|
blackmongoose posted:I'm still hoping that someday someone will find two people who know nothing about World War II and have them play a WWII wargame while only telling them half the rules. It would be the most realistic session ever played and probably pretty amazing to watch. Leaving aside the not knowing about WWII part, you could do this as a form of umpired/blind game relatively easily (it's still a blind game).
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
blackmongoose posted:I'm still hoping that someday someone will find two people who know nothing about World War II and have them play a WWII wargame while only telling them half the rules. It would be the most realistic session ever played and probably pretty amazing to watch. Gray Hunter ran an LP of a WW 2 strategy game whose name I unfortunately can't remember the name of, where basically each vehicle/squad on both sides was controlled by one person who sent in order for their unit and he would plug them in to play out. It was one of those pre-planned real time deals, not a board game obviously. Units forgetting to move or accidentally marching right into the enemy guns, moving into the wrong place, the German junior officers essentially revolting against the company(battalion?) commander because they thought he was an idiot... It was glorious.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
ThisIsNoZaku posted:Gray Hunter ran an LP of a WW 2 strategy game whose name I unfortunately can't remember the name of, where basically each vehicle/squad on both sides was controlled by one person who sent in order for their unit and he would plug them in to play out. It was one of those pre-planned real time deals, not a board game obviously. War in the Pacific was the naval one he did can't remember the other
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
Another Up Front! post: Here's a site that has Powerpoint presentations on how to play the game (lol) http://webuf.eu/ They're actually surprisingly good. And after that, the videos, and reading through about half of the rulebook, I played through scenario A, and holy hell this game is fun!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:War in the Pacific was the naval one he did can't remember the other Turns out I never deleted it from my bookmarks: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3645658 Also I should clarify it's a tactical scale game.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
ThisIsNoZaku posted:Turns out I never deleted it from my bookmarks: Ugh, people keep saying that Combat Mission is the "Advanced Squad Leader of PC games" but it's so ugly and runs so badly on my computer 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Ugh, people keep saying that Combat Mission is the "Advanced Squad Leader of PC games" but it's so ugly and runs so badly on my computer If you added "expensive" to "ugly and runs badly" you would be describing every grognard game ever.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:If you added "expensive" to "ugly and runs badly" you would be describing every grognard game ever. Add "has an insane user interface" to that checklist as well. A new CM designed from the ground up with entirely new technology and stuff could be so amazing, but they'll never have the money and manpower to do it. Niche! They really are great once you get used to the idiosyncrasies, but one can't help but dream.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Going to be an expensive couple of months - just ordered Deluxe Alexander, and am already budgeting for Beyond the Rhine and Empire of the Sun when they hit these shores. Really looking forward to BTR - I found mighty endeavour very dissapointing and random, and hope BTR will scratch my itch slightly better.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Is Sekigahara recommended for people new to block wargames? Or rather serious wargames at all? My experience in wargaming is 1812 and Twilight Struggle so I do not know the majesty of moving blocks with stickers around.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
I've heard good things about Sekigahara, although someone with more experience would have to give a fuller analysis. Hammer of the Scots isn't bad either, block games as a whole tend to be easier to understand than most hex'n'counter.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
You won't be disappointed, but it's not really typical for the block genre.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
It's good and not saddled with lovely dice combat from the 70s.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
My copy of the Up Front reprint came today and it's... well, I don't know that it's worth $50, but it's definitely playable. The cards are standard GMT-esque quality (about the same as you'd find in a COIN game). A bunch of action cards, vehicle cards, and mini/half-size personality cards. The action/vehicle cards fit into 2 large-size deck boxes (from the company that published the reprint), and the personality cards fit side by side into a small-size deck box. The countersheets are kind of a joke. It's printed front and back on thin cardstock and doesn't even line up. It's about 1/8" difference vertically between front and back. So... I guess they technically work, and they're still legible, but in the long run I think I'm going to make a set of my own counters with the fan-made updated images, printable labels, and some bristol board from the craft store. But all in all, it's a great set aside from the counters.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Is Sekigahara recommended for people new to block wargames? Or rather serious wargames at all? My experience in wargaming is 1812 and Twilight Struggle so I do not know the majesty of moving blocks with stickers around. The rules are very simple and straightforward by wargame standards. I'd say it's a very good intro in some ways. Just make sure to mention that its easy to lose Tokugawa if you throw him into every battle for his leader bonus and that the Uesugi clan aren't going to get reinforcements during the game (their cards are still useful for movement even after they've all been removed).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Hi friends~ Someone kindly pointed me this way from the boardgaming thread. Been looking to scratch an itch that began with A&A and devolved into 40K. Currently lacking the time, effort, and group to relapse. Any recommendations on something multiplayer? I watched SU&SD's review of 1812 and it looked interesting, but I'd like something with more piece diversity. Looking through the rest of the recommendations in the OP.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
I got to try my first multiplayer game of Space Empires 4X today, that might be what you want. Plays 1-4, though it's strongly recommended that your first multiplayer games be with teams (2v2 or 2v1). You build up an empire with economy and hidden units/tech, exploring space, and when you run into your foes you reveal units and fight. There are 6 basic types of ship (just getting more attack/defense/hp) and several advanced ships (fighter, mines, minesweeper, etc.).
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
The Mantis posted:Hi friends~ COIN series is probably best recommendation for multiplayer in my book, although some of them can be a little complex. There's not a ton of piece diversity per se but all the different factions can have pretty wildly different ways of playing. Chaos in the Old World is similar (although on a totally different game system) but simpler and for some reason people prefer fantasy demons to Colombian drug lords.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
poo poo, that's a tough metric, actually. You see, the more zoomed-out operational/strategic games don't usually get more diverse pieces than "infantry, tank, something that floats on water I guess", and the tactical games, while often spoiling for choice in that regard, really usually make much more sense as a two-player game. My recommendations are to reach inside your heart and either: - Accept varied player abilities are just as cool as varied units (COIN, Chaos in the Old World, perhaps 1812 counts?) - Check out Maria or Combat Commander (depending on the preferred scale) to see how cool and cute they are and why low unit diversity is rarely a problem for thread denizens. We're a long way from Risk/A&A where that meant just bashing numbers against each other! - gently caress it, go 2 player tactical. Grab Warhammer: Diskwars or a more historical game that suits your fancy (e.g. Band of Brothers: Ghost Panzer) and just meet with your friends one at a time. In a pinch, if you choose smartly (e.g. Diskwars) you should have enough leftover crap in the box to set up a simultaneous second 2-player game. - Last but not least, maybe check out the 4X Eclipse? There's four unit types per player (including a defensive, static one), but you customize their stats during the game. There's also an expansion with diferent plastic models for each race if you really like bling.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
There's actually quite a level of piece diversity within 1812, in that regulars/militia/natives have different chances to run away etc.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Diskwars can be played multiplayer, so you don't even need to break into a second game. It is a hard sub-set to think up games for. If Successors was still in print (multiplayer CDG), I'd recommend that, as you have major and minor generals, along with different quality troop types and elephants. Sword of Rome which is in print (another multiplayer CDG), has major and minor generals, along with asymmetrical abilities, but the actual units are just straight combat strength. Space Empires 4X as mentioned is a good fit, though possibly not for beginners. Maybe play multiple games of Rommel in the Desert simultaneously? I think Conflict of Heroes has some multiplayer scenarios, though I've never tried the game myself. Personally I wouldn't bother too much about unit type diversity. You'll come to appreciate simplicity and elegant design over chrome and rules exceptions when reading rulebook after rulebook.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
Take Unconditional Surrender: it does everything with just a couple of unit types: tanks, infantry and mechanised infantry. It's a game you appreciate after spending countless hours picking up pieces with tweezers and counting up offensive and defensive combat factors.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
On the other hand, I feel that tactical games need variety (of units, equipment, etc.) or external "gamey" systems (involved hand management etc.) or they get really procedural and stale. This is probably why most non-historical wargames are full of unit abilities, spells and combos. I mean, take both Band of Brothers games for an example. The first was a kinda boring excercise in ad nauseam fire and maneuver tactics, while Ghost Panzer's introduction of a decent number of vehicles and wildly different infantry on each side breathed life into what would be otherwise an academy field manual simulator. The Band of Brothers series is weird for me in that regard: you'd think a d10 provides plenty of variance, but somehow the game's math is so tight, each +1 seems crucial to reaching the tipping point of being able to do something else than drop a single suppresion point. Like, I agree with most of designer's musings in design notes, and yet the result feels somewhat clinical and textbook.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Take Unconditional Surrender: it does everything with just a couple of unit types: tanks, infantry and mechanised infantry. It's a game you appreciate after spending countless hours picking up pieces with tweezers and counting up offensive and defensive combat factors. After dipping my toes into wargaming, and getting hooked by Twilight Struggle, USE has been on my wishlist for a while now. Doubt I'll ever see a copy on my FLGS here in Australia and ordering it by P500 is going to be a killer on shipping. Then I found that in the upcoming C3i issue GMT are doing a full game print of US: Case Blue after I finished watching a youtube play through of it. Literally just finished ordering a copy and am very keen to get a chance to play it. Will tide me over until I get a chance to find a copy of the full game (and opponents to play against)
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
I think that there is a difference between tactical and strategical though. I mean, take a look at War in the East (yeah, I know, a videogame, but bare with me). The game is so mired in minutia that it actively detracts from the actual simulation, to such an extent that historical results are improbable if not impossible, even when compared to a relatively light wargame like No Retreat. I like Combat Commander for the variety of weapons and infantry types, but counting factors in a big game is really loving tedious, which is why I love USE.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I think that there is a difference between tactical and strategical though. Yeah, while strategics can get procedural too (we've all seen the so-called "counter pushers"), the reasons leading to it are different. I'd argue that a game part of wargame is basically maneuver and resource management, with the maneuver being the interesting part, and resource management simply providing the context. It's like, playing defense gets boring at the point your're stripped of room to maneuver, forced to simply reform the line and shift focus entirely to the resource part (how much can we bleed for Kharkov?). Gimmickless small unit tactics suffer from a really basic formula behind them - find approach minimizing opponent's dice fuckery (forests, short corridors, bad fields of fire... Evaluating this is usually too simple to provide fun and challenge on its own), suppress and move in close for the kill. Done. You could flowchart bot this poo poo. This is what I feel is the basic shortcoming of the genre: the basic frame around the maneuver is not very strong. Thankfully, it is fairly easy to strengthten this part of the game. You can add unit powers (even something as simple as "tank armor" and "just a few AT-capable units") and limited use smoke grenades and whatnot to make the evaluation harder and more meaningful. You can add cards like Combat Commander or Command and Colors, to gently caress with the nature of maneuver itself and/or slap on another subsystem to sustain interest by itself. Red Winter added an operational-style context, so you have supply and whatnot to consider along with purely tactical min/maxing (also a legit very interesting map). Fields of Fire adds enormous Command&Control element that overshadows the tactics themselves. Don't get me wrong, there's a bunch of ballin' tactical games, but imo they live and die by these gimmicks supporting the lackluster base frame. Until a tactical lord & savior arrives to heal my burnout, I believe the gimmicks are the game in case of tacticals. Operational and strategic games (and I guess pre-XX century tacticals, since I've concentrated on the guns and poo poo) adhere to the same principles, but the framework of the maneuver is different and therefore it and its evaluation gains meaningfulness in different ways. I'd have to clear my head a bit to do a proper rant about it, so I'll just leave that I consider that oftentimes in inane frontline-pushers it is the enemy forces that should be considered the terrain to navigate. Much like, if I may reciprocate with a video game example, zombies in Dead Rising series ore often thought as a (sometimes dangerous) obstacle rather than an actual enemy. Man, if this discussion keeps going until I get back from work, expect to see a big sperg about why, in abstracto at least, Napoleonics are the single best setting for a historical wargame. quote:I mean, take a look at War in the East PC wargames in general tend to utilize the computing power really badly, making GBS threads on all that is good design-wise. With exception of a few series that actually manageto turn the behind the scenes spergin' to their advantage (e.g. Combat Mission, where you don't really need anything more than intuitive understanding of how a tank works, but it feels good to have realistic-looking results) it's all just piling on sperg and bullshit and fuzzy maths. A game that I feel is an excellent example on how to do a PC wargame is the grog thread darling, Unity of Command. The first impression is that the game is but a digital boardgame equivalent, but I'd argue it is false. What instinctlively feels carboardy is the clear-cut, understandable rules, but if you were to try and do a paper prototype, with physical components, there would be literally no way to recreate the strength system in a way that's not infuriatingly fiddly to the point of being nigh-unplayable.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Would read that manifesto. Mostly because NT is the best game ever, and I've heard good things about the C&C game. Gettysburg is Napoleonics too, right? Right? 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
What was that WWII east front game that is single player and has an AI to run the russians? Because that's a good example of enemies as obstacles rather than actual opponents.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:What was that WWII east front game that is single player and has an AI to run the russians? Because that's a good example of enemies as obstacles rather than actual opponents. The Barbarossa Campaign. It has some really cool systems and is imo the most true solitaire game to good wargames. It has some flaws but captures things well. I like how they just made infantry units front line markers because it feels like a nice pruning.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
I think it's come up before, but how do people feel about Unhappy King Charles? I've heard good things about it before, and I actually found a copy at a store in NYC over the weekend. I was also thinking of picking up one of the Commands & Colors games. Did people prefer Ancients or Napoleonics?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
I've enjoyed ancients quite a bit, though I've never played napoleonics. You may want to pick up NT for a napoleonic game though. Really though it's just a matter of setting. Which do you like better on pure aesthetic?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:I've enjoyed ancients quite a bit, though I've never played napoleonics. You may want to pick up NT for a napoleonic game though. Really though it's just a matter of setting. Which do you like better on pure aesthetic? Personally, I'm more of a fan of Napoleonics, but most of the people I'd play it with would prefer Ancients, I think, so I'd probably go with that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Taran_Wanderer posted:I think it's come up before, but how do people feel about Unhappy King Charles? I've heard good things about it before, and I actually found a copy at a store in NYC over the weekend. Fun, but chromy. Not in the "head explodes", but more "learning and remebering poo poo is a bitch" kind of way, like paths of glory. The core of the game is the fake Go of We The People-style political marker flipping, with actual armies working more like fleets in being. There is a good argument to be made about endgame being kinda sucky/broken, but sadly I don't remeber it well enough to make a personal judgement. There's a cute gimmick in how the operation points in deck keep getting shittier and shittier as the game goes, to simulate both sides coffers being emptied by the stress of war. The problem is, during endgame you get mostly 1-ops cards with only one side having a bunch of 1-activation cost generals (the Parliamentarians can only use these ops for minor Political Go actions). This can mean a somewhat anticlimatic Benny Hill endgame of Royalist generals just running around and flipping political markers manually (gotta broke them chains) and rolling to evade combat whenever the opponent happens to actually luck out into 2-ops card. The game has a bunch of neat little ideas, though not the kind you can get really tout as major groundbreaking features (rather cool little touches).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Monday was a good day for some war gaming for me, got a game of Twilight Struggle in with my buddy where the Soviets won on the first turn off mid war. I than introduced my friend to Fire in the Lake, where I controlled both the VC and the NVA, and he had the US, and ARVN. That ended up with a Communist victory where both the VC and the NVA reached their objectives, where only ARVN had reached their objectives and we got a good laugh at the idea that everyone in the game won except the Americans.
KomradeX fucked around with this message at 18:06 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Monday was a good day for some war gaming for me, got a gabr of Twilight Struggle in with my buddy where the Soviets won on the first turn off mid war. I than introduced my friend to Fire in the Lake, where I controlled both the VC and the NVA, and he had the US, and ARVN. That ended up with a Communist victory where both the VC and the NVA reached their objectives, where only ARVN had reached their objectives and we got a good laugh at the idea that everyone in the game won except the Americans.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Working as intended. Which even better my friend is now interested in playing some of the other COIN games as well
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
I have no Falling Sky and I must scream.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
gently caress, years of owning Advanced Squad Leader and I'm having issues both sorting the pieces and learning more of the rules. For those other ASL'ers, what are your storage methods? Also are there any great teaching videos/texts for the game (because let's face the manual is little more than a reference book). Maybe it's just a sunk cost fallacy and I'm in denial, but I do think there's a lot of worth to this game that will pay off with dividends once I get past its entry barrier.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Trynant posted:gently caress, years of owning Advanced Squad Leader and I'm having issues both sorting the pieces and learning more of the rules. For those other ASL'ers, what are your storage methods? Also are there any great teaching videos/texts for the game (because let's face the manual is little more than a reference book). Now you're talking my language. (My collection circa a while ago before I bought more stuff ) It depends what you own. I keep my stuff in Plano 3701 boxes, people in Europe tend to use Raaco boxes (which I'm hella jealous about, but each box shipped to America would be like $50+). A buddy of mine uses a coin envelope system like this:  Also, I know that a lot of people use bricks of matchboxes glued together and labeled. This looks really cool and I may very well steal it, since the volume is a lot lower. Planos have a lot of empty space.  I have mine currently organized as follows (per Plano box) - 3 boxes for the information counters (one for most commonly used, one for less commonly used, and one for just pacific/desert specific) - 3 boxes for Germany (infantry + support weapons, vehicles + ordinance, vehicles) - 2 boxes for Russia (infantry + sw, vehicles) - 2 boxes for America (ditto) - 2 boxes for Britain (ditto) - 1 box for Finland - 1 box for China - 1 box for Japan - 1 box for Allied Minors ...and I think that's all I've got. http://home.comcast.net/~tomrepetti/misc/storage.html - is also a great storage system that uses a total of 8 boxes, but they'll be packed chock-full. http://www.texas-asl.com/download/download.htm - has a lot of great resources. Plenty of Excel spreadsheets showing different storage configurations. http://texas-asl.com/download/Stahler_ASL_Tutorials.zip - is a great "programmed teaching" approach to learning ASL, telling you what rules you need to learn, then telling you to play a scenario with just those rules to make sure you got it. http://home.comcast.net/~tomrepetti/xop/InfXOP.pdf - here's a really good basic infantry example of play. Follow along with that and you'll learn a lot. http://www.multimanpublishing.com/DFFDemo/tabid/78/Default.aspx - finally, here's an official Flash example of movement and defensive first fire. I know that's a lot to take in, but ASL is my favorite game, and I love evangelizing it. If you have any specific questions, just let me know.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Obviously. When you're ready to get serious.... http://www.albertozecchi.it/home_eng.html Hmm a bit cramped... Ahh that's better
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:20
|
|
