|
Anyone get their copy of Fire in the Lake yet? I heard they were gonna start heading out on the 10th.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
I received a shipping notification for it today. They've been going out since yesterday, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Yeah my status also updated to shipping as well. Can't wait.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Yeah my status also updated to shipping as well. Can't wait. Yeah I just noticed that as well. Oh my god am I excited about this and the other COIN games they've talked about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Morholt posted:Well VP is only one of three ways to win. In fact, when I played last week I got a (minor) victory at the end of the game in 1945, by slowing down the Soviet advance enough. It was a pretty intense game, I encircled Moscow in 1942 but kept getting events that refortified it. I never too the city. In '43 the initative dropped to Contested but I managed to capture Archangelsk and stop the Lend Lease, which meant I was able to keep the initiative until '44 when the Soviets finally started pushing back in earnest, finally breaking the two-year siege on Moscow. I can finally do my effort post on my problems with TBC now that I'm back from GenCon (keeping in mind that I basically really like everything about the game except for what's in this post): Actually, other than taking Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad (the "you got extremely lucky victory"), all the victory conditions depend on VP (there's an auto-win for 5 VP, otherwise at Summer '45 you check VP with adjustments for the initiative level to determine victory). The problem is that the only way to get VP is for the initiative to be 6+, and much of the initiative is random (combat markers with shifts, city draws, etc.). The game that really soured me on the system was one in which I had slightly more than the historical front line (basically +Moscow), but due to bad luck with initiative chit draws ended multiple turns on 5 and never got 6+. By around the end of 1942 therefore, victory was literally impossible (the best I could do was running out the clock with a +1 for positive initiative, which would still be a draw). Of course, since having positive initiative at endgame is basically impossible (and should be), I was pretty much guaranteed the -1 adjustment and a Marginal Defeat. I played it out for some reason and finished with the front line still slightly into the Soviet Union and received said Marginal Defeat, which felt really dumb. I like the system, and the initiative track works well for nearly everything, except tying it to VP. I think victory needs to have it's own system separated from the initiative system because otherwise it's too swingy when each VP is critical (1 VP is a huge amount, the historical performance is something like the Axis receiving 2 or 3 VP total the entire game). If VPs were earned at around 30ish over a game, then random swing affecting 1 or 2 wouldn't be as big of a deal; if they were predictable, then only giving out 1 or 2 wouldn't matter. Ironically, the scenario victory conditions work a little better since you can also get points for taking additional hexes or ending with a higher initiative, but as it stands, the victory system basically ruins the full campaign game for me. I'm very hopeful that the 2nd edition will have a solution for this, which would make it for me the best WWII solitaire game out there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Fire in the Lake showed up for me today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:Fire in the Lake showed up for me today. No pics?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:Fire in the Lake showed up for me today. Oh my god does this have me excited, also very jealous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
I ordered a game called Ars Victor a while back and it arrived at my building the day I got back from GenCon. I think I've found it. I think I've found the game with the ugliest artwork. Text bubbles aside, these characters are examples of actual drawings on the pieces:  Other than that, the pitch for this one is a "1-hour wargame," which is kind of missing the point in a lot of ways. There's no actual or theoretical conflict that's being simulated: this is pretty much a fast paced hex-grid game in a fantasy space. Components are sturdy (if ugly as gently caress), if it plays well enough I'll post more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Is it not-space marines against not-Eldar? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Oh my god does this have me excited, also very jealous. Don't worry, you'll almost certainly play it before i do, even solo. It happened to ship in what has been the busiest week of my career thus far.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
A mate and I are playing our first game of Napoleon's Triumph tonight. Last minute tips?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:Don't worry, you'll almost certainly play it before i do, even solo. It happened to ship in what has been the busiest week of my career thus far. That sucks, well I hope you get a chance to play it soon enough. My copy should be here on Monday and I'll get q chance to play it that Sunday
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
dishwasherlove posted:A mate and I are playing our first game of Napoleon's Triumph tonight. Last minute tips? Honestly, just try to get the combat really truly *down*. Like, even the piddling little cavalry probes, go through the combat steps, make sure you get them right. Try not to think too too long, first games of anything are learning games for all, as you probably very well know. That's about it! Key decisions are "which part of the board do I want to attack" (for the Allies for the most part, which is made during setup) and "when do I want to/do I actually want to bring on reinforcements" (for the french). Enjoy! It's seriously a masterpiece.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
I did some stupid poo poo to see how combat worked. Leading my defence with artillery was a high point. Have to do some more reading about how to more effectively use troops. You probe with cavalry to tie up some units on one flank then hit the other one with a corp right? We messed up that corp moves via road have to stop if you end up adjacent to an enemy (unless you are all cav) so there were some crazy big moves into combat. Whoops. Fun was had and now keen to give it another go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
dishwasherlove posted:I did some stupid poo poo to see how combat worked. Leading my defence with artillery was a high point. Have to do some more reading about how to more effectively use troops. You probe with cavalry to tie up some units on one flank then hit the other one with a corp right? We messed up that corp moves via road have to stop if you end up adjacent to an enemy (unless you are all cav) so there were some crazy big moves into combat. Whoops. Fun was had and now keen to give it another go. Sweet! Yeah, generally you probe with cavalry on flanks because, if the enemy then tries to drive them away, they're cavalry and they can zip away like the wind. Sometimes you do it to hit big with a corp, yes, but sometimes just to empty a corp of troops so it's less effective in combat and movement! As a note, road attacks are *always* feints (and must be cavalry), corp moves via road must stop if you're adjacent to an enemy, cavalry or not, as long as the corp is at least 2 units. Feel free to ask any other questions here or just look up rules threads on bgg, there's uh a ton. Glad you enjoyed it though! (leading defense with artillery can be good in weird circumstances, because it can reduce losses, so if you're pretty sure you can win with that or with a counterattack, lead with artillery and then they need to attack with cavalry or a 3 strength infantry to even force the counterattack, and if they don't, you don't lose *anything*)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Also remember that 2 strength French cavalry can push if you see that only a single enemy unit blocks your faint: this is because the last tie breaker always swings to the French and the allies usually don't want to waste a 3 strength to block a potential faint (a 2 strength and a 1 strength will deal with a flanking cavalry just fine though).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
So anyone that has actually played FITL IRL or had a full game on Vassal, thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:So anyone that has actually played FITL IRL or had a full game on Vassal, thoughts? I just got my physical copy yesterday. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to play it yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:So anyone that has actually played FITL IRL or had a full game on Vassal, thoughts? I got through about 1/3 of the short game on the 21st. Unfortunately, everyone was very overwhelmed, but I think two of them will be willing to try it again on a later date. I'll have to think of some advice for new players for next time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Which faction did you get to try out?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Which faction did you get to try out? I was ARVN. I figured it would be the most complicated for a new player to play, but now I'm not so sure. The guy who was playing the US was a little Air Strike happy, which really tanked his Victory Points. I may try to be the US next time to keep an eye on that and to help out whoever gets the ARVN.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Are the ARVN very different from the Government within ADP? I know the game is different inasmuch as the fact that the insurgent factions can now pretty much take and hold land (something that is possible in AA/CL but near drat impossible to do in ADP), so the ARVN probably has different priorities. Is the game pretty much ARVN vs NVA and US vs VC?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Are the ARVN very different from the Government within ADP? I know the game is different inasmuch as the fact that the insurgent factions can now pretty much take and hold land (something that is possible in AA/CL but near drat impossible to do in ADP), so the ARVN probably has different priorities. Is the game pretty much ARVN vs NVA and US vs VC? I can't speak to how similar it is to ADP, as I haven't gotten a chance to play it yet, but faction-wise were playing pretty cooperatively. I think there will be a lot more cooperation to take down opponents, with much back-stabbing happening after things are more stable, though obviously both sides will be trying to play to their own objectives. Now that I think more about it, US Air Strikes are very interesting, as they are extremely powerful, but also actively detrimental to their victory condition, since lowering support is good for the VC, and removing enemy pieces is good for the ARVN. I really need to try to get this back on the table; there's so much interesting stuff to be had!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
I was really afraid that the game would split too much into two distinct sides, although I do like the fact that as the NVA you can start infiltrating the VC to take over their bases. I hope there's similar enmity brewing between the ARVN/US. The only issue I see is that I can't see many of the inter-faction alliances that occurred in ADP (coalition with warlords and government with taliban) to actually occur since the sides are so distinct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I was really afraid that the game would split too much into two distinct sides, although I do like the fact that as the NVA you can start infiltrating the VC to take over their bases. I hope there's similar enmity brewing between the ARVN/US. The only issue I see is that I can't see many of the inter-faction alliances that occurred in ADP (coalition with warlords and government with taliban) to actually occur since the sides are so distinct. It does look to have a different dynamic where you're less allying with your opponent and more backstabbing your ally. On COIN topics, does Andean Abyss hold up well? I think I can get it easier than CL or ADP. (FITL looks awesome but I'm unlikely to get it to the table.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
AA is kind of weird beast, because it is a good game but some of the mechanisms are clumsy in comparison to the latter games of the series. It's also really easy to play certain factions wrong (see government/FARC) and especially the government relies too much on getting capabilities out early in order to be able to win at all. If they don't get the capabilities that allow them to win they are pretty much dead in the water (no matter how close they appear to be to victory).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I was really afraid that the game would split too much into two distinct sides, although I do like the fact that as the NVA you can start infiltrating the VC to take over their bases. I hope there's similar enmity brewing between the ARVN/US. The only issue I see is that I can't see many of the inter-faction alliances that occurred in ADP (coalition with warlords and government with taliban) to actually occur since the sides are so distinct. Mmm, yeah, I don't think there will be much inter-faction alliances going on. I do think, however, that there is a lot of room for hostility intra-faction, as well as inter-faction negotiation. I think it's designed so that level of hostility intra-faction is inversely proportional to how well each faction is doing, hopefully allowing the other faction to catch up by working together.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:It's also really easy to play certain factions wrong (see government/FARC) Could you elaborate? I bought the game some time ago and I finally found some people willing to play, so I'd like to know about possible pitfalls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Government requires you to know explicitly the way that the government wins. Government, without special capabilities, can only clear areas either by going in, clearing, creating a base, training police and THEN getting support (which is difficult in of itself) or by going in, clearing, not creating a base, waiting for a propaganda card, then moving police in, hoping that they don't die, sweeping in troops again AND THEN getting support. Since you don't have enough bases to do the former, you have to do the latter, which requires a lot of patience and effort. Hope other people aren't trying to win as well! Also everyone considers you a threat because you are close to your win condition without actually realizing that getting past that limit is extremely difficult for the government. FARC are a difficult beast because most people play them so passively. To win as the FARC, you need to understand the importance of LoCs. Last game I played with goon Panzeh, he did the LoC bait and switch: send a load of guerrillas to LoC, draw the police/troops out, then swarm cities. Controlling cities is awesome for FARC because it auto-sabotages all the attached LoCs. Most FARC players I see just passively attack provinces, don't push the LoCs enough and attempt to do straight up fights: you aren't a straight up fighter: get in, do some terrorizing. That's your aim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:FARC are a difficult beast because most people play them so passively. To win as the FARC, you need to understand the importance of LoCs. Last game I played with goon Panzeh, he did the LoC bait and switch: send a load of guerrillas to LoC, draw the police/troops out, then swarm cities. Controlling cities is awesome for FARC because it auto-sabotages all the attached LoCs. Most FARC players I see just passively attack provinces, don't push the LoCs enough and attempt to do straight up fights: you aren't a straight up fighter: get in, do some terrorizing. That's your aim. Also people focus way too much on the AUC as FARC. A strong AUC is very beneficial to FARC as it means the government can't go after your bases, and when it comes time for you to win you can always build more bases than AUC can. Now you need to avoid letting AUC guerrillas hang out unrevealed in your territory, but there's absolutely no reason to go on the offensive against them as FARC. Focus on the task at hand. Also Andean Abyss has a nasty thing where the last guy to make a move before the prop phase has a trmendous advantage. Also, in Fire in the Lake, US and RVN are way more cooperative than Government and Coalition(in ADP). Their tactical concerns alone require them to at least make an attempt to work toward the other's goals. For example, the US needs the use of RVN cubes to gain COIN control to let them do their pacification operations. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
From what I could see, the US also can't move around ARVN troops as much as the coalition can move government troops either. I like that ADP is basically a power-struggle between the government and the coalition but FitL seems a bit more nuanced in terms of the interaction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
FitL getting shipped y'all, can't loving wait.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Taran_Wanderer posted:I was ARVN. I figured it would be the most complicated for a new player to play, but now I'm not so sure. The guy who was playing the US was a little Air Strike happy, which really tanked his Victory Points. I may try to be the US next time to keep an eye on that and to help out whoever gets the ARVN. Well it's not the US wasn't Air Strike happy during the war, he was just being historically accurate. Which speaking of Air Strikes, is it just me or does the rule book not disallow air strikes in cities in FITL, which is fitting for the period. It got me thinking about house ruling at least ADP allowing air strikes into cities but causing them to degrade support one level toward neutral considering how counter productive the use of air power has been for building support in Afghanistan, especially considering drone strikes. But I can't remember if the shaded text for drones in ADP does something like that and I don't really feel like looking it up yet. But I think the US air power depleting support can be a wedge for the US and ARVN player, since the strike can give ARVN COIN control to the US player would have to make the case for the ARVN to build support and not just pad his coffers. Got my copy on Monday, took a bunch of pictures and put them on Facebook I had a few friends who normally wouldn't be interested in a game like this ask when we could play, which sadly won't be till maybe next weekend if I'm lucky. I sort of want to try the single player but it seems much more daunting than in the previous games. KomradeX fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
I think this is what continually amazes me about COIN games: they use simple mechanisms not to make an accurate military situation, but an entirely political one. I think a relation in which the ARVN and US have to rely on each other in order to fulfill their objective is quite interesting overall. What about the relationship between VC and NVA? It seems more antagonistic to me: the NVA largely wants to target tunnels etc to get strong bases to his side. I guess largely the VC wants to use the NVA to kill US troops as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Well it's not the US wasn't Air Strike happy during the war, he was just being historically accurate. Well, the thing about ARVN is that in my play with them, they kinda want to just use police to be the ones guarding cities, so it's trivial to get a US cube in there to pacify it yourself. I kinda don't like how Air Strikes are that effective in cities, because it's fairly easy to pacify cities since ARVN needs to keep their troops free to work in the countryside(ARVN troops are far more mobile than police).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:FitL getting shipped y'all, can't loving wait. Mine still hasn't shipped. It's been more than two weeks since the release date AND I've had the drat thing preordered for almost a year AND they took my money a month ago. Come on GMT!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Apparently they gave having too many orders of FitL and 5 other P500s that needed to go out as the reason. Where abouts do you live? It seems they are doing most of the UK ones according to my friends now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
While we're at it, I had a couple rules questions from playing Cuba Libre solitaire. First, is it possible to skip a operation but take a special action? The Syndicate often ends up with not a lot to do- Terror would expose guerrillas and thus casinos, they're happy with the number of open casinos they have and where their troops are, and they don't have more troops to rally. Can they still use the Profit activity even if they didn't use an operation (assuming they can use special actions)? Secondly, if it's impossible to use a special action, does that necessarily prevent the next person from taking the event? Say, for example, the DR Rallies and bribes M26 to play the event as the second action, but if they don't have Control they can't take a special action with Rally. Normally, forgoing your special activity would prevent the event, but does that still apply if it's entirely unintentional? Third, how is the government supposed to protect ECs when it's trivial for M26 infiltration to turn the troops around?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Tekopo posted:Apparently they gave having too many orders of FitL and 5 other P500s that needed to go out as the reason. Where abouts do you live? It seems they are doing most of the UK ones according to my friends now. I'm in Japan, so probably at the bottom of the priority list. It's not so much the waiting as not knowing what's going on. I check the site, blog and instagram every day but they haven't said anything about delays or any other problems. At the end of the day I love GMT and will forgive them. It's just frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 14:29
|
|