+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Battle Games Poll? (/showthread.php?tid=1604)
Battle Games Poll? - JayTownsend - 09-29-2017
Battle Games
I thought I would make a poll on if you think Battle Games add any value to the Panzer Grenadier games? The last three PG games have them: Broken Axis, Invasion & Counter-Attack. They are usually in segments that divide the scenarios into sections. If you win a certain amount of scenarios in that particular section you win that Battle Games, sometime you have to achieve different victory conditions within that group of scenarios as well.
I usually just play the scenarios in a section and look at the end of the segment to see if the won that particular Battle Game or not. Usually I am just trying to win the scenario not think about the long term breakdown of the Battle Games. But I feel they are good reading material.
So do the Battles games add value or just take up space and resources. But there are certainly more options than just that, so I created a poll, just to see what people/players think about them and if AP should continue with them.
1. Yes they are great, keep putting them into the games.
2. I like them but more for reading material then playing value.
3. I don’t care one way or another.
4. They add no value for me.
RE: Battle Games Poll? - Michael Murphy - 09-29-2017
I love the Battle Game concept! I simply do not have the stamina to play one to completion.
RE: Battle Games Poll? - plloyd1010 - 09-29-2017
I think you need a 1½ vote. I like small campaign games, which the battle games appear to do fairly well. On the other hand they are a little too pervasive.
RE: Battle Games Poll? - rerathbun - 09-30-2017
I think they add value, if for no other reason than they help give the "bigger picture."
They take no more commitment than playing all of the scenarios in the battle game. So, for players looking to get a ribbon they require no extra effort beyond keeping track of the results of the scenarios as they're played.
RE: Battle Games Poll? - J6A - 09-30-2017
I'm a big fan of the battle games. I just finished one from KWCA and am now setting up Liberation '44, and I just have to pick scenarios at random. I like having the structure of a battle game.
RE: Battle Games Poll? - richvalle - 09-30-2017
I'm a 1.5 as well. Fun concept and give a bigger picture but not sure if I'll complete one. I like the ones that have different goals from the scenarios as it gives something else to play for.
I've always wanted battles that are more... linked. Like "if you lost 6-10 steps of Inf in battle 1 make 4 starting Inf reduced at setup."
Obviously it would only apply on battles that are following the same units from one day to the next.
RE: Battle Games Poll? - Hugmenot - 09-30-2017
I usually just play the scenarios in a section and look at the end of the segment to see if the won that particular Battle Game or not. Usually I am just trying to win the scenario not think about the long term breakdown of the Battle Games.
The Battle Games are more for those who will play the linked scenarios as a whole, trying to achieve higher level objectives while still trying to win the scenarios.
Checking the battle game conditions only after playing the scenarios may be still interesting reading but putting any value on which side won the battle is silly in my opinion because you were not focused (or aware) on the higher level objectives.
But I feel they are good reading material.
Matt deserves all the credits. It was his idea and he writes all the battle games.
So do the Battles games add value or just take up space and resources. But there are certainly more options than just that, so I created a poll, just to see what people/players think about them and if AP should continue with them.
Waste of space: that's a valid opinion. Some people like Battle Games, others don't care at all for them.
Waste of resources: The relationship between an organization (company) and its volunteers is always a fragile one. Do you think an organization should tell a volunteer to stop doing what he or she likes doing and expect that volunteer to give the same amount of time of effort on a new task of the organization's choosing? I learned the answer to that question more than 30 years ago.
RE: Battle Games Poll? - J6A - 09-30-2017
"I've always wanted battles that are more... linked. Like 'if you lost 6-10 steps of Inf in battle 1 make 4 starting Inf reduced at setup.'"
I almost put in a similar comment, and a lot of times in a battle game its different operational units in the various scenarios, so that would be hard to do. However, I wouldn't mind seeing mini-campaigns. Similar to what's done in Cassino and other places, just on a smaller scale.
RE: Battle Games Poll? - JayTownsend - 09-30-2017
Good conversations on this topic and I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone and personally feel the Battle Games are cool.
RE: Battle Games Poll? - Hugmenot - 09-30-2017
None was taken Jay.
I used to organize small to fairly large events - up to few hundred of volunteers - and learned quickly what you can and cannot ask volunteer and expect them to stay. I've seen many spend more time doing things they love rather than things that would have been better for the event. But as they were happy and their happiness was contagious, I prioritized happy volunteers and participants over a slightly better run event.