The Tobruk game released by Avalon Hill prior to Squad Leader got little support from gamers or AH. "With the exception of a few articles and scenarios in "The General", there was never a follow-on game or expansion product for "Tobruk" enthusiasts. We now have the benefit of hindsight to point to the years between the release of "Squad Leader" and its progeny "Cross of Iron" through "GI: Anvil of Victory" represented AH's commitment to tactical-level World War II gaming. As most readers are aware, that series led to ASL, followed by its own progeny over the years. Thus, one should not be the least bit surprised that "Tobruk" appeared to be expendable circa 1987, a year that happened to be the height of the ASL craze." In fact, Hal Hock (developer of "Tobruk") and Don Greenwood and John Hill (developers of "Squad Leader") compared the merits of the two games shortly after the release of the latter in the pages of "The General". It was made clear that the two game systems were quite different, and as time passed it was clear which game Avalon Hill preferred to support. In July 1987, as alluded to above, Avalon Hill sold the rights to "Tobruk" back to Hal Hock. Some of the challenges facing designers of tactical wargames were also made clear in that article, which contrasted Hill's "design for effect" philosophy with the more data-driven philosophy of Hock:  Hill's is the "artistic" approach akin to the impressionistic school of painting where subjects are abstracted until the "overall" effect on the viewer is such that the artist can will his impressions upon the viewer. Hence, an artistic designer studies history with concern for the overall battlefield environment and how each specific weapon relates to it, as opposed to proving ground statistics. Regardless of a weapon's value, if the soldier wielding it has confidence in his handling of the weapon and its overall effectiveness, his performance will be greatly enhanced. He subscribes to the opinion in vogue these days in battlefield research that technical differences of weapons is not nearly as important as the psychological perception of the individual using the weapon... Hock is the scientist and indeed has been employed in such a capacity by the government. He believes that since a battle is primarily a clash of technology, it can be measured. Proving ground data is his bible. Armor actions can be studied by careful study of "projectile penetration" vs. armor...The artist responds that this shell vs. armor test does not always hold true in the battlefield environment...The artist concludes...that when shell hits armor, "anything" (such as hits on vision ports, slung equipment, oblique angles, variable metal quality of cast armor, etc.) can happen and that only a most generalized statement of probability can be made.