Grumpy indeed. FWIW, The Wargamer was founded in September 1995 by Mario R. Kroll originally with the purpose of being a website to facilitate matchmaking play-by-email opponents for computer wargames.
Also, since I do write a lot for EICJoe and given the preceding post, let me take this opportunity to explain my review philosophy, which many accurately describe as pretty positive. Trust me, it wasn't always that way, but I finally grew up.
My experience has been that when a reviewer gives a bad review its NOT because the game isn't well designed, it's NOT because the gameplay sux, it's NOT because the history is bad and it's NOT because there is a realism problem. The problem is NOT that the game doesn't work, the problem is that the game doesn't work FOR THE REVIEWER. It's pure personal preference, but for some reason the reviewer believes if a game doesn't meet his personal criteria as "good" then by definition it is universally bad, absolutely unacceptable for every other gamer on the planet. I figure a good 90% of reviews are this way.
Prime example from the Napoleonic miniature wargaming world concerning the use of light infantry skirmishers. Some designs factor this capability into the overall combat power of an infantry regiment with no special figures, but perhaps a die roll modifier. Other games have actual Legere/Jaeger figures move and shoot in an additional combat phase completely separate from what the parent regiment or brigade does. Both systems work, both are realistic and accurate based on design intent, and neither is really better than the other . . . BUT . . . damn if some reviewers write that if you don't have those detached skirmish stands running around and shooting on their on, then this is NOT Napoleonics, and this game sux in total, period, how dare you think otherwise.
In my reviews at least, I deliberately try to insure I don't fall into that trap, at least not too much