Game: Panzergruppe Guderian

Image

Emil 109 — 2008-09-26T09:10:47+00:00

an old Greek edition when the world was still young

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

papahoth — 2008-09-18T20:35:19+00:00

DarrellKH wrote:
I don't begrudge Charles Roberts the notoriety he has amassed for making wargames popular, but when it comes to design quality, quantity, and innovation, his contributions are dwarfed by those of Dunnigan.

No Charles Roberts then perhaps Dunnigan would not have had the foundation to do what he did. Let's also not forget that Dunnigan turned out many games that may have still had innovative mechanisms, but were still a pile of crap. Also SPI's playtesting was terrible and games like Global War should have never seen the light of day.

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

papahoth — 2008-09-18T20:30:07+00:00

nyhotep wrote:
Many believe that given competent Soviet play, the German player can not win PGG.

Interesting. In the article Groggy posted above, it says an experienced German player can't lose!

OTOH, that author doesn't seem to have read the errata, as he doesn't know what to do with the Soviet mech units. Maybe that's why the Germans always win...

http://www.grognard.com/errata/st/s&t57.txt
And as I just noted at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/341406 -- the game can become a Soviet only win unless you bid for the German objectives, which will be a lower bid than required by the rules, and negates the Soviet setup already withdrawn strategy.

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

billyboy — 2008-09-18T20:22:49+00:00

This game was one of the highlights of my original subscription in the 70's.

Thread: Re: SMOLENSK by Bryan Madsen

papahoth — 2008-09-18T20:22:46+00:00

Actually that is incorrect about the Germans. At Origins in 1986, several Russian players unveiled a setup that had them putting all but some delaying forces at the very back of their map area virtually assuring that the Germans could not take all the required objectives. From that point on at Origins and now the WBC, you must bid for the German player which assures that you can not use this strategy, at least as strong of a strategy like this, and win the game since the German player will never bid for the all of the required objectives that are in the rules.

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

jmlima — 2008-09-18T20:05:23+00:00

Thnks. It had a tag on top named pggsystem and another pgg that listed all the games...

alsandor wrote:
jmlima wrote:
Is there a list somewhere of the games using this PGG system? Thanks.

One which is currently available is

Leningrad

A geeklist exists with games using Untried units:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/31780

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

alsandor — 2008-09-18T18:56:29+00:00

jmlima wrote:
Is there a list somewhere of the games using this PGG system? Thanks.

One which is currently available is

Leningrad

A geeklist exists with games using Untried units:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/31780

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

alsandor — 2008-09-18T18:55:02+00:00

da pyrate wrote:
S&T games that appeal to be can probably be counted on one hand – Winter War, Conquistador, Frederick the Great, Cobra, Desert Fox and Panzergruppe Guderian!^

You have a comparative advantage over most gamers...a six-fingered hand. Left or right?

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

DarrellKH — 2008-09-18T13:41:16+00:00

pete belli wrote:
This game system is another example of the many important contributions Jim Dunnigan made to the wargame hobby.

A list of the important contributions made by James Dunnigan would likely span several pages.

From what I'd read many years ago, anybody who ended up on the development end, at SPI, had multiple opportunities to see how rapidly Dunnigan could come up with creative solutions to game system problems - sometimes causing entire shifts in the design paradigm for the game.

I don't begrudge Charles Roberts the notoriety he has amassed for making wargames popular, but when it comes to design quality, quantity, and innovation, his contributions are dwarfed by those of Dunnigan.

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

jmlima — 2008-09-18T12:40:19+00:00

Is there a list somewhere of the games using this PGG system? Thanks.

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

pete belli — 2008-09-18T09:52:40+00:00

This game system is another example of the many important contributions Jim Dunnigan made to the wargame hobby.

The S&T game Cobra mentioned by the author as one of his favorite magazine games used the PGG system just a few issues later.

Many old school wargamers can rattle off a long list of other games using the basic PGG system.

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

nyhotep — 2008-09-18T09:29:26+00:00

Many believe that given competent Soviet play, the German player can not win PGG.

Interesting. In the article Groggy posted above, it says an experienced German player can't lose!

OTOH, that author doesn't seem to have read the errata, as he doesn't know what to do with the Soviet mech units. Maybe that's why the Germans always win...

http://www.grognard.com/errata/st/s&t57.txt

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

citizen k — 2008-09-18T04:08:48+00:00

It was also published, and was most commonly available, in the counter tray box with paper map - as shown in your 2nd photo.

The Avalon Hill edition was also boxed and had a slightly smaller (ie standard sized) mounted map.

Many believe that given competent Soviet play, the German player can not win PGG.

Regardless, it's a justifiable classic and an enjoyable game to play.

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

Kevin_Whitmore — 2008-09-18T04:08:09+00:00

da pyrate wrote:

Generally speaking, games that first appeared in Strategy & Tactics magazine are not high on my ‘to play’ list. S&T games that appeal to be can probably be counted on one hand – Winter War, Conquistador, Frederick the Great, Cobra, Desert Fox and Panzergruppe Guderian!

A friend has been leading me through "remedial grognard training" lately. We played PGG recently, an I am hoping to have another go before the end of the year. One other S&T game he has introduced me to is Battle for Germany. I recommend checking it out, I found the game exciting and fun. Another Jim Dunnigan game. Might be up your alley.

Thread: Re: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

GROGnads — 2008-09-18T03:46:13+00:00

Had YOU 'seen' this some yet? http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/341406

Thread: The Battle of Smolensk, 1941

da pyrate — 2008-09-18T02:39:57+00:00

Panzergruppe Guderian

]]>
Two-player Simulation of the Nazi Invasion of Soviet Russia, July 1941
Designed by Jim Dunnigan
Published by Simulations Publications, Inc. (1976)

Generally speaking, games that first appeared in Strategy & Tactics magazine are not high on my ‘to play’ list. S&T games that appeal to be can probably be counted on one hand – Winter War, Conquistador, Frederick the Great, Cobra, Desert Fox and Panzergruppe Guderian!

PGG is a twelve turn game where each turn represents two days of real time. The game should be playable in three hours between experienced and competent players. Most units are of divisional level, although the German player does have several armour regiments.

Alright, two hands.

PGG first appeared in Strategy & Tactics #57 (July 1976) and was published separately in a boxed version with a mounted map – I think they may have called the boxed version a ‘Designers Edition’. The rights were later purchased by Avalon Hill who reprinted the game under their own insignia in 1984. The Avalon Hill edition, which I have in front of me as I write this review, was simply a reprint of the S.P.I. version. As far as I can tell the only differences between the editions are superficial – the S&T issue had a paper map, the Designers Edition had a cream background to the clear hexes and the Avalon Hill edition had a white background but did have glossy counters while the S.P.I. versions had their traditional matt finish.

PGG was and is a rather clever design, spawning a whole host of other games using the basic PGG system with modifications. The three outstanding design features of the game are a Mechanized Movement Phase, Over-run Rules and Untried Units. The combination of these three design features made PGG, at the time, a brand-new gaming experience and completely state-of-the-art.

At the start of each player’s turn they are allowed to move all of their units which are not stuck by being adjacent to enemy units. Voluntary combats are then resolved. Next comes the Mechanized Movement Phase, where all Armour, Mechanized and Motorized Infantry units are given a second movement phase. From memory this design feature first appeared in another of Jim Dunnigan’s designs, France 1940, which was published by The Avalon Hill Game Company back in 1972.

This, when combined with an Over-run Rule, gave players the chance to create and exploit breakthrough situations, thus replicating real-life situations as we understand them to have been. Over-run means to conduct a combat during the movement phase. To conduct an Over-run all units in a single hex must spend three movement points to launch the attack and have their combat strengths halved during the combat resolution.

The third key aspect to the design was the concept of Untried Units. The Soviet Units enter the game face down. Everyone knows their type (Armour or Infantry) and their movement capability, but until they are actually involved in a combat neither players knows the strength of the Soviet Units. Infantry units range from strengths of 9 to zero. Armour ranges from 7 to zero and the Mechanized units range from 8 to 1.

]]>
Playing the Game

The map measures 22” north to south and 32” east to west. The German forces enter the map from several points on the western edge. Rivers and forests play a significant role in the game, making movement on the northern edge slow and giving defensive benefits to the Soviet player as they fall back to Smolensk. The Soviet forces are spread along the western edge and at other places on the map. The units close to the front line must deploy on the western-most hex row and then use their full movement allowance to deploy at least three hexes away from the map edge. During the game the Soviet player will receive reinforcements at various points on the northern, southern and eastern edges. The Soviet player may also receive extra reinforcements but at a cost in victory points.

The German player receives victory points for controlling specific cities and hexes and if the Soviet player uses their optional South-western Front Reinforcements. The Soviet player receives points for each entire German Division eliminated – German infantry divisions have four steps and so must receive four casualty points before they will be destroyed and German armour divisions are made up of three separate regiments. The Soviet player also receives a bonus of two points every time they recapture a city from the Germans.

The Germans need 50 points to achieve the most marginal of victories. By capturing all of the cities on the western half of the map the Germans score 55 points – three of the cities (Orsha, Vitebsk and Mogilev) are near the western map edge, Smolensk is near the centre of the map and Roslavl is close to the centre but on the southern side. Smolensk and Roslavl are quite separate from each other. To achieve anything better than a marginal win (and what self-respecting Nazi would be satisfied with anything other than total victory) the German player must continue eastward where there are another seven cities offering points but they are quite widely separated. The problem for the German is that the further they move into the 'funnel' the more difficult to supply troops, the less able the German troops are to support each other and the more vulnerable to Soviet counter-attack they become.

The game can have moments of great excitement and it can also be quite a grind – this depends on the experience and skill level of the players involved.

The combat results table is bloodless until the attacker can achieve a 6:1 superiority in combat strength. For the German player to succeed they must eliminate Soviet units – pushing them back is not sufficient. If the only thing that the German player achieves in combat is to push the Soviets back the Soviets simply become stronger as the game progresses. To eliminate Soviet units the German player must set up situations where defending units are surrounded – surrounded defending units that receive a retreat result will be eliminated instead. In conjunction with this, the German player has the chance to over-run enemy units during both the movement phase and the mechanized movement phase. The German player must remain mobile and use their mobility to isolate and then destroy the Soviet forces.

The Soviet player faces a totally different challenge due to the different nature of their forces. The Soviet player does not have armour divisions like the Germans that will double their combat value when stacked together. Due to all of the Soviet forces coming onto the map in an untried state it can be a very risky business to put in an attack in the early stages of the game. The more usual plan is to be fairly passive at the start of the game, hoping that many of your front-line troops can be saved. As the game progresses and the Soviet reinforcements start to join up with the front-line survivors the Soviet player will start to form a solid line of defence using terrain such as the Dnepr River, which runs through Smolensk. If all goes well the Soviet player will start to put together task forces made up of units known to have a high combat strength and then move them to threaten to surround German units, recapture weakly defended cities and threaten supply lines.

Both players have to maintain supply lines for their troops to function effectively. For the German player this means keeping units within 20 hexes of a road that connects to the eastern edge. For the Soviet player this means keeping combat units close to leader units which can, in turn, trace a line to the northern, western or southern edges.

Air power is abstractly represented in the game. The German player has three air units that may be placed on the board to slow down Soviet units. The Soviet player has a single air unit that may be placed on the map three times during the game. Its primary function is to interrupt German supply on those three turns.

]]>
Summary

PGG is a relatively simple game. The rules, although 12 pages in length, are fairly standard and not complicated. It has a comfortable playing time and there is a only a moderate number of counters involved. The fact that, early in the game at least, most Soviet units will be untried actually speeds up play as players tend not to spend time ‘counting factors’ to get that extra strength point into the attack to create a 6:1 situation. I feel that PGG is a very nice balance of simplicity of design with a relatively high level of simulation value. Due to the Untried units in the game, PGG lends itself to solitaire play.

From a player’s point of view PGG offers a well balanced game. The German player can win but must be aggressive without being foolish. In the German army the infantry divisions and the armour divisions each have their own very clearly defined role to play in the battle. The rules give the armour units great potential to perform the role that armour is supposed to play on the battlefield – however, should the armour allow itself to be surrounded or cut-off it becomes very vulnerable to Soviet counter-attack. The Soviet player can win but must choose carefully how hard to fight to hold the line and when to fall back. The correct use of reinforcements is important – which ones should be used to hold the line and where should other reinforcements be placed so as to threaten the German flanks.

Some people are adamant that competent Soviet play is unbeatable. Others say that sensible German play is unstoppable. I tend to think that a German who is willing to accept a marginal victory has a chance but they will be hard pressed by a competent Soviet player. The solution, of course, is to play it twice.

End of story - get over it.

“Dead Men Tell No Tales!”

Thread: SMOLENSK by Bryan Madsen

GROGnads — 2008-09-18T00:07:26+00:00

This is presented here in whole from the "Rapid Fire" section on Page 26 of "Battlefield" #15, October 1976.

SMOLENSK -- Bryan Madsen

PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN, the latest-(circa 1976) game to appear in S&T, is a decent game with many good points, but suffers from some minor errors in the rules. One minor, but disconcerting error is that the 16th Infantry Division, called for in the German Reinforcements, is not included in the countersheet, while it is easy enough to replace this with the unused 268th, it should not have happened. The Soviet Mechanized units are never called for in the game, one could assume that they should be mixed with the Tank units. There was some confusion about Soviet units counting three toward a RR limit of eight, but this applies only to Tanks and Mech units and allows eight Infantry units to be transported. There is a considerable question about play-balance, in that a cool-headed German is almost unbeatable after playing the game three times. While everyone plays different, this this is a problem for some. A simple solution is to add about 10% more Soviet units to each turns reinforcements, or to allow a second randomly wandering one to appear each turn. Alternatively, the Soviet Mech units could be added in at a rate of one per turn.

Image

ealdrich — 2008-09-17T05:35:29+00:00

Designer's Edition back.

Image

ealdrich — 2008-09-17T05:31:33+00:00

Designer's Edition Front. This is the edition that came with the mounted mapboard.

Thread: Re: Frisby-Stewart PgG Blowout

mounce — 2008-06-23T22:05:30+00:00

One of my favorites. Not bad as solitaire, except all the Russians need to do is concentrate on Smolensk. If they do that, the Germans can't win. That's why this makes such a nice introduction for beginners, and fun for the experienced gamer! You really get the sense of what coordinated attacks can do, but the inexperienced player still has a good chance of winning. Like I said, with any experience, the Russian always wins. Not much effect from the Stuka's, I noticed. Best thing - on the cover of the magazine issue, Guderian looks so happy! Later, I imagine, not so much, hee hee.

Image

Xookliba — 2008-06-11T17:29:00+00:00

cyberboard gamebox

Thread: Re: Help: Request for copy of Rules

Domhnall101 — 2008-03-31T20:55:26+00:00

send me a private message with your email and I will get a copy to you

Thread: Re: Help: Request for copy of Rules

bleakgeek — 2008-03-31T20:52:23+00:00

Well, if you could do with a Dutch or French copy of the rules, I'd be happy to help you.

Thread: Help: Request for copy of Rules

theaney — 2008-03-31T20:45:03+00:00

I picked up an unpunched copy of the S&T edition of PgG this past weekend, but it just the unpunched counters and the map. Does anyone have a copy of the rules they could either scan and post, or perhaps xerox and mail to me? I would, of course, be happy to pay for shipping and incidentals.

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Advance/Retreat After Combat

nyhotep — 2008-03-31T12:10:14+00:00

Yes (retreat out of but not into) and yes. Remember, the enemy retreats your units, so it is unlikely he'll want to help you by forming a defensive line behind a river.

Thread: Re: Leader Rating

nyhotep — 2008-03-31T12:07:06+00:00

I beleive so, yes.

Thread: Re: RR movement and Out of Supply

dunne — 2008-03-13T23:43:25+00:00

Constantinople wrote:
If you are out of supply, your movement is halved. OK, I get that.

But what if you are on the railroad and you are out of supply, is your movement reduced to 15 or do you move half your normal movement?

"6.24 Units do not have to be in supply to use the *full* Railroad Movement bonus, nor do they have to be within a leader's radius."

But of course, they must be using Rail Movement -- otherwise, if out of supply, the normal restrictions on movement apply, no matter what sort of hex you happen to be in.

Thread: Re: ZOC and retreat and advance after combat?

dunne — 2008-03-13T23:38:57+00:00

Constantinople wrote:
If you are in the ZOC of an neighboring enemy and there is an advance or retreat after combat not with that neighboring enemy, may you advance out of it's ZOC; and: must you retreat out of it's ZOC or may you remain there?

My understanding is that your unit is retreated (and remember, it's your opponent who specifies the route of retreat) out of any ZoC it may be in, regardless -- however, it cannot *enter* any other enemy ZoC. Units which are required by the results of combat to retreat or lose steps and cannot retreat *must* lose steps instead, and are of course eliminated if they are required to lose more than they have.

Thread: RR movement and Out of Supply

Constantinople — 2008-02-27T21:46:39+00:00

If you are out of supply, your movement is halved. OK, I get that.

But what if you are on the railroad and you are out of supply, is your movement reduced to 15 or do you move half your normal movement?

Thread: ZOC and retreat and advance after combat?

Constantinople — 2008-02-27T21:44:00+00:00

If you are in the ZOC of an neighboring enemy and there is an advance or retreat after combat not with that neighboring enemy, may you advance out of it's ZOC; and: must you retreat out of it's ZOC or may you remain there?

Thread: Advance/Retreat After Combat

Constantinople — 2008-02-23T03:26:33+00:00

May a unit leave an enemy ZOC to advance after combat?

May a unit retreat across a river after combat?

Image

bleakgeek — 2008-02-17T14:05:22+00:00

EDI AR edition insert

Image

bleakgeek — 2008-02-17T14:04:33+00:00

EDI AR edition (vertaling par excellence)

Thread: Leader Rating

Constantinople — 2008-02-14T16:27:24+00:00

OK, so the Rating of each Leader means:

1. supply radius w/in which his SU units must be in order to be in supply
2. the leader's attack value, only if he is stacked with other SU units, it may be added to the attack strength of the stack as a whole; otherwise the leader has zero attack value when he is alone in a hex
3. the leader's innate defense value, regardless of whether he is stacked or not; he always has this defense value even if he is alone and it may be added to the defense strength of the stack as a whole.

Is this correct?

Image

Sir Loin o Beef — 2008-02-11T19:35:37+00:00

Being played at BROGfest 2008

Thread: A classic by definition is fairly simple

bigstu — 2008-01-26T07:19:31+00:00

By AH for component quality.
The game itself?........... I played this game not long after it was designed and released.
The fluid nature of modern war became real to me in this one classic game!
The first is always good! lol Cheers Stu

Image

asurinach — 2008-01-17T17:57:17+00:00

back box

Thread: Re: Differences between motorized infantry and mechanized

elbmc1969 — 2007-11-26T00:10:06+00:00

In some editions, only the movement factor distinguishes motorized infantry from regular infantry. 10 MP = motorized.

Mechanized infantry's symbol is the crossed belts ("X") over the tank tread (oval).

When you ask, "What is the difference between mechanized infantry and motorized infantry?" are you asking about the difference in symbols or any difference in the rules?

Take a look at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/260458 to see the motorized infantry marked with "wheels" underneath the box.

Thread: Differences between motorized infantry and mechanized

Constantinople — 2007-11-25T02:41:03+00:00

What is the difference between mechanized infantry and motorized infantry?

How do you tell the difference between regular infantry, motorized infantry and motorized infantry?

On p R-2 of the rules is shown an example of an Infantry (motorized; how is this image different from a regular (non motorized) Infantry or mechanized Infantry?

The image of the German infantry below looks exactly like the motorized infantry.

Thanks!

Thread: Re: PgG - mini-review

bigstu — 2007-11-20T12:27:37+00:00

I am a 45 year old wargamer---PGG showed me the power of a piece of unstoppable cardboard!!!
Before too long everybody else knew as well!!!
Avoid Stu--PGG--German!!!!
All good---this game was the start of movement in wargaming-Blitzkrieg!!!!
The idea of it was taught to us in one game!!!!
Not in a military college?--A game company called SPI!!!!!
We were the generals they never noticed?
still good still powerful
cheers Stu

Thread: Re: Panzergruppe Guderian

bigstu — 2007-11-03T10:24:12+00:00

Be aware German inf full-strength divisions are 4 step,1 counter replaced by another. I played for a number of years believing an inf division in Guderian was 2 inf counters, not one. Never seemed to make a lot of sense lol seems silly now?

Thread: Re: Frisby-Stewart PgG Blowout

bigstu — 2007-10-26T10:05:34+00:00

Classic?
Almost 30 years ago I played this game solitaire--and played it again and again and again!!!!
Why?-because blitzkrieg explained itself!!!
cheers Stu

Image

capt yid — 2007-10-23T00:55:34+00:00

German Reinf Layout Sheet by turn (no more searching fine print)

Thread: Frisby-Stewart PgG Blowout

capt yid — 2007-06-18T04:39:06+00:00

6/17/07
Here is the long-awaited “battle report” from the Frisby-Stewart Panzergrupe Guderian game.
The word “battle” could only be used as in “Battle of Little Bighorn”; maybe “After Action Report” (AAR) is more appropriate. Early in the game, Frisby’s Germans quickly blitzed Stewart’s Soviets catching his two frozen armies and zeroed in on his leaders.
The end of turn three saw the Russians vainly try to reassemble their remnants into a weak Main Line of Resistance (MLR) with about only ONE unit every other hex in a North-South line through Smolensk. Already at that point it was clear that the Germans would easily win. Fortunately for the Reds, some die rolls had given the Germans eight step losses; unfortunately, Frisby rotated his attackers so that no single division lost enough units to affect “divisional integrity” (doubling its strength). Also Frisby’s masterful moves managed to eliminate many Russian units (both strong and weak) and kept his blitz well ahead of schedule.
However, sudden mysterious incompatibilities between the cyberboards on our PC and Mac made continuing our Play By E-Mail (PBEM) very cumbersome (maybe it was the German-Soviet difference in railroad gauges on the Eastern front; ha,ha!). Frisby overcame this (with typical champion spirit) by “force marching” from his home in Virginia (with a neighboring PgG-er, Doug P.) to the Stewarts in Maryland to finish our game face-to-face. Stewart was extremely grateful for this educational experience into many aspects of one of his favorite games.
During the next three turns (4-6) the Germans charged through the center of the Russian line taking Smolensk. With only three of his Red leaders alive on the board and the Germans having already scored 49 of the 50 necessary to win, Stewart concedes. If played to the end, the Germans could have just kept picking up cities and points from the helpless Soviets. (Much simplified) the game is all about setting up targets faster than the Germans can knock them down (and my reinforcements couldn’t keep pace!).
Not only did Robert and I discover that we were both graduates from University of Maryland CP but also from the same year. While I was working on my architecture degree, though, he must have been ace-ing studies in Eastern front tank battles. It was great to witness the PgG traditions that have developed and see a whole ‘nother level of play. Soon the final eight will start the next round of this 2006-7 PgG PBEM tournament. We all anxiously anticipate the long talked about release of the L2 updated version of this 30 year old classic (Monday?…actually maybe the end of 2007…).
Gordon Stewart 6/17/2007

Image

cmessenger — 2007-02-19T18:11:05+00:00

Box Front

Thread: Re: Panzergruppe Guderian

MarkEA — 2007-01-20T05:39:10+00:00

No help for the rules but I've heard that L2 Design is going to do a make over of this game. If it's anything like the others they have done it should be really nice.

Thread: Panzergruppe Guderian

DuckofDeath — 2007-01-20T05:11:33+00:00

Could anyone direct me to where I can find a copy of the rules for this game? It's the first wargame I bought, and I haven't played for years, since I lost the rules years ago.
I'd love to get back into it.

Any help much appreciated.

cheers
ian

Thread: Re: VASSAL FOR Panzergrupe Guderian

Kevin Moody — 2006-11-29T18:58:48+00:00

Unlikely it'll see the light of day, since L2 has the rights to a reprint and he only supports the ADC2 software for PBeM.

http://www.vassalengine.org/community/index.php?option=com_v...

Thread: VASSAL FOR Panzergrupe Guderian

capt yid — 2006-11-29T18:44:09+00:00

Does anyone know when and where the VASSAL .mod will be available for PgG?
I’ve found Cyberboards but have not figured out how to open them using Virtual PC on my Mac.
Thanks,
Gordon 11/29/06

Thread: Re: PgG - mini-review

duckweed — 2006-09-18T17:25:29+00:00

The cartography is indeed getting an overhaul based on modern info.

Thread: Re: PgG - mini-review

moly19 — 2006-09-18T05:46:22+00:00

Nice review - I'd say you pretty much nailed it.

L2 Games has a remake of PgG in production. We can be sure that the production values will be top-drawer and I understand that James Dunnigan, the original designer, is on board in some capacity. I do not know if new, more accurate, cartography will be part of the package but we can hope!

Thread: Re: PgG - mini-review

Cisco Serret — 2006-09-18T05:04:09+00:00

PgG spawned a number of games, significant among them is the very popular Operation Typhoon.

It would be interesting to see a PgG "remake", with more accurate unit data and a more correct map.

Thread: PgG - mini-review

rwschm — 2006-09-17T22:25:14+00:00

One of the better examples of the interplay between "Game, History, and Design for Effect" in the hobby. The strengths of the game are considerable. The paucity of hard data and number of complete abstrations presented are almost legendary. The result is a successful effort, a little something for everybody, and one where the total product is definitely greater than the sum of the parts.

As "pure game" PgG is probably a strong "8" -- the gross disparity between German and Soviet play to me is an insurmountable drawback against 'game perfection' but, make no doubt, this is a strong and entertaining game. Soviet play, already limited by the imbalanced sequence of play, is passive and linear. As a result the game is well-suited for solo play. The untried unit concept provides absolute variation in OB, order of appearance, etc., between plays. Both players operate with incomplete knowledge of the opponents forces and disposition -- a seemingly viable Soviet position may disintegrate due to weakest links of untried zero-strength units.

As History the abstractions and outright flaws present serious challenges. The game reflects the one-sided state of historical knowledge of the Russo-German war in the mid-70's. The Soviet OB is drawn from a hat. The map flaws are widely documented (see the SPI Revival magazine link for this game) -- the east portion of the map significantly distorts distances and the terrain features have only a passing resemblence to reality. The German OB is homogenized to blandness. The Soviet army is reduced to mobs of randomly selected counters appearing on entry hexes throughout the game. Talk about quick set-up! But the end result is you're not going to acquire "hard knowledge" about the Battle of Smolensk from playing this game.

To counter these considerable gaps "Design for Effect" elements are heavily called upon to attempt to right the balance. The game system parodies the gaps in information presented. The Red Army was anything but a cohesive fighting force during this portion of the Barbarossa campaign and the "shake out" process was deadly for the average Red army conscript. PgG presents the Soviet player with handfuls of rabble, a set percentage of which will turn out to be a viable force BUT the level of abstraction is TOTAL: the five rifle divisions in the Russian 21st Army under Gerisamenko can fight like dogs in one game and flee like rats in another at the first sight of feld grau. For my taste, the number and degree of these abstractions and self-paraody borders on the extreme.

Every successful wargame presents the designers principal views of the battle/campaign presented -- why did the historical result occur as it did and what optional outcomes might have readily transpired? PgG seems to produce acceptable levels of outcomes for the "known" German panzer forces, albeit with very high levels of abstraction and design for effect.

Thread: Re: Which version? AH or SPI?

citizen k — 2006-06-23T05:08:29+00:00

Hey a fellow Iain!

A few more thoughts on the question at hand:

The SPI map and the hexagons thereon are bigger.

The AH version has more informational markers (out of supply, disrupted, rail cut, etc.)

The Ah version's rulebook is 50% longer, with larger type and includes errata to the original SPI rules. But it does not mention the popular, marginal German victory = a draw variant mentioned in the original.

The AH version has summaries of reinforcements, terrain and the CRT on separate sheets for each player.

The AH version adds a rule regarding German units cutting Soviet rail lines.

I believe the Ah version has glossy counters whereas the SPI has the classic SPI matte finish counters.

I have the SPI plastic box version, which I found it at a charity sale. I do like the larger hexes, but the AH version sounds nicer in most respects.

Thread: Re: Which version? AH or SPI?

desertfox2004 — 2005-12-08T03:16:17+00:00

I would agree that if L2's version of PGG is anything like the version of Russian Campaign that they produced, it will graphically and component quality-wise blow away the old SPI and AH versions - BUT - you will PAY for it. I'm guessing that the L2 version will retail for around $60 US, while I am thinking you can get the old AH or SPI versions much more cheaply vis eBay. I'm not advocating one way or the other, but I know for myself, despite the beautiful presentation, I have so far not pulled the trigger on replacing my old 2nd edition AH version Russian Campaign for the new L2 version - I just don't know if it would get played enough to justify the expense. But on the other hand, the new L2 game sure does look purdy!!!

Thread: Re: Which version? AH or SPI?

Phlegm — 2005-12-08T02:14:59+00:00

Or you could wait a bit and get the L2 version. It'll blow both the AH and SPI versions away.

Thread: Re: Which version? AH or SPI?

icheyne — 2005-12-07T19:56:08+00:00

Thanks for the advice. I really appreciate it. I didn't realise there was a SPI designer edition too.

Thread: Re: Which version? AH or SPI?

peacmyer — 2005-12-07T18:08:50+00:00

Avoid the SPI magazine edition unless you can verify that the counters were cleanly punched. They were not well diecut, I'm afraid.

AH edition gets you a mounted board (as would the SPI Designer edition).

Great game, enjoy when you get it!

Thread: Which version? AH or SPI?

icheyne — 2005-12-07T12:45:37+00:00

And why...

Both are easily available on eBay, so I'd like to get some opinions.