Board Wargames Thread - Armchair General HQ - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Board Wargames Thread - Armchair General HQ

cenotaph: Mar 2, 2013

The General posted:

I've got both on p500. Someday.

I am still majorly sad about the Up Front KS that was a scam. I wanted that so bad

It's really not as good as everyone says. It has some serious single deck card game problems. The last time I played I had a game go two and a half hours because my opponent and I kept drawing the cards that the other player needed and everything just screeched to a halt. It's also overly-fiddly in some unfortunate places like the whole infiltration and close combat system. Unfortunately the brigade of old grogs that think it's the best game ever designed would freak out about any updating or streamlining so it's probably doomed to be a beautiful, unfulfilled dream like FoF.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 01:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 02:39

Fat Samurai: Feb 16, 2011; To go quickly is foolish. To go slowly is prudent. Not to go; that is wisdom.

Tekopo posted:

(the best example is the sniper rules).

I'm pretty sure Litchenstein knows the sniper rules by heart. So do I. We play the snipers completely different, IIRC.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 03:45

Obfuscation: Jan 1, 2008; Good luck to you, I know you believe in hell

My last straw with FoF was when I had finished my first mission but then I just could not figure out how the replacement system worked because the rule was so badly written. Maybe one day I will try again.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 06:17

Ropes4u: May 2, 2009

I'm half tempted to cancel both of my FOF P500's and get something else based on the input here.

Is the game truly that terrible / good?

# ? Dec 5, 2015 12:31

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

Yes and don't you dare back off.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 12:43

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

Tried Korea and managed to lose two casualties from mortars in a gully and then losing 3 casualties from heat exhaustion. I'm currently on attempt 2 having just managed to capture at attack position from entrenched Korea squads: they were pushed back to the rice paddy behind the hill/cemetery and I don't think they are going to last long. There's also another squad currently entrenched in a village on my left, but they are down to one team: I keep hitting them with weapon teams and the grenades are proving useful.

Not as bad as I thought but I only faced two squads, a mortar spotted and a heavy mortar spotter so far.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 16:18

Count Thrashula: Jun 1, 2003; Death is nothing compared to vindication.; Buglord

Empire of the Sun 2nd Ed. is on sale at coolstuffinc for 37.99 which is downright ridiculous.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 16:55

Fat Samurai: Feb 16, 2011; To go quickly is foolish. To go slowly is prudent. Not to go; that is wisdom.

Ropes4u posted:

Is the game truly that terrible / good?

Yes.

In a slightly more helpful note, I don't regret buying it.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 17:05

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

When the game finally clicks it works really well: it models fire and manuever in a pretty interesting way.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 17:07

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

Tekopo posted:

Not as bad as I thought but I only faced two squads, a mortar spotted and a heavy mortar spotter so far.

Don't worry, there's still plenty of time for T-34/85s to appear.

For Maximum Pain, remember this scenario has variable weather, enemy experience and ammo loadouts between the attempts. Also a guaranteed counterattack during current (second) attempt!

# ? Dec 5, 2015 17:17

Jobbo_Fett: Mar 7, 2014; Slava Ukrayini; Clapping Larry

Anyone tried Wing Leader: Victories 1940-1942?

Looks interesting, and at least one P500 review says its capable of more Solitaire action than the box suggests.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 18:07

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

Lichtenstein posted:

Don't worry, there's still plenty of time for T-34/85s to appear.

For Maximum Pain, remember this scenario has variable weather, enemy experience and ammo loadouts between the attempts. Also a guaranteed counterattack during current (second) attempt!

I gave up at the end of the second attempt. I wasn't in a bad position but my brain shut down and refused to continue after playing pretty much all day. The ambush was pretty annoying to work out all by itself. There was even one package (manuever) which I didn't know what it did at all. I enjoyed it but the time it takes to play is too much. This game was made by a maniacal evil genius.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 20:10

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

Tekopo posted:

There was even one package (manuever) which I didn't know what it did at all.

It's just a package with some normal dudes but with exposed markers (or an infiltration attempt) rather than whatever cover scenario would instruct you to place. Representing the enemy actually moving towards you, rather than just opening fire from pre-set defensive positions. However, this is the only campaign with no actual Maneuver package listed :downs:

.

AFAIR it's a copypaste mistake from Normandy and should be treated as a normal 15 result - that is, a Mortar Team.

Lichtenstein fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Dec 5, 2015

# ? Dec 5, 2015 20:40

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

Remember, rules are in the heart.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 20:42

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

Some of the placings for units that are in the back lines are weird as well, like where the gently caress do you actually place them if you are miles from the front line?

# ? Dec 5, 2015 20:51

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

Also I think I'm gonna take a break now and then try Vietnam.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 20:58

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

https://sites.google.com/site/fieldsoffirebootcamp/rules-references/enemy-units-and-weapons/enemy-placement

Fields of Go posted:

If the placement location drawn does not legally allow the enemy unit to target the triggering US unit, redraw for a different placement. Continue drawing until the above requirement is met. If that package cannot legally be placed to comply with this, redraw for a different package. If NO available package could legally comply, then discard the contact entirely.

Then there's Vietnam, which will bring its own brand of insanity to this (no frontline and Vietcong tunnels).

# ? Dec 5, 2015 21:17

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

Tekopo posted:

Also I think I'm gonna take a break now and then try Vietnam.

You're flying close to the sun, man.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 21:29

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

The break is gonna be like, a week long. At least.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 21:30

StashAugustine: Mar 24, 2013; Do not trust in hope- it will betray you! Only faith and hatred sustain.

What I'm getting from this is that FoF would be a great computer game.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 21:40

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

Dunno, you can go full Combat Mission or Command Ops on the PC for fidelity and fancy command&control/delegation/morale needs. I'm not sure the abstractions, which fit well on the tabletop, would translate themselves well to that medium. Its problem really isn't the amount of chrome and fiddliness (it is by no means a light game, but it's not a monster either), but the extreme sloppiness in which they are executed. Like, 45 minute turns Tekopo mentioned are a very real thing, but once you get your poo poo together you can definitely cut them down to 15-20 minutes. It's just that usually you internalize such things after a game or two, but in FoF you have to really stay on top of your game in terms of rulings and edge cases.

And it's a drat shame, because the good parts are really, really good. It really feels like it is an officer's stream of consciousness, offering a very strong and immersive "commander on the ground" perspective, fleshes out a lot of stuff not typically present in wargames and has a legit great tactical engine - I'd argue that it is closer to reality than the mass of more classically minded hex and counter tactical games.

Also it would mean no magic moments such as electricity going out in your small room with the only semi-interesting item to pass time by the candlelight being FoF. It was really unforgettable.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 22:14

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

I do hope though that for the reprint/sequel GMT will prohibit Ben from writing a single word in the new rulebook.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 22:15

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

There's just so much gooood poo poo in there. Like the fact that your officer can send out a squad but then they are pretty much stuck there unless they get initiative or you run your officer there. How the more you fight and your guys get split into LATs it becomes harder and harder to institute command and control. You realise how loving hard it is to command stuff until the modern radios come out.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 22:18

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

Tekopo posted:

officer can send out a squad but then they are pretty much stuck there unless they get initiative or you run your officer there

I love the surprising-yet-sensible twist of how cover* is out of the shouting range from the area-at-large. So that you have everyone rush for barns and ditches to hide ASAP and then when a time comes to issue further orders you have no idea yourself where your subordinates hosed off. So you are left frantically scrambling all around the village, firing flares and shouting at everyone to cease the loving fire as they waste the last ammo reserves suppressive firing at shadows that twitch funny.

* Particular areas have defence ratings, to indicate basic poo poo like hiding behind a wall or under a bush. Cover represented by a counter indicates some particular building, foxhole, etc. you found particularly defensive.

# ? Dec 5, 2015 22:45

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Nuts to all this FoF talk, where's my godsdamned Navajo Wars AAR?!? :bahgawd:

# ? Dec 5, 2015 23:04

Bullbar: Apr 18, 2007; The Aristocrats!

This is making me want to get FoF

# ? Dec 6, 2015 00:27

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

Lichtenstein posted:

I love the surprising-yet-sensible twist of how cover* is out of the shouting range from the area-at-large. So that you have everyone rush for barns and ditches to hide ASAP and then when a time comes to issue further orders you have no idea yourself where your subordinates hosed off. So you are left frantically scrambling all around the village, firing flares and shouting at everyone to cease the loving fire as they waste the last ammo reserves suppressive firing at shadows that twitch funny.

* Particular areas have defence ratings, to indicate basic poo poo like hiding behind a wall or under a bush. Cover represented by a counter indicates some particular building, foxhole, etc. you found particularly defensive.

FoF loving got you again, Lichtenstein, this is cease fire target:

"All occupants of
the card whether
in communication
with the issuing
HQ or not"

# ? Dec 6, 2015 00:31

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

Well, it's at least a week before Tekopo impulse sells it, so I advise checking out the Vassal module to see if you have the necessary balls of steel to power through the darkness to reach the good stuff.

Tekopo posted:

FoF loving got you again, Lichtenstein, this is cease fire target:

"All occupants of
the card whether
in communication
with the issuing
HQ or not"

I CAN FEEL THE FOF OVERTAKING ME IT IS A GOOD PAIN

I think Ben Hull should be credited with inventing Legacy board games, because this loving rulebook is never the same each time you play it. Also I am not ruling out that tearing the cards up is an integral part of the experience.

# ? Dec 6, 2015 00:40

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

Lichtenstein posted:

Well, it's at least a week before Tekopo impulse sells it, so I advise checking out the Vassal module to see if you have the necessary balls of steel to power through the darkness to reach the good stuff.

I CAN FEEL THE FOF OVERTAKING ME IT IS A GOOD PAIN

I think Ben Hull should be credited with inventing Legacy board games, because this loving rulebook is never the same each time you play it. Also I am not ruling out that tearing the cards up is an integral part of the experience.

*tears up the card with HITS on all NCMs and a burst with short*

Also, is there a reason why some cards have different numbers of burst?

# ? Dec 6, 2015 00:43

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

Sometimes an agency has Battalion Fire enabled, in which case the triple-burst is a crit of sorts, allowing you to target two adjacent cards for free, as the higher-ups choose to throw the full weight of battalion's assets at your slice of the frontline.

[edit] It's actually mega cool, because the adjacents can be out of LoS and poo poo, so you can skip trying to spot those pesky snipers and FAOs and just napalm the poo poo of the forest you suspect them to be in. The :911:

way.

Lichtenstein fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Dec 6, 2015

# ? Dec 6, 2015 00:48

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

Snipers are basically invulnerable ubermenschs/giant cowards.

# ? Dec 6, 2015 00:52

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

Holy poo poo, taking fire can IMPROVE the status of your LATs :stonk:

# ? Dec 6, 2015 01:01

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

Tekopo posted:

Holy poo poo, taking fire can IMPROVE the status of your LATs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5_Z0LsPnE

# ? Dec 6, 2015 01:11

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

This was Treviers

# ? Dec 6, 2015 08:51

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

I found this review on BGG rating FoF a 6 and I agree almost 100%, even in regards to the rating

quote:

Fields of Fire is the only game I've owned, sold and/or traded away three times, and now have it back in my collection for a forth time. Why? Well, sit down and grab a drink ... this is going to be a long story.

It's probably a bloody brilliant game ... actually, I know it is. Without question it is a game of sheer genius that puts you in the role of a company commander and models command and control like no other game available, and is probably a classic on par with my favourite game of all time, Up Front. Fields of Fire is: Innovative, disruptive, fascinating, with some brilliant things in it. This game would easily rate a "10" ... if it wasn't so drat fiddly, slow, tedious, work-oriented, and mechanically difficult to play.

And man, does a game take a long time to set up and then to finish or what?

If it only took, for example, 90-120 minutes (instead of five-six hours for scenarios the first several times through ... and not to frighten you, but one persevering lad posted that he'd endured a 14 hour session to finish his first game) to actually set up and play a scenario I'd easily rate it a 9 or 10 and rave like a madman to anyone who'd listen about the merits of this game. Just like Up Front. As it stands, just setting the game set up to start playing can take half an hour. Running through simple examples of play where very little happens (a few units moving and checking Potential Contacts) can take an hour.

But despite it's undeniable shining brilliance ... As it stands now, I personally find it a tedious, numbing, sluggish, counter-laden, fiddly, slow game of having to look almost everything that happens up on dense, scattered, incoherent, poorly designed and laid-out charts; with a rulebook that is missing rules and has no coherent/sensible/logical flow from section to section; and takes far too long to play what it's actually trying to depict. Overall, the pace of the game is way too slow and playing it seems to be a lot of very hard work and not much fun at all for the effort put in, and that's an important metric for me (fun >= effort).

This game is too much work. I worked at learning this game as hard as any wargame I've ever played in 40+ years of wargaming, and it simply was the most effort for the insane amount of tedious/fiddly work it takes to play. Constant rules lookups, looking at poorly organized and scattered tables every few minutes, no flow, no pace, no sense of enjoyment unless you like the slogging granularity and effort required to try to remember everything. Leaving this game a few weeks will mean having to almost start afresh with the rules because the numerous exceptions and missing bits will need relearning every time. This would be OK if the game played in 90 minutes (or 45 of an Up Front firefight) because through more repetitive play you'd learn. But the game takes too long for that with its endless card draws. The pre-prep/set up to play is simply boring to me, and the rules never address how to actually how to play the game which can be a crushing experience for non-wargamers. In comparison, I never have to look anything up in the rules for Combat Commander or Band of Brothers any more. At all.

As a comparison ... in the time it'll take you to play one scenario the first time, I could actually teach you Band of Brothers and we could have played three games and gotten a brilliant WW2 story/narrative out of the game. If you knew the basics of Up Front, we could have played as many as six games. I could set up my 10mm miniatures and teach you Arty Conliffe's masterpiece CrossFire and play two games. That's how long this game takes. Even folks who know the rules backwards and forwards still frequently take nearly four hours to play the basic scenarios. For me, that's too long for what the game is, and is simply too draining and not much fun.

As an example of the game's fiddliness ... GMT's own "inside the game" video series for FoF is a two-part video that lasts nearly three hours, without any time included for the actual initial set-up, and is played by someone who knows the game well. But he makes several major mistakes in both parts of the video and brings up one part where the rules are completely blank about when dealing with a common situation. What's telling is this: The game still isn't anywhere near complete after three hours of playing. If that doesn't scream "problematic" game, I don't know what does.

And the volume of fire rules (VOF), as Chris Farrell points out, doesn't model well enough the increased firepower being output by multiple units. Increasingly volume of firepower more likely suppressing a target is factually correct and should be in more tactical level games. But when you can fire three HMGs, three LMGs, and three rifle squads at one target vs. firing only a single HMG, and the very best modification to that VOF you could achieve (assuming some crossfire from up to eight adjacent terrains and no concentration of fire order) and there is NO difference in the final VOF firepower rating, then something is clearly wrong. Unless Ben meant it to be not really simultaneously happening in which case he should have said so in the rules and explanations.

As a personal aside, I would've also preferred a more open game set solely in WW2 Normandy allowing me to play Germans and Brits as well, while having Korea and Vietnam be expansions. But I acknowledge the great value in the single unit, multiple theatre narrative this game tries to create, and what Ben is doing with the game.

All this now out of the way ... I should add that the iPad version will be an absolutely immediate buy for me if it (hopefully, please, sweet Bastet!) solves many of the issues (i.e., much faster gameplay by automating much of the drudgery and fiddliness, much like GMT's successfully done with their Dominant Species iOS adaptation; DS on the iPad is now a 45 minute game instead of 3-4 hours) I have with actually playing the masterpiece Fields of Fire seems to be.

Such utter brilliance saddled with such fiddliness and horribly long chart- and counter-laden play ruin this one for me. And I do, do want to love it so much, and to give it that 9 or even the 10 rating it deserves.

Notes

1. Make sure to get the significantly improved, but still not flawless, 2nd edition rules. They are still excessively jargon-filled and rarely explain things in a sensible order or in simple English (and whoever did the layout knows nothing about orphans, widows, and proper page breaks), but at least are an improvement over what has to be the worst set of rules I've seen in 40+ years of wargaming ... the first edition FoF rules made the Up Front legalese from 1983 seem like a breath of fresh air.

2. Again, awaiting iPad version, which as of March 2013 had a set-back ... it went from alpha (in fall of 2012) right back to "just started" stage again. Maybe in 2014 or 2015 or 2016 it'll make the transition to iPad. The physical copy simply sits on my shelf, mocking me.

3. Fields of Fire reminds me of Professor M.A.R. Barker's T�kumel: Empire of the Petal Throne RPG in the 1970s. (I'm dating myself.) I'm sure it makes full sense to Ben, like T�kumel did for Barker, but the full experience is lost on so many who attempt to play FoF, sadly.

4. The P500 reprint (late 2014 summer 2015 very late 2015 early middle 2016) will include yet another rewrite of the rules but it apparently is only a minor rewrite and will not be a proper full rewrite that is required to make this game understandable. Sadly, the third time is not the charm in this case.

---------------

What I wrote on another forum ...

I had three times, I sold/traded three times. Three completed games, at least four or five starts that I just eventually gave up on. I have the most unusual love/hate relationship with the game. Like a girlfriend you keep dating time and time again despite knowing she's a crazed, hyper-dependant nutter with mood swings that make an 80mph cork-screwing rollercoaster look tame.

I do think it's a brilliant game, marred horrendously by a disorganized and jargon-laden rulebook (yes, even the 2nd edition) that assumes far too much knowledge from the player, doesn't explain things well enough (it took years to wrap my head around casualties and how you reduce units, it's just so jargon-laden and poorly explained), and is written with no sensible flow and logic to the sections and ideas presented. The game is a slogfest to play due to it's intense fiddliness (enough counters?), planning required to actually start a game, and multiple-multiple-chart-laden slowness. As a UX/UI guy of 20+ years, I think the multiple charts, flow of the game, and scattered/incomplete information are an information nightmare ... resolving what a PC unit is and where it goes on the "board" should take 5-10 seconds. It never does.

It can also appear too granular (i.e., too many orders) and too abstract (VoF is not weapon-specific enough) at the same time.

But ... Overall, I think it's a rare gem and as ground-breaking and effective as Up Front (for example), and one I want back when the iOS version comes out (that's the completionist in me talking) ...

But ... I also dislike how dreadfully long it takes to play a game especially compared to the fun factor it delivers and what it's trying to depict. I want to "simulate" a company level game and the objectives at that level in an hour or two, not feel like I've spent a full day slogging through something. Why can't it flow like a game of Combat Commander?

If this thing played in two hours from open box to pack up and someone had completely rewritten the rules (again) so that they were on par with the best GMT offered, there'd be nothing stopping me raving. But four to six hours to play even when familiar with it? I don't have that level of time-commitment anymore. I mean, why play FoF when I can get two games of CC in in the same time, or four games of Up Front, or a complete game of No Retreat! or two games of Twilight Struggle? There's also a focus only on the one unit (and in two wars I don't care about nor will play), and the one army, although I know and admire what Ben Hull was trying to accomplish. Overall, not my cuppa.

And yet ... Here I am very much wanting to find a copy again, so I do acknowledge there's something that draws me to the Normandy portion of it, quite strongly. There are elements in it that make perfect sense ... command and control issues, micro-terrain, etc. And I do find I am playing more wargames solitaire so it does fit.

Unique? Yes. Brilliant idea? Yup. Flawed execution? Without question. A difficult mistress? Absolutely. I am completely torn by this game; my BGG rating varies depending on my mood from a "2" to a "4" and yet I acknowledge it could be a "10" as well (perhaps at the same drat time??).

P.S. The rules need another full, version 3 rewrite. In English. With sensible flow, nothing missing, examples of play, and simplified. But we now know this is not going to be the case, only a bit of minor editing. Bad decision.

# ? Dec 6, 2015 10:09

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

If we ever start a new thread, the OP should include a 'are you insane/a complete masochist' and include Campaign for North Africa and FoF. Currently FoF is in the solitaire section, but I would posit that it is incorrect, as players of FoF aren't technically human.

Lichtenstein posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5_Z0LsPnE

Wow, that's some skill, not only does he get the bullet, but the casing as well.

Tekopo fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Dec 6, 2015

# ? Dec 6, 2015 10:27

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

Sorry for the repeat posts but this looks interesting: it's the Operation Dauntless box back:

# ? Dec 6, 2015 10:49

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

I have such low hopes for this game.

# ? Dec 6, 2015 11:01

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

Look at those loving counters! 'a modest step up in complexity'

I am looking forward to Guadalcanal though, since almost no vehicles, just like in Red Winter.

# ? Dec 6, 2015 11:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 02:39

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

Thesis: Red Winter would be improved by removing all soviet at guns. They have no meaningful combat value and are only used to sperg out unrealistic sanitary cordons for nighttime.

# ? Dec 6, 2015 11:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Board Wargames Thread - Armchair General HQ

«‹›432 »