Talk:Avalon Hill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Subsidiary?[edit]

Chris Nadeau says Avalon Hill is not a subsidiary of Hasbro but is accurately considered an imprint of Hasbro Gaming. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.56.97 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagonal grid pioneer?[edit]

Didn't Avalon Hill also pioneer the concept of using a hexagonal grid? I seem to recall (and this is totally off the top of my head, so I could be wrong) that the very first Avalon Hill wargame used a square grid, but it was realized that this posed too many problems with movement and other issues, so the idea of the hexagon was introduced. Does anyone know if this is true? soulpatch

I just looked at the Hasbro page, and it does mention that Tactics used a square grid, but it doesn't mention whether Charles Roberts came up with the idea of using a hexagon for subsequent games or not. soulpatch

If I remember correctly, yes, the first wargame to use hexes was James Dunnigan's Jutland game for AH. If anyone has access to Dunnigan's book, Complete Handbook to Wargames, it should confirm this. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book right now... --patton1138 16:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right to me. Also not having looked at the book, but going from memory... the first AH game I played (c. 1965) was Afrika Korps and it definitely had a hexagonal grid. I know that I was playing that and other hexagonal games when I received a promo mailing (or maybe an article in The General) about the impending publication of Jutland (which our chronology lists as coming out in 1967). In sum, I'm quite prepared to believe it was Dunnigan's invention, but it was introduced before Jutland. Incidentally, I've never played Gettysburg, but I vaguely remember reading at some point that it was being switched from hexagonal to something else (presumably square). I think there was an article about the change in The General. For some reason the subheadline "Hex Version Was Hexed" sticks in my mind. JamesMLane 17:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Yeah, now that you bring dates into the matter, it doesn't seem right... The dates are correct, btw. Man, I wish I had that book on-hand. I think I can find it in the library if I remember to look. I know the original Gettysburg was on squares, but don't remember about Afrika Korps. --patton1138 17:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
According to The Complete Book of Wargames by Jon Freeman, the D-Day of 1961 was the first to use hexes - Roberts was supposed to have gotten the idea from Rand Corporation somehow. Stan 18:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard the Rand Corporation story before (don't mean 'story' as in lack of veracity). I found an on-line version of Dunnigan's book. But on a quick scan, it's missing the story that I remember; must've been somewhere else I read it. The story went along the lines of whoever playing games on their college dorm bathroom's hexagon tiled floor. --patton1138 01:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's a blurb from a review on Gettysburg: 1958 Gettysburg was before hexes were used in wargames. In 1961, Charles Roberts first adapted hexes, and came out with an astonishing number of hex wargames that year. It's hard to tell which one was the "first" hex wargame, but I seem to remember him once writing that it was D-Day. But I've heard Chancellorsville from someone else, so am not sure.[2] --patton1138 01:39, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Checking the index to the 1992 edition of Dunnigan's The Complete Wargames Handbook doesn't seem to turn up any mentions of pioneering use of hexagons with his Jutland game. However, Peter P. Perla's 1990 The Art of Wargaming does mention on pages 115-116: "In games such as Chancellorsville and D-Day, the original square grid was replaced by the hexagonal pattern in common use today. The source for this innovation, one of the most influential devices ever employed in the hobby, was the Rand Corporation.

"In the early 1950s Rand had contacted Roberts and in a circumspect manner inquired about the source of the CRT used in Tactics (and virtually all of the early Avalon Hill Games). Roberts's CRT bore an uncanny resemblance 'to the more complex one that Rand was using to wargame World War III and other horrors.' The fact was probably somewhat embarrassing to Rand when they discovered that Roberts had devised his table on his own, basing it on the popular military notion that an attacker required a three-to-one superiority in order to be reasonably assured of success. After this encounter with the think-tank wargamers, Roberts visited the Rand gaming facilities and noted that they were using a hexagonal grid. This grid allowed movement between adjacent hexagons (or hexes, as they are more frequently called) to be more equidistant, whereas movement along the diagonals of a square grid covered more distance than movement across the sides of the squares. Roberts immediately saw the usefulness of this technique and adopted it his subsequent games." – WendellM 17:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rand, in turn, got the hexgrid concept from John von Neumann, the Austrian mathematician, who used hexgrid maps to grid economic activity across a region in 1940.

Need link to Blitzkrieg[edit]

Note: Main page needs to add a link to Blitzkrieg, IMO most famous game. I don't want to just add a link, because it may get ambiguated into the German word for ``lightning war." llywrch 17:50 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

Charles S. Roberts[edit]

I added mention of Charles S. Roberts, the founder of company. I didn't know whether to use Charles S. Roberts or just Charles Roberts. So I used the former since this is how he is referred to on the Avalon Hill history link. Feel free to change it if he is more well known without the middle initial. —Frecklefoot

Defunct?[edit]

I don't really think Avalon Hill should be listed as a "Defunct companies" (category). It is now a brand of Hasbro. So, in a way, it's still around. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:52, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

The corporation is defunct, which is what would be suggested to me by the phrase "defunct companies." I'm not sure about the "computer companies" listing, though. Did AH make any computer games? JamesMLane 08:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They made one that did poorly (their attempt at their board game Civilization). This was not their main claim to fame, however, so I don't think it is appropriate to list them as such. They were known for their board and table-top games. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:33, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

More than one I think - there was a computer 3rd Reich and others that I remember. A "brand of Hasbro" qualifies as defunct company I'd say - a non-defunct company would have an executive, a finance department, etc. Stan 16:28, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
They had a large (in number of products) 'Microcomputer Games' line at the end of the '70s/beginning of the '80s including such titles as Midway Campaign, Empire of the Overmind, and Voyage of the Space Beagle. I think they went through several cycles of developing a line of games, and then dumping it as computers moved past the level of games they were doing. It has been mentioned (I have no idea if there is any reality to the idea) that Hasbro largely bought AH to get the successful Achtung Spitfire! and Over the Reich games. Rindis 20:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There was also the videogame division (AHVGC) which released several thoroughly unsuccessful Atari 2600 cartridges.David Duncan Scott 21:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

another game[edit]

I've seen reference to the game "Class Struggle", with note that it was an Avalon Hill game, but can't actually find the game anywhere to find out if this is correct. Anyone else know? -FZ 00:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally created by Bertell Ollman, a Marxist professor. I know that at first he was publishing it himself. He had originally intended just to make a few sets for friends and students, but it proved very popular, so he wanted to make more available and got in over his head with the self-publishing. He then wrote a book about the whole experience, Class Struggle Is the Name of the Game: True Confessions of a Marxist Businessman ISBN 0688006450. From what I've read (summaries and reviews of the book), it wouldn't be at all implausible that, after a brief taste of the entrepreneurial life, he sold the rights to the game to AH or some other company. I find a couple online references to it as an AH game, such as Board Game Geek. Beyond that I can't confirm. JamesMLane 00:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was also an AH game. I have a copy that is probably a 2nd Ed. I literally just packed it away this evening and can't remember the date, but think it was from the early 80s. It's in a brown box and has a picture of Marx on the cover.

80s sounds about right. That's the year that it started showing up in AH catalogs that came with AH games. And believe me, I've got quite a few of those things! --patton1138 11:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classic AH v. New AH[edit]

Would anyone mind if we separate, in the listing, the games that were published post-Hasbro from those published pre-Hasbro? Not only would it better represent the shift in marketing and target audience during this time, but will also help answer any questions regarding which games were from which incarnation. If no one objects within 24 hours, I'll make the proper modifications to the page. --patton1138 19:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Stan 20:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you want feedback, I think this page looks really good now. -- Mike Selinker (former AH lead developer)

One thing that would be handy in the game list is a brief phrase summarizing the theme/subgenre (ASL would be "WWII tactical" perhaps). Many of the names are cryptic, especially for nongamers reading this article. Stan 18:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. For some of the more common genres, we may want to enumerate them here first, lest we have ten different labels for the same thing. --patton1138 20:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Errata[edit]

The link for "Republic of Rome" is directed to a historical page rather than one for the game. Sawatts 20:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(original) and (hasbro) in A-Z subsections[edit]

Hi - I put these in, and User:Frecklefoot took them out. I sympathise - if they weren't necessary I'd rather not have them, but they are necessary for the A-Z links to work. Without them, the links to (e.g.) "D" will always go to the original Avalon Hill "D", regardless of whether you click on the original D or the Hasbro D. Percy Snoodle 14:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Games[edit]

Does nobody else find it odd to have a list of games that is far longer than the body of the article, and contains mainly red links? To me this is a perfect example of what the {{cleanup-list}} tag is for, but there seems to be some disagreement on that point. -Stellmach 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were in business a long time and published a lot of games. Just because there are a lot of red links is no reason to remove them. That's how articles get created. I vote to keep the list. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got to agree that they should be kept as many of them will eventually have articles. No reason you can't reformat the list to make it less of a visual imposition and de-redlink/write-20-words about games that will clearly never have their own articles.Peripitus (Talk) 05:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this has bothered me a lot on other articles that I contribute a lot to. What we've done there may be an option here. We could create a list or, better yet, two lists of games (one for Original games and one for Hasbro games) and link to them. Say, List of original Avalon Hill games and List of Hasbro Avalon Hill games? This would significantly trim down the size of the article and just leave the prose as the bulk of the article. As a matter of fact, I strongly propose we do this, based on how much space the games take up. Everyone else: Support or Oppose? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind a "List of" article, but it should be a single article, even if it contains two lists. Nothing wrong with red-links, in fact they are very helpful to know what has been published - this list has been getting bluer and bluer over the years. -- Stbalbach 16:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say the recent rearrangement of the list pointed up just how much space the list is taking up on the page, and that moving it/whatever is probably a good idea. (I'll probably follow whatever we do here on the Simulations Publications page.) My main problem with a list is that it should eventually be a virtual mirror of a Category:Avalon Hill (which would make sense to have). If we did two categories it'd be even closer. So... what I'm trying to say is that I want the complete list—the more so because it will be quite a while before there's enough articles for a Category page to even approach a complete list, but I want the list to still be useful when such a Category is a complete list. This means either additional data, or a non-purely alphabetic ordering scheme. We have publishing dates, and that's good. We have occasional notes about the games, do we want to systematize that? Or am I just thinking too much? --Rindis 16:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you're thinking too much. ;-) All the other lists I've encountered on the 'pedia are alphabetical. While I see a listing of Avalon Hill games by date as desirable, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to do it. That is, according to practice (not policy, AFAIK), lists are always alphabetical, unless there is an overwhelming reason to make them otherwise (such as a list of battles by year). BTW, I think an Avalon Hill category is a great idea. :-)
To Stbalbach, the reason I suggested two separate lists is because the two lists in this article caused a lot of headaches relating to formatting and such. Two separate lists would prevent such headaches in the future. There is no reason why the two lists could not link to one another.
So, is that two Supports? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a single article called "List of Avalon Hill games", or something similar. There is no need to create two separate articles it just confuses it for the reader. The single article would contain two separate lists, as this article currently does. -- Stbalbach 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Support the idea of a separate article. I would prefer 'one article to hold them all', but understand the TOC/formatting headaches caused by the two distinct eras. :-P (One note, you don't have to have a complicated name for both sections, just one, to make it work.) --Rindis 18:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought, should we really just be lumping everything from Victory Games in with all the original AH stuff? It was effectively an independent design house, kind of like the various studios that video game publishers own today. --Rindis 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Victory Games designed the game and Avalon Hill published, we could make sure the list indicates that these are all the games AH published, but didn't necessarily design. We can add a comment on the line for the game that it was designed by Victory Games. Or it will be stated in the article itself.
I don't see this as a problem. Right now I'm working on the list of Electronic Arts games. It includes all the games they ever published, but they didn't develop many of them (AAMOF, EA started out as a publisher only--they didn't develop any games initially). Does that work for you? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing is to keep them together in some fashion, in the same article, as it is now or some variant. "published" versus "design" is somewhat arbitrary for the general reader who just wants to see a list of all AH games. -- Stbalbach 15:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
....well, that's the thing. VG was owned by AH. A well known fact by everyone at the time, and which caused everyone to think of them as 'AH games', the moreso because they'd show up in The General Magazine. But, AH's logo or name didn't appear on the boxes. There's just the VG logo. (The Board Game Geek photos for Carrier seem to show this pretty well.) So while I think of them as AH games, I also think of them as separate from them. And a person coming in from the outside is going to be very surprised to find them under AH. --Rindis 16:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll just have to educate them then. We can make it clear in the prose, really. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What did we decide on this? A separate article for all the games so the list doesn't overpower the article? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus (all three of us) would seem to be a list article. Whether there should be multiple ones is undecided. I would say one article for now, and we can see how unwieldy/deserving of splitting that gets. With the addition of computer games, it should be three fairly extensive areas.... --Rindis 15:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done, one, big, ugly list ;-) (see list of Avalon Hill games). The article kinda look nekked without it. Perhaps we should have a very short list of their most important games? This would also make it more consistent with other similar articles which do the same. Thoughts? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No short list - it's too subjective. Rather than lists, write actual prose, and work the titles into the text - their notability will be apparent by what is said about them. -- Stbalbach 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this just points up how little 'meat' is in the article. Talk about the games. Talk about the practice of reprinting other companies best games. Talk about 3M, Sports Illustrated, and Victory Games. Talk about the puzzles they did. AH did a lot of things over the three decades of pre-Hasbro existance. And we really need to get the old and new style logos up on this page. There's a lot to talk about with this company, and we barely scratch it right now. --Rindis 22:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Avalon Hill category[edit]

Though this is a little late in the game, per the discussion above, I created the Avalon Hill category. Feel free to add it to any Avalon Hill-related articles you come across or create. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Games[edit]

Over its life, AH published a goodly number of computer games. These are pretty much unrepresented, except for the occasional Achtung Spitfire! edit conflict. I'm thinking we might want to give those their own list (presumably on the new list page...) to prevent confusion with AH's much better known non-computer game lines.

Heck, do we want to go into the various imprints, like the Sports Illustrated line they had? --Rindis 16:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree computer titles should be listed separate from board games. I think that would be easy enough to start now and fill in over time once the list is started. -- Stbalbach 03:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article about A.H.'s software division (http://sleepingelephant.com/denial/wiki/index.php?title=Avalon_Hill) on a VIC-20 computer forum. The article is small, but does provide a photo of the division's catalog, which proves that it existed.--Drvanthorp (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Squad leader and follow on?[edit]

Squad Leader is not mentioned in an AH article?!? Dominick (TALK) 03:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's right here, but it would be good to have in mentioned in the prose as well. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Past Tense[edit]

I agree with the current entry's description of AH in past-tense terms, and I think that it should remain unchanged. The 60s purchase by Monarch left the company's game line and purpose largely unchanged, but the 90s purchase by Hasbro changed things massively (i.e. essentially destroyed them and turned the company name into a mere boxtop logo). While the "Avalon Hill" name may live on, it no longer represents what it once did at all, and I think that the current past-tense phrasing reflects this perfectly. – WendellM 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is standard Wikipedia convention to write in past tense - since changing tense throughout an article is confusing, and writing in the present tense is usually not encyclopedic. But your right, AH is really no longer in existence except in name only. -- Stbalbach 16:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When Wizard?[edit]

The article tells when Hasbro bought the AH IP, but not when Hasbro put the AH operation under Wizards of the Coast. Kind of an important transition. Isaac R (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More missing games[edit]

Another AH product that seems to be missing from this article, the accompanying template, and any mention in Wikipedia at all, is their 1971 product Luftwaffe. BSVulturis (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

C class[edit]

I've upped this article to C class. It could use a little more detailed history and assiduous citations, but I think it could make B class pretty easily.

It's a topic that deserves GA/FA treatment. :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Hasbro has already released a project through their Pulse website for Avalon Hill, then Avalon Hill is technically active under Hasbro, not Wizards now in 2020, even though articles state Hasbro will not take over until 2021, so have adjusted the company info section to reflect actual events rather than just spoken words. Avalon Hill products are being "sold" in 2020. shadzar-talk 04:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Logo for Avalon Hill[edit]

Certainly as of 10th January 2022, the current image shown as Avalon Hill's logo is no longer current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sslaxx (talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was the logo when it was a company. Any new logos would be brand logos as part of another company. The question is which is more important for the article. I kind of prefer the company logo since most people know AH from its days as a company. -- GreenC 17:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon Hill's First Published Game[edit]

This article lists Tactics II as Avalon Hill's first published game and cites an article in The Urbanite magazine and an About.com article. However, Avalon Hill's own newsletter/magazine, The General, states that Gettysburg was their first published game.

From The Avalon Hill General, Volume 1, No. 1:

"Incorporated in 1958 Avalon Hill's first games were Gettysburg, Tactics II and Dispatcher (chronological appearance on the market for each game is indicated by the code number printed on the box; Gettysburg - 501, Tactics II - 502, etc.)."

I wanted to bring this up on the Talk page for discussion prior to editing the entry. EvaUnit02 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The about.com source should be deleted entirely, it gets a number of things wrong, is not a reliable source, and it doesn't say Tactics II was the first game. The Urbanite also does not say Tactics II was the first game. So basically this claim is unverified and unsourced. Your source The General is very clear, Gettysburg was the first game to market, for the newly incorporated company. -- GreenC 22:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EvaUnit02: I made the change: Special:Diff/1198313321/1210885391 - thank you for discovering this source and correction to the historical record. -- GreenC 20:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avalon_Hill&oldid=1218485806"