|
I’m honestly on board with the fact that COIN have jumped the shark and I love COIN games. I still think FitL was kind of a mistake. OCS on the other hand hasn’t seen a shark ever and it’s not even close enough to the shore to even see the sea.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
Tekopo posted:I still think FitL was kind of a mistake. I WILL SLAP YOU IN THE MOUTH. No but really, how is the GMT Great Battles of the American Civil War series? I want to get into a tactical ACW game, and it seems pretty similar to the GBOH stuff, which I love.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
I saw a guy in the grocery store this afternoon who, based on his appearance, I was pretty sure would be happy and able to give me a tutorial on hex-and-counter wargames, but I didn't ask him because the suspicion was based on unfavourable physical traits, and he probably refuses to play anything post Avalon Hill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I still think FitL was kind of a mistake. Maaaaaybe in its implementation, but in terms of subject matter? C'mon, man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
al-azad posted:I don't know what "jumping the shark" would be for board games. COIN games are just a spinoff of CDGs so would that be jumping the shark? And GBoH is a generic system so why would Samurai be jumping the shark but the American Civil War series not be? GBoH is a generic system that mostly works with ancients combat. They haven't done a US Civil War GBoH.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
tomdidiot posted:GBoH is a generic system that mostly works with ancients combat. They haven't done a US Civil War GBoH. So the systems behind Great Battles of the American Civil War are not in any way derived from Great Battles of History?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:I saw a guy in the grocery store this afternoon who, based on his appearance, I was pretty sure would be happy and able to give me a tutorial on hex-and-counter wargames, but I didn't ask him because the suspicion was based on unfavourable physical traits, and he probably refuses to play anything post Avalon Hill. You should have tried! Worst case, you learn about dungeons instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
rchandra posted:You should have tried! Worst case, you learn about dungeons instead. Yeah maybe. I'm not an approach strangers in public places kind of person. But that's probably why I'll never end up playing Virgin Queen full game and full players.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
rchandra posted:You should have tried! Worst case, you learn about dungeons instead. you're not fooling me, i've seen pulp fiction
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
al-azad posted:So the systems behind Great Battles of the American Civil War are not in any way derived from Great Battles of History? GBACW predates GBoH by like 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 09:08
|
|
|
Dadbod Apocalypse posted:Maaaaaybe in its implementation, but in terms of subject matter? C'mon, man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 09:26
|
|
|
I'm just trying to understand why it's a bad thing the series branched out. If it was intended for ancients only then they made the jump almost immediately. The name certainly doesn't evoke a specific time period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
al-azad posted:I'm just trying to understand why it's a bad thing the series branched out. If it was intended for ancients only then they made the jump almost immediately. The name certainly doesn't evoke a specific time period. Square pegs, round holes. It's kinda bursting at the seams by trying to fit the established mold, rather than just do whatever and steal the central card mechanic or something. It's stuff like 90% of FiTL actions and some of Rome in Falling Sky where they keep cramming two exclusive, completely separate effects into a nominally single action just to keep the 4 actions + 3 special actions template. The hidden/activated mechanic not really representing much in ancients - in FS, for example, it's means mostly "this unit is an activated meeple" and still requiring extra chits (scouted) to make things work. This is changing, but there was some weirdness about sticking to exactly four factions (French in LoD sitting out half of the game, Vietcong and NVA being mad about the other one winning). These are mostly small nibbles and we've not hit peak shark yet, but imo these games are fast approaching the moment where they need to stop trying to form a semi-coherent series and rather peeps should keep stealing Volko's mechanics for somewhat more individual designs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Square pegs, round holes. It's kinda bursting at the seams by trying to fit the established mold, rather than just do whatever and steal the central card mechanic or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I’m not sure COIN is suited to a conflict in the which both sides had conventional forces and mechanically this is also the weakest aspect of the game. And I’m not sure how to model Vietnam with just the insurgency factors and not have conventional forces fighting each other. That’s why I think it’s unsuited. I don't know, I think FitL would work best if you just removed the conventional forces entirely and assumed that the American forces could more or less always win any engagement they are involved in, but added a cost in commitment for every engagement. Then again this would involve some major revisions to the original model, but this is the thing I come back to every six months or so when I try to think of how to 'fix' FitL. Mostly it just involves importing Brian Train's ideas because he's got the best grasp for how to make the subject matter work as a game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 10:30
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:I don't know, I think FitL would work best if you just removed the conventional forces entirely and assumed that the American forces could more or less always win any engagement they are involved in, but added a cost in commitment for every engagement. Then again this would involve some major revisions to the original model, but this is the thing I come back to every six months or so when I try to think of how to 'fix' FitL. Mostly it just involves importing Brian Train's ideas because he's got the best grasp for how to make the subject matter work as a game. IMO I think the way insurgents work in COIN is too regional for FitL to really capture the NLF's effect. In fact, that's my primary criticism of COIN's modeling for counter-insurgency- its politics are all about geography, rather than anything else like demographics and it makes many insurgencies not really work the way they did historically. I don't really think the conventional vs conventional in Vietnam is the problem in and of itself, but I do feel like it's missing a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 10:35
|
|
|
Which is why yet again ADP and Brian Train are the best, because at least ADP acknowledges the importance of demographics, albeit at a very basic level. Or how there are differences in terms of how the FLN acts in cities versus how they act in regions. The only real demographic modelled in most COINs is the difference between city dwellers and the countryside, but that’s only because it’s much easier for Government forces to control cities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 10:57
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:IMO I think the way insurgents work in COIN is too regional for FitL to really capture the NLF's effect. In fact, that's my primary criticism of COIN's modeling for counter-insurgency- its politics are all about geography, rather than anything else like demographics and it makes many insurgencies not really work the way they did historically. I mean there is the whole take the that COIN series are not simulations of insurgencies as they actually happened, but simulations of insurgencies through the lens of the neo-con CIA establishment...
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 11:14
|
|
|
So then what game gets Vietnam right? There seems to be a dearth of wargames on the subject, but FITL is the one I go to the most.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:So then what game gets Vietnam right? There seems to be a dearth of wargames on the subject, but FITL is the one I go to the most.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
Silver Bayonet is very cool
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
But silver bayonet is not about the entire war; I think attempts at simulating the entire war inevitably break down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:But silver bayonet is not about the entire war; I think attempts at simulating the entire war inevitably break down. This one ain’t gonna do it either: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523186582/vietnam-war-miniatures-axis-and-allies-type-wargam/description
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Silver Bayonet is very cool But has hidden unit setup which isn't cool for solo play :\ Then again I think that element of surprise is kind of necessary for a Vietnam game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:But has hidden unit setup which isn't cool for solo play :\ Just close your eyes
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Please keep your ERP out of this thread tia
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Victory in Vietnam II was the baseline for awihle. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6721/victory-vietnam There's been a bunch of different editions/versions/publishings of the VV name though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
VG's Vietnam 1965-1975 is the high water mark in my mind, but you're basically playing the dude's dissertation. I haven't played No Trumpets, No Drums yet, so I don't know about that one and Vietnam: Rumor of War will be out somewhere around the end of the year. I posted that earlier Vietnam kickstarter as a joke. They're doing some sort of Axis & Allies in Vietnam type thing complete with 800 mini's lol. Base pledge is $135. It looks terrible and I really doubt it's gonna make its funding goal. AARP LARPer fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Dadbod Apocalypse posted:VG's Vietnam 1965-1975 is the high water mark in my mind, but you're basically playing the dude's dissertation. It's definitely one of the better ones but you really have to be down for playing a bunch of search & destroy operations over and over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:IMO I think the way insurgents work in COIN is too regional for FitL to really capture the NLF's effect. In fact, that's my primary criticism of COIN's modeling for counter-insurgency- its politics are all about geography, rather than anything else like demographics and it makes many insurgencies not really work the way they did historically. Yeah that's complicated, but I feel like you can compensate in a CDG with card events that help model this sort of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
We all have the capacity to surprise ourselves. Here I am, a dyed-in-wool Grognard with 50+ years of wargaming under my belt, and who has sneered at and dismissed Card Driven wargames for years. And, lo and behold, I now have several favorite games that are card driven (MMP Kingdom of Heaven, Hexasim Napoleon Against Europe, GMT Twilight Struggle, Acadamy Strike of the Eagle). Who'da thunk it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Silver Bayonet is very cool I won this from the pay it forward FB group and holy poo poo its a heavy box. Glad to hear its good. The box is frickin heavy. Clippity clip! Edit: ahhh mounted map. Nice nice. Sleekly fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 08:11
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I don't think that there are any games that can truly reflect the entire conflict as a whole and do it justice. As alluded to there is kind of a big problem in that there's isn't an agreement on whether the South/US could win the war or what that victory would look like. Not to mention stuff like "were the VC and NVA truly separate entities" and "was there any chance for South Vietnam to be a viable country without US support." You basically have to accept when playing a Vietnam wargame you're also accepting the author's interpretation of the conflict, a lot more so than other more straightforward wars (in as much as there is such a thing).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
It's a bit strange that FITL is being held to a higher standard for accurate representation than thread favorite ADP, which modeled a war that is still ongoing with no clear definition of what constitutes victory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:As alluded to there is kind of a big problem in that there's isn't an agreement on whether the South/US could win the war or what that victory would look like. Not to mention stuff like "were the VC and NVA truly separate entities" and "was there any chance for South Vietnam to be a viable country without US support." I think an insurgency system that works well for FARC is a lot less effective than the NLF because it makes it really hard for the NLF to operate across the map- they have to spend a lot of rally actions to actually build bases when they were actually quite agile and capable of infiltrating through most of the countryside easily, and as the war sent refugees toward Saigon and other cities, they were able to infiltrate the cities, too. To me, the concept of bases makes more sense for the NVA having sustainable troop presence in an area rather than NLF organization, which as more scattered, more mobile. This could also be a function of Fire in the Lake having too many provinces. CaptainRightful posted:It's a bit strange that FITL is being held to a higher standard for accurate representation than thread favorite ADP, which modeled a war that is still ongoing with no clear definition of what constitutes victory. I may not be the most popular about this but i'm a bit cold on ADP, too, because the warlords feel like an unnecessary faction and the Taliban is too limited.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
Can anyone provide a summary of the rules for Up Front and why the game is so beloved? Also I'm glad that I wasn't really interested in wargames as much when the KS came out because I would have probably backed at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
Have you guys seen Battlefronts 'Nam? https://ospreypublishing.com/039-nam
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Can anyone provide a summary of the rules for Up Front and why the game is so beloved? Also I'm glad that I wasn't really interested in wargames as much when the KS came out because I would have probably backed at the time. It was originally marketed as the "card game" version of Squad Leader, which it more or less is. There's no map, no counters, just cards. Well, okay, there are little chits for keeping track of things, but all the units are cards. It plays very much like a proto-Combat Commander, where you have a hand full of cards that may be "move" or "fire" or "smoke" or whatever - the randomness of which models the command confusion of actual battle. Squads are moved by range (i.e. range 1, range 2, range 3, etc.), and the difference between ranges of opposing squads determines the firepower you get to use - obviously the closer you are, the better chance you have of hitting someone. Each squad also has a "terrain" card that will give them defensive bonuses, which could be woods or pillboxes or whatever. And basically you keep doing this draw-play-draw-play cycle back and forth until one side fulfills the goal of the scenario, or the deck has been cycled 3 (?) times. Also, since there's no dice, there are random number along the bottom of each card, so cards are drawn whenever you need a random number. I think it's a really unique and clever design for a game. You can basically show up with a couple decks of cards and a little baggie full of chits to track things, and you've got a game to play. Actually, with the latest WGV reissue, they have cards that replace most of the chits, so you don't even need those. BUT, the rulebook is awfully written, and the whole game DOES feel like something out of the 80s. It has a very dated feel. If you want something to throw in your bag and play at a coffee shop or something, it's great (though does take up a fair amount of table room). If you want a similar feel with counters and maps, play Combat Commander instead. edit-- for a picture of two squad groups blasting each other. 
Count Thrashula fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:It's a bit strange that FITL is being held to a higher standard for accurate representation than thread favorite ADP, which modeled a war that is still ongoing with no clear definition of what constitutes victory. I’d say that’s exactly why. You already have all the information for the past conflict so it should be reasonably expected to model the why and how.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
Commissar Kip posted:Have you guys seen Battlefronts 'Nam? https://ospreypublishing.com/039-nam It’s just a set of rules for minis. There’s probably a dozen that I’ve seen. They’re fine for small tactical engagements/roleplay, but that’s about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:49
|
|