Marc, do you have any idea how long that's been requested back in WGF? But the myopic, single-minded vision of "only ready-to-play-fresh-from-box" rules the day...
Oh well, at least in 1/144 WGF their loss is other vendors' gain--a painful thing to say from someone who'd happily buy unassembled miniatures by the bulk-pack.
Diamondback....I don't have an idea........but I'll gladly sit shotgun on that concrete ship of......give the customers what they want...... and sail the glorious 15 yards we sail until the life jackets take effect. Really I can kind of understand where they are coming form, but at the same time....give the people what they want. If we want unpainted mini's, do a short run and see how it does...at least you will have explored the option and discovered if there is a desire. Does it really set you back anymore to sell raw product as opposed to paying the labor of painting the mini's???? If it doesn't work out just put the unpainted stock back into the "to be painted queue". Maybe that is an issue and maybe not, I don't know the business side of how Ares Games works. I guess the point I am trying to make is give the consumer options....
If I wasn't comfortable drilling and brass pinning the masts I would be pretty upset about all my broken masts....
If I could buy replacements parts that would be sweet...
Last edited by Jack Tar; 07-13-2014 at 02:15.
Or both. Not everyone plays on the Internet.Originally Posted by Diamondback
Keep watching the skies (or the seas). I know at least one manufacturer is assessing the viability of 1/1000 easy build models at the moment.
I like what I am hearing....
If We miss it, I hope you'll keep us updated.
If it happens (and at the moment its a big "if") I suspect it'll be appearing in the wargaming press (like how Ares advertising and promotion doesn't) but yes, if no-one beats me to it I'll let you know
Ares isn't the only company that's refusing to sell separate game components. Before I gave up on Leviathans from Catalyst Game Labs many folks on the forums repeatedly asked for ships on the sprues so we cold paint our own miniatures or customize the builds. They gave us all kinds of reasons why this was never going to happen, but I suspect it really came down to business agreements with the manufacturer.
I really enjoy working on the SGN sculpts and would love if they sold the masts, hulls, bases and other components separately. Not only would it be easier to mod the ships, but I think it might make the game more readily customizable, either for realism (carronades) or just for fun (pirates/privateers).
My bet is on Zvezda, as they're already a model making company (and they've got their own sailing game)?If it happens (and at the moment its a big "if") I suspect it'll be appearing in the wargaming press (like how Ares advertising and promotion doesn't
But I'm really keeping my eye on this persons work, soon to be premiered at an Australian convention at the end of this month. http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=341361
As someone whos job is logistics and supply distribution, it is much harder by many multitudes to re-tool, re-package, and ship what is basically the same product. Now instead of making item #3 in a run, you are now making item #3 two different ways. That's twice the run, twice the packaging, twice the shipping, twice the upc registration and product information. All that for a product that maybe only 10% of their customer base would be interested in, and posibly drive away new customers if a store was out of pre-made ships and only had unbuilt ones in stock. Causing some who may be uninterested in painting/ assembling to never pick up the game. My gaming group has really gotten into sails of glory, x-wing, and sergeants basically because of the no assembly, no painting aspect. At my work we buy a complete kit of something for one part inside that kit. Since we are the only hospital that uses other parts because of our machines, we end up just basically donating the rest of the kit to third world hospitals. Over many times we have asked them to just give us the single part, but they refuse because of the space in their warehouse, the changing of manufactoring processes, etc. I understand from the hobbiest standpoint that you would much rather have them in pieces, but from a practical stand point it dosent make much sense, unfortunately. Especially when you guys are already modifying the ships as is.
I'm afraid Charles is correct, and, therefore, it is unlikely Ares will sell anything other than pre-assembled and painted ships. The manufacturing cost differential is only part of the picture, and given the probable size of the market, I doubt it would be profitable for Ares to do much beyond what it currently is doing. The best strategy for SoG to remain viable is to put its energy toward timely releases of new waves, improve the integrity of the ships, and to ensure well-selling core ships remain in stock.
Working in manufacturing was an eye-opening experience for me. There was constant tension between engineering and manufacturing. Engineers were enthralled with their designs; we were enthralled with making profitable lines. The two enthrallments were not always aligned. Oh, I forgot to mention what marketing wanted.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
And then there's the Art Department...
Fortunately, this was not a problem in any of the plants I worked.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Of course, Pointy-Haired Bosses are in the mix too... and their pet projects *cough*D&D4e*cough* overrule everybody else, with the proles who have to try to make things work paying the price when the headshed insists on pushing a turd out the door. *stares POINTEDLY at Wizards of the Coast and the original WizKids*
So, it seems to me that we're looking at three categories.
->Minor add to Rules or Cards, whether download or print
->Major rule change, impacting game-engine design
->Major structural change
So, sorting things out... my bet is major engineering/physical changes like removable masts or parts-kits aren't going to happen much as we might like them. (For the record, I suggested the former idea to Andrea A. while SGN was still in the prototyping phase, and he'd said at that point that they'd started with the same idea, but had already tried it and found it unworkable.)
Minor paper change Major paper change Major tool/sculpt/pack change, new product or marketing change Add-on cards
---alternate armaments
---unique abilities
"Expanded Optional Rules" bookletAdd-on cards
---Named officers
---Flag officers
Revised hull/gunnery points system optional ruleremovable masts
unassembled ship kits
kill flags, replace with removable pennants
revise sternboard construction technique
tone down or black-wash the bright colors (easily doable)
New 3-D accessories
---shore batteries
---islands
---small boats
Brass mast upgrade kits
Refine ship-base interface
Duel Packs
New and different Starters
Osprey Pub. cross-marketing
O'Brien/Forester licensing
MORE ARES PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY
Last edited by Diamondback; 07-14-2014 at 12:19.
Completely agree. The first changes would be relatively easy to make, with only slight changes and additions at the printers. The "model-making" will most likely never happen, unless tens of thousands start to pick this game up.
I think unique ability cards for different nationalities would be a good seller. (Many to work on, the British, French, Russians, Turks, Spanish, Swedes etc.)
Unique ability cards would get my vote as well. And I think there's room for some special run items outside of the ship sculpts which might allow for faster introduction of nations, captains and special abilities for the game (cards, bases and the plastic shield might all be used to differentiate various ship capabilities).
Ed, when Fred and I started talking we were thinking to give each ship one unique ability (meaning, either that ship would be the only use of that ability period, or the only use of that ability in its nation or its class) as a start point. I had ideas about adding By Class, By Rate and By Nation unique abilities along with giving historical named officers abilities based on their careers (for example, a Captain and below has abilities that affect his ship while a Commodore or Admiral gives abilities to his entire formation), but Fred had suggested we start simple since "something to differentiate between ships of the same sculpt" is one of the biggest barriers to more Sails sales.
If there's anything already in this thread I missed in the table above, please tell me which slot it goes in and I'll correct it.
Last edited by Diamondback; 07-13-2014 at 17:05.
Hi All,
I can understand your thinking for smaller games of a ship or two a side. But, beware, it sounds like a bit why I stopped Fantasy wargames. I hated players that just over-loaded one or two characters and act with them like super-heroes. Most 74's acted like 74's. Make them smaller and they lose fire-power. Make them bigger and they sailed like bricks. I think a lot of you forget that Britain was fighting most European navies at this time. If she could have spared larger ships and numbers State-side she would have. I do not think that Americans small navy at this time would have stood a chance against her fleets, if it had to go toe to toe with them. At the end of the day as the U.S.A. has learnt. He who gets the mostest, the fastest wins.
So stop trying to make each ship so spacial like a high elves war-lord. Think grunts, lots of.
I know, we can all pull the something at sometime, this and that happen only because of this spacial what-not was used. But it was not the norm. I think that D.B. is right if you wish to make small charges to the game. I was always told if you want something spacial, you must work at it. No short-cuts. Ares offers a game straight from the box. That is it! and no more.
Its limits are now beginning to show. The masts, types of ships available, models and stats. I not saying this is bad, but this is the game. They wanted it to be from the box. So no different sails for one ship type. Only the named ship at that date for that stats. Ares will only sale stats with a model ship. So I think you maybe looking at this format of game from the wrong end of the telescope. Play the game, or scrape the game and just use the models if you must with a different system. I like the game it does what it says on the packet, not more, not less. I have said this time and time again if Ares would sale a rules and stats only package I would buy into it tomorrow. As would many people, as you would wish to too by what you are all saying.
Be safe
Rory
Personally, I thought there were two key benchmarks in a good game-system:
1. Does it work well as a basic game from the box without having to buy an entire library?
2. Scalability and customizability--being able to by adopting or declining Optional Rules customize the game to best fit how YOUR group likes things and play YOUR way, whether beer-and-pretzels, Hardcore Reenactment to the Nth Detail, or any of the infinite possibilities in between.
Usually what this means, at least in my meager experience, is a good game starts out with beer-and-pretzels Basic/Starter Rules, and then gives you Optional Rules to tighten it up if you want to move more toward the Hardcore end of the scale.
I understand your perspective Rory, but perhaps it's not the only way of conceptualizing SoG
First off, you raise an interesting point about the "proper scale" for SoG games. 1-on-1 ship engagements were, historically, common and often fascinating. But I do think making 1-on-1 battles interesting from a gaming perspective can be pretty challenging. These are great scenarios to choose for a quick game, or learning, etc. But really I think one would need a gaming system with MUCH MORE detailed treatment of all aspects of ship management and battle maneuvering than in SoG to make 1-on-1 a style of play that could remain engaging and fresh when played on a regular basis.
On the other hand, it seems clear that SoG wasn't intended to be used mainly for large fleet engagements. The Basic rules can be used for that if there are several players available, but I don't think that is the sweet spot. Something like WSIM with more regularized, hex-based navigation and simpler crew management will often make more sense for that kind of battle.
It seems to me that the best way to play SoG is with small flotillas of 2-5 ships per side, mostly matched in size (i.e. frigates vs. frigates or SOLs vs SOLs). This seems to be manageable in scope, and showcase the things SoG does well, while still offering a lot of tactical options. That's my opinion.
So then to the heart of your comments, which is that ships should be treated uniformly, based only on their raw physical characteristics (with the logical corollary apparently being that players should steer toward playing larger battles as a way to create tactical complexity and strategy despite the fact that the widgets are interchangeable?). I think that is a common sentiment here, and I understand it. It seems to be the basic idea behind most age of sail miniatures games, based on my limited experience.
But maybe SoG is just a different beast, and that's ok. First off, small flotilla battles weren't, I think, all that common. They happened, but from what I can tell, there are not that many historical incidents to draw from. So to the extent that this is the best scale for SoG, you can say it's not perfectly lined up with the historical reality right there, and that fictional scenarios will probably be important to the game's future. Then too, if large fleet battles in SoG are going to be rare, communal events, rather than the standard operating procedure, it does raise the bar to create some differentiation for the ships, to justify buying them.
Coming from that perspective, it seems to me that perhaps it would be ok if SoG borrowed, in a limited and judicious manner, from games that emphasize building armies from various clearly-distinguished units. I'm pretty sure no one wants to get to the point of D&D or Magic for sailing ships. But perhaps allowing some (admittedly gamey) differentiation between individual named ships--based on historical events--would be better for the game. It might help Ares sell more ships, but that's only a "goal" inasmuch as more sails might allow Ares to continue to develop the game. But it could also add a dimension to the gameplay, involving strategizing on the use of abilities, selecting a flotilla with complementary abilities, etc. To me, this could become a bit more enticing than simply "2 virtually-generic SOLs vs 2 virtually-generic SOLs" (or 3 frigates vs. 3 frigates, or whatever)
Of course it would be important not to overdo it--one would not want it to become "super-hero" style, to make some units killers and others unplayable, to have unit abilities overwhelm the core game mechanics, and to have the game become about ability combos or anything like that.
Would ANY move in that direction mean emphasizing the game too much at the expense of simulation? You may say yes, but different people will come down at different points. I think no game can come close to capturing the immense breadth of possible circumstances in naval combat of the age, the idiosyncratic and unpredictable circumstances that routinely determined battle outcomes, and the complex considerations that bounded how admirals and captains pursued these battles. Given the fact that 100% historical reality is a chimera, I would argue that if the gameplay can be improved, while still retaining a solid historical feel, it's a tradeoff worth considering.
That's how I see it right now...
While not totally applicable I reckon, for some reason your last sentence made me think of Starfleet Battles?
Oh, I should have added that I agree completely with your two benchmarks of a good game system. It's why WoW/WoG has done so well. I think the same about X Wing and I hope the same occurs with SoG.
Last edited by Nightmoss; 07-13-2014 at 19:24.
Actually, I was thinking of Axis & Allies War at Sea before the turdsucking Pointy-Haired Bosses at We're Out To Conquer shanked it up the bum. Decent basic engine, but plenty of flexibility to drop on extra house-rules for things like more realistic Air Ops and such.
If I might elaborate on both Rory's and Fred's positions... yes, "grunts, lots of grunts," but not all of the grunts in the line are basic riflemen. Ya got the guy with the AT or AA missile, the dude with the grenade launcher, the SAW/LMG team, the Squad Designated Marksman, the medic... you have some subtle differences that make some guys better than others at specific roles.
For an example of a possible SA, an Edward Pellew card might give a ship a chance to reduce crew loss, representing all the times Pellew dove into the drink to recover men who'd fallen overboard.
Last edited by Diamondback; 07-13-2014 at 21:42.
There's a lot of interesting thoughts and ideas coming out here. I can see several points of view, and I sympathise with many of them. Here's a few thoughts and observations of my own which may help (or cloud) the debate.
First off, the game "scale" - I agree 100% that the rules aren't aimed at fleet actions. In fact we discussed this during development and playtesting and this was pretty much a goer from the start, or at least from the point I got involved. So it is firmly in the single ship / small squadron ballpark. Which of course it does very well (it is a pity that the arewa where it works best - small squadron actions - is one of the scales of actual combat that was relatively rare, but c'est la vie). I personally think it works fine for single ship, the level of detail is right for a game aimed at the majority of players (those wanting uber detail will head for "Hearts of Oak"). OK, there are a few areas where I personally think the system could be improved, such as rate of damage (I taking out any damage chit over 3 and it worked surprisingly well, it felt better - and was easier to administer - than multiplying burthen. That and house ruling the fire and flood damage to remove the near nuclear effects of both gave a more satisfying game).
I share Rory's fear that "special abilities" could be taken to extremes (or maybe not even that much of an extremity) and draw the game into something with a "comic book" feel to it. I'm not against the idea, just use with caution. X Wing uses it to a high degree and there are a few abilities there that have one scratching one's head and thinking "why?" of "how does that work, really?"
Grunts - yes, there are some with "special abilities". But in this game I see them as different ship types, rather than significant differences within a type. Yes, amend with special abilities, traits or whatever the industry standard buzzword is (where the heck did that awful word "faction" come from in game usage? I saw the RAF and Luftwaffe described as "factions" in a game recently. Barking mad) but use with caution. Warhammer Trafalgar did this, it was not altogether successful - but then again the rules were not entirely wonderful either without an almost complete rewrite. So in broad terms I think Rory is on the right track and that ships of a particular type within a particular navy should be broadly the same in terms of skill, ability etc. but that it should be possible to "tweak" aspects to display reasonable variation. Its unfortunate that the gunnery system doesn't really seem to lend itself to simple applications with subtle differences, its fairly coarse (but by no means as coarse as some!)
Areas where I'd like to see improvements in the current rules? Carronades and chasers are an obvious starting point, but we've had some pretty good discussion on these already. other ship types, oared ships, bombs, gunboats (we have suggestions for these too). The movement rules aren't wonderful when it comes to tacking (as one of my friends put it they've managed to remove most of the "feel" and risk of sailing large square riggers with the card system as it is), and the effect of mast damage on the ability to tack is missed completely (another area where I'm playing with some house ruling).
Licensing. An interesting idea, but fraught with dangers, pitfalls and expense (no personal experience of this but I'm friends with a number of people in the wider gaming industry who have had varying experiences of licencing deals with authors - living, or their estates - and movie franchises; when it works it works well, when it doesn't it can literally destroy your company). It might work though.
Agreed a lot, David--balance was one of the big worries Fred and I had, wanting to make any SA project be small things to add a little historical flavor but not anything especially powerful--nothing like some of the ridiculously overpowered WK Pirates abilities: "give this ship an extra action," "this ship may perform the same action twice in a turn," "if this ship explores a derelict teleport both home and add the other ship to your fleet", etc, etc.
Simple things like giving Redoutable an every-turn Expert Marines, or offering a ship that had a pattern of coming back from near disaster a bonus to damage-control. Little things that wouldn't add a lot to change gameplay but maybe just enough to turn a razor's-edge situation, and only if players choose to use that Optional Add-On.
I sure hope Ares comes and reads this thread (along with many others on the Anchorage) as there are many great ideas being moved back and forth.
My major concern and desire for SoG now is identifying whatever it is that's going to keep the game selling to the general gaming public as well as keep up the interest for the committed Age of Sail backer. The promise of new nations, ships and limited special abilities will hold me for quite some time, but I don't know if that's going to work for your average game consumer? I don't want a comic book superhero game, but I also don't want to keep buying ships, named or otherwise, that essentially have the same statistical abilities repeated over and over. This is especially so as I know large fleet battles aren't going to happen with this system so why would I need 50 grunt SoLs, 1st Rates, frigates or sloops? I know the 'Collectors" will buy it all, but that's not going to sustain Ares investment in this IP.
I still like the idea of dual packs with notable one on one ship battles, and they really don't have to have the Osprey books. History is a turn off for some, but this still seems like an excellent way to inform, entertain and educate?
One of the easy things to do to add some realisism would be to consider historical battles but in the context in which they were fought. For example, a frigate escaping from port in France is challenged by a blockading frigate. The blockader has been on station for two months, hasn't had a refit for two years and is showing the effects. It would no longer be reasonable to use the specified maneuver deck for the blockader as the hull would be covered in weed, the sails may be patched and worn, there may be some problems with the rigging all of which would turn it into a slower and less agile handling ship than its' class deck would suggest. So for this scenario it uses a worse deck but maintains the same shooting and damage capacity.
Another option might be a two decker fighting a frigate in heavy weather and unable to use the lower gun deck, again a simple lowering of the broadside values for this action would suffice. There would be many little tweaks like these that copuld be done without re-inventing the system, requiring ships that are different in value (but actually look identical).
Hey DB, don't hold back tell us what you really think!
I wonder how Ares would describe its ideal target market. Info like that would go a long way toward knowing what suggestions have a high probability of being heard. Given the various game lines it produces, I assume SoG is geared toward general public players who want a bit of depth in their table top games. Ares is not a war-game company like GMT. All of the Ares games I own have high production and design value, but are basic enough to be accessible to a broad audience. I can play WoG and SoG with folks who have no interest in WWI aviation of AoS; they view these games simply as very nice tactical games, practically divorced form their historical context. The quality of the game mechanics and components, though, also make the games viable options for friends who are war-gamers, and/or interested in the respective periods.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
I don't know what the perception is in the US but here in the UK it isn't the "commited age of sail backer" who is buying this game (if by that you mean AoS aficionados), as they are generally firmly wedded to 1/1200 and Langton/Navwar/GHQ/Skytrex models. From what I've seen and the conversations I've had I'm something of an exception (no surprise there, but then again I did champion "Victory at Sea" and tried to do the same for "Trafalgar", both of which were aimed (by accident or design) more at the "gamey" end of the market). From my own perspective, and given the nature of the games that SGN suits (single ship / small squadron actions) I'm already at the point where reprints aren't of much interest. So Spanish, US and some other nations, generic small ships as well as merchies, privateers, and some nicely done shore batteries (ideally something that would work with 1/1200 as well - might as well try to catch their business) would interest me, but another load of British or French 74s? No, not really and more 1st rates definitely not.
In terms of the "target market" I'd see it very much as the casual gamer, someone with a passing interest in the subject rather than the "committed" AoS player. So i wouldn't necessarily see all that much in the way of scope for repeat business (that's not to say none at all, but limited compared with WGF/S). And of course there will always be the collectors who will just fork out to Ares for whatever is released
I would guess that your perceptions are pretty accurate for US and UK players alike and that tells me that Sails of Glory may have a limited appeal and shelf life for the casual gamer. You've pointed out some significant items above that might mitigate the loss of casual gamer interest. I hope Ares is planning accordingly?I don't know what the perception is in the US but here in the UK it isn't the "commited age of sail backer" who is buying this game (if by that you mean AoS aficionados), as they are generally firmly wedded to 1/1200 and Langton/Navwar/GHQ/Skytrex models. From what I've seen and the conversations I've had I'm something of an exception (no surprise there, but then again I did champion "Victory at Sea" and tried to do the same for "Trafalgar", both of which were aimed (by accident or design) more at the "gamey" end of the market). From my own perspective, and given the nature of the games that SGN suits (single ship / small squadron actions) I'm already at the point where reprints aren't of much interest. So Spanish, US and some other nations, generic small ships as well as merchies, privateers, and some nicely done shore batteries (ideally something that would work with 1/1200 as well - might as well try to catch their business) would interest me, but another load of British or French 74s? No, not really and more 1st rates definitely not.
In terms of the "target market" I'd see it very much as the casual gamer, someone with a passing interest in the subject rather than the "committed" AoS player. So i wouldn't necessarily see all that much in the way of scope for repeat business (that's not to say none at all, but limited compared with WGF/S). And of course there will always be the collectors who will just fork out to Ares for whatever is released
I'll be honest: I've thought about 1/1200 in the past, but prior experience with pewter in other disciplines gives me a distinct lack of confidence in its durability, and when you add its weight into the mix... back when I was transporting entire miniatures collections to and from GenCon, it meant scary shipping and baggage costs just with plastic, and I cringe to imagine how the airlines would have tried to bend me over and have their way with me over a suitcase full of pewter ships. O.O
Pair that with me being a fumble-fingered klutz and... well, when SoG dies I am OUT of Age of Sail gaming. Period, Full Stop, End Of Story. Just like between the death of WoW and launch of WoG, my WWI miniatures involvement went On Hiatus because fighting with the combination of pewter and fiddly biplane struts SCARES me...
Wonder how many like me there are out there?
OK, Note To Self: Never ask to use DB's game chits.
>;)
Or anything else for that matter.
David, the term casual gamer is what I was looking for. I think WoG has more of a market, especially given the minis. They are cool looking, have very different stats from each other, and there are not a lot of alternatives. Additionally, WoG is a more accessible system, and I think the era is more familiar, especially given the Red Baron.
I will not comment on DB's production abilities.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
You just did.
Both very good examples--and part of why I wish the SGN engine had incorporated separate chit draws for each gun-deck.
Really, I think that anything beyond Mag-ick or Dungeons and Dorkons is a bridge too far for the bong-smoking hippies at the top of WOTC to handle.Hey DB, don't hold back tell us what you really think!
Chris, you are a sick, SICK man--my point was just saying that was a random guess number as opposed to the product of any scientific process. If you really WANT to go there, we can always try to see what the "PHART: The Dispersing" scores would be like after me having a really bad night at the Mongolian Grill... O.O :p
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby... same goes for you but at a Chili Cookoff.
Well over a thousand dollars ago when I found out that the Ares scale wouldn't be 1/1200 scale I said forget SOG. But when I saw pictures of their ships I promptly changed my mind. No more hours of painting and detailing. No more weeks to repair a dropped or jostled box of ships. My only problem now is what to do with scores of unpainted Langton & GHQ ships and accessories and when to get around to finish all the partially finished models.
But that doesn't mean Ares should be happy where their at.
What I don't understand is, why doesn't Ares send email questionnaires to KS backers asking them for a list of a certain amount of their favorite ships and suggestions, and acting off of their finds when practicable.
That's a really good question. I know they're a small company, but they have to have folks involved in marketing? Of course it may relate to what David mentioned up in post #107. I didn't realize that Ares doesn't market or promote in wargaming press circles?! Sheesh, that seems somewhat short sighted.
Ed, the accessories would probably carry over fine--frankly, in some of the warship dioramas I've built in bookcases I mix 1/700 and 1/720 scales quite routinely without a hitch even with sister ships in each scale, though it does help that I put the smaller-scale models to the back to help create an illusion of distance.
So let's pick on the 168' gun-deck of a Bellona in those four scales just for discussion:
1/700 = 2.88", 1/720 = 2.80" delta=0.08"
1/1000 (SGN) = 2.016", 1/1200 (traditional) = 1.68" delta = 0.336"
On ships it's a big deal, but given that you're supposed to keep your ship a SAFE distance from shore even when landing or bombarding a fort/battery...
DB, I should have been clearer. On coastal batteries and buildings I agree with you. The accessories I was referring to were Langton's white metal studded sails and his ratlines (Keith took/taking care of the ratlines).
Yeah, even WOTC didn't make THAT mistake... I remember full-page ads and a special promo map in Armchair General when they first launched Axis & Allies Miniatures. Granted, that may be scale and WOTC having a bigger budget to play with... all Ares has had for publicity is one interview in ACG, a little at BoardGameGeek and a whole big heap of Bad PR inherited from Nexus.That's a really good question. I know they're a small company, but they have to have folks involved in marketing? Of course it may relate to what David mentioned up in post #107. I didn't realize that Ares doesn't market or promote in wargaming press circles?! Sheesh, that seems somewhat short sighted.
Ed, point taken re ship-mount accessories, and agreed re the idea of a Kickstarter-backer survey--I've been pretty assertive about pitching in unsolicited opinions, but they need to hear from a much broader share of their market base. Or, just send Andrea A. or Rob an email directly--they're usually pretty good about responding in my experience; speaking of which, in one earlier where I was part of a group being asked for opinions on something (sorry, confidential, but I think some folks'll be happy when it's formally announced :) ) I did as a side-note suggest they check this thread out.
Plus a lot of effort, gladly donated, by us :)all Ares has had for publicity is one interview in ACG, a little at BoardGameGeek and a whole big heap of Bad PR inherited from Nexus
True, but the point is if they HAVE a connection to the Ed Team at ACG, like ACG thinks Ares is big enough to warrant giving unpaid ink to, they should USE that connection. (Admittedly, it *is* Armchair General, not Armchair Air Marshal or Armchair Admiral, but... point still stands.) Even when you have a truly rabid evangelical fanbase, they can only do so much... and if that fanbase crosses over into proselytizing they can actually do more harm than good for your brand image.
They NEED a better PR/Marketing desk. OTOH, bearing in mind that last I knew Ares is like a Four Man Band...
Ares would probably do well making its presence known more on places like BGG.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
True... they would also do well to solicit more feedback there. "What works well here? What can we do better? How can we make reprints of different ships on the same sculpt more worth buying?"
I don't know how much cross-selling or advertising they do. They have some great product lines. It might be worth promoting the various lines in those channels, for example including an Ares brochure in their games. That is, they should tap into their customer base better.
“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.” ― Plato
Yes, that would be a good opening step.
They do include an Ares 2014 catalog in their new Sails of Glory starter set.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks