Having problems with message search?
Admittedly, I am in the same boat. But, that's not just a problem with PzG - that's a problem with any form of "board" wargaming. There's lots of miniature wargaming where I live - but very, very little board wargaming.
But, I quit buying PzG products for a much different reason. As I play through more and more of the scenarios, I am finding that a good whackload of them are very difficult to decipher, particularly when it comes to deployment.
I used to be a AvP fanboy; and, by and large, I think that at the core, they make some of the best wargames on the market. But there's those niggling problems over and over and over again. I've received poorly printed products, mis-cut counters, torn maps, and missing parts. To their credit, they've always replaced or fixed the problem. But it seems to me like they could save themselves thousands in shipping out replacements if they would just do a bit of QA before they ship the product out the door.
Sometimes, it's inexcusable, sometimes it's just luck of the draw. But, the straw that broke the camel's back came when I listened (for perhaps the 20th time) a customer who had paid for a pre-order, and had waited over a year for that product to come out (and some are still waiting, some for more than 2 years). That's bad business.
I am no longer an AvP fanboy. I love the PzG rules - I think that they are some of the most exciting and intriguing rules for platoon level tactical play. But I don't like the company anymore.
David Jackson
Marcus Bertman wrote:
I am pretty sure that this issue has been brought to their attention both on Consim, Boardgame Geek, other forums and probably through other channels as well. Obviously without result. But from my experience, companies usually become very attentive only when enough customers start talking the language of money. My perspective regarding Panzergrenadier these days is simple - over last 8 years I've bought six main modules and about the same number of supplements; I have played perhaps 10-15 games during that time, mainly because my wargaming buddies are quite lukewarm about the ruleset (ASL grognards refusing to see the light :-). I like the ruleset, but at the same time I have enough gaming material to last me a lifetime and very few opportunities to play. So unless I get additional incentive in form of possibility to play online, AvP will not be selling anymore of their PzG products to me.
With regards
Marcus B.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Mike NotSpecified <blockhead@bresnan.net > wrote:
Haven't we beaten this dead horse before? I detect not the slightest hint of
interest from APL.
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:22:44 -0700
Doug Cooley <doug666@comcast.net > wrote:
>
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 3:02 AM, David Jackson wrote:
>
>> What is your solution for the VASSAL problem?
>>
>> And can we solve it with something other than VASSAL?
>>
>> I'd still prefer if AvP release a module, and kept it out of the
>> hands of a single individual, who might have an agenda and might
>> exploit that.
>
> I've already suggested a cut-down EFD package that APL would (obviously)
>need to approve, along with the reasons why I felt it would be successful in
>both demonstrating to APL how valuable allowing modules would be (and that
>may mean that it backs their claims of rampant theft) as well as how
>grateful customers would be to have them.
>
> VASSAL is really the only good solution for reasons already mentioned
> (cross-platform, allows use of real-time play which is critical to PG
> because of Op Fire interaction, etc). APL is not going to take any risks in
>the near future on a Days of Wonder model (also already proposed back before
>the move/Cassino debacles) although I still think that would be the best fit
>for them.
>
> In a free society you can never prevent individuals from finding ways to
>subvert the system, right or wrong. What APL can do is bless a module that
>can be distributed freely, and even control the online source if they chose
>to by making it available through their website. The risk is always there
>that someone will expand the EFD package I mentioned above to include all
>scenarios and all nationalities, but that risk already exists and doesn't
>change anything.
>
> My guess is that someone reading this list knows of an EFD package that's
>already in existence (not me, sadly). If we had that in place, it's a simple
>matter to start a discussion with APL, remove the necessary materials to
>make it acceptable to them (assuming they find it acceptable, which could
>happen) and submit it to them for final approval and placement on the APL
>website. If no one was willing to come forward (and I would happily act as a
>go between in this process to protect anonymity, and not take credit for the
>module), someone would need to start from scratch. However, if we all helped
>out by providing countersheet scans, breaking up of the countersheets into
> individual counters, etc, it might make for a nice project and a way for
>this list to give back to the community.
>
> Of course, all is for naught if APL refuses to consider the project and
>that's probably the best place to start. If there's someone who has a good
>relationship with any of the APL staff, that's who I'd have float the
>proposal.
>
> Doug
Offline 
Send Email