|
Blackcloud's PG Lament
There was a time when I had a love/hate relationship with PG, some of it due to my not always grasping the firepower superiority concept of the game coupled with the drudgery of assault scenarios of "take the town" or "reduce the entrenchment" type scenarios. The turn-by-turn die rolling contests that can develop in many scenarios just, to me, get tedious and seem very dependent on luck. But I overcame most of that through repeated play, but still at times shy away from these types of scenarios.
I've always like this "platoon level" scale of wargaming. This is probably due to my first wargame being Panzer Blitz. When PG first came out, I was excited to see new life breathed into the genre and I did like the infantry focus of the game because, WWII was largely an infantry war. And the command activation system was a good way to interject C2 and show difference in armies, all with a low number of rules. A friend and I started playing PG together but due to distance and lack of VASSAL in those days, drifted away and went on to ASL because of VASL. I putzed a bit with PG then set it aside as I went on a six-year binge of nothing but ASL.
With France 1940, I rediscovered PG and decided it will be my go-to "solo" system for WWII tactical gaming. The systm facilitates solo play very much. In solo play, imbalance in scenarios don't really matter, I tend to play for the "historical" replication value in solo play anyhow. Yet I still had trepidation with the bogging down of the dice-rolling assaults. However, in solo play, one can leave it for bit when it becomes tedious and come back to it later. However, in scenarios of maneuver, PG shines because the deliberate pace makes it seem realistic and just flying around a battlefield at top speed usually results in quick death.
One other reason why I like PG as a solo game is the rules are not difficult. There is not a ton to remember like there is in ASL. I find I can pick up a history book on a battle, start reading it and break out PG and "play along" as I read. I like doing that. I've tried ASL solo and SASL (and actual solo system for ASL) and I can tell you, it is too much work to play both sides and do all that you need to do in ASL. I'll stick to playing others in ASL.
Prior to the PG VASSAL I had just played one or two face-to-face games of PG since dropping off with my buddy 20 years or so ago. But recently, with VASSAL I was invited to start playing against someone again, and unfortunately, this did not go well. Now this has nothing to do with my opponent. He is a great opponent and fun to play against, but we found most of the scenarios to be either unbalanced where one side just gets clobbered and/or it bogs down into the assault dice rolling contest. I'm finding that I enjoy PG solo much more than playing against someone. And consider that I play ASL exclusively against others regularly, it is not that I dislike playing others. I want a game against another person to be exciting, with tension and trepidation. I've said for some time now, that a good scenario is one where halfway through both sides think they are losing.
I do loath playing a turn after turn of assault dice rolls and do avoid many of the "take the town" scenarios. I feel that many of the early PG modules have historically great scenarios but there is so much unbalance and seemingly lack of playtesting that I don't feel comfortable playing them against another person.
How do others feel about these points: solo play, scenario balance, and playing PG against others? Also, how do others feel about the tedium of assaults? How do you deal with the tedium, if you think there is tedium?
I'm honestly going back to keeping PG as a solo system. As you know, there is only so much time...
|
