|
Tekopo posted:so we played Napoleon's Triumph, C&C Napoleonics (Waterloo Scenario), Borodino 20 (from Fading Glory) and Julius Cesar (the Columbia Block game). I kind of liked them all, but C&C annoys me due to the swinginess of the dice. It's still a nice beginner game though. I liked the contrast in gameplay between the different napoleonics games we played. Wow it's like Tekopo came to my house to play boardgames. Julius Caesar is A++ tier Columbia Magic. Columbia isn't for everyone but I think they make some of the best war games that can be completed in a night easily and every time you come back to them you can have an enjoyable experience.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
 about Empire of the Sun rulesSo I've played the first three turns of Empire of the Sun live with my brother. It's really interesting and there's not much I can add to what Tek and Panzeh have already said, except to reitierate that despite this being a mulithour monster game, it's pretty fast to play; outside of the US player leaving to make a sandwich the first turn you stay a lot more involved than in a lot of other grand wargames. That said there are a bunch of rules I'm pretty sure I messed up, just wanted to post the things I noticed while scanning the rulebook in a fit of insomina. Correct me if any of these corrections are in fact wrong  OC Offensive may only declare 1 battle hex, although reaction may create more and ECs have no such restriction ZOI blocks naval supply and command, amphibious assault and strategic movement, but not land supply and command You can make a special roll to react to an unopposed land movement into your territory if it's in your AZOI Can't extended move and then attack (?) but can use extended range *to* attack at half strength Critting means opposing player must do damage, a step loss is assigned to the weakest unit if otherwise impossible In air/naval combat, you can hit 1 carrier/air unit not in the battle hex per carrier/air unit in the battle After a non-crit combat where the Japanese have more than 1 carrier, they may 'transfer' one step loss between two carriers. Chinese units being replaced from the dead pool must appear in the city in China No ASP discount for moving units with a ship (except Japanese brigades) US Political Will shifts +1 if they sucessfully strategically bomb Japan (even if no card loss) once per turn. US Political Will shifts -1 if they have a replaceable division or corps eliminated once per turn. From turn 4 to 12 if the *net* airfield/port/name hexes controlled by each side changes by less than *5* in the allies favor, reduce US Will by 1. Future Offensives don't count as being in your hand, you still draw the same number of cards as before. Couple specific questions. First, my brother who'd played it solitaire swears that the rules he read say that the US Will penalty for not taking ground were 3 hexes (not net) plus something to do with ASPs. Was there some different edition of the rules that had that rule in it? Secondly the rules for responding to air attacks not in your hex. It says that if air/carrier units attack a battle hex at range, you can only hit one per air/carrier you have. So if they hit you with three carriers and you have two, you can only hit two carriers, and thus can't apply two hits to either since there's a third unit in the hex. But it also says that you can't apply second hits if there are non-ranged units in that hex. So how does this apply? If, for example, I have two carriers and he attacks with two that have a battleship in the same hex, am I unable to hit twice since I can't hit his battleship? Also, do crits still override this rule?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Couple specific questions. First, my brother who'd played it solitaire swears that the rules he read say that the US Will penalty for not taking ground were 3 hexes (not net) plus something to do with ASPs. Was there some different edition of the rules that had that rule in it? So, the rule is basically the US ASPs or 4, whichever is lower, so it usually means the first PoW turn needs 3, and then it's 4 hexes from then on in. The ASP thing is there to basically prevent the US from being screwed if it doesn't have any accessible overland campaign hexes to take. His battleship has to be in the battle hex to be part of the battle, if it's not there, it's not in the battle. Thusly, you can hit all three ships because the air restriction is only to units outside the battle hex(or if we assume the battleship is outside the battle hex, you can hit all two ships because you have two air assets). The crit rule lets you bypass the "everyone must be hit once before they can be hit twice" rule, so you can override the issue of losing hits by not having enough air assets. Yes, though, if you do not have enough air assets to hit all the enemy units outside the battle hex, you lose every excess hit. It's important to get the right balance between higher strength battleships and lower strength carriers for that reason. I'll get to the earlier questions later, or Tekopo can explain, but basically a reaction never puts down a new battle hex, aside from the special reaction which is used because normally you must have a battle hex to react to anything(this is why an air unit in kwajalein provides protection to the Marshalls and why its elimination is important to US central pacific strategy).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
 We must have first edition rules or something. Ended up with a Japanese win on turn 9 since I was too aggressive in Burma early on and a couple well-timed Gandhi cards lost me India, and my will got sapped too low before I could recover. It's definitely really fun to play, my only real complaint is that the deck management is worse than Twilight Struggle but that's a pretty high bar to hit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:
You can find the rule on page 30 of the v2.0 rules, but it may also have been changed in the v1 living rules because I recall it being that way there, too. Check the PDFs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Yeah the PDFs on the website are accurate. I might print them off and keep them in the box.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
I wasn't a huge fan of Caesar. I liked CCN. I don't know why I dislike the randomness in Combat Commander but seem to be fine with the randomness in CCN. Fading Glory... was interesting, but I wouldn't say it's my favourite Napoleon's Triumph was indeed very tense, and I'd be happy to play it again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
What's a 'monster' game (I'm looking at stuff like Totaler Krieg for example) that's a good solo game? I'm looking for something that I can throw a heap of magnets on and stick on a whiteboard and play intermittently. Edit: ideally though it wouldn't be ONLY solo
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
CNN Sports Ticker posted:What's a 'monster' game (I'm looking at stuff like Totaler Krieg for example) that's a good solo game? I'm looking for something that I can throw a heap of magnets on and stick on a whiteboard and play intermittently. I'm not an expert but I tend to keep an eye out for soloable wargames, however I'm only just really getting into the deep end of wargames. In my trawling of GMT Games for 'high solitaire' games I've found the following : Unconditional Surrender (good luck finding a copy) A few of Mark Simonitch's games - France '40, Ukraine '43, Normandy '44, Ardennes '44 (I've got Ukraine 43 coming soon) Empire of the Sun has a solo AI to play against. These are all multiplayer games by definition but you can play solo easily enough. Unconditional Surrender isn't really a true monster game though, assuming you define a monster game based on the number of counters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
unicr0n posted:These are all multiplayer games by definition but you can play solo easily enough. Unconditional Surrender isn't really a true monster game though, assuming you define a monster game based on the number of counters. Serious question because I'm endlessly fascinated by pictures of games that take two full tables and half of a wall to organize and that I'll never play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:There are 840 counters in Unconditional Surrender, I think that amount of cardboard has its own gravitational field. How many more do you need in order to call it a monster game? UCS is not a monster. 840 is peanuts (mostly markers) + it's a 1 mapper., particularly when the unit density is as low as it is in UCS. When we're talking monsters, we're talking more about World in Flames (With expansions), Dan Holte's Battle for normandy, OCS Case Blue (Even Blitzkrieg Legend or Beyond the Rhine are only mini-monsters) etc. tomdidiot fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
Yeah. Terrible Swift Sword, one of the first 'monster' ACW games has over 2000 counters and a full campaign playtime of 50+ hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
UCS isn't a monster game in terms of counters, but it still has a 12 turn a year structure, starting from September 1939. Which means that it, too, has a 50 hour play time. We got to Case Blue equivalent (summer 1942) and it took us 17 hours, and the game would probably take a lot longer in the latter years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
I... I clipped my first counter today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Gooble gobble
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
I managed to make tomdidiot go from 'why do you clip counters' to 'i like clipping counters' in a single session.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
A little old, but...Lichtenstein posted: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. Where the gently caress is my cover? Why the hell are fire and explosions everywhere? How many more KPA units are out there? Why are my troops fainting? AAAHHHH! I'll try and make a small AAR when I put my notes together and remove all the profanity. loving rice pads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:A little old, but... I hope you've also had the pleasure of drawing all the hills for the last two rows (with possible exception of a single one out of map boundary just to make for a nice sniper's nest).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:I hope you've also had the pleasure of drawing all the hills for the last two rows (with possible exception of a single one out of map boundary just to make for a nice sniper's nest). Row 5 - A lone village, taunting me. Row 4 - Assorted terrain Row 3 - A bunch of Hills, stacked 2-3 high, good cover barely in touch with cover on line 2 Row 2 - 2 good cover cards out of 5, on the right hand side Row 1 - Open and Rice Pads ---------- Deploy area ----------- More or less. I think I had about 50% of my steps standing before calling it a day on turn 4-5.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
I have tasted the Schadenfreude and now eagerly await the AAR. It's quite a step up from
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:It's quite a step up from 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:I... I clipped my first counter today. Show me your sick rear end forceps bro
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
4outof5 posted:Show me your sick rear end forceps bro Nah, I play bareback. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
Yessss yessss, let the hate flow through you. Sometimes I regret selling my copy of FOF, and sometimes I'm desperately happy that I did. I just saw on BGG that the game's designer is paying Marco Arnaudo $100 to review it, haha. I can't wait to see how Marco whitewashes that mess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Sometimes I regret selling my copy of FOF, and sometimes I'm desperately happy that I did. quote:I just saw on BGG that the game's designer is paying Marco Arnaudo $100 to review it, haha. I can't wait to see how Marco whitewashes that mess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
FoF2 and the reprint are never coming out 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
But Tekopo, one of the thread, was not with them when the reprint came. The other posters therefore said unto him, We have seen the game. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in my hands the rulebook, and put my finger into the countersheet, and thrust my hand into the box, I will not believe. And after eight days again the posters were within, and Tekopo with them: then came Ben Hull, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Tekopo, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my games; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into the box: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, my P500 order. Hull saith unto him, Tekopo, because thou hast seen it, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:FoF2 and the reprint are never coming out That may be literally the case, since the designer is deployed and can't, well, design right now. Lichtenstein posted:You need to link this poo poo, I'm already giggling at the very thought of this conversation. Actually, I was wrong, it's not the game's designer, but I think the guy is helping re-write the FOF rules. Either way, the desperation is palpable. https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/65612/marnaudos-video-reviews (the comments at the bottom) Marco's doing a kickstarter campaign to fund his next 'season' of videos. One person who pledges $100 gets to pick a game for him to review. Davey: "$100 to get you to finally do one of your fantastic reviews for GMT's Fields of Fire? I almost hit the pledge button then saw the 20 page rule limit. Drat, drat, drat. Drat." Marco: "Thank you for checking with me. I can make an exception for FoF. I own the game, but I somehow always lacked the motivation to learn it as I had heard mildly scary things about it. This seems to be the right occasion. Thank you for your support, I'll be glad to do it!" Davey: "And ... pledged! If that's what it takes to see you play the first mission in the Normandy campaign and to finally let us know what you think of GMT's much-debated/maligned/revered masterpiece(?) Fields of Fire. Looking forward to it, and maybe the new rulebook will be available to you by then." Masterpiece may be a ... bit of a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
May I ask whats wrong with Marcos reviews? I started watching some of them and they were ok, I guess? Granted I mostly watched his latest non wargame reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
When it comes to marnaudo videos it's basically The good: - Providing a nice, quick overview of game's mechanics, gimmicks and the overall dynamic. The bad: - Accent. - Ability to form any critical thought. Lichtenstein fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Ok then. Yeah, after most of his Videos I understand what the game is about and how it would play. I like that. I don't have much of a problem with his accent but I can agree with your second point. He seems to like almost every game he reviews and I can think of just one game (a small Card game by AEG) he disliked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Selecta84 posted:He seems to like almost every game he reviews and I can think of just one game (a small Card game by AEG) he disliked. Yeah, that's my point basically. His reviews basically range from "wow" to "not my favorite game", he just comes off as too kind. Don't get me wrong, I love watching his reviews to see how a game works and to learn about new games. I'm mostly just anxiously awaiting the schadenfreude of watching him try to slog through the FOF rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Don't get me wrong, I love watching his reviews to see how a game works and to learn about new games. I'm mostly just anxiously awaiting the schadenfreude of watching him try to slog through the FOF rules. Yeah, that's why I watch them, too. Is FOF that bad ruleswise?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Selecta84 posted:Yeah, that's why I watch them, too. My problem with them was that the rules were incredibly vague and sometimes contradictory. For instance, the rules for enemy snipers. I had read and re-read those rules, and even read the multitude of threads about it on BGG, and eventually just had to make assumptions on how to move snipers. The game is incredibly unique in how it does, well, everything, so the rules author absolutely can't make any assumption when writing the rules. They have to be "when X happens, do Y", or "this unit does Z, by means of A, B, C". It can't be "when a sniper is activated, put him on the board and every turn move him away from your guys and if he moves off the board put another terrain card down but also if he moves off the board remove him from play". I'm paraphrasing, but that's how my wargame-rule-addled memory remembers it. I found it to be a mess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:I found it to be a mess. Reading that it sounds about right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:The game is incredibly unique in how it does, well, everything, so the rules author absolutely can't make any assumption when writing the rules. They have to be "when X happens, do Y", or "this unit does Z, by means of A, B, C". It can't be "when a sniper is activated, put him on the board and every turn move him away from your guys and if he moves off the board put another terrain card down but also if he moves off the board remove him from play". I'm paraphrasing, but that's how my wargame-rule-addled memory remembers it. I found it to be a mess. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Selecta84 posted:Is FOF that bad ruleswise? This is a post I once had to make in this thread: Lichtenstein posted:While we have to wait for Ben's answer, I've got a feeling the snipers are meant to vanish like the other units, and that Ben forgot that the act of removing them is baked into the activity hierarchy (not just being a reminder) rather than stated out somewhere in rules. This assumption is made on the fact otherwise few other things kinda break: The funny part is that the core system is actually very straightforward and simple.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
I've read that paragraph 3 times now and I still don't really understand what's going on...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:The funny part is that the core system is actually very straightforward and simple. This is true, and is why I really WANT to love FOF. It's just that all the chrome is so awkward, it makes the game really fun to play until you run into the inevitable brain-and-game-breaking thing that makes you put the game away in disgust. Or at least that was my experience \/  \/Fat Samurai posted:Tell me how do you feel about vehicles now I never got that far!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
Not sure whether to be angry or relieved: I'm angry
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 09:45
|
|