*sigh*

[J6A]

Frank is a great guy. He still designs for VPG (maybe others, I'm not sure). I've met him in person several times. From what I've heard, GDW was in terrible shape already when Frank took over, and he was attempting to staunch the wounds sort of like Dr. B has been doing. It didn't go well.

[plloyd1010]

I in now mean to say that Mike, Frank, Don, Gary, or anyone else in such a position, is ill-intentioned. I equate it much the same as moving engineers into management. Perhaps it is the same thing that causes unplanned movie sequels to fall flat.

I liked the 3rd World War series, it was a good system. The First Team & Command Decision games had bad continuity and went awry.

Anyway AP appears to be going down that path. Poor customer service is a symptom of that disease.

[Hugmenot]

The report of the AP's illness grew out of this illness. The report of their incoming death is an exaggeration.

[plloyd1010]

The report of the AP's illness grew out of this illness. The report of their incoming death is an exaggeration.

Says who, Cassandra?

[Texagony]

Sadly, I have given up completely on Avalanche Press. I own the vast majority of their games and in some cases I have two copies. However several factors have combined to lead me to decide I will never again purchase a game from them:

1. Their abysmal customer service. You can only break your promise so many times before the customer gives up on you.
2. Their refusal to support the hobby by allowing third parties to post Vassal modules. I don't deny it is their right to do this, and I acknowledge that there will always be people who will abuse the system by using the Vassal module without buying the game, but the vast majority of gamers will not do this. It irritates me to no end that Mike is always imploring people to support AP while he never makes an effort to support the hobby.
3. Refusal to post "living rules." Do I really have to pay $60 to get the current update of the rules? Must the hobbyists who support AP, by posting rules errata and clarifications do ALL thw work?
4. Lack of playtesting and even failure to proofread rules and scenario books.

I know there are many who love AP products and will continue to support AP. That is their right and I am happy that they get pleasure from AP games. For my part, I will support the game companies that support the hobby.

[JayTownsend]

Sorry to hear that Texagony, you will miss out a lot of excellent products coming out this year! The next two years should be some of the best ever.

[waynebaumber]

Taxagony points out the two biggest flaws in PG, which are the rules and the lack of proof reading and playtesting in the their scenario's.

Vince often asks me why I play solo, one of the main reasons is I can play the rules as I read them and not have to play rule either as a comprise or follow the majority's take on any particular rule. We all know which rules vex us the LOS rules in regards to hills and the fleeing rules are the two stand out ones. In scenario rules my take on Penal troop is completely different to the majority.

However in FtF I can and will play the rules as to how the majority want to play them.

It is amazing how there are so many good scenario's around considering it is obvious that a lot were not proof read or played prior to publishing and a testament to how good the basic system is.

PG is crying out for a 4th edition set of rules, which will be longer than the current set. Will AP deliver one I doubt it. Can we the hobbyist's deliver a living set of rules probably one not one which will be accepted universally and of course could well impinge copyright laws. The set of rules in PG HQ is the closest we may well come to it but I do not use them when playing.

So to Texagony I say play PG it's worth the effort but we also feel your pain.

[vince hughes]

Wayne,

I actually think the fleeing rules are not too bad. Certainly better than the old SL rout rules at any rate.

Players need to remember when DEM troops are in flee mode that they should play as if they have NO control over these units at all. All too often, players want to flee their DEM units where the player wants them to flee. Instead, we should be in the mind of the imperiled platoon who are only interested in self-preservation. Once that concept is grasped and accepted, the flee rules work out pretty good. A simple example of this is to always remember to move them FURTHER away from DF that can hurt them. Moving them an equal distance in hexes away from units that can hurt them is NOT an option, but instead, a last resort when FURTHER away is not available.

That said Wayne, you may have something else about them that you are alluding to and that might be worth placing in a post here (for discussion or other takes). For me, I think the flee rules are pretty workable.

BTW - On the Penal units, the designer that wrote those did make it clear that the way you suggested was in error and that the 'majority' view was correct. In other words, if FOW has not interrupted the turn they HAVE to be activated each turn. They HAVE to advance toward the nearest enemy etc

Proof reading is awful and some (or plenty of) scenarios are simply missing development as we have experienced in one or two. These things make us pull our hair out I know. If nobody else does, I will one day write and try to get accepted a complete and well-cross-referenced 4th edition rules.

[waynebaumber]

The flee rules have that and/or bit in. Units must move towards the nearest town,woods or other hex where enemy units can no longer spot it and/or fire on it with direct fire or A/T fire.

To my mind that means units keep fleeing until they can not be spotted or the board edge they do not stop even when out of range of the nearest enemy unit. I agree that these units are out of control and will seek out the best cover they can get.

As for the Penal thing I can live with being a minority of 1.

My other bugbear is one you have mentioned before, that Special Rules have units in one game pushing guns around but not in another. In playing my last solo I know their are rule about Russian rocket artillery being inaccurate but they are not in Tank Battles but in another supplement, (Red Warriers I think), I played it as we do now (ie play the rules as written for the supplement you are playing) and I suspect it made little difference to the result but I had that nagging feeling that I was playing it wrong. After all we play with PF and Bazooka's when we play BoB scenario's.

Still enough winging, time is too short and it is a great game system.

[Hugmenot]

I currently play by the book as to the fleeing rule but I have my doubts whether demoralized troops in the open would recognize they are now out of harm's range. I don't think they would necessarily run another the nearest woods 1.2 km away, but neither do I think they would stop immediately when out of range.

I am not suggesting modifying the fleeing rules - they're simple and work well enough - but it's something I have been thinking of tinkering with in my solo plays.