(11-14-2016, 04:09 AM)Coniglius Wrote: I've been researching on the Brazilian contribution to the Gothic Line battles in Italy. I would like to put this together into a scenario pack or booklet but I haven't seen much support for it, especially from Mr. B. I've sent multiple emails asking for guidance on what would be appropriate (scenario book with 12-20 scenarios) or as a GC supplement. Each and every email has gone unanswered.
I've got tons of OOB material, deployment dates, casualty rates, equipment logs, etc (some of it is in Brazilian/Portuguese, which is a bit of a challenge for me, but not insurmountable) and lots of ideas for scenarios, but again, the support from AP is quite lacking.
It allows to: 1) find any village in Italy with a satellite view, you simply need to type in the village name in the search window 2) and ...what's more important you can change the view into very detailed maps 1-25.000 scale. You can also zoom in and get more detail
Drop me a mail if you are interested and I can send you further instructions
I attach as a sample the area of Tavullia were Canadians achieved the breaktrough on the Gothic line.
I really wish when a game is updates like that a pdf update sheet would be done. It''s not worth the money to get that. I can understand when everything is changed but not when the changes are few or small ones. Especially if it does not involve maps or counters.
Zaarin7...if you are referring to 2nd edition Go For Broke and others to follow, they will utilize new maps reflecting current inventory. Even if the o.b. is unchanged, the fact that new terrain is used changes changes tactics and strategy. Besides new battle games and solo battle games will be included.
Each of the Four versions of Edelweiss, the Three versions (and a new one coming) of Airborne, and the Three incarnations of Arctic Front produced different play through the use of new permutations of the PG maps.
We haven't even BEGUN to see the crossover potential of the PG map library. Lawrence of Arabia's
map set will cross polinate Sword of David, and SoD's maps will present scores of opportunities for expansion of Lawrence, and both sets of desert terrain can illustrate battlefields in the Western desert, the Mongolian border wars, and the Chaco War.
I have never been big on repeating games, like Airborne for example, three versions came out of it but I only own one version. There are a few other examples as well. I am not sure if AP makes much money on new versions of games but they must, as games keep getting the updated. I guess some are certainly worth it but which ones are up to the individual consumer and their own tastes of subject matter or interest. I guess what I am saying is, that I getting more picky on updated games, on which ones I'll buy compared to a new title. If I do get the newer version of a game, I usually sell off the older version and that applies to other game companies as well.
The cost of producing a new version of a game for which you already have paid for the components many years ago is pretty minimal. These revamped games probably don't sell as nearly as as the new box games but they (1) have higher margins, (2) reduce inventory costs, (3) generates positive cash flow, and (4) put the products in the hands of the new players.
So from these perspectives, it is a worthwhile effort for Avalanche Press.
The old-timer with a large but not almost complete PG collection is not the primary target audience for these products. I am not sure how the collectors figure in the equation and how many collectors are out there.
There is the question of opportunity cost, Matt and I cannot work on new products while we work on these revamped products.
The above is just a personal opinion and I have no inside knowledge of the sales figures.
I was talking about this sentence here by Matt Ward: "Mostly typos in the narratives. No OB or Victory condition changes. A couple clarifications of setup instructions was the extent."
When the changes are that few they should be summarized on a sheet you can update especially the classifications of the setup instructions. Very much IMHO and not meant to upset anybody. I just see it as good customer service. In the other games talked about in response to my first post I agree. When maps/counters/format change as extensively as those examples did yes you have to get a new edition. And I did them and will now give APL high marks for making the 4th ed rules and charts available for download.
If the changes are minor and are covered in the PG-HQ errata, I go to the game's page here and copy/paste the errata into an MS Word document to print and keep with the game. I think I have these errata pages done for every game and book I have.
The part most affected was the Special Rules at the beginning of the booklet as we changed them to reflect 4th edition rules. You can ask Mike if he wants to post them somewhere on the AvP's site.
For example, the section discussing hedgerows was removed from the Special Rules at the beginning of the Liberation because they are now covered by the Terrain Effect Chart. While hedgerows work slightly differently in 4th edition, we're trying to eliminate special rules when a general rule exists.
I remember doing the same thing to Flamethrowing tanks in one of the Kursk game. The rule now just states something like: "The XXX is a flamethrowing tank" with a reference to the 4th edition rule instead of having a long paragraph how they work.
The scenario setups were changed to reflect the new rule numbers. For example, minefield markers are now covered in 16.6 (previously 16.7). Minor changes to point new players to the correct section and thus avoid annoying them.
