PG-HQ Forums

Is the Panzer Grenadier Series Dying?

Voting for more than one answer is ok!

Sorry about some of the typos in that poll! But it is kind of interesting what you guys think. Maybe it will be helpful to AP as well or maybe it is just me and everyone thinks its doing great. So may great PG products since 1999, its been almost 20 years of PG. So I would hate to see it stop!

There are plenty of designs in the pipeline.

Whether you believe Avalanche will have the capacity to publish them all is another question.

I voted on 2, 4 & 8.
On point 2: It doesn't really bother me that old old components are being repurposed on new releases. The issue is the duplication for existing owners. If there was the option of scenario books or upgrade components, the situation would be better. As it is, only new customers will have an interest, and there is a lot of good competition. I would add here that the mistakes in older counters have not been fixed (just adds to the disappointment).

On point 4: Advertising upcoming games 2-3 years in advance wears thin. This falls in line with pre-orders. Waiting is also why I haven't order in the past year or so. It is also why I am pensive when it comes to the Gold Club.

On point 8: Finding opponents outside of conventions has always been a problem. It was bad enough when there were a few dozen well know titles. now there are thousands. This makes the possibility of finding opponents nearby more remote than ever. The solution is online play, which APL largely disdains, and certainly doesn't support. It wouldn't matter if it was Vassal or Steam, or whatever, just that it needed to happen. many potential players, hence customers, have moved on to game systems which are better supported. Online play is the most likely method of overcoming the dilution of having so many good games available.

I view every game as a testbed of sorts. Something to teach me something in skill or history. PG is very good in that regard. Dr. Mike's paranoia and over promising has undermined the potential of a rather good system.

1a) Is the player base growing or shrinking? I have no way to measure it reliably.
1b) Are there many designs in the pipeline? Yes, definitely.

2. Avalanche has done that before. You can always speak with your wallet and not purchase those games if you want to discourage this behavior. I know I did.

3. My last pre-order was for Lawrence of Arabia, placed over 2 years ago. I prefer to pay $10 more for a game that is in stock.

4. It is interesting to note that GMT is now changing their policy about their P500 process; games will only be allowed on this list if they will be ready in 3 to 9 months. I can also tell you that I am frustrated we finished developing Dunkirk more than 4 years ago.

5. AvP games are much more expensive than GMT games for the same number of components but are a fair to good value when compared to other publishers (minus MMP).

6. I think I read somewhere that AvP will put an emphasis on more popular topics. I for one would miss games like Conquest of Ethiopia if other rare topics were no longer covered in the series.

7. I hope refunds were issued if games were cancelled, or offered if games have been promised long enough.

Finding opponents. I used PG-HQ and BGG to find wargamers (not necessarily PG fans) within a reasonable distance. I have introduce different series to different folks; it's not always a success but I think half a dozen sessions is now all I need to determine if there is enough interest in games we will likely both like. It's a significant time investment and can be frustrating.

Is the series dying? I am confident it would survive and find another home if Avalanche Press were offering it for sale.

>6. I think I read somewhere that AvP will put an emphasis on more popular topics. I for one would miss games like Conquest of Ethiopia if other rare topics were no longer covered in the series.

I Agree, I nice mix of both is needed, both rare & popular.

This is a fascinating question, even though may be a bit excessive, rather than dying may be you want to say “declining” .
First of all, I would add another bullet: “yes, because the series is relying only on stand alone modules”.

IMO APL shifted from one extreme to another. May be in the past a few supplements relied on too many boxed games. At the same time, I have to say, we are moving into an excessive counters duplication territory (e.g. I don’t know how many German GREN I have!). Supplements relying on a limited set of boxed games (e.g. Africa and Middle East; Russian Front and PTO and Western and Southern Europe) and offering a couple of new maps and additional counters might be very actractive. APL claims that all maps are compatible but is no longer offering products that combine them (BTW, Mariannas was excellent even though relied only on Saipan)

APL could be smarter in producing New maps. If two new maps with a river will be needed for Lawrence of Arabia the same to maps could be used for a beautiful supplement to Sward of Israel … Suez crossing by Israelians.
Reselling components (like in the case of AOI) is a similar issue. But this is also related to lack of flexibility that damages APL.

I think It would have been a win-win if Dr. Mike had offered three options: complete boxed game, counters+scenario book and scenario book on it own. I would have gone for the third one, those owning already COE and not wanting two sets of identical maps for the second one. This is forgone sales. Now, I understand that it could be complicated, but really that much?

Sure Otto, dying was an extreme title and declining would have worked but to draw attention I used the word dying. It will never die because there are thousands of copies out there and the only reason it is declining is AP's current business practice. If AP/Mike would try something in a better business model like some other companies, I am sure PG will take off again!

Like Daniel I have seen the series up close and personal for several years.  In considering PG I think it is important to think of the game system as a separate issue from Avalanche Press.  The game system is doing great as evidenced by the number and quality of submitted or in process designs and player interest in them.  In addition to this group there is the pretty lively Facebook group where the system is supported and fans can interact.  There are new twists and subsystems that are being considered by some designers that will raise the bar yet again.  

The frustration that many have with the current state of the line of games isn't really with PG itself but rather with Avalanche's choices revolving around what gets published and when (and when it gets sold).  Even the poll choices focus on Avalanche's management and not the game system.  I haven't heard people saying that they are leaving PG because they found a better way to scratch their tactical game itch (certainly people say that but nearly all of them leave early on deciding that they want something other than platoon level or a different level of detail or weapon focus).  I have, however, heard intense frustration over the publishing choices, timelines and overall sales policies, leading people to step back from the system.  I think it is important to consider all aspects of Avalanche's management of the product line.

As Daniel noted Dunkirk was completed more than four years ago and got a complete refurbishment in time for the movie release.  Boy that would have been a great marketing tie-in, right?  (Ditto for the Infantry Attacks system as we have slogged our way through the Centennial of the Great War without any new releases).  As a developer I have been frustrated as designs which were highly attractive to me were set aside for other projects.  I have several sets of source books on my bookshelves, acquired to support specific product development, which remain unread, or worse, read and noted but unused for development, because the publishing calendar has changed.  My favorites bar in my browser has an entire category for on line studies of campaigns for which I have received submitted designs but which have not been given a green light, or a previously green light has gone red.

I should point out, however, that another publisher would probably not have published the same breadth of games that Avalanche has pursued.  A lot of publishers might not have put out a product like the Iron Wolves, First Axis or White Eagles (or even such a piece of fluff as the Luxembourg Gold Club item). Mike is drawn to looking at all the conflicts of the period (War on the Equator, anyone?).  These one-off intense studies are the benefit of a publisher like Avalanche that is willing to publish stuff that probably won't justify the cost and time associated with the publication but are just too interesting to pass up.  While Avalanche's business practices have created the frustration many are experiencing, Mike's willingness to consider quirky products provide us with the occasional joys of Indian Unity or Blackshirt Division, whose sales would never be sufficient to pay for the time necessary to design and develop them. 

I don't know Avalanche's financial position or its business prospects very well.  I don't know how many copies of each game get sold.  I just know what's in the hopper, what's next and that it all might change tomorrow if Mike decides to publish a Zeppelin-carried Austro-Hungarian armored force from the Second Great War, landing in Ploesti to secure the oil.  There is only one wargame publisher where such a project could be mentioned as an upcoming game with a straight face.  That is both a good and bad thing for fans of the PG system.

Mat I agree with everything you wrote.