IA vs PG: distinctly different games?

[Tony M]

After poking around a bit I see that I was asking questions here about IA in early 2024. Opinions have not changed since then.

[Blackcloud6]

It is playable, quite playable. If you can play PG, you can play IA, just be conscious of the differences and you’ll be fine.

[plloyd1010]

If it would help, there is a demo game. It is a DYI project, but there are links to everything you need to make the demo game. Thdere is also a Vassal extension for the demo game that works on PG Uber.

[treadasaurusrex]

You are correct, and he is a bright and clever fellow. 

 I am amazed at how crapulent & fiddly the IA rules are, but one failure after creating so many fine games is to be expected of any game designer.

 The good news is that his naval games are generally excellent, and fun to play as are the bulk of his PG offerings -- especially in shared play.

 Don't let those of us who dislike the disorganized IA rulebook put you off. Learn the system & play the sucker yourself to see if you like it.

 Happy gaming!

[treadasaurusrex]

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?

Will send you the gently edited rule set for IA that Chaco and I created and a number of the Beer & Jolly Foils contributed to over the years, on another channel.

This edit was shared with Dr. Mike in 2021. There are plenty of examples of poorly designed, typo-heavy, and nonplaytested rules for you to feast on.

Oh, and losing the crossfire rule from the 1st edition IA rules was never explained. It did make for much less close-range, urban assault, die rolling as others have hinted at.

[plloyd1010]

Oh, and losing the crossfire rule from the 1st edition IA rules was never explained. It did make for much less close-range, urban assault, die rolling as others have hinted at.

I'm not so sure the crossfire rule would really be applicable in1914. It certainly would not be by 1917-18, but is quite viable for 1870-98, and probably for 1905 too.

[treadasaurusrex]

We agree to disagree, my friend.

[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.

[Hugmenot]

I played or developed 600+ PG scenarios before picking up IA 2nd edition, The IA 2nd edition rules were difficulty to internalize for two reasons: 
(1) subtle differences between IA and PG that are not highlighted enough in my opinion. 
(2) rules organization.

(1) is often a problem for me when I play games (same series or not) from the same designer that are very similar mechanically. I wish the differences were highlighted using a different front or a grey background. I found it painful to reread pages of rules to confirm the a mechanic that I thought I remembered was indeed different.

A player aid highlighting the differences could have helped as well.

(2) It took me three or four plays before I became comfortable with the PG rules and about the same (despite my PG experience) for IA 2nd edition. I could apply most mechanics correctly in IA but some I had to parse the rulebooks several times before I was convinced I was playing other mechanics correctly.

Both rulebooks suffers from a shortage of examples, especially examples with images to illustrate how concepts work together. This was no surprise to me because I had supplied several illustrated examples of play when I submitted the Land Cruisers rules and none made it to the rulebook. Avalanche Press simply do not do nice illustrated examples of play.

Having said all that, I am enjoying playing IA 2nd edition solitaire. Having just a few unit types and the generally slower tempo of the attacks work for me.

[treadasaurusrex]

So true!

The 2nd edition IA rulebook is a disorganized mess desperately in need of clear examples illustrating key elements of game mechanics & play.