[Consim-l] Sand in the Whirlwind - KPG Opponent and GM Wanted

[Dave Kohr]

On 2/24/07, Thomas Cundiff <tdcgunslinger at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I completed an article on KPG's Battle of Maiwand, and sent it off to Jon
> Compton (F&M), who has already read and accepted it for publication (perhaps
> in #145 or 46).  That game has got very bad press and it's not the game's
> fault.  There's a quirk in the rules that permits the British player much
> greater ability to destroy the Afghanis than previously thought.

I don't know or care anything about this particuar game, but your
comment does touch on a very troubling yet sadly common problem among
wargame publishers.

If it's the case that the game, as published, is severely imbalanced
if one side plays in a particular (legal) way, then how on earth can
you claim it's "not the game's fault"?!? It sounds to me like it *is*
the game's fault. And that means it's the fault of the designer,
developer, publisher, and playtesters.

The usual case, which I see happening repeatedly, is that the game was
inadequately playtested.

My usual response is to say "this game is crap, time to move on to
something else".

There is an enormous number of wargames available, why waste time on
the bad ones?

Dave