|
I'll check it later, but I vaguely remember them being meant to actually shoot at the position with both you and the other Krauts, as the defenders are dug-in and therefore the whole situation is advantageous for the AI. And I think prisoners of war were basically transported via pokeballs?
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
Yep, this make sense, thanks. The manual is kind of a mess.Lichtenstein posted:And I think prisoners of war were basically transported via pokeballs? So the game is historically accurate. Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
They keep pushing back the date for the reprint for FoF: with the scarcity of it you would think they would be more motivated to reprint it sooner really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:They keep pushing back the date for the reprint for FoF: with the scarcity of it you would think they would be more motivated to reprint it sooner really. Did it actually made the cut for the P500? Didn't know that. Does the new version look different enough to buy it? Or it's just different scenarios with pretty much the same rules? VVVVVV EDIT: Yeah, I meant the Old Breed, not the reprint. I don't write good. Fat Samurai fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
Just wait for the Old Breed, it'll have even more rules!!! Speaking of FoF, if you're having fun with the game I'd love if you did me a 'lil favor: do the first scenario of the Korean campaign (the one that came in the box, not the downloadable one) and drop a little write-up here. No need for a detailed AAR, just a short captain's log about how you feel when it begins and every few turns in. It should be amusing for everyone involved. Oh, and try to not read up on charts/stuff you don't need at a particular moment, to preserve a little mystique about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
An hour before I have to go to bed was probably not the best time to set up and start playing the tutorial of Navajo Wars, but I just really wanted to see it in action. It has made me more excited to play it properly. It's a fairly full-on game, at least for single player.
Bullbar fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
CNN Sports Ticker posted:An hour before I have to go to bed was probably not the best time to set up and start playing the tutorial of Navajo Wars, but I just really wanted to see it in action. It has made me more excited to play it properly. It's a fairly full-on game, at least for single player.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
I only played the first three cards or so and was following the tutorial, but I can definitely see myself enjoying the hell out of the game. Like you say, there is an element of 'draw card, things happen' but there are also plenty of choices. And the board is gorgeous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
You know what this hobby is lacking? Cool fantasy wargames. While we're still waiting for Fury and whatever A Few Acres of Snow sequel is called, there's little in terms of choice. I've been eyeing the Warhammer: Diskwars for a while, yet ultimately was put off by it being the epitome of dumb-looking nerdy poo poo (let slip the tazos of war). The recent Shut Up & Sit Down fiasco made me finally bite the bullet and check it out. To recap, Quinns reviewed the game negatively, after which it turned out he got the rules wrong (can't blame him, the rulebook is the second coming of Through The Ages). Still, trying it again didn't change his mind. Personally I think re-reviewing it on a short notice made him stuck in some misconceptions and he did the game a disservice. I could go on about why his arguments are sort of bullshit, but I assume no one is really interested. The game itself is basically like a miniatures game, but streamlined and given to a good designer to strip most of the hassle , excessive dice rolling and dumb 80s design. Mind you, it has zero simulation value for grogs (it's a game about wizards and elves, so what do you expect, really?), but I think it works really nice as a game. It hits the sweet spot between brain-burning and uncertainty, gives enough room to maneuver while being to the point, has a quick pace and excellent portability and setup/teardown time. The armies feel markedly different and thematic, there's a neat abtracted handling of command & control and the forces are customisable without it taking forever. The variable setup is pretty neat, differentiating games and forcing flexibility, while at the same time cutting arguments about how much terrain is enough. The other thing I particularly liked was the tight math and CCG-style distinct keywords on units, providing the thrill of thinking up a cool combo, yet not dominating the game, which is ultimately won by maneuver. In short, look past the tazos and check it out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:In short, look past the tazos and check it out. I watched the review and read the correction afterwards. The rectification came through as very defensive to me ("See? We were right anyway!), and the complaints about nor reaching your enemy in a charge and/or the difficulty of flipping disks correctly were a little silly. What do you thing about the other two problems they talk about in the addendum? Namely, that missile troops are either ridiculously powerful or useless and that sometimes your best bet is running away and avoid conforntation, which can lead to boring games?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
What about Wizard Kings by Columbia games? It's basically a block wargame with fantasy armies. I think someone talked about it in this thread a long time ago. I had a look at the diskwars review and I'm sort of ambivalent. It walks that line between miniature wargames and proper ( ) wargames and I can see it having the same sort of fuzzy rulings that are present within miniature wargames. I've seen the SUSD review but haven't seen the correction, might give it a look to see what they say otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
There's also Battle for Westeros and Battle Lore if you are like the C&C system as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
The 'ranged units ruin my puzzle' complaint, in my opinion, is 100% leftover of the rules misread. The way things works, you need to dish out a certain threshold of damage to inflict a wound (most units die on a single wound) during a round, as the regular damage tokens reset when the it ends. Melee units have fixed strength, while ranged units roll the dice. Most of the time you roll 2-3 dice with 1/3 chance (per die) to a bit of damage and additional 1/6 chance to waste your targets activation for the round. IMO it works just as intended: it's not entirely reliable (so you can't just lock the board down), there's a chance to bust the target (either by stunning the enemy or accumulating enough hits to kill him) that you really cannot center your plan around and what you really should aim for most of the time is to get a single hit to push your frontline melee troops juuust above the needed damage threshold. They're basically meant to work as skirmishers. Now, when played wrongly (namely using only 3-4 units out of about 10 per round) the activation becomes too precious to use in such a supporting role and archery does turn into dumb all-or-nothing affair. It's worth mentioning that melee combat is mostly free from dice rolls (the exception being some special abilities of I think two discs in the entire box), there's still enough uncertainty to elevate it above a math exercise. There's the whole Command Card initiative-wrangling minigame (timing is essential for how melee works), buffs you can drop to mess up opponent's math or spells that shake the whole situation up. Again, this was totally lost by the rules error which prevented using available tools at all. I get a strong vibe that when he sat down with it the second time he already had preconceived notions of how stuff worked and didn't really reconsider the interactions. Then there's this bizarre sentence: Quinns posted:For example, if you have high ground and missile troops you should really just stay still.  Not to mention seriously advocating resolving ranged combat by physically dropping counters and looking where they land - perhaps the discs made him expect some silly little game in vein of Catacombs?As for the avoiding confrontation part, I do not have enough experience with the game to be sure there's no degenerate plays, but I did not find it troublesome. The possible objectives are either accumulating frags, assasinating the generals or raiding enemy deployment zone - I think it's just to leave some room for feinting. So I guess if you got rid of enemy heroes you want to get on the defensive, but by that time there's probably already a giant mosh pit you need to somehow deal with. Tekopo posted:What about Wizard Kings by Columbia games? It's basically a block wargame with fantasy armies. . Seriously though, I'll have a look. I do dislike C&C however. Part of that might be the game itself hating me (I'm not the type to bitch about dice rolls, but man, this series is some Pharaoh's Curse poo poo), but it didn't click with me in general. I also felt Battlelore (core set at least) had some balance issues.quote:It walks that line between miniature wargames and proper ( I'd say it definitely feels more minaturey than grognardy. It's basically a miniatures gamey game, except better (speaking as a person with zero interest in miniatures as a hobby). Tight mechanics are a part of it - there's little to none sperging about poo poo like whether you're one milimeter too far or whether you're too tall to hide behind a cactus. The one confusing thing are situations with a lot of disks piled on top of each other, but it's one of those thing that are nigh incomprehensible until they somehow click in your head and then you can tell stuff apart at glance from the other side of the room. Lichtenstein fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Oh, I didn't know about it. Probably because all Columbia games are the same
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
There was Divine Right, some old wargame based on a D&D campaign iirc, but it's long out of print, and I'm not really sure how good of a game is due to its age.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Browsing through my friend's wargames, I found a copy of Stalin's War. Looking it up on BGG, it apparently has some balance issues with early German wins. Is it still worth giving a try? I've also been learning how to play Paths of Glory. I got in some games on wargameroom.com, but I've got my hands on a physical copy now. Anyone have any tips for solo play?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
It's kind of hard to play CDGs solo because a large element of them is trying to figure out what your opponent is playing. I think I saw a way to play them which involved drawing and playing their hand randomly so you don't know what comes up and then making decisions for them as normal, but obviously that doesn't really replicate what playing the game is actually like. I still prefer Pursuit over Paths, for a variety of reasons, although both games have their faults.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Yep, CDGs are the worst games for soloing. I mean, you can even sort of solo block games with poo poo enough short-term memory to make details fuzzy, but htere's really no way to handle CDGs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Taran_Wanderer posted:Browsing through my friend's wargames, I found a copy of Stalin's War. Looking it up on BGG, it apparently has some balance issues with early German wins. Is it still worth giving a try? The problem with Stalin's War is that it's fairly inelegant and I don't think the CDG structure works for a hex based game, unless you do something like Empire of the Sun where every card play for ops is a massive operation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The problem with Stalin's War is that it's fairly inelegant and I don't think the CDG structure works for a hex based game, unless you do something like Empire of the Sun where every card play for ops is a massive operation. Ah, alright then. Maybe I'll give it a try at a later time. Tekopo posted:It's kind of hard to play CDGs solo because a large element of them is trying to figure out what your opponent is playing. I think I saw a way to play them which involved drawing and playing their hand randomly so you don't know what comes up and then making decisions for them as normal, but obviously that doesn't really replicate what playing the game is actually like. I still prefer Pursuit over Paths, for a variety of reasons, although both games have their faults. Lichtenstein posted:Yep, CDGs are the worst games for soloing. I mean, you can even sort of solo block games with poo poo enough short-term memory to make details fuzzy, but htere's really no way to handle CDGs. Yeah, I wasn't expecting much. I mostly just want to get used to the flow of the game, as well as playing with the physical pieces. I'll probably just play both hands and try to pretend I don't know what's in both hands. Maybe I'll try to borrow one of his solitaire wargames. RAF: The Battle of Britain 1940 looked fun when I saw him playing it. Speaking of Paths of Glory, do you have any recommendations for a game to use as a "stepping-stone" to it? Another of my friends is a huge fan of Twilight Struggle and he'd like to give Paths of Glory a go sometime, but I'm leery of just throwing him into the deep end with it. I know my wargame friend has Shifting Sands and Wellington, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
After you go through Twilight Struggle there isn't really that much. Washington's War and Wellington are probably alright, but there are quite a lot of different new mechanisms within PoG that make it stand out from the other ones. I would generally recommend Washington's War for anyone wanting to step up to wargaming CDGs over stuff like TS/1960. I wasn't impressed by Wellington myself, however (I dislike bucket o' dice CDGs).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Wizard Kings comes with a "usable" collection of eight units from each of the seven armies and then you buy blind boosters. It seems completely stupid. Tekopo, I'm wondering what about Rommel in the Desert you like considering you've mentioned your dislike of X+ hits mechanics before. The dice aspect has kept me away from Columbia block games despite the everything else about them looking pretty nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
I can tell you one thing, Julius Caesar doesn't use dice at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
If you're looking for a fantasy war game, I would throw Mage Wars into the discussion. Yes it only uses cards that move around on a board, but really it has so much dice rolling, positioning and individually tracked stats that it really is like a mini game. Instead of a deck like in say a game of Magic, all your cards are pooled into your 'tome' and you pick two spells your caster has prepared for a round. (There are ways to cast more.) There are monsters, artifacts, buildings, equipment, and all sorts of crazy spells. Every mage plays really differently as well with their own play style. I highly recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Riso posted:I can tell you one thing, Julius Caesar doesn't use dice at all. The rulebook says it has dice rolling for combat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Yeah, it's the standard block combat system of roll your pips in dice and numbers below your quality are hits
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
I seem to had a complete brain fart. Oh well then. If you want you can pretend it was a clever joke involving the Rubicon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:Wizard Kings comes with a "usable" collection of eight units from each of the seven armies and then you buy blind boosters. It seems completely stupid. I like the manouever system and the supply system of the game: they are very well thought out although some parts are weird (rolling for supply points). The game both depicts the fast elements of the battle with the grinding attrition of trench warfare and it is completely unscripted, which is unusual for a North Africa game. I'm not the biggest fan of the combat system but I even managed to get my dad to play the game. But yeah, tge combat eaten could be better. Also the fog of war of block games makes the system work better than in HIS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
I've nearly finished Beevor's SCW book and it has made me want to game the conflict more, just because there are so many 'what if' moments of stupidity or politically motivated decisions. Also I am never going to get to play Sword of Rome with that estimated play time of six hours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
Whoop  Won't get to play until tomorrow or Sunday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Do an AAR of your first campaign, it would be interesting to see how you get along?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Do an AAR of your first campaign, it would be interesting to see how you get along? I am definitely not known for my ability to write, but I will do what I can do. I am pretty excited to put the game on the table. Are there any easily missed rules details I should be aware of? Ropes4u fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Wait, so, according to that cover, you command a squadron of thunderbolts that shoot apaches from their wing mounts? Badass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Rommel in the Desert is awesome and I won't hear otherwise. Good news! Guess what Calandale is playing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYl-x8GOhro
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Hi, I opened my own thread a few days ago asking for a recommendation for a miniature war-game, and I was wondering if I could get a similar recommendation for a hex-based one. I want one that simulates the Eastern Front in WWII or a fictional Cold War fight between the U.S. and Soviet Union. I want any game that simulates a war featuring the Soviet Union, could you help me?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Any particular peferences? Eastern Front is probably the single most popular topic out here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Any particular peferences? Eastern Front is probably the single most popular topic out here. Really? That surprises me because most Americans don't care about the Eastern Front. I'd expect you all to have stormed Normandy a thousand times and only surrounded the Germans at Stalingrad a few times. I wasn't expecting the Eastern Front to have that many games, how about ones that can do the major battles of the Eastern Front. Are there any really out there ones, like a Russian Civil War simulator or like, I don't know, a game about the Soviets in Afghanistan?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Really? That surprises me because most Americans don't care about the Eastern Front. I'd expect you all to have stormed Normandy a thousand times and only surrounded the Germans at Stalingrad a few times. Wargamers are pretty distinct from the general American public because there's generally a base level of historical interest/knowledge among anyone who wants to play them in the first place. You can see some indication of American bias in the inordinate number of games on the Bulge, but if you want to see the Germans fight at the top of their game against a relatively equal opponent, you pretty much have to do the Eastern Front. On the topic of recommendations, what scale are you looking for? There's dozens or hundreds of games for nearly every level of scale, from the whole war all the way down to individual guys shooting at each other. There's also a wide range of complexity (though even at the low end you're looking at 30-page rulebooks). As for other Soviet conflicts, there's a couple games on the Russian Civil War, though it's hard to simulate well from my understanding. The two I've heard positive things about are Reds! and Triumph of Chaos, though I haven't played either so I can only recommend investigating them to see if they sound good. There's a tactical game on one of the battles in the Winter War with Finland that some people were talking up not too long ago in this thread as well. Of course, there's always Twilight Struggle for the Cold War, though it doesn't sound like that's quite what you're looking for as that's not really about fighting so much as political control and influence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Really? That surprises me because most Americans don't care about the Eastern Front. I'd expect you all to have stormed Normandy a thousand times and only surrounded the Germans at Stalingrad a few times. Oh hey fancy that Triumph of Chaos covers this topic. There's tons of coverage involving the Eastern Front. Hell, Advanced Squad Leader pretty much opens its catalog with a module dedicated to Germans vs Russians (Beyond Valor).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
Trynant posted:Oh hey fancy that Triumph of Chaos covers this topic. It's a weird scary semi-monster with an incomprehensible rulebook, so you might want to check some other games first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 13:02
|
|