|
Like he seems to think that not seeing what the enemy is is a great innovation in the genre, while Columbia has been doing that poo poo for years. If he wanted to discuss innovations he should have reviewed Unconditional Surrender, although it would probably be immediately dismissed for having a rulebook bigger than 5 pages.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
I was watching some of the Unconditional Surrender videos on BGG and it looks pretty cool. What would you say are its best innovations?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
So Tekopo thought I should share this with you guys I opened up a copy of AH Stalingrad that I got on the cheap. What I found inside was horrifying. I have no idea what the previous owner was attempting to do but I am pretty bummed about the state of the game, considering out of the bunch of cheap games I got this was the one I wanted to play the most. all over the board all over the counters front and back
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Stalingrad: Legacy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:Stalingrad: Legacy? Whoa. Whoa. A wargame, setting is some historical time travelers, so every battle you fight, some aspect changes for the next time you play. Oh hey, that bridge was blown up, gotta get across some other way now. Yeah that bog? Drained three years earlier, panzers can easily roll through now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Would you even need hard rules for this? Geography changes sound like the most common example, and those are usually just modifiers for the base engine anyway, so it shouldnt be super duper hard to do with your average hex n counter
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:Would you even need hard rules for this? Geography changes sound like the most common example, and those are usually just modifiers for the base engine anyway, so it shouldnt be super duper hard to do with your average hex n counter True, the key is making it have actual balance, since very small changes can totally cause really big balance problems if not thought out properly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:I was watching some of the Unconditional Surrender videos on BGG and it looks pretty cool. What would you say are its best innovations? The activation system also feels realistic: if my unit is far away from the front line, it won't be able to attack as many times: if my tank unit is right up against the front lines at the start of its activation, it has time to smash through and exploit. This is stuff that isn't replicated in most move everything THEN combat, where units at the extent of their range can fight just as effectively as ones far away from the front line. The supply system in the game is also well thought out (albeit a bit fiddly) and seems to replicate the struggles of supply well, especially in North Africa. There is a feeling that you can strangle the UK out of supplies if your U-boat warfare is going well. The support unit system also I feel works well and certainly better than the delay system found in TK. Overall the game is simply well designed, but allows within its scope a surprising amount of customisability. There are bonus units that you can use to make a country stronger if you want. The game is just through and through a design that was created from the ground up to be immeasurably playable and easy to pick up (for a wargamer). About the only thing I don't like about it is the Diplomacy system, which is certainly better in TK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:I was watching some of the Unconditional Surrender videos on BGG and it looks pretty cool. What would you say are its best innovations? I've played most of the small scenarios, and am about halfway through a 1939-? campaign game right now. At the moment, it's my favorite solo game, and probably my #2 favorite WW2 "overview" game (right under Totaler Krieg/Dai Senso). In some ways, it feels a lot like "Axis Empires Lite", with the way it abstracts diplomacy and minor countries. Hm. Let's just go phase by phase. 1) Weather - weather is handled by delineated slices of the map. And weather is surprisingly important. If the weather is poor, you're going to have a lot less positive DRM for the Axis player, and a much easier time defending (for the Allied). If the weather is severe, you can basically rule out air or amphibious attacks. So, weather is very simple and abstract, but very effective in my opinion. 2) Declaring war - as far as I can tell, and someone can correct me here, there's no real reason to outright declare war on a minor country, unless they're in between you and a major country (e.g. Poland or Belgium). You don't really get any bonuses for defeating minor countries. Countries in general - all countries (major and minor) have a "national will" marker, that is boosted by occupying cities and winning battles, and reduced by the opposite. When a country's will is 0, it collapses. That's how you defeat countries. Very simple mechanic. 3) Production - production is key in this game. Every country has a number of factories that make "production points". If you're factories are bombed, if you're submarine'd, if you're losing the strategic war, you'll have less factories, and will produce less supply. I'll get into this more in the operations phase, but everything you do costs production points. So, one of the most interesting things in this game is budgeting your PPs. You have to strike the right balance between moving/attacking/upgrading/refitting/deploying new units/doing diplomacy. It's kind of fiddly at the beginning, because you're making way more than you can spend, but later in the game you REALLY have to make some tough decisions. Like - "do I go on the offensive with this unit, or do I save the points and bring in another infantry, or do I shoot for a diplomacy roll and try to activate another country?" Probably the most interesting aspect of the game. 4) Operations - when you first look at the game, you see HEY WAIT, there are no numbers on the counters! Sal Vasta did some really cool stuff with the operations side of the game. First off, movement and combat are integrated. Attacking costs movement points just like, well, moving. So, theoretically you can attack multiple times with the same unit, depending on combat results and placement. Also, there's a lot more situational strategy. You can't just steamroll in with powerful units. Combat is decided by DRMs, not stats. So, say a German tank is going up against a French infantry. The Germans get +2 for being German, +2 for being a tank, maybe +2 for air support, but -1 for attacking into a city and -1 for attacking across a river. Then the French get +1 for being French, +2 for air support. So, you would roll 2 dice and add +4 for the Germans and +3 for the French, and the consult the CRT. Really fascinating system that's totally unlike anything else I've played. 5) Diplomacy - heavily heavily abstracted. During the diplomacy phase, you can spend 5 PPs to draw a chit from a cup that will either be a success, failure, area seized, or nothing. Successes and failures can activate minor countries. Area seized means the USSR gets to take one of the Balkan states (until they're gone). It's a very small aspect of the game compared to something like Axis Empires, but can really create some nailbiting moments in the early game ("Oh poo poo oh poo poo Italy is Pro-Allied, please don't get a political success please please please"). So, overall it's a game that's equal parts very familiar but very refreshing at the same time. If you have any more specific questions, let me know, but hopefully that at least gives you an idea of what's unique to this game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Whoa. I say don't even bother with time travel. Just do a wargame spanning the time period from WW1 eastern front, the russian civil war, and then WW2 European theater (eastern front). There'd be plenty of opportunity for burning, draining, or new construction. You could even have multi war veterans like Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:True, the key is making it have actual balance, since very small changes can totally cause really big balance problems if not thought out properly. Perhaps the action of changing the landscape could be hardruled into the scenario. So part of the mission is draining the bog as well as capturing point A. This area is where you'd need rules on how to accomplish the geography change. I like the idea quite a bit, though it's probably not as novel as I hope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Tekopo  Tekopo posted:The supply system in the game is also well thought out (albeit a bit fiddly) and seems to replicate the struggles of supply well, especially in North Africa. There is a feeling that you can strangle the UK out of supplies if your U-boat warfare is going well. The support unit system also I feel works well and certainly better than the delay system found in TK. Ugh yeah. I had a game where turn 1 I was the Axis and beat into Warsaw, but didn't realize that Polish units were blocking my supply back to Germany, and ended up out of supply going into turn 2 and had a very close call. Well, okay, maybe not, since I destroyed Poland in turn 2, but still! Being in low supply at the end of the first game turn was good for a laugh. Supply is simple but pretty tricky in this game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
There are reasons for declaring war on minors: for a start, it gets you a counter in the diplomacy cup, can potentially get you just a straight influence on an adjacent country, it adds units (if you are the germans you get a garrison unit) and increases the National Will of your country. Also, units from minors can only enter enemy countries or countries you conquered, so if you just have allies you actually limit where you can place your stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Yeah, that stuff sounds good. I'm a little skeptical of the lack of numbers on the counters because if German tanks always have a +4 and X movement points I don't see how moving the info to the DRM table is better than putting it on the counter. Seems more like a stylistic thing which is okay. I really did like what I saw of the combined movement and combat in the videos I watched. It seems like a game I could get into. So does TK, but I don't have a group that would make the commitment that either would require.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Well, the reason is because they don't always get +4. Germans will always get +2 without any worries, but tanks will only get the additional +2 in good weather. In poor weather, they get +1 (and indeed would get a -2 for simply attacking in poor weather). In severe weather, they get nothing at all (AND their final modified result is halves). I mean, the first few combats we did we had to go through the DRM list but once you are into hour 1 or 2, you can just list them off. So it isn't so much of a stylistic choice but a necessity, because otherwise it would be confusing and it's actually much clearer just to list everything in one space. Also, movement points are easy. All infantry has 8 movement points. Mechanized infantry and tanks have 10. That's it. Doesn't seem like much but it has wonderful implications in the system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Ok, that makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:Ok, that makes more sense. The air combat system is quite good without being just a plain die roll game like Totaler Krieg's delay box. It generally makes numbers decisive but air units get used up a lot even if successful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:Perhaps the action of changing the landscape could be hardruled into the scenario. So part of the mission is draining the bog as well as capturing point A. This area is where you'd need rules on how to accomplish the geography change. Rob Daviau, who's the Risk Legacy guy had a pretty interesting argument around balance. Essentially his take was that balance is already a slippery idea. In general, you see people tend to balance a game to suit their playstyles or expectations on their own in the first place. So when he thought about how R:L would handle balance, he thought people would figure out how to balance it themselves. As long as there was some disruption about who played which team each successive game, so that no one could just build up repeatedly and win that way, it would all even out, on the basis of the fact that anybody could play any of the board-changing effects, and would naturally do so to counter something that was causing problems. Though he also noted that some players were reluctant to do the necessary thing and start to pile on when somebody was getting an unfair advantage. Just because they didn't have the personality for it or whatever. Let me see if I can find the interview where he said this stuff. fake edit: here it is http://ec.libsyn.com/p/e/e/b/eeb4eb...cc&c_id=4032324
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
The idea that politics should be used to used to balance game is not novel and I usually see it as a crutch for people not being bothered to do proper design. The issue is mainly that a game should allow for equal opportunities to reach a position in which you can win through politics, which not all games can reach. So, for example, in R:L there isn't too much impediment. On the other hand, Diplomacy does not implement this well, because even for all the Politics in the world, Italy/Austria has a far lesser chance to be even able to be in a position to win and can potentially lose no matter how good the player is. Balance can be important in order to allow a player to be in a good bargaining positions from which Politics can be used to propel him to victory. COIN is pretty much the best example of this because the game factions balance against each other, but in asymmetrical ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Diplomacy is a good example of the game designer not really thinking things through. How do you negotiate as Russia? "Hey guys help me knock out the Ottomans and/or Germany so I can kill you next with my overwhelming army superiority!" While Italy and Austria are surrounded by neighbors that have no reason to actually honor their agreements instead of stabbing you in the back because Central Europe is intransigent without support from allies and serves as a picking ground for their Eastern and Western neighbors when everyone turns against them. On the one hand this makes sense considering the situation in Italy, Austria/Hungary, and the Ottomans at the time.... but who wants to play as the losers? Short of Imperial (not actually a war game...) I can't think of a game that makes playing in that situation fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:The idea that politics should be used to used to balance game is not novel and I usually see it as a crutch for people not being bothered to do proper design. The issue is mainly that a game should allow for equal opportunities to reach a position in which you can win through politics, which not all games can reach. So, for example, in R:L there isn't too much impediment. On the other hand, Diplomacy does not implement this well, because even for all the Politics in the world, Italy/Austria has a far lesser chance to be even able to be in a position to win and can potentially lose no matter how good the player is. Balance can be important in order to allow a player to be in a good bargaining positions from which Politics can be used to propel him to victory. Austria is actually a big winner but a poor survivor. It's well-positioned to cross all the good defensive positions but that advantage is also its disadvantage. Italy is the opposite. Italy's left edge is the stalemate line and the right edge isn't much worse, so it's easy to hang onto your core territory, but it's easy to get locked out of anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
February is shaping up to be a month in which I'll have plenty of free time and sometimes when I ride the bus too long I get lonely and start having silly thoughts, such as how little actual fudging would be required to turn FAB: The Bulge, a generally very reactive game into a team (split five ways) learn-as-you-go PbP effort. So basically the questions are 1) would anyone be interested in some hot Ardennes action 2) are there means other than  * to hold myself accountable to bring something to completion for a change.* I'd hesitate to use the final solution, as my staggering lack of consistency aside, I ran into a pharaohs-curse poo poo several times in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
I'd be interested.Lichtenstein posted:2) are there means other than We could mock you mercilessly if you'd like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
I've played it before, but I could offer support if there's something that would help you run it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
I'd watch it, but I don't have time to play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Thunderbolt Apache Leader tip: if you are using a drone to let you act before the enemies each round, don't let the enemies shoot it down as this will then give them a double turn. Especially don't let this happen on the turn you had one pilot go up to high altitude, thinking "if I get a new enemy seeing me from this I can just hit it or hide, since I move first". I can't really afford repairs due to the scenario rules, so I might be paying VP to replace some beaten-up aircraft (as well as the drone).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
I hope there are some brave goons around here I can count on to kill some nazis. [edit] Link should be fixed now. Lichtenstein fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
I suspect that's not the link you meant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Made a number of trades which are current working their way through the post. Thybderbolt Apache Leader is gone, and I have Empire of the Sun coming to me. I feel like I did very well there. A Victory Denied is gone, and I have Reluctant Enemies coming to me. I've been wanting to try an OCS game, and AVD never made it to my table once I got other similar games. Finally I got Rise and Decline of the Third Reich (4th ed) for $3 on eBay. Some people sw ear by it, some people say it's bad. But I figure for that price I cant go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
For reasons I cannot fully articulate I decided to get into wargames. I had a few as a kid but never really got into them. I decided the most reasonable thing to do was buy the Advanced Squad Leader starter kit.  So many fuckin acronyms. You can tell whomever wrote the rules was trying to simplify things but it is still such a failure of technical writing. I also bought the reprint of OGRE Pocket Edition, this other pocket game I had as a kid called "Ice War", and a used copy of "Panzer Leader", which was the only other childhood game I could remember the name of. I assume any of them will be better then ASL to ease myself into this stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Panzer Leader is simpler than Squad Leader but honestly you might be better off just getting a more modern game and working back from there. What experience with boardgaming do you have?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
You can't get more gateway than OGRE.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
bunnielab posted:For reasons I cannot fully articulate I decided to get into wargames. I had a few as a kid but never really got into them. I also just decided to get into Wargames! I ordered the ASL Starter Kit #1 along with Conflict of Heroes and Thunderbolt Apache Leader. I did my research and decided those three should cover the bases for a good long while. I was initially hesitant on ASL, because of its stigma of being impenetrable, but I recently watched this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUgtQ-ucDiw and the gameplay possibilities just seemed to cool to pass up on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
ASL is at the same time the perfect game and the worst game. If I had a nickel for every time I planned to really learn ASL, I would have at least a couple dollars. Because seriously, Blood Reef Tarawa and Code of Bushido look so loving good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
On the subject of Advanced Squad Leader, I played the my dad's copy of the original Squad Leader and it was pretty great but I hated the vehicle rules, and then the first expansion just made them even more fiddly. Did they, by some miracle, walk back the complexity of vehicle rules in ASL?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
poop
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Panzer Leader is simpler than Squad Leader but honestly you might be better off just getting a more modern game and working back from there. What experience with boardgaming do you have? My board gaming experience is limited to Risk and a few random euro games that my friends make me play sometimes. Like I said, I had and "played" a few hex n chit games when I was a kid but I question how much I really understood them. Lichtenstein posted:You can't get more gateway than OGRE. That was sort of my hope. Also, I really regret not picking up a Designer's Edition last year when the idea first crossed my mind. It looks like they have doubled in price. Foehammer posted:I also just decided to get into Wargames! I ordered the ASL Starter Kit #1 along with Conflict of Heroes and Thunderbolt Apache Leader. I did my research and decided those three should cover the bases for a good long while. Awesome, thanks for that video, I have been looking for some good gameplay and tutorial videos. bunnielab posted:poop Hey, I fould a keyboard shortcut that makes you post! Has anyone ever played the online version of ASL? It looks interesting but I cant judge how well it pulls it off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
VASL? It's literally just a board and pieces, you have to provide the rules and scenario cards and enforce the rules yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
I have an opportunity to buy "Red Winter: The Soviet Attack at Tolvajärvi". I've only played Fading Glory as far as wargames go, is this similar in terms of complexity?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
Yas posted:I have an opportunity to buy "Red Winter: The Soviet Attack at Tolvajärvi". I've only played Fading Glory as far as wargames go, is this similar in terms of complexity?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:28
|
|