|
mllaneza posted:And the 2e Vietnam P500 has made the cut ! gently caress yeah. Now let's get this printed and out the door in 2021, GMT--I still believe in you!!!
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 08:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
B-1.1.7 Bomber posted:gently caress yeah. Now let's get this printed and out the door in 2021, GMT--I still believe in you!!! Just another 5-9 months til they ship Mr. President!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 09:21
|
|
|
Kazzah posted:Just another 5-9 months til they ship Mr. President!!! This was going to be my next question- I have three games that made the cut. I guess it's like Kickstarter where you get it whenyou get it. I know that printing and shipping overseas is a beast. I guess I shouldn't give away my old copies of The Russian Campaign and The Civil War yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
Ive completely forgotten how goddamn long ago the musket & pike dual pack made the cut
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
The problem is that they put things on P500 as a means to see if a game is even worth finishing - they're often not even done designing it. And the designers all have day jobs, life troubles, etc. So sometimes things end up on there for ages. Which is fine except people keep expecting it to mean that it's coming sometime soon. On the other hand you wouldn't think the musket & pike thing would take that long, it's basically done. I would think all it would need is new box art and an editing pass to incorporate updates and the like in the rules. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 01:49
|
|
|
SavageMessiah posted:The problem is that they put things on P500 as a means to see if a game is even worth finishing - they're often not even done designing it. And the designers all have day jobs, life troubles, etc. So sometimes things end up on there for ages. Which is fine except people keep expecting it to mean that it's coming sometime soon. They also use it to gague how quickly they should print the game. They are claiming to do some upgrades to M&P - formation markers etc, and incorporating some extra scenarios, so it's not entirely a straight reprint..
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
GMT just sucks complete loving rear end when it comes to project management. Meanwhile.... No Motherland Without October 26, 2020 -- Compass Games announces upcoming Kickstarter campaign December 30, 2020 - Kickstarter Campaign begins February 10, 2021 - Game arrives in mail
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 04:41
|
|
|
HerraS posted:Ive completely forgotten how goddamn long ago the musket & pike dual pack made the cut 2016 I think. I p500ed it at the same time as 1846 first printing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 04:54
|
|
|
B-1.1.7 Bomber posted:GMT just sucks complete loving rear end when it comes to project management. Eh, Compass has an incredibly patchy record when it comes to delivering balanced and well developed games, so I'm not really sure they're a good exapmle here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
tomdidiot posted:Eh, Compass has an incredibly patchy record when it comes to delivering balanced and well developed games, so I'm not really sure they're a good exapmle here. Yeah, in the p500s, i don't really care if they're late because they don't charge until they're about to ship anyway. It's way more consumer-favorable than kickstarter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
Since I last checked, MMP has added BCS Panzers Last Stand to preorders  Also OCS Third Winter but I’m less excited about that because 2800 counters Both reached the goal already too
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 01:51
|
|
|
What is the vietnam game like? Worth investing in?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 11:37
|
|
|
I just bought Next War: Vietnam and I'm thinking of doing both a review of the rules and potentially a small AAR of me playing solo, anyone interested in reading someone's first look of the Next War series?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 12:40
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I just bought Next War: Vietnam and I'm thinking of doing both a review of the rules and potentially a small AAR of me playing solo, anyone interested in reading someone's first look of the Next War series? Always!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 12:46
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I just bought Next War: Vietnam and I'm thinking of doing both a review of the rules and potentially a small AAR of me playing solo, anyone interested in reading someone's first look of the Next War series?  What’s the premise of the game, China invades Vietnam?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 13:04
|
|
|
Yes, a modern chinese invasion of Vietnam. There are several different scenarios that try to model different levels of either strategic or tactical surprise, so the fictional casus belli can range from a fishing boat getting blown up (strategic surprise) to just tensions over the South China Sea/Spratleys boiling over (standard scenarios), or tensions boiling over but the Chinese attacking before the Vietnamese have mobilised properly (tactical surprise). The sides are China versus (potentially) a Coalition. The coalition is made up of Vietnam, and they can decided on a level of US intervention, which ranges from no intervention at all, to providing supplies and training, to just providing air/sea support, all the way down to boots on the ground, with each level costing VPs. The intervention level can go up, but only in very limited way. There are also rules for Vietnam asking Commonwealth or even French units to assist. There are also neutral countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia or the Phillippines that can enter the war on either side (although most of them are weighted to join one side over the other).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
The vp level for intervention sounds interesting, do any other games do that sort of thing other than the one that obviously springs to my mind, NT?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 13:31
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:The vp level for intervention sounds interesting, do any other games do that sort of thing other than the one that obviously springs to my mind, NT? The intervention vs vps tradeoff is a Next War staple and is a feature of all of the games. It can also be rolled for randomly if you like. Both games also contain variants that use VP additions to balance, for example, adding all-F22 units for the US player(normally they're simulated as additions to the F-15 units due to their low quantities). India-Pakistan has interventions for both sides, with Pakistan being able to get Chinese intervention and the Indians either getting US or Russian intervention at varying levels. Usually, US and Russian intervention is mutually exclusive, but there is a scenario where India gets all the toys and they're invading Pakistan to get at the WMDs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 13:53
|
|
|
Speaking of NWIP how the gently caress do you invade Kashmir as Pakistan, it seems impossible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The intervention vs vps tradeoff is a Next War staple and is a feature of all of the games. It can also be rolled for randomly if you like. Both games also contain variants that use VP additions to balance, for example, adding all-F22 units for the US player(normally they're simulated as additions to the F-15 units due to their low quantities). Ah, cool. Makes me much more interested in the series, tbh. Not that I have time or opponents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
It does seem to add some replayability to the game themselves, since the shape of the conflict would be changed drastically depending on how many toys you get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
Tias posted:What is the vietnam game like? Worth investing in? Didn’t someone play through an attack to show how the system works earlier in the thread? Seemed neat, Vietnam 1965-1975 might be more game than I can get to the table right now but it’s not like that hasn’t stopped me before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 06:32
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Ah, cool. Makes me much more interested in the series, tbh. Not that I have time or opponents. time is def something you will need. for advanced rules the SOP is laid out with rules refs so its very easy to step through the turn phases. otoh there is a LOT to do each turn, particularly early where both sides have many missiles, airstrikes, special forces ops, hacking etc it goes on for a while. each turn brings more attrition (this is a very bloody game) so a few turns in that all settles down a bit. the good news is its extremely solo friendly and if u can vassal it has nice modules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 08:31
|
|
|
Mighty Eris posted:Didn’t someone play through an attack to show how the system works earlier in the thread? Seemed neat, Vietnam 1965-1975 might be more game than I can get to the table right now but it’s not like that hasn’t stopped me before. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=1&threadid=3564278&pagenumber=404&perpage=40#post508465416 https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=1&threadid=3564278&pagenumber=404&perpage=40#post508499413
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2021 11:33
|
|
|
Mighty Eris posted:Didn’t someone play through an attack to show how the system works earlier in the thread? Seemed neat, Vietnam 1965-1975 might be more game than I can get to the table right now but it’s not like that hasn’t stopped me before. Linku? Can't find it
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2021 12:06
|
|
|
Tias posted:Linku? Can't find it Right above your post. Turned out to only be two pages back - thought it was older than that but that’s pandemic brain for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
Alright then! New War: Vietnam I am slowly making my way through the Standard And Advanced Rules, so this bit will mostly cover my thoughts about the standardised ruleset that is provided for the entire series. Next War splits the rules within Standard rules, and Advanced rules. I can understand the impetus for doing this, since it allows players to get into the game a lot more quickly and easily than if there was one solid, unified ruleset that you had to use completely in order to play: OCS has one unified ruleset, but still allows players to access the game relatively quickly by providing campaigns that require fewer systems in order to work. For example, it is possible to play something like Reluctant Enemies or Tunisia II while being completely unaware of how supply extenders work, or anything to do with naval combat beyond the need to ship things to ports. I usually dislike standard/advanced rule dichotomies for a variety of reasons: they make it difficult to read the rules (especially the advanced rules) as a whole, and require a lot of "wait, how did this work in the standard rule?" issues, as well as having to work out what is used only in standard versus advanced. Another issue is that the standard game can make the entire gameplay a bit too simplistic and modify the modelling of the conflict enough to make it uninteresting to play. From reading the Standard rules, I believe that both of these issues are present for Next War. The Standard Game Reading through the combat, I feel that a lot of inspiration for the rules was based on OCS, and there are a few striking similarities, although just as many differences. Units within NW have offensive values, defensive values (I actually like the distinction between offensive and defensive values, which is largely omitted from OCS) and movement rates. Like OCS, movement can be either leg, motorised or mechanised movement, although there is also the presence of airmobile-type units (ie helicopters), as well as the possibility of moving any leg unit using airmobile means, which adds a distinct modern flavour to the game. Like in OCS, different types of terrain affect different types of movements, with (for example) movement in mountainous areas being impossible for motor/mech movement units apart from being able to use roads. Unlike OCS, there is no ability to change units from a combat to a movement mode: that single movement is what you get. Units also have an Efficiency Rating (ER), which is more or less the equivalent of an Action Rating. ER can be used to perform ER checks, where under specific conditions you need to roll under your ER or bad things happen to your units: I always like mechanisms that reflect the qualatitive difference within units apart from simply granting better units higher offensive/defensive rating, so their inclusion within NW is appreciated. Units can also have a number of steps, although this is usually limited to 1 or 2 steps. When a 2 step unit is reduced, it flips over to its 1 step side, and any further reduction eliminates the unit, although depending on the scenario, it has the ability ot come back later, or regain a step if it is reduced and still on the board. The presence of other units is rather limited, at least within the Standard game. Helicopter units are simply there to provide ground support, while potentially being subject to Air Defence Fire (ADF) if they do so. The entire air war is abstracted down to the use of "Air Points", which are given to you at the start of a turn and are used up in ground support actions and other missions, while also helping to determine who has air superiority. So all of those pretty aircraft counters that they come with? Well, they aren't used at all. Might as well throw them away if you are just going to play the Standard game. I think this can be one of the reasons why the Standard game might end up feeling like a mere tutorial: after all, wargamers love their toys and having units with stats that you can't actually does create a "we aren't playing the game the way it is intended to be played" feeling. The last type of unit are naval units: largely, these can't actually be removed when playing using the Standard rules, and the way they interact with the scenarios is highly abstracted. This is somewhat true for the Advanced game as well, but there are some differences. Enemy Zones of Control (EZOCs) are semi-sticky. Moving into them stops movement and costs more Movements Points, moving out of them costs an extra MP as well, and moving from EZOC to EZOC costs your entire movement (so there's no laying carpets or semi-fluid EZOCs like in OCS). There is an exception to this, in that some leg units are termed as Light Infantry, and are therefore able to ignore EZOCs and basically do as they please. Although EZOCs are stickier than they would be within OCS, even within the standard game I feel the front-lines are less well defined: partly due to presence of LI, and partly due to the presence of airmobile transport and semi-reliable airbourne units. Striking rear areas is much easier than it would be in OCS, which does make sense in terms of the capabilities of modern armies, but the standard game doesn't push this far enough, and this is largely due to the fact that Standard does not have supply rules (unless you choose to include optional supply rules that introduce a basic trace supply to the game), or any kind of rear-echelon supply or HQ units. Before we talk about how combat is conducted in the game, let's first analyse the turn structure. Turn structure is different between the Standard and Advanced game, although the bare bones of one are present in the other. In standard, this is the turn sequence: - Weather determination: pretty standard stuff, rough weather limits the possibilities for air and airmobile missions, along with naval units. - Supply: Optional, but it's basically checking for trace supply and placing units OOS if they aren't. - Initiative/Air/Naval: Initiative is an interesting part of the game. Initiative is usually determined by VP differential for the previous turn (with the first turn usually having a pre-determined player having the initiative, potentially for a specific number of turns). It is possible for either player to have the initiative, or for the turn to be contested. As well as determining initiative, this phase deals with the abstractions for air and naval control. - Initiative movement/combat: This phase only occurs if the turn is not contested. The initiative player gets to move all of his troops and fight with them, then the non-initiative player can react with high ER units not in EZOCS,, then the initiative player gets to exploit, which is just standard movement but with any units not in EZOCs, then gets to perform Exploitation combat (with a negative modifier). After all that, the non-initiative player can finally move all his units and fight with them. - Basic movement/combat: This phase happens both in initiative turns and contested ones. Both players (with initiative player first) get to move and fight as standard. - Reorganisation: Basic upkeep - Reinforcements/Replacements: does what it says on the tin. - Victory Determination: idem. I kind of like this turn structure: it allows players with momentum to potentially trike twice before an opponent can react, and then once more, and portrays both the presence of high-intensity combat along with potential lulls where neither side has the upper hand. Having explained the turn structure, lets turn to combat: Combat is quite standard, in that there are no overruns, and penetration is instead modelled using the turn structure above. You start attacks much like any front-pusher: attackers can attack a single hex with many hexes, there's always a single defending hex, etcetera etcetera. One noteworthy feature is that you always round down odds, but the attacker can get a dice roll modifier (DRM) if they are forced to round down, which causes less of a sting and still allows simulation of odds outside of the strict columns. They can also potentially get this DRM if they are above 7 to 1 odds. Terrain effects, much like in OCS, affect combat values, with things like rivers or bridge attacks having the attack values halved, for example. The Combat Result Table (CRT) works in much the same way as OCS: you look at the type of terrain the defending hex is in, you cross-reference to the odds ratio, and then potentially you column shift depending on different factors, foremost of which is the ER: each side chooses a leading unit (much like in OCS) which lends its ER and also determines who takes first casualties, and then the difference between ERs leads to column shifts left or right depending on who has the highest ER. This is both more and less drastic than the way that OCS handles qualitative differences in combat. Exploitation combat also always has two column shifts in favour of the defender, no matter what, representing units being less combat-effective in the mad rush to exploit the opponent. Once the column is determined, the attacker can use air points, helicopters and other support units to provide DRMs, with the defender being able to do the same to counter those DRMs (although the attacker usually can select more of them). DRMs are also present for terrain or specific unit types, or if you are circling your opponent etc. Once both players have said what assets they want to use to help attack/defend, you roll for ADF and hope that those points aren't wasted. Finally, you roll on the table and see what result you get! So the combat itself has some things which are reminiscent of OCS, which is no bad thing. Although the system above seems workable, and would be a pretty decent system for many less complex wargame, in terms of what the series is trying to do, it does feel like it reduces the game to a mere front-pusher with some interesting additional mechanisms. It misses out on a lot of aspects, however, that truly colour what modern war could potentially be like: the use of targeted strikes, disruptions of supplies, the potential for infiltration behind the lines, Special Operation Forces. I haven't tried the Standard system yet, but I think a system based purely on the rules above would not be as interesting as I would have hoped. Anyway, in the next installment, I will analyse the Advanced rules, mostly noting the chief differences between them and the Standard rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Goon megagame of Next War Korea where the goons are the DPRK decision making body for the war
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Goon megagame of Next War Korea where the goons are the DPRK decision making body for the war
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Its worth noting the air game in NW series is its own minigame. I love, love, love the air game rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm starting to read Advanced rules and it is qualming a lot of apprehensions I have about the system already. The Standard rules are workable, but really feel like a tutorial where they take half of your toys away. Just not that appealing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
I have Taiwan, India - Pakistan and Poland, but I've only played some smaller standard game scenarios  . The advanced rules are just SO MUCH, I get scared off even though the advanced game is basically why I bought them. Taiwan is especially intimidating for the chinese side because you basically have to use every piece of every system in order to be effective on turn 1 and flubbing that turn seems like it would make the rest of the game very difficult.I keep having to talk myself down from buying the Korea reprint and Vietnam despite the fact that I basically never play wargames anymore, even solo, because the series is so drat cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
I've been wanting to get into hex and counter wargames for a while but I always feel intimidated by some of these rules sets. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
Play Advanced Squad Leader
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 04:54
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Play Advanced Squad Leader That's like rules intimidator extraordinaire. Honestly, the best H&C games to start with are the Simonitch '4x games (e.g. Normandy '44), or A Victory Lost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 05:52
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:I've been wanting to get into hex and counter wargames for a while but I always feel intimidated by some of these rules sets. India/Pakistan was my first wargame. It is a lot to chew on but dont be afraid. Its pretty accesible with patience and rules lookups. I wanted a game with nukes tbh and got a whole lot more. there are a shitload of rules explanations and playthroughs for all of them on youtube too. Phi230 posted:Its worth noting the air game in NW series is its own minigame. I love, love, love the air game rules. also this. this part is excellent. the way it all hangs together and have the aircraft facing off at all these different approaches and stages is amazingly fluid. e: the air game tells the best stories too. there is always that lovely rated pilot in an old-gen plane that pulls fuckin top gun poo poo every turn and causes enemy aborts/step losses. its awesome Sleekly fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Mar 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 07:05
|
|
|
tomdidiot posted:That's like rules intimidator extraordinaire. Yeah, I was able to teach two people who'd never played a game like this how to play Normandy '44 and play the tournament scenario (with them splitting the allies and me as germans) in an afternoon. Did that on D-Day a couple years ago, I should try to set that up again. I've got Holland '44 too, but haven't punched it. Somewhere along the line my will to clip and sort counters kinda vanished so any game I've gotten since then has just collected dust. My motivation to unfold the rest of my table and haul out the plexi to finally tackle Next War advanced is growing as we speak though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 07:19
|
|
|
Sleekly posted:India/Pakistan was my first wargame. It is a lot to chew on but dont be afraid. Its pretty accesible with patience and rules lookups. I wanted a game with nukes tbh and got a whole lot more. I own NW: I/P 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 07:24
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:I own NW: I/P yeah! no naval stuff! I/P is probably the entry point one just for that reason. naval stuff is NOT the slick experience you get for most of the rest of the game. but its managable still.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Next War's air system kind of resembles a sane person's take on GDW's Fulda Gap games and it's no surprise that Chadwick and Emrich use it for their big ww2 games, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 14:26
|
|