BGG Poll!

[JayTownsend]

Avalanche Press could use some good positive PR on the BGG poll:

Ok guys, we need to go over and give AP some respect:

https://boardgamegeek.com/article/20255481#20255481

Wargames» Forums » General Subject: Wargame Publishers [POLL]

[zaarin7]

I voted and supported Avalanche because of the good relation ship in the past however will most likely never have the finaces to buy any boxed games in the future.

[JayTownsend]

Yeah the better PR they get, the more they will sell and the longer they will last, which means we will be buying more PG games in the future!

[t1M0t8yk]

Yeah the better PR they get, the more they will sell and the longer they will last, which means we will be buying more PG games in the future!

  I saw that poll before you posted the link, Jay.  PG is a fun game that earns APL my support, but I'm not completely surprised by their unfavorable ratings, perhaps the lowest in the poll.  APL just doesn't seem to be as polished an operation as other game companies, especially compared to GMT, with which I am most familiar.

[larry marak]

It's a poll of emotional connections as much as anything else. I'm not surprised at the nostalgia for Avalon Hill and SPI. There are several more fallen companies I would have rated highly. Metagaming, West End, even poor little Rand Games (I've eliminated many hundred's of titles from my collection, but I still have 2 Rand Games).

[thomaso827]

Many in the replies to the poll mentioned GDW, and at one point in my gaming life, probably 60% of my game shelf was GDW products in the months after AH dropped off. Since they did a lot of minis rules and RPGs as well as board games, that was probably why they took so much of my time.

Tom Oxley

[Hugmenot]

I think what distinguishes GMT from all other companies is their customer support and post-production support (through their C3i magazine).

GMT still produce a few games with an undecipherable rulebook such as Sword of Rome and games which the components should not have passed quality assurance. But they gain a ton of (well-deserved) goodwill for fixing these issues post-production and by the best customer support in the industry. Keep in mind their size allow them (but does not force them by any means) to provide such level of customer support. I bought roughly one and a half dozen GMT titles and 2 had issues. One was fixed quickly by customer support and I unloaded the last game in a trade because the issues were beyond what I find acceptable.

I gave only one "7" and it was to Revolution Games. I own all but 1 of their offerings and liked every one of them. Batting 1.000 is a "7" in my book despite not being crazy about their choice of colors on some counters (not enough contrast imo). There is no guarantee they would be able to maintain the rating if they would grow in size. Actually, actually I doubt it because I have seen what the owner adds to the game after it is already as playtested as my experience with other companies and that input is what makes the games remarkable in my opinion.

[t1M0t8yk]

 GMT still produce a few games with an undecipherable rulebook such as Sword of Rome

  Huh.  I've had no problems with SoR's rules.  No Retreat North Africa is the one that's eluded me.
  I don't know the history that causes APL's low standing since my own history with them is not yet two years.  To their credit APL quickly shipped me new maps when a purchase last December arrived incomplete.  But even I see hints of the bad feelings (lack of Vassal modules, variable component quality, questionable amount of playtesting).

[JayTownsend]

People on BGG based their votes on AP's troubled years when they almost closed shop. They closed their Virginia warehouse reduced their staff and moved everything, all their stock to the Alabama location and took a few years to rebound but Mike pulled it off instead of giving up and walking away from it all, he is making it work. He still has some unfilled commitments, but slowly but surely he is filling those as well, in a pace where he won't be in trouble financially. So, I would base your vote on the current Avalanche Press, not the one of years past. I gave them a 7, as I see big improvements!