IA vs PG: distinctly different games?

[Tony M]

I will read through some AARs. I know I did read a few back in 2024, but I don't remember what they said.

I've watched some IA videos on YouTube. The gameplay seems to be very similar to PG, which I suppose is a good thing. Nobody wants to learn new system after new system after new system. At least, I don't. What I wondered about is how well the IA rules simulate WWI company level combat. In other words, does the system feel right. Does it feel like the actions I'm reading about in "Storm of Steel."

I have played the U-boat game "The Hunters" many times over the years, and because I've read so many U-boat histories since 1971 or so I was able to say with certainty, "Yes, this feels right." The same with some of the Afrika Korps games I've played. It's pointless to play a game that does not feel like it accurately simulates the action being depicted.

A few years ago I playtested a DG game about Operation Typhoon. The map did not have any roads, and I know that the road network, what there was of it, was crucial to the campaign, especially as the temperature fell. The designer of the game did not want to include roads. I went back and forth about this issue with the developer, who took it to the designer, who really didn't want roads. I even consulted an acknowledged expert on that campaign. Eventually roads were added to the map, but if I remember correctly there were no rules for them. DG sent me a copy of the game, but I never played it, because the game as it was released did not, in my view, have much in common with the actual campaign. I hope nobody else played it. What's the point of a "conflict simulation" that doesn't accurately simulate the conflict? These games should be a learning experience. At that point I told myself I was done with spending my precious time playtesting. That was one of several things that turned my feelings about the hobby very negative.