'Controversial' View on Supplements Using Multi-Sets

[vince hughes]

I know I am in a minority here, maybe even a minority of ONE ! But unlike most, I actually like supplements to draw from many box-sets and other supplements.

What I like about such products is that it allows for many boards from different sets to be set up together in configurations that a straight-jacketed box-set or supplement drawing on just one box-set (maybe 2) does not allow you to do.

For example, Invasion of Germany as a group takes in Elsenborn Ridge, Battle of the Bulge and Eastern Front boards (I think there even RtB boards as well). To me, that is an excellent combo of mix & match (yes, I'd like it even more if the artwork all matched but lets do baby steps here).

Also, to be able to draw on pieces that can be drawn from many sets means that individual units from one box-set get to fight against an even bigger 'who's-who' of the PG Gamut of unit types.

I know for some, digging into different boxes to take pieces out is a bind and maybe as I keep my nationalities together all as one (except for the leaders of course) it isn't such a labour for me (though I did mention this advantage many years ago on a particular CSW thread).

I'd be interested to know who else does not mind supplements using lots of PG's index of goodies to hand and also, those of you that HATE it, you can pile on as well (I know I am outnumbered here )

[campsawyer]

I don't mind the rooting around in the games. I have most of the maps out of the boxes as well as the playbooks, counters are in Plano contains as well. The casualty of this is the boxes. They tend to be relegated to the closet and this is too bad. The cover art is really nice on all of them. It reminds me of the same demise of album art once CD's and now MP3's took over the music business.

My only issue is the in consistent maps. Matching a nice FoF map with a BotB map is like fingernails on a blackboard. The variety of scenarios from these multi game scenarios makes for good fun and much more interesting. But the bottom line is a well designed scenario that is interesting to play.

[plloyd1010]

I have mixed feelings about the subject. I like geomorphic maps and have few compunctions about mixing my games (any of my games), so long as I can sort them out again. On the other had, the lack of clarity with AP's requirements sometimes makes supplements feel like a marketing cheat. I would feel better about it if there were something like the PG-HQ checklist for the modules. Something like 3 scenarios require BtB pieces and BB maps, 2 Scenarios require RtB maps & pieces, and EFD and RTB maps. So that I know I could play 14 out of 20 scenarios with what I had on hand. While I can play everything I have, I wonder how many new players are discouraged from expanding their collections because of on going purchase requirements.

[tlangston28]

While I can play everything I have, I wonder how many new players are discouraged from expanding their collections because of on going purchase requirements.

That is a very good point, Peter. I have been on both sides of this discussion.

Initially, When getting back into it, I looked at PG and as I read through all the game/supplement descriptions, I got discouraged because, at the time, I was only looking at AP website for purchases and saw that if I wanted to do anything other than Elsenborn Ridge (which was my first purchase) I would have to spend almost $200-300 to play a supplement costing $24.

However, as I was soon to find out, most of the games can be had for a fraction of the retail price, whether through the old sales (and the current ones like Black November and the 12 days of Christmas), or through online retailers, BGG and e-bay.

Since that initial purchase of ER, With that same $300-350 over the course of two years, I have now built up my collection to include all the PG boxed games and the many supplements that are supported by those games. I don't have any of the "new" boxed games yet (Kursk : SF or later), but I am a patient person, but you can put me squarely in the camp of liking the supplements that draw from many games.

For the record, I do keep my game/supplement counters in separate 24-slot plano boxes (actually a knock-off that is good enough and I can get 3 for $15.00 at Dick's Sporting Goods). I don't mind the trolling..

[Brett Nicholson]

I'ts kind of a pisser if you don't have the money to just buy up everything out there to complete one supplement. With the 'King's Officers' I only needed both 'Afrika Korps' and 'Desert Rats' to play 17 of the 18 scenarios so that was a good buy. With 'South Africa's War' I can now play 2 more of the scenarios than before with now having 'Eastern Front' but one scenario, just one, requires maps from 'Road to Berlin'.
I just don't have the money to buy up a lot of games to play a few scenarios from other supplements. I think if I buy 'Sinister Forces' I can play less than half of those, 14-15 scenarios with just owning 'Eastern Front' which is not that bad. If I bought 'Fronte Russo' I could play maybe 20 of those IF I own 'Sinister Forces' but other than that, I will likely just stick with one or two boxed sets a year. Luckily, I don't mind staying in one boxed set, period or theater at a time though sometimes I think if I see another desert hex I'll scream! ;-)

[campsawyer]

I'ts kind of a pisser if you don't have the money to just buy up everything out there to complete one supplement. With the 'King's Officers' I only needed both 'Afrika Korps' and 'Desert Rats' to play 17 of the 18 scenarios so that was a good buy. With 'South Africa's War' I can now play 2 more of the scenarios than before with now having 'Eastern Front' but one scenario, just one, requires maps from 'Road to Berlin'.
I just don't have the money to buy up a lot of games to play a few scenarios from other supplements. I think if I buy 'Sinister Forces' I can play less than half of those, 14-15 scenarios with just owning 'Eastern Front' which is not that bad. If I bought 'Fronte Russo' I could play maybe 20 of those IF I own 'Sinister Forces' but other than that, I will likely just stick with one or two boxed sets a year. Luckily, I don't mind staying in one boxed set, period or theater at a time though sometimes I think if I see another desert hex I'll scream! ;-)

Check the Sinister Forces game page on PG-HQ. This has the requirements for all the games required. It look like if you have Eastern Front you cover most of the scenarios, 19 if my math is right. If you add BotB you get up to 28 scenarios.

[Brett Nicholson]

I'ts kind of a pisser if you don't have the money to just buy up everything out there to complete one supplement. With the 'King's Officers' I only needed both 'Afrika Korps' and 'Desert Rats' to play 17 of the 18 scenarios so that was a good buy. With 'South Africa's War' I can now play 2 more of the scenarios than before with now having 'Eastern Front' but one scenario, just one, requires maps from 'Road to Berlin'.
I just don't have the money to buy up a lot of games to play a few scenarios from other supplements. I think if I buy 'Sinister Forces' I can play less than half of those, 14-15 scenarios with just owning 'Eastern Front' which is not that bad. If I bought 'Fronte Russo' I could play maybe 20 of those IF I own 'Sinister Forces' but other than that, I will likely just stick with one or two boxed sets a year. Luckily, I don't mind staying in one boxed set, period or theater at a time though sometimes I think if I see another desert hex I'll scream! ;-)

Check the Sinister Forces game page on PG-HQ. This has the requirements for all the games required. It look like if you have Eastern Front you cover most of the scenarios, 19 if my math is right. If you add BotB you get up to 28 scenarios.

I'll look over the requirements again but pretty sure it capped off at 15 with 'Eastern Front' alone. As far as 'Battle of the Bulge' goes I used to own it a few years back but it disappeared. So likely it won't be first on my list of new boxed sets though it does open up a lot of scenarios from other supplements by having it. However, even if it is just 15 scenarios I would still buy it but some supplements I've looked at require a lot other stuff. I think I could only play less than 10 from 'Red Warriors' with just owning EF. But I also have to remember that AP has been releasing PG games for over ten years and that a lot of people have had a decade to have stocked up on games by now. I have really only been back into it for about a year this time around. At the moment, owning 6 games seems a lot for just over a year so in due time I'm sure I will be able to branch out more.

[Hugmenot]

I store my unit counters by nationality so pulling counters from multiple games does not bother me anymore.

That some supplements require so many base games bothered me a lot when I started. I felt the supplements were more something to encourage players to buy other box games than expanding a box game.

My hope is that most new supplements will require very few box games to play. I would like our numbers to grow and I believe this is easier accomplished by publishing expansions which are do not require a large investment to play.

[Matt W]

The practice of needing several base games to play through supplements is certainly a frequent occurence with respect to APL's game series. I have noted the same process with respect to GWAS and SWWAS supplements. I feel that a lot of the fun in PG is the variety of places the series can take you and that the supplements can get you there. They will not be for everyone. I was lucky to get most of the base system through a tremendous sale years ago and have been able to afford adding items as they became available. As a result I don't have to worry too much about playability. This is much more of a problem for newcomers to the system as they may need FoF, ER, EFDx, RtB and BoB for the boards alone, let alone additional supplements to get the units.

There really are very different groups.

For the record, I like the variety in the supplements and don't mind the need for a large collection to be able to play them.

My real concern is the possibility that some of the supplements will be rereleased with additional or revised scenarios (see Airborne or Edelweiss for examples). Even it they are "new and improved" the question is why buy them? Is the "new" and "improved" worth the full pricetag?

[Shad]

The answer is PG-HQ and the hard work of its data entry guys has largely solved this problem.

Four years ago, before PG-HQ, and before the PG Expansions Explained geeklist on BGG, the only way to really know what a supplement required was to hold the scenario book in your hands. The AP website was and still is laughably, deceptively vague about supplement needs.

Here is a comparison between the required games for Secret Weapons according to the back of the SW scenario book and the real required games list according to PG-HQ:

Book-back Says	Actual Needs
Road to Berlin	Road to Berlin
Iron Curtain	Iron Curtain
Battle of the Bulge	Battle of the Bulge
Beyond Normandy	Beyond Normandy
Elsenborn Ridge	Elsenborn Ridge
	Eastern Front
	Guadalcanal
	Sinister Forces
	Afrika Korps
	White Eagles
	Edelweiss: Expanded
	Airborne - IE
	Desert Rats

What do you call the behavior behind a disparity that large?