Well, Marcus does present a strong case and I am in fact in the same boat.
More PG material than I need for solo gaming and no way to play via Vassal
sharply limits my interest in any future purchases.

So, I don't know, good luck with the good fight fellows, I just know that is
one brick wall I've lost interest in banging my head against.


On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
Michael Everson <mever1918@...> wrote:
> Ditto what Marcus said.  I have been contemplating a Buy 2 Get 1 Free
>purchase when Cassino, France 1940, and Kursk are all eventually published,
>but my enthusiasm is beginning to wane.  So many other exciting games and
>gaming systems are being published that I may look elsewhere for a tactical
>system that I can actually have a chance to play with someone else. 
>  
> Mike
>
> --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Marcus Bertman <marcus.bertman@...> wrote:
>
>
>From: Marcus Bertman <marcus.bertman@...>
> Subject: Re: [panzer_grenadier] Re: VASSAL Solution
> To: panzer_grenadier@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 8:18 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>