$44.99, you think to yourself. That's pretty hefty. I could buy a good wargame for that chunk 'o change. Is this product worth it?
Physically, you get a glossy softcover book with 142 pages and no advertising. A "journal" it may call itself, but I think of it as more than that. It's a book to me, plain and simple. Is a relatively medium-to-large format softcover book worth that kind of price? Lots of illustrations, lots of color--so while I might pay $25 to $35 for something this size and with this page count in a non-discount bookstore, there's nothing like the kind of graphical treatment at that kind of price. So I'd say that the physical production alone makes shelling out the bucks worth it if that kind of thing matters to you.
But for a number of us, that's not what will cause us to pay this kind of money. It's what's included in the book that is of primary importance. Let's face it--this is a specialty topic within the specialty genre of historical board wargaming, so given the expected limited print run over the life of this publication (even given the Print On Demand model which doesn't tie up inventory sitting in warehouse shelves), the price is about what one can expect. And in terms of delivering the goods in print, this premier issue certainly does that. But here's my take on the articles:
"Kriegspiel: The History of Tactical Wargaming" by Michael Dorosh. Most of this I'd read in old S&T issues, wargame books, draft articles by Matt Caffrey, and elsewhere, but even as well read as I am on this topic, I learned quite a number of new things. Best of all, there are full color pictures (my favorite is of the old TACTICAL GAME 3, the predecessor of PANZERBLITZ, on page 23). Still, I'd argue there's a few errors that I caught in the article.
"Containers: 20th Century Tactical Board Game Packaging" by Michael Dorosh.--this article sent waves of nostalgia through me. Very liberally illustrated. There's pages of color illustrations of box art for the tactical games, starting with TACTICAL GAME 3 and PANZERBLITZ on page 52 through Critical Hit's COMBAT! NORMANDY and ORDEAL BEFORE SHURI on page 57.
"Frontovik: The Red Army of the Great Patriotic War in Tactical Wargames" by John Kosar. Lots of history in this piece before you get to how the Soviets are portrayed in the games. The history, maps, charts, diagrams are great--especially if you don't have most of this stuff in your home military history library. But we're a bit thin on the discussion of how they are portrayed in games. Good news is that we see both boardgames and computer games covered.
"Diversity of Design: Modelling the Red Army's Armor Force" by Andrew Danyluk. This was one of my favorite articles because it was rich with data, especially providing the tables on tank models simulated in the various board and miniatures games. The article also covers the issues in modeling armored warfare in general, not just the Eastern Front--most notably the Lorrin Bird analyses. If I wished for anything in this piece, it was more about some of the design mistakes made in some games, such as the one the author quotes Lorrin Bird pointing out regarding the T-34 76mm main gun performance in certain designs (some apparently thought it was the Anti-Tank Gun version the Germans mounted in Marders that was built into the T-34/76 models). I also liked the "PANZERBLITZ" style armored vehicle diagrams and stats--
"Red Armor: Soviet Tank Units: 1941-1945" by Steve Overton. This was pretty much a history piece with little tie-in to tactical wargaming.
"Platform Comparison: CMBB vs PCK" by Kevin Prouty. I don't play computer wargames much anymore, but this piece made me want to. Prouty does such a good job comparing and contrasting COMBAT MISSION: BARBAROSSA TO BERLIN with PANZER COMMAND: KHARKOV--complete with screen shots of similar terrain--that you'll want to play both games. Great piece and I'd love to see more like this for not only computer games, but also boardgames. Just think--comparing PANZERBLITZ: HILL OF DEATH with scenarios on Hill 112 in PANZERGRENADIER: BEYOND NORMANDY. Or various games on the battle for Stonne at the platoon level and squad level. And so on.
So was the journal worth the price? Like any anthology, which is how I looked at this "book," there are strong chapters and there are weaker ones. I was generally satisfied with this effort. But I will expect a little tighter editing and more focused coverage in future issues.
Kudos to Michael Dorosh for initiating this venture and I can only hope it succeeds and we can see more than one or two future issues. Certainly there is a rich palette of tactical wargames and wargaming systems to paint from and quite wide-range of potential subject matter. I would hope a journal such as this would provide additional depth in comparing tactical game systems for those of us who have to choose between titles when spending our hard-earned dollars. And for those of us who generally tend to buy any and all tactical games, to help us understand the designer's intent (and biases) beyond what we read in interviews and the game designer notes.
