>an impact.
Weren't they still developing new turn sequences during that period as
well? I'm thinking of the Central Front games, which (IIRC) used "operations
points": a unit could move, fight, move, fight,... until it ran out of
operations points.
Dave.
--
One more touch and then you'll see Harlequin Ltd.,
Worlds of hidden mystery, Barrington Hall,
Visions of beyond recall. Barrington,
(You know you're only dreaming). Cambridge, UK.
dvgc
In article <4u7mi5$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>In article <8392930...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
>Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>In article <32063e53...@news.crossover.com>,
>>Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
>>>squi...@winternet.com (Lance "Squiddie" Smith) wrote:
>>>>I swear I never met anyone who used the chits.
>>>
>>>In StarForce, you *had* to use the chits, since d10s weren't yet
>>>invented and d20s weren't widely available.
>>
>>Speaking of which, does anybody out there have an opinion of StarForce? It
>>was one of the first SciFi games I bought, but the one time I played it, we
>>found it moved very slowly due to having to plot your moves. Also my
>>opponent just rushed in and attacked my main star system, which didn't make
>>for very interesting strategy. (BTW he won : -) .)
>
>given what a pioneering effort it was. And SPI always wanted to stick in that
>third dimension in their sf games. :)
Starforce was a noble effort, but - I didn't care for it. The "casts"
(i.e. a combat system of firing phasors) were too complex to figure out for
all the more you got out of it (the thought of having to calculate the
effective strength of a cast into 3dimensional space, was enough to
discourage making a low odds attack). The 3 dimensional system wasn't very
realistic; if you were in the same hex you had to reveal your level (never
could figure out what this was suppose to represent - some kind of scouting
ability in the y axis - truth is that was another game contrivance). The map
is worth having, just for star-gazing. I did like the scientific fiction
basis for the game though (if you're smart enough to build starships you must
have evolved to the point where you don't want to destroy the other guy -
provided of course he was not a dreaded Xenophobe).
===================================================
"It is well that war is so terrible,
lest we grow too fond of it." - R.E.Lee
===================================================
Deer Valley Game Company
P.O. Box 87886, Phoenix, Arizona 85080-7886
---------------------------------------------------
SQUARES - The Civil War Battle Game
http://www.getnet.com/~dvgc
===================================================
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <839449...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>In article <4ualvn$e...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,>>In article <839439...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
>>Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>>In article <4uabb3$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>>>Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>>>It was SPI's early years that are generally acknowledged to be the
>>>>more productive in terms of innovation.
>>>
>>>No they're not. It's true that some of their most enduring titles (like
>>>PGG and PanzerBlitz) came out early, but those have survived largely
>>>because they were sold to AH. Almost all of the SF/F and political/
>>>economic games that people recognize on rgb as innovative came out
>>>later.
>>
>>being made
>
>That's why I mentioned it. It's not relevant, as I pointed out and you
>repeated.
>
>>All of their sf/f and political/economic games were innovative
>
>Thank you for conceding this point, and therefore the argument. This is
>precisely what I was saying, and it happens to be true that most of these
>games appeared *after* 1975
Conceding the point? If you bother to go back and look at my original post in
this thread, you will see that I -made- the point that their sf/f games were
innovative in my very first post on the subject. It is also true that their
sf/f games were a distinct subset of all their games, and therefore the
"argument" remains entirely unconceded.
>
>>but unfortunately, were an evolutionary dead end, because sf/f
>>wargames have basically disappeared.
>
>Not only would it be irrelevant if this were a "dead end", but it's also
>just not true, as plenty of sf/f games have appeared recently. M:tG is
>just one example.
Magic the Gathering is not a sf/f wargame.
>
>>In terms of historical wargaming, SPI's most creative years were 1969-1974
>>or 75; after that, they were no more creative or original than their
>>competitors.
>
>Now you're trying to narrow the scope of the discusion to "historical
>wargaming", but even on this point, I beg to differ. Some of those
>innovative political games (like EotMA) are "historical wargames" also.
>_Terrible Swift Sword_ was published either right at the end or after the
>"the most creative years" you claim, and it's one of their most influential
>designs. Likewise for _Sniper_ and _Air War_. The later monster games
>were influential also. And I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot.
I would not categorize either Sniper or Air War as particularly influential.
>>as I mentioned in my earlier post, during their "creative" years,
>>they basically had no real competitors except Avalon Hill.
>
>Except that your definition of "most creative years" is wrong.
Such an assertion is not convincing.
ThMaverick
In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.96080...@barb.wchat.on.ca>,
dutchman <dutc...@wchat.on.ca> writes:
>the late 80s gave birth to dogs like
>Firepower
One of the best man-to-man combat systems ever designed is a dog? This is
a pup of one of the all-time classic (dogs?) Close Assault!
the Mav
Erik Jessen
Actually,
We had a LOT of fun playing Outreach. Of course, we had 5-7 players, and
had a lot more attention into politics (sort of like Kinkmaker in Space)
rather than trying to go off in a corner and doing your exponential
build.
OTOH, I've used the exponential build approach in Civilization (build no
cities, just lots of people) and done quite well. Take the virus
approach, and then build a batch of cities all at once. so, I didn't
find civilization as much fun to play.
Kevin J. Maroney
dan...@earthlink.net (Danny Holte) wrote:
>Would you like everyone to jump up now and
>say "Yes, Kevin, you're right. Wargaming is dead and you
>knew it. Now, everyone throw your games on the fire" ???
Yep. The firemen will be at your door before sundown.
No, not really. I'm just a bit baffled that there are people who seem
to be aggressively denying the fact that the wargaming *industry* is
in decline, and trying to figure out how to explain to them that it
is.
(Actually, upon writing that sentence, I realized: I don't know if
it's in decline. It may even be on the way back up. But the industry
is certainly weaker than it was in 1981.)
That said, I *don't* disagree with the people who think the state of
the wargaming *art* is as strong as it ever was. There *were* a lot of
really bad SPI games and AH games and Metagaming Microgames and so
forth. There are bad games now, too, but by all accounts some really
good designs are out there.
Danny Holte
kmar...@crossover.com (Kevin J. Maroney) wrote:
>dan...@earthlink.net (Danny Holte) wrote:
>>Would you like everyone to jump up now and
>>say "Yes, Kevin, you're right. Wargaming is dead and you
>>knew it. Now, everyone throw your games on the fire" ???
>Yep. The firemen will be at your door before sundown.
>No, not really. I'm just a bit baffled that there are people who seem
>to be aggressively denying the fact that the wargaming *industry* is
>in decline, and trying to figure out how to explain to them that it
>is.
The only reason I aggressively deny it is that:
A) Some of the best game designs ever have been released
within the last few years, and are continuing to come out. No
matter what country they originated in. On that point, how often
in the '70s did you see European boardgames of the caliber
of DIE SIEDLER in the States? I can remember seeing -very-
few overseas titles back then. There's certainly a desire for
them somewhere.
B) We have a very active gaming group here locally, and play
once a week, sometimes more. Admittedly, my wife is very
accommodating and allows me to use our house as a "playhouse".
I'm also in the greater Los Angeles area.
>(Actually, upon writing that sentence, I realized: I don't know if
>it's in decline. It may even be on the way back up. But the industry
>is certainly weaker than it was in 1981.)
I didn't mean to sound the way I did; just got fed up with negativity
and blew. I happen to be a 'half-full' kind
of person. It's part of the reason I am where I'm at today; able to
buy whatever game I want, and put aside time to play it. I
realize not everyone can do that (but nobody gave me a silver
spoon).
What I've seen here has sounded like people on a sinking ship,
heading down to the hold because "that's where the air bottles
are!" (Hmmm... I just thought of that one - Copyright D. Holte,
8/8/96 <vwg>)
Anyway, it's not productive - to the contrary! Again, the best thing
you can do to promote wargaming is to a) buy a game, and b)
play a game. Preferably with those who haven't before, and have
an interest or curiousity. However, playing with an old hand is
just fine.
>That said, I *don't* disagree with the people who think the state of
>the wargaming *art* is as strong as it ever was. There *were* a lot of
>really bad SPI games and AH games and Metagaming Microgames and so
>forth. There are bad games now, too, but by all accounts some really
>good designs are out there.
Exactly. And if they're played, they'll grow. Buy KRIEG; it may just
give you an attitude check. What would you have said 5-years ago
if I told you a card game was going to dominate game conventions
for the next several years? Probably the same answer I'd get if I
predicted wargaming was going to make a huge comeback and
will dominate game conventions for the next several years.
Here's a little business management definition and axiom for you:
Whining: Complaining to the boss about a presumed problem without
providing a solution. See "layed-off" or "fired"
-Danny
Danny Holte
kmar...@crossover.com (Kevin J. Maroney) wrote:
>dan...@earthlink.net (Danny Holte) wrote:
>>Would you like everyone to jump up now and
>>say "Yes, Kevin, you're right. Wargaming is dead and you
>>knew it. Now, everyone throw your games on the fire" ???
>Yep. The firemen will be at your door before sundown.
>No, not really. I'm just a bit baffled that there are people who seem
>to be aggressively denying the fact that the wargaming *industry* is
>in decline, and trying to figure out how to explain to them that it
>is.
The only reason I aggressively deny it is that:
A) Some of the best game designs ever have been released
within the last few years, and are continuing to come out. No
matter what country they originated in. On that point, how often
in the '70s did you see European boardgames of the caliber
of DIE SIEDLER in the States? I can remember seeing -very-
few overseas titles back then. There's certainly a desire for
them somewhere. I know that D.S. is not a wargame, but it's
a start. I, as well as many others, just ordered a gameset for
UP FRONT from Italy with Mike Nagel's help as well. So,
they are getting play.
B) We have a very active gaming group here locally, and play
once a week, sometimes more. Admittedly, my wife is very
accommodating and allows me to use our house as a "playhouse".
I'm also in the greater Los Angeles area. These things help. But,
one of our players is an ex-M:TG player, who's sold all his cards
and is now playing UP FRONT, SHOGUN, GETTYSBURG, and
borrowed a copy of 'The General' from me. ;-)
C) The internet has increased the opportunity for play. By:
1) using PBEM systems like Aide De Camp or just sending
moves
2) Communication. Newsletters like Consim-L and this
newsgroup. Finding local players, etc.
3) Free, discreet advertising for game designers. Now
DTP game designers can offer and announce their
games over the newsgroups, they can answer
customers needs, and in some cases make their
games available for download, as in the case of
BATTLE FOR MOSCOW, available on Web-Grognards.
Dave Kohr
In article <4ucrm1$m...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <839449...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
>Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Magic the Gathering is not a sf/f wargame.
Let's see, a game about 2 wizards fighting to the death. Sounds like a
fantasy wargame to me. It may not have a board and hexes, but so what?
_Up Front_ has neither of those things, yet it's regarded as a wargame.
>>Now you're trying to narrow the scope of the discusion to "historical
>>wargaming", but even on this point, I beg to differ. Some of those
>>innovative political games (like EotMA) are "historical wargames" also.
>>_Terrible Swift Sword_ was published either right at the end or after the
>>"the most creative years" you claim, and it's one of their most influential
>>designs. Likewise for _Sniper_ and _Air War_. The later monster games
>>were influential also. And I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot.
>
>I would not categorize either Sniper or Air War as particularly
>influential.
Well I beg to differ. There may not be a single mechanic you can point to
that carries over from one to the other, but I regard AH's popular Ambush
series to be basically a cleaned-up, simplified, solitaire version of
Sniper. And though I'm less familiar with it, given the paucity of
jet-to-jet combat games, I have to believe that _Air War_ had an influence
on later games of this genre (like _Speed of Heat_), both in terms of what
not to do (i.e. ridiculous complexity) and what to do (i.e. ditch SiMove
plotting in favor of an "initiative"-based sequential move system that
takes positional advantages into account).
>>your definition of "most creative years" is wrong.
>
>Such an assertion is not convincing.
I did more than assert this, I provided lots of evidence to back it up.
udr...@bay.cc.kcl.ac.uk
In article <4u8r87$9...@uwm.edu>, br...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III) writes:
> From article <8393652...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>, by ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov (Dave Kohr):
> ]
> ] Then again, this was based on only 1 playing, so I don't put much stock in
> ] my own opinion. What did other people like about Outreach?
> We mostly played the multiplayer version where you tried to get to the center
> of the galaxy. This was sort of multiplayer solitare. We played an occassional
> two player mix it up game as well. I found optimally managing your empire fun.
> The tech rules were pretty broken. By squaring your tech level they made the
> break points huge. Most games were over about the time people were starting
> to have their tech levels go up. So it didn't make the game unplayable.
Could you give a moderately detailed description of the game, eithr on the net or
via email? I'm a big fan of StarForce, but I was never able to find Outreach or
StarSoldier.
James Sterrett
udr...@kcl.ac.uk
udr...@bay.cc.kcl.ac.uk
In article <4u7mi5$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
> In article <8392930...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>,
> Dave Kohr <ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>In article <32063e53...@news.crossover.com>,
>>Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
>>>squi...@winternet.com (Lance "Squiddie" Smith) wrote:
>>>>I swear I never met anyone who used the chits.
>>>
>>>In StarForce, you *had* to use the chits, since d10s weren't yet
>>>invented and d20s weren't widely available.
>>
>>Speaking of which, does anybody out there have an opinion of StarForce? It
>>was one of the first SciFi games I bought, but the one time I played it, we
>>found it moved very slowly due to having to plot your moves. Also my
>>opponent just rushed in and attacked my main star system, which didn't make
>>for very interesting strategy. (BTW he won : -) .)
>
> StarForce had a great many cumbersome mechanics, but this is not surprising
> given what a pioneering effort it was. And SPI always wanted to stick in that
> third dimension in their sf games. :)
Played by a group that has figured out the rules, this game is a gem. Very, very tense
and difficult maneuvering. It's faster than a lot of games I play - you can finish it
in one sitting! The balance needed between offense and defense is very finely tuned and
very difficult to strike properly, especially with the limited intelligence rules.
I also know of no other game that hammers in the sheer size of space so well - try
hunting down the Xenophobe incursion sometime to see this problem. The volume you have
to sweep is staggering.
James Sterrett
udr...@kcl.ac.uk
Julian Barker
In article <839490...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>, Dave Kohr
<ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> writes
>
>I just don't see it this way. Sure, there were some basic mechanics
>developed during that earlier period (like untried units,
I am sure untried units was first used in Panzer Gruppe Guderian which
came out in about 1978 if I remember correctly.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Julian Barker +
+ jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk +
+ Keep your lies consistent - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #60 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stuart L. Dollar
Julian Barker <jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <839490...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>, Dave Kohr
><ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> writes
>>
>>I just don't see it this way. Sure, there were some basic mechanics
>>developed during that earlier period (like untried units,
>I am sure untried units was first used in Panzer Gruppe Guderian which
>came out in about 1978 if I remember correctly.
Er...wrong...much earlier in SPI's history. More like about 72-73.
Danny Holte
sdo...@goodnet.com (Stuart L. Dollar) wrote:
>Julian Barker <jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <839490...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>, Dave Kohr
>><ko...@donner.mcs.anl.gov> writes
>>>
>>>I just don't see it this way. Sure, there were some basic mechanics
>>>developed during that earlier period (like untried units,
>>I am sure untried units was first used in Panzer Gruppe Guderian which
>>came out in about 1978 if I remember correctly.
>Er...wrong...much earlier in SPI's history. More like about 72-73.
>Stu
Er...wrong...Years later in SPI's history. More like Issue # 057,
July/August 1976. There's an excellent historical article in the
mag on the Smolensk Campaign, and a very good overview/
analysis of THE RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN - Another very innovative
design introduced in 1976. (I personally consider the years from
1975-80 SPI's strongest, but that is merely personal preference.)
-Danny
Ted Kim (Random Dude)
Various people said stuff like:
> I am sure untried units was first used in PanzerGruppe Guderian
> which came out in about 1978 if I remember correctly.
> Er ... wrong ... much earlier in SPI's history. More like about
> 72-73.
> ...
> Er ... wrong ... Years later in SPI's history. More like Issue #57,
> July/August 1976.
PGG did come out in S&T 57, but untried units came out about 6 months
before (Jan 76) in SPI's INVASION: AMERICA. The years 1972-73
included such innovations as the first Random Events table and
Differential CRTs. Well, at least according to the "History of
Wargaming" article in S&T 53.
-ted
--
Ted Kim Email: t...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Dept. WWW: http://fmg-www.cs.ucla.edu/fmg-members/tek
3564F Boelter Hall Phone: (310) 825-7307
Los Angeles, CA 90095 FAX: (310) 825-2273
Stefan Patejak
: You also state that there was a "wargaming renaissance" of the 80's
: and 90's, which others have discussed but I have yet to see really
: backed up.
Well a lot of new companies came into the field (GMT, XTR, the Gamers,
etc.) with a lot of new games. I suspect that this has a lot to do with
the appearance of desk top publishing technology capable of letting
almost anyone produce a "professional" game.
Jim Pritchett
In article <8393652...@donner.mcs.anl.gov>, Dave Kohr writes:
> Then again, this was based on only 1 playing, so I don't put much stock in
> my own opinion. What did other people like about Outreach?
I really liked the "autonomous forces." They needed improvement, but it was
a neat idea. Unfortunately, the rest of the game was bland, slow, and tedious.
IMHO.
Jim Pritchett
UUCP: j...@caleb.lerctr.org "I am the way, the truth, and
rowdy.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp the life; no man cometh to the
j...@caleb.uucp Father, but by me."
prit...@airmail.net (slower) Jesus Christ
Philip M. Hall
Organization: Prairienet
Distribution:
:
: Anyway, it's not productive - to the contrary! Again, the best thing
: you can do to promote wargaming is to a) buy a game, and b)
: play a game. Preferably with those who haven't before, and have
: an interest or curiousity. However, playing with an old hand is
: just fine.
Good idea. Especially the part abuout playing it with a newbie. Any idea
how to find one that is interested in playing the game you just bought?
This is intended as a serious question, not a sarcasm.
:
: Here's a little business management definition and axiom for you:
:
: Whining: Complaining to the boss about a presumed problem without
: providing a solution. See "layed-off" or "fired"
:
: -Danny
:
One of the steps in solving any problem is defining the reason it exists.
It is rarely wise to accept the "everybody knows that it"s because...."
since most problems have multiple reasons for their existence, and
changing just one of them probably won't solve the problem.
Phil