[Consim-l] Re: Consim-l Digest, Vol 49, Issue 9

[Aaron Silverman]

-----Original Message-----
>From: consim-l-request at mailman.halisp.net
>> 
>> Concerning the scenarios, that has been discussed extensively elsewhere (and 
>>matched the experience with other well-selling Avalanche games).  Do you 
>>believe that a game with 50 scenarios (some of them, in some games, with over 
>>a hundred turns), had them all really well tested, at the rate they come out. 
>>If so, I have a bridge to sell to you.

For what it's worth, APL claims that the scenarios in products from Road to Berlin onward are much better tested than those in previous games (I believe that's when they hired Doug McNair).  People seem to agree with that sentiment.  I haven't played enough recently to form my own opinion.

>Avalanche has announced a high-end WW I game, called _Infantry Battles_ , but taking place on the East Front rather than on the Italian front that was the scene of the famous book by that name. 

It's actually called Infantry Attacks, not Infantry Battles.  It's based on PG but is company scale rather than platoon (I forget what the hex scale is).

>Actually, there are two Guadalcanal games, in the series, one US Army-centered and the other USMC-centered. I gather from your description that you played the latter. It could be spiced up a lot, and also made more realistic, by playing it double-blind.

The USMC-centered product is the boxed game, while the Army-centered product is just a scenario book (with a mini-map).  It requires army counters from the Bulge boxed game.

-Aaron Silverman