Spaniards on the Eastern Front
Okay, I’d started to write a blog post about Doug and I playing Panzer Grenadier last night, but he doesn’t have to work, so he got to it first. Big surprise there – the boy loves to write. So, instead of posting in parallel (Two Sides style) I’ll play off Doug’s post, as what I have to say is too long for comments.
Avalanche has a (deserved) reputation for sloppy rulesets. They took a step in 2006 to remedy that situation in hiring Doug McNair as full-time developer. A role they’d never officially filled before that point. Since then, things have tightened up. Unfortunately, the 3rd edition Panzer Grenadier rules predate Mr. McNair’s hiring, and are still rather disorganized. (Oh, Doug – that leader-moving-with-a-stacked-fleeing-unit rule is also in the middle of the first paragraph in 5.0. In the EXCEPTIONS section. Of course.) They’ve floated a rumor that another of their major series is undergoing a rules revision this year. Given that their only other two major series are GWaS and SWWaS, one of those should see a McNair-led rules revision by the end of the year. I’m hoping it’s the former. In either case, it’s needed.
Avalanche also has a dinosaur-ish view on intellectual property. It was a HUGE step when they posted the Panzer Grenadier 3rd edition rules online. They even posted a free scenario. You could play the game for free (well, short of the cost of making the components) with info they provided. MAJOR step for them, but they’ve been slow in following up. There’s an (apparently) approved Vassal module for Airborne floating around. I haven’t heard of any efforts from APL in squashing its distribution, and it’s been actively discussed in APL-moderated forums on ConsimWorld. So, that’s another big step. If only someone would create a module for Deluxe Eastern Front, we’d be off and running. The leader in this space, though, is GMT. It’s no coincidence that the company most liberal in free distribution of their rules and relaxed requirements on producing electronic play aids is also seen as the top wargaming company. The old, archaic, “keep my intellectual property MINE, dammit” model is just about dead – most people just haven’t adjusted yet.
Now, with all this said, Avalanche holds an odd place in the wargaming world. I recently finished Hobby Games: The 100 Best, and Mike Benninghof (founder of APL) has an article in there. In the capsule bio following, it’s stated that Avalanche is the largest board wargaming company. Now, I find that hard to believe. It seems GMT and Multiman sell a lot more games than Avalanche. But then, APL always manages to keep their games in print without much fuss, where the other companies either put reprints on preorder, or have lengthy gaps until a new printing is made. Or even just go one and done. I’ve always pictured Avalanche being about the size of Clash of Arms or Decision Games, but they do seem to have a larger full-time staff. So, maybe they are as big as GMT. It’s hard to tell as it seems their primary audience (Naval gamers) doesn’t seem to populate the same online forums as GMT or MMP’s customer bases. And they certainly don’t have rabid fanbois like MMP. They also tend to support conventions like GAMA where everyone else puts Origins or WBC as their focus. (Lys Fulda, their marketing director, recently made an aside that she didn’t know when WBC was being held. That’s rather odd for the marketing director of a wargaming company.)
There’s one thing Avalanche does better than anyone else in the business, however. After-sale game support. Nearly every single day, there’s a new article directly related to one of their games posted on their website. Sometimes, it’s designers notes. Other times, it’s an illustrated replay. Or a variant complete with a PDF of new counters needed for the variant. Or some other support material. And they’re all nicely collected at the bottom of each game’s page. A VERY nice service, I must say.
As an example, if you’re new to Panzer Grenadier, check out these two articles. A great explanation of how and why PG works the way it does. This is indicative of the kind of content that shows up daily on APL’s site.
Anyway, enough of Avalanche, and back to last night’s game. As I’ve mentioned in at least one prior Two Sides post, when you’re learning how to play a game, defense is easier than offense. As I’d at least played F2F in the past, I took the Spanish attackers while Doug defended with the Russians. I had to come in from off map after seeing Doug’s deployment. My infantry came in from the East, and the Tiger (escorted by three Bicycle and three Motorcycle platoons) came in from the south. I definitely misused the Tiger, not realizing it’s near invulnerability to anything short of an assault, but was effectively screening the larger city while starting to assault the smaller city. After that was taken, I was going to surround the larger city and see what happened. We never got to that point, though. What would have been interesting is whether Doug could have caused enough Spanish step losses to win the scenario. This is one area where the aforementioned Doug McNair’s influence has been shown – much more balanced scenarios. The situation may be dire for one side, but the victory conditions can give the underdog victory if they don’t lose too badly.
The time did fly, as Doug mentioned, and by the time we called it quits we were cruising through the turns. Despite the rather densely formatted 16-page rulebook, the game is quite simple. Probably a notch simpler than Combat Commander. The scale does take adjustment if you’re used to squad-level games. PG is platoon-level, with 15 minute turns and 200m hexes. (not the “2 minutes” and 30-yards of ASL, for example.) Events develop over time, and you can see the slow degradation of control as the scenario moves along.
I definitely want to play this again soon, while the memories are fresh – it’s a game that deserves more time and attention than it gets.