|
Here's a summary of the Operations and Special Activities in Colonial Twilight: http://www.insidegmt.com/?p=13712 This confirms my suspicion that it will probably be the least interesting gameplay in the COIN series so far (it will still most likely be well-researched and therefore interesting to people curious about the history). The only new concept in there is resettlement. Reducing the system to 2 factions cuts out so much of what makes it compelling.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
Those just seem like cookie cutter standards now. Nothing really interesting or innovative. But guerillas go to casualties? A slight twist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Have we heard how initiative will work in Colonial Twilight? Is it just a bunch of France and FLN events?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Have we heard how initiative will work in Colonial Twilight? Is it just a bunch of France and FLN events? They mention this in the first design blog in the series. Basically, initiative is not determined by the cards at all. Rather one player starts the game with initiative. The player with initiative acts first on each card, then the opponent acts second. If the player with initiative performs a Full Op, they pass the initiative to the opponent next turn. If they pass, fire the event, or do a LimOp, they keep initiative. Wash, rinse, repeat. gutterdaughter fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:Here's a summary of the Operations and Special Activities in Colonial Twilight: Eh, the game will obviously be made or broken on how the 2-player system works. Frankly, this might be the most important volume so far, because if it turns out good, it'll open the door for COIN to properly evolve into a subgenre (like CDGs), than simply a series of increasingly-unCOINish modules. Lichtenstein fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Eh, the game will obviously be made or broken on how the 2-player system works. Frankly, this might be the most important volume so far, because if it turns out good, it'll open the door for COIN to properly evolve into a subgenre (like CDGs), than simply a series of increasingly-unCOINish modules. Yeah this is pretty much how I feel about Colonial Twilight. I'm probably going to be getting it just so that I have a COIN game that doesn't require 4 players (an unfortunate number for my gaming circle) and it's nice that they're testing this out with a getting-back-to-the-roots counterinsurgency scenario so the lack of changes to the core actions of the game are something I approve of in this instance. Of course, my real hope is that the bots are interesting to play against, but I'm very interested in seeing what the newer games in the series do and if it does evolve into a new subgenre because I feel like it has a lot of potential for games that I would be interested in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
Colonial Twilight is definitely going to be a "watch and wait" for me in the same vein as Liberty or Death, which i'm glad I didn't get in the end. I'm in the opposite situation to lot of people anyway where I can get 4 people for COIN on the reg but none of my gaming buddies are interested in one-on-one. I'm excited for Pendragon since that looks genuinely novel but aside from that I think we're getting into essentially the same games with different maps and event decks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Speaking of Liberty or Death, the designer was given the latter a few days ago. So don't hold your breath for Campaigns of 1777 nor Tank Duel. [edit] Aaand Gangs of New York COIN.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Harold Buchanan died? I didn't think he was very old.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Nah, the designer is Harold Buchanan Jr. His dad is the one who died.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Oh, my bad then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
I've been having fun pushing around counters and learning Empire of the Sun off and on over the past year. I was wondering if there are any other designs that have been re-released in the past few years that have aged as well. I saw Fading Glory and No Retreat in the OP and understand both are (or were) respected older or recompiled games. Some of the titles I was looking at were stuff I don't see talked about in here quite as often like GBOH Alexander, Reds, Panzer/MBT, Ukraine '43, etc. or some of the Decision Games re-releases like Luftwaffe. Are there any strong opinions on these? I primarily play 1v1 against my somewhat farsighted father. He likes making decisions in stuff like CC:E, but sometimes has trouble calculating DRMs on his own and assessing beyond whether something is low or high advantage. He plays a lot of Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm, if that helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Speaking of Empire of the Sun, has anyone checked out Plan Orange? From what I hear it's a good intro to EotS proper. Looked at buying C3i magazine but postage is killer to Australia from Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
dishwasherlove posted:Speaking of Empire of the Sun, has anyone checked out Plan Orange? From what I hear it's a good intro to EotS proper. Looked at buying C3i magazine but postage is killer to Australia from Amazon. The best intro to EotS is one of the short EotS scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Hey Jobbo, he1ixx, either of you guys want to play this Normandy scenario with me? Here's the map setup: How close was I? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
christ, my game of ADP started 22 hours ago. Solitaire Taliban, Extended scenario. I had the Government and Coalition seriously on the ropes but they bounced back pretty well. Ended up beating the Warlords and Government both by 1 point. It seems like it the stars would really have to align to get the goal of a 6+ point victory margin in this game, since no one has the ability to be completely dominant. I really like ADP but wow, the playtime is comparable to FitL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:How close was I? Spot on, aside from needing beach and ocean overlays on the bottom of each map 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Spot on, aside from needing beach and ocean overlays on the bottom of each map If I had the scenario card, I'd do it. Unfortunately, I can't find that pack on sale 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
I finally got Tunisia II! And also a spare box for Tunisia II! Guess they scavenged that copy for spares and didn't know what to do with the spare box. Weird though. My collection is now Tunisia II, Sicily II and Reluctant Enemies. I think I'm pretty happy with just having the small(er) game OCS rather than going for the big ones. I'm more interested in Med in comparison to East/West front anyway. EDIT: I do want to find a copy of Burma though. Hoping for a re-print/re-make.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:My collection is now Tunisia II, Sicily II and Reluctant Enemies. I think I'm pretty happy with just having the small(er) game OCS rather than going for the big ones. I'm more interested in Med in comparison to East/West front anyway. Just so that you know, OCS Korea is also pretty small! I mean, yeah the full campaign has three maps but there's plenty of good one and two map scenarios, and the counter density is quite low generally. As an added bonus it's not even out of print.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
I'll have a look, I only have a middling interest in the Korean War though. I did find a use for my extra box of Tunisia II though (thanks to tomdidiot): it's now a Sicily II box 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:christ, my game of ADP started 22 hours ago. Solitaire Taliban, Extended scenario. I had the Government and Coalition seriously on the ropes but they bounced back pretty well. Ended up beating the Warlords and Government both by 1 point. It seems like it the stars would really have to align to get the goal of a 6+ point victory margin in this game, since no one has the ability to be completely dominant. How does it play solo? I'm tempted to get it but getting four together is a problem for my group.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
TG Secret Santa is up. You could get a wargame for christmas!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:How does it play solo? I'm tempted to get it but getting four together is a problem for my group. I've played solitaire only twice in ADP but I've really enjoyed it so far. It's pretty tight mechanically with some interesting changes from AA and CL. The bots are decent but they did get more sophisticated in FitL and FS, with the insurgent bots as usual more effective than COIN bots. Even more than other games in the series there's this feeling that everything you do affects everything. For instance, I used a capability as Taliban to take out the Coalition base in Kabul. Good for me, but it also meant that the Government could repeatedly use their Govern special activity there, racking up the Patronage so they got very close to winning. Very good design, IMO. Also there's the weird feature that you need to be ahead of all opponents on every Propaganda round. I like this idea because it makes you accountable to your score the whole game, rather than my usual COIN strategy of preventing everyone else from winning and then surging ahead at the last minute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Watch as me an Liechtenstein get matched in the TG Secret Santa and we end up just sending Fields of Fire to each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Watch as me an Liechtenstein get matched in the TG Secret Santa and we end up just sending Fields of Fire to each other. DO NOT CROSS THE STREAMS!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Watch as me an Liechtenstein get matched in the TG Secret Santa and we end up just sending Fields of Fire to each other. The Gift of the Grognard
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Watch as me an Liechtenstein get matched in the TG Secret Santa and we end up just sending Fields of Fire to each other. I thought exactly this. I'm telling you that game has psychic powers. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I've played solitaire only twice in ADP but I've really enjoyed it so far. It's pretty tight mechanically with some interesting changes from AA and CL. The bots are decent but they did get more sophisticated in FitL and FS, with the insurgent bots as usual more effective than COIN bots. I'm probably going to wind up getting it. I'm not a huge milhist buff and while I like the COIN games they don't really grab me by the throat like my favorite designs do, but there's just something really compelling about this game. Looking through Brian Train's designer page made me add a few others to my wishlist, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
So, this guy posted an ASL critique on bgg. I'm quoting a small portion.quote:The first one is that sleazy ASL tactic of “skulking.” If you have never played ASL, you have no idea what I am talking about. But if you have played ASL and you are reading this, then you probably despise this gamy tactic too. In a nutshell, you can move your units out of harm’s way in your Movement Phase and then move them back into their original positions in your Advance Phase. This prevents your opponent from firing at your units before he/she gets to move. In real life terms, your soldiers are running from one side of the building to the other side to avoid being shot at by the enemy and then running back in time to shoot at them when they move. Now, how realistic is that? I get that ASL has some creaky bits that cause tactics that no one would ever do in real life, but these two cases seem really dumb unless I am missing something. In the first case, skulking seems pretty limited in usefulness to situations where I am heavily outmanned/outgunned. Otherwise, instead of skulking, aren't I going to want to prep fire to put hurt on the other guy before he even gets to defensive fire? Frankly, if I see someone skulking, that gives me a lot of info about how the other guy is prioritizing advance vs. hold, etc. And in the second case, if you have limited leaders and are getting broken stacks all over the map, why the flying gently caress are you leaving them defenseless instead of routing them back to a leader during RtPh, rallying during RPh and then bring them back up during MPh? This criticism sounds like "this is cheesy because I don't understand basic tactics." Or am I totally missing some key points because of my lack of ASL experience?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:So, this guy posted an ASL critique on bgg. I'm quoting a small portion. The thing about skulking is that you use it as a defensive tactic. If you have some Russian 6-2-8s that can't hit your opponent without halving their firepower, you might prefer waiting/forcing your opponent to come to you. It makes the attacking player choose between advancing or shooting to an even greater degree because, without a defensive fire phase, that's one less opportunity to hit targets. And the IRL comparison is more, your guys run outside of a building, wait a few mins, and then hop back inside. I've never played against someone who did skulk, but it seems like bad form to do it, especially if you do it at a tournament level with prizes on the line. The second thing about broken squads is... odd, to say the least. Not only are their self-rallies available on your turn (limited to 1 per attacker's turn, unless otherwise SSR'ed) but what if the leader is also broken? Or what if they don't have the same training, etc... Broken squads are, indeed, vital targets, because it allows you to reduce the combat strength of your opponent. But at the same time, if your opponent is targeting your broken squads, he's leaving the non-broken ones to go about their merry way. Having the "opportunity to waltz up to a broken squad" seems strange to me, because you've got the ability to rout before advance, and approaching a broken unit would imply exposing themselves to being shot at. TL;DR: Skulking is a thing you do on defense, its dumb. Broken squads work well, and limited leaders represent balance/men with higher training or experience
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
The thing is that the lack of self rallies without a leader is not really supported by what actually went on in WWII or at the very least is not an assumption that any other squad level game on the market makes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:So, this guy posted an ASL critique on bgg. I'm quoting a small portion. Most of these complaints tend to come from people who assert that ASL claims to be a "simulation", in the strict sense. While I think there was a bit of ad copy in the 90s that referred to the system as such, nowhere on the rulebook (1st or 2nd from what I can see) is the term actually used. In fact, if one refers back to John Hill's design notes for the original Squad Leader (included in the rulebook for that game) Hill even goes to great pains to make it clear that SL was "designed for effect", and not accuracy. Certain aspects of ASL are indeed a little cheesy, but the end result produces an experience that more closely resembles the "feel" of WW2 combat, inasmuch as contemporary tactical doctrine and Hollywood portrayals have informed us. There's actually a pretty neat article in The General Vol 14 No 5 (found here) that contrasts this "design for effect" ideology with a more strict game system, namely Avalon Hill's Tobruk. I guess one could make the argument that by the time ASL had rolled around, Greenwood et al. had transformed SL into an entirely different beast, but I think the points still stand. At the end of the day, if you don't like the drat thing, stop bitching about it and find something you do like!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Spot on, aside from needing beach and ocean overlays on the bottom of each map So I found a funny bug/glitch in VASSAL. It can't handle adding overlays to a duplicate board, it will default back to the first board. So I'm going to have to set up the maps/overlays myself, take photos, then recreate it in VASSAL by single-hex draggable overlays 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
You don't have to do this. You can get help. It will be ok. We love you. Everyone here loves you. It's time to seek treatment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:I thought exactly this. I'm telling you that game has psychic powers. Last year, honest to God, I hoped to get Cool Corn to send him my copy. After all, it's rude to sell away gifts.  Anarchy Stocking posted:Most of these complaints tend to come from people who assert that ASL claims to be a "simulation", in the strict sense. While I think there was a bit of ad copy in the 90s that referred to the system as such, nowhere on the rulebook (1st or 2nd from what I can see) is the term actually used. In fact, if one refers back to John Hill's design notes for the original Squad Leader (included in the rulebook for that game) Hill even goes to great pains to make it clear that SL was "designed for effect", and not accuracy. Certain aspects of ASL are indeed a little cheesy, but the end result produces an experience that more closely resembles the "feel" of WW2 combat, inasmuch as contemporary tactical doctrine and Hollywood portrayals have informed us. There's actually a pretty neat article in The General Vol 14 No 5 (found here) that contrasts this "design for effect" ideology with a more strict game system, namely Avalon Hill's Tobruk. Maybe it counted as design for effect in 1985, but nowadays it's hard to consider it anything else than WWII D&D combat, so stuck up in it's own rear end it doesn't really model anything other than D&D combat. We could sperg a long time about various creaks in the game, like skulking, tanks spinning like beyblades, or various dumb tricks you can pull using up people's reaction fire, et al., but that'd be pretty nitpicky in the grand scheme of things, especially given ASL is not alone with a lot of these (as with the D&D example, there's been a lot of mindless copying the genre's grandpa, rather than thinking about the depicted topic itself). Still, the underlying model is fundamentally wrong, as getting a horde of infantrymen to focus fire the one enemy squad that has broken and isn't fighting back from the distance isn't how I remember the WWII.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Still, the underlying model is fundamentally wrong, as getting a horde of infantrymen to focus fire the one enemy squad that has broken and isn't fighting back from the distance isn't how I remember the WWII. Why wouldn't you focus fire on an exposed squad that's panicking and trying to run away in open ground? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:If 2P COIN works, 3P can work as well. You just need a different system to adjudicate who gets priority. Volko posted this about 3 and 5-player COIN: quote:As to 5-player and 3-player COIN designs: yes, I and other designers have given thought to it. I think for a 3 player game you could get away with just using 3 initiative symbols per card, but that only makes six flavors of card so it might be kind of boring. Some innovation thrown in there would be good, whether by the sidekick system Volko describes, or something else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Yeah, the sidekick system sounds super intriguing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Last year, honest to God, I hoped to get Cool Corn to send him my copy. After all, it's rude to sell away gifts. *scrambles to join the TG secret santa*
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:45
|
|