IA vs PG: distinctly different games?

[Tony M]

A couple days ago I began reading Ernst Junger's "Storm of Steel." A scary and fascinating book.

Can anyone please explain how well Infantry Attacks simulates WWI tactical combat? Or is it too close to PG?

[Blackcloud6]

Unit scale is different: in PG the infantry is platoons, in IA they are companies.  Combat has nuanced differences.  Artillery is either on board direct fire field guns and indirect fire has to be planned out.  Machine Guns are handled differently too.  Although there are many similarities in the two rule-sets, which I think is a good thing as it makes the transition easy, there are enough subtle differences that gives the feel of early WWI combat in IA distinct form that of PG's WWII..

[treadasaurusrex]

Beg to differ from my esteemed colleague's sincere opinion.

The 2nd edition IA rules are a disorganized, poorly-written mess that makes the game difficult to learn and often, very frustrating to play. A number of us who gave it a an honest & extended try have since dropped it as an option in shared, face-to-face, or online play. The IA rules desperately need a thorough rewrite and many - if not all - of the scenarios were never properly play-tested.

 Here's a favorite quote from an excellent & thoughtful, long-time PG player that merits serious consideration, IMHO:
" . . . simply play by the rules as written. Fight the bad guys, not the game. If the game is so broken you need to modify it, it would be better just to move on to a different system."

Amen, to that thought as regards the misbegotten, IA series.

[Tony M]

Hmmm. Thanks for the replies, guys. I would appreciate input from others if others care to provide it.

I rarely play any wargames these days, but after getting through about half of "Storm of Steel" I remembered that I have the old game "Landships!" in my attic. After trying to read through the rules I said "Well, uhhh..." and set them aside. Beautiful maps, but a bit on the complex side. At my age I don't have the patience for complex.

Then I remembered "Infantry Attacks." I enjoyed PG, especially the Black Panthers scenarios. Avalanche is one of the few companies I would consider buying a game from these days, thus my question about IA.

[plloyd1010]

The play of IA is different from PG, though the rules are much the same. Artillery is the big difference, which has a lot of planning involved and it is difficult to change orders. Machination is slower, so general plans become more important.

August 1914 and Fall of Empires are out and are good starts. Fall of Empires has no OBA, so I suggest that game over August 1914.

[Blackcloud6]

The 2nd edition IA rules are a disorganized, poorly-written mess that makes the game difficult to learn and often, very frustrating to play.

Care to give some examples?

[Tambu]

There are too many to enumerate, to say nothing of the multiple typos, bad organization and miserable writing.

The worst part is that rules pertaining to various topics are scattered about in several places. There are very few illustrations that display clear examples of common topics like, LOS, close assault and movements to contact. Overall the rules seem to have been sloppily thrown together.

The latest version is missing the close-range crossfire rule that was in the first edition rules. The close assault mechanic is EVEN MORE tedious in shared play than what is in the regular PG rulebook. The August 1914 combat results tables should be revised as well, as they still refer to AFVs that did not exist at the time in WW1.

For more detail, take a quick look at the PG-HQ AARs that have been filed by some of us for August 1914 and the Chihuahua Incident.

[Blackcloud6]

The August 1914 combat results tables should be revised as well, as they still refer to AFVs that did not exist at the time in WW1.

AFVs come for Infantry Attacks in Golden Journal #44: Imperial & Royal Panzers and may also need to be on the charts for future late war games, if we ever see those.

The latest version is missing the close-range crossfire rule that was in the first edition rules.

Did you consider those rules may have dropped on purpose in the second edition?

I just completed a play of Black Mountain's first scenario after refreshing myself with the rules.  I had no issues in play.

[OldPueblo]

The August 1914 combat results tables should be revised as well, as they still refer to AFVs that did not exist at the time in WW1.

AFVs come for Infantry Attacks in Golden Journal #44: Imperial & Royal Panzers and may also need to be on the charts for future late war games, if we ever see those.

The latest version is missing the close-range crossfire rule that was in the first edition rules.

Did you consider those rules may have dropped on purpose in the second edition?

I just completed a play of Black Mountain's first scenario after refreshing myself with the rules.  I had no issues in play.

Wow!
You must be very patient, or have a very high pain/frustration threshold.

[Tony M]

If IA is as bad as some are saying, can anyone think of a reason for this?

May I assume the IA system is broadly based on PG? If so, PG has been around for a long time, and I would expect a system based on it to be at least playable. Dr B is not a newcomer to the wargame business. In private email exchanges with him, he strikes me as a very bright fellow who cares about his company's products.