|
COOL CORN posted:A good mail day. Nice, you getting the mounted boards for USE too? I started keeping it separate since I love it for actual play but for setting up scenarios for absorbing the rules, I like having the handy paper map with a slim profile. I've also been tempted to start counterclipping USE. The 2.5m oregon puncher is just so good.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Nice, you getting the mounted boards for USE too? I started keeping it separate since I love it for actual play but for setting up scenarios for absorbing the rules, I like having the handy paper map with a slim profile. Nah, I’ve got a piece of plexiglass that (mostly) fits over a 2-map game, so I’m used to using that anyway. The mounted map looks pretty wonderful though. Edit— since this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Armistice, I’m hoping to play through as many of the DW scenarios in order as I can. Looks like that means I’ll start with The Schlieffen Plan, then Tannenberg, then Serbia the Defiant, then Galicia, then about 26 more. I’ve got Schlieffen Plan set up right now, just have to refresh myself on the rules. After I finish these first four, I may do a linked game with all of the fronts instead. Minus the Ottoman fronts. Count Thrashula fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Dec 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
I need an extra room in my house for all this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Randaconda posted:Bloom County Seemed relevant, though I wonder what they would be playing for 1981? The second strip makes it sound like a CDG but that's obviously unpossible??
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
 Nuclear War came out in 1965.Initial thought was Supremacy but that wasn't until 1984 apparently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
It's Twilight Struggle, right? Old man was the phasing player, he did lose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
There was an SPI WWIII game from 1979 (NATO) that had a famous rule to handle escalation to a nuclear exchange - "To simulate the use of strategic nuclear weapons on the battlefield, soak the map in lighter fluid and apply flame."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Forgot the first strip from a different post!Randaconda posted:Bloom County
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
I just saw War in the Pacific in the wild. The big box one with the burning aircraft carrier on it. For like $720AUD. I thought of grabbing it and ebaying it for even more but knowing me I would open the thing and try playing it. I left it on the shelf and 10 mins after leaving the store got caught in a blitz of a rain storm that would not have been kind to the splits in that things shrink. So phew, restraint IS possible!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Sleekly posted:I just saw War in the Pacific in the wild. The big box one with the burning aircraft carrier on it. Mods please delete this post before COOL CORN has a chance of seeing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Psh, please. I've seen it go for 300 or less before. Well, opened, punched maybe. But still.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
$700 ish after the conversion from USD and shipping seems to be what they've based that on. They had two and had sold one. There should be a sign up sheet in stores like that for grogs to find each other. Similar to craigslist hookups lol "House to myself for 48 hours. Wanna play Breakout Normandy? No strings. Discreet. BYO beer"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Mods please delete this post before COOL CORN has a chance of seeing it. lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
So anyway, I started the Der Weltkrieg Tannenberg scenario tonight since it's small and I can probably get through it in a couple nights. I got through 2 turns tonight, out of 9 total. Really, the rules are super simple, it's just that the scenario-specific rules and the scope of the whole game really intimidates people. But it's your basic "move guys, count up factors, roll dice, repeat" kinda game. But I love operational-level games, and this is probably the best one there is of WW1. The Russians have an optional rule that they have to spend the first few turns moving all of their units in a straight line at Koenigsberg. I scrapped that rule, which will probably throw the VP out of whack, but I just want to focus on the basics right now.Anyway, here's the setup at start:  Turn 1: The Russians have the 1st Army (orange) and 2nd Army (cyan). The Germans have their 8th Army (purple). The Russians have overwhelming numbers of 4-4 units, but the Germans are full of 8-5 powerhouse divisions. In the first turn, only the combat units of the 1st Russian Army (not the HQ) can move, as well as all Russian cavalry. Only the Germans 8-5 combat units can move, as well as their cavalry, which they only have one of. The German cavalry (which I erroneously put in the orange circle) advanced forward into the orange blob to attack a lone 1-6 Cavalry unit. Each side lost 1 step, which means the Russian unit was gone, the German was reduced to 1-6. The Russians advanced their 1st Army forward some, but made no contact yet. Even with column march (+50% movement, but can't enter an EZOC), they barely got close. End of turn 1:  Turn 2: The Russians mobilize the 2nd Army now, moving north from Warsaw towards Koenigsberg. They encountered resistance from some of the German powerhouse divisions, and unfortunately lost 4-5 steps, taking only 1 step from the Germans. Because of the way the rivers are set up, none of my units were in supply, so they attacked at half strength. Defenders always counterattack at TRIPLE STRENGTH. World War 1 was brutal. So, foolhardy attacks, maybe, but I'm getting reinforcements, so I can kind of throw manpower at it and see what happens. The Russians in the north did the same thing, basically, and just pushed westward to Koenigsberg. Again, the HQ got mobilized late, so couldn't get close enough to actually provide supply, so the Russians got trapped up in lovely combat again and lost a bunch of steps. End of turn 2:  At the end of September 4, the game will end and the difference in DM points is tallied. Each infantry step loss is 1 DM, each cavalry/artillery is 2 DM, each city is 15 DM, etc. After two turns the tallies are: Germany: 6 DM Russia: 15 DM Yikes. I need to start sacking some fortresses and taking some cities if I want the Russians to get back on top. Count Thrashula fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Dec 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:The Russians have an optional rule that they have to spend the first few turns moving all of their units in a straight line at Koenigsberg. Shiny chrome. I don't know WW1 very well, why should they only go straight?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Sleekly posted:Shiny chrome. "Straight" might be oversimplifying it a bit. Historically, the plan at Tannenberg was for the Russian 1st and 2nd Armies to blitz in to Koenigsberg in a pincer movement - the 1st Army from the east and the 2nd Army from the south. They wanted to hit the German 8th Army before they knew what was coming. Unfortunately, the Germans intercepted communications and knew about the plan, so they wedged between the two armies, encircled the 2nd Army, and killed or captured 140k soldiers (out of 150k!) It was such a crushing defeat for the Russians that Alexander Samsonov, officer in charge of the 2nd Army, committed suicide after the battle. At Tannenberg, the Germans lost around 15,000 men, while the Russians lost around 170,000. That's amazingly bonkers. Anyway, to model the attempted "Russian steamroller", the Russian player is supposed to move each unit so that it's closer to Koenigsberg than it was before. So, not necessarily in a straight line, but moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Ah I see. Playing the Russians must be fun in that. Those are some massive numbers!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
So OCS and probably some others do a good job of showcasing the influence of supply on operational pace, but is there a strategy-scale game that tries to showcase the equal importance of planning? I was thinking something where, when launching an offensive you are limited to a number of activations equal to your accrued planning value, which would take several turns/months to collect. A system like that would finally give staff officers their due in mechanical terms as well... Second question: has any monster hex game tried to solve the issue of interminable counter stacks by using different shapes for, say, units and conditional chits? Third question...! Has any WW1/WW2 operational/strategic game provided a full and flexible chain of command? I.e. not just one level of "HQ unit", and not just counter-printed fixed allegiances, but made it important which division belongs to which corps to which army, and allowed you to change it? Thankful for any insights! PoontifexMacksimus fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Dec 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
The best example for the former is Fields of Fire, but that's tactical level. Paths of Glory limits activations based on ops card, and really getting rid/retaining certain cards affects future planning. USE forces you to spend production each time you activate a unit as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
The FAB series kinda does it? It's basically printed allegiances introducing split logistics (availability of supporting assets) and sometimes designated areas of operation, but these limitations can be overwritten if that's how you want to allocate your commander's focus (rather than getting some other boon).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
You’re pretty much describing Hearts of Iron’s organizational advancement system with your first question. That PC game pretty much killed my desire to get any monster wargame more difficult/larger than Unconditional Surrender. Organization in HOI4 is based on stats that your divisions have based on their battalion makeup. It accrues fastest when standing still and dug in, slowly when moving, and none at all when using strategic movement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
anti_strunt posted:So OCS and probably some others do a good job of showcasing the influence of supply on operational pace, but is there a strategy-scale game that tries to showcase the equal importance of planning? I was thinking something where, when launching an offensive you are limited to a number of activations equal to your accrued planning value, which would take several turns/months to collect. A system like that would finally give staff officers their due in mechanical terms as well... So, there's some hints of that here and there in games. As to counter stacks, the better-produced ones will have round markers for certain things, such as OOS or for cadre type units. Thunder in the East has round OOS chits and has different counter sizes for different kinds of organizations to make stacks a bit more readable. TitE even has informational counters with weird shapes like arrow-shaped counters with odds to help track multiple attacks in a turn. The main problem with organizations being flexible is the limitations imposed by being a traditional hex and counter game- you need to be able to tell what unit then belongs to which organization and that becomes difficult without fixed counter-printed allegiances. The BCS series actually has units with far more varied step values than 2-4, but it comes at a massive cost in playability on the tabletop because it means almost every unit has a strength tracking counter on top or below it, making a stacking mess. It's a lot easier to play on VASSAL where it's not necessary. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Dec 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:As to counter stacks, the better-produced ones will have round markers for certain things, such as OOS or for cadre type units. Thunder in the East has round OOS chits and has different counter sizes for different kinds of organizations to make stacks a bit more readable. TitE even has informational counters with weird shapes like arrow-shaped counters with odds to help track multiple attacks in a turn. That I will have to check out! I guess the common thread through my questions is easy to suss out: I was catching up with the thread and passed the discussion about how most WW2 "strategic" games are really operational (or even tactical) games with overblown scales. That got me thinking about what a WW2 "strategy" wargame should actually entail, and the answer I reached (besides the political/economic aspects) was basically "running the general staff", i.e. setting up the organisation of your forces, appointing commanders, setting up their operational plans and objectives and allocating resources. I guess with a board game you couldn't really get away from playing out the operational results of your planning, but maybe that could be handled by COIN-style bots...?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
I just bought Fields of Fire. It's happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
long-rear end nips Diane posted:I just bought Fields of Fire. It's happening. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
long-rear end nips Diane posted:I just bought Fields of Fire. It's happening. Bless
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
I started clipping counters for Desert Fox Deluxe. God help me. We'll have to dedicate my friend's entire living room to that game and hope we don't accidentally godzilla the german army 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Finished up Tannenberg just now. Final situation: And DMs throughout the game:  If I had another couple turns, the Russians could have taken Koenigsberg, but unfortunately time ran out, and the Russians took a lot of losses trying to advance up to the coast. Final DMs were 65 for the Germans, 90 for the Russians. being a difference of 25, that means a "Marginal German Victory". Now I feel pretty comfortable with the system and I might try either a bigger scenario, or maybe a linked campaign on one of the fronts. Or maybe I'll just learn the Grand Campaign rules and go whole-hog!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Go whole hog!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Go whole hog! The only thing is if I play the campaign, I'll have to do it in VASSAL because there's literally no way to do it in my apartment. But that means I can take my time since it would probably take most of the year anyway!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Ww1 in real time
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:The only thing is if I play the campaign, I'll have to do it in VASSAL because there's literally no way to do it in my apartment. VASSAL and do a thread for it
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
anti_strunt posted:That I will have to check out! Maybe look at Bulge 20? It has a staff administration feel and is more about allocating resources than tactics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Does anyone play lower-level ACW games? That's a topic I know next to nothing about. I know of The US Civil War (GMT) and Civil War (Victory), but nothing really about other scales. I just ordered Stonewall Jackson's Way because it was $20 and the GCACW series looks intriguing (not to mention the gorgeous maps).
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Are there any Iran-iraq games besides Gulf Strike
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Only one I can recollect but never played it. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/10102/ignorant-armies-iran-iraq-war
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Does anyone play lower-level ACW games? That's a topic I know next to nothing about. I know of The US Civil War (GMT) and Civil War (Victory), but nothing really about other scales. I just ordered Stonewall Jackson's Way because it was $20 and the GCACW series looks intriguing (not to mention the gorgeous maps). I have one GCACW game, the old AH version of Roads to Gettysburg. The maps are indeed a work of art and I'm a big fan of the game in general. The system is really easy to learn but exciting as hell. Counter density is very manageable even in the full campaign games. I love how the super detailed road maps often lead you to fight over insignificant crossroads or bridges in a very historical feeling way. I've always wanted to pick up some of the reprints but for some reason they're really expensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
anti_strunt posted:That I will have to check out! There's a couple of Tactical/Operational games where activation is based on units, so unit assignments/coherency does matter to a certain extent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Obfuscation posted:I have one GCACW game, the old AH version of Roads to Gettysburg. The maps are indeed a work of art and I'm a big fan of the game in general. The system is really easy to learn but exciting as hell. Counter density is very manageable even in the full campaign games. I love how the super detailed road maps often lead you to fight over insignificant crossroads or bridges in a very historical feeling way. I've always wanted to pick up some of the reprints but for some reason they're really expensive. Perfect! I'm excited then. Yeah, the MMP reprints look really good, and I was waffling over SJW2, but $20 vs. $150 is kind of a no-brainer. It seems like a good way to dip my toe into ACW without putting too much in. In other news, this is tonight's undertaking: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Perfect! I'm excited then. BBF honestly looks really doable with about 50 units on each side. I just need to find the time to go play with my opponent in Cambridge...
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 02:19
|
|