|
lilljonas posted:For WW2 i’d take a gander at victrix new 12mm plastics too, they look pretty sweet on pics though I haven’t seen them in person. Yeah, the Victrix models are almost nice enough to make you question the scale you've already chosen  I've got so many 15mm WW2 models it would be ridiculous to start over in a completely different size. ......unless?
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Endman posted:Yeah, the Victrix models are almost nice enough to make you question the scale you've already chosen The sets are a bit big for coc but if you could find someone to split with it'd be a nice alternative. But that goes for most 15mm and 1/72 sets as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
I decided to order a few 20 mm Germans and paint them up, and see how it goes! Thanks for the advice, I’ll be using centimetres, time to review how chain of command actually works!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:I decided to order a few 20 mm Germans and paint them up, and see how it goes! Thanks for the advice, I’ll be using centimetres, time to review how chain of command actually works! So, they should arrive before Xmas - hurrah! Lots of the sculpts are prone/semi-prone so I guess I'll need to figure out basing at a later date. Is there a moderate (i.e. non-grog) consensus on CoC vs BA? My current opponent is a fan, but a wargaming novice. We played Battletech with 4 mechs per side and I think he was generally OK with the game, but there was a good deal of me having to spoon feed him his options and the consequences of each - rather than him participating fully. As a result, despite my affection for CoC I'm wary about hitting him with a wall of tables and reference charts. Honestly, I could probably live without the level of detail for everything and I'm happy to house-rule/handshake stuff, having to figure that out while introducing him to the game seems like it might be insurmountable, unless there's an easy checklist for a first game to ignore. It seems that BA might be an easier system to teach and play, but ultimately less satisfying (for me) than CoC. We only get a chance for half a dozen games a year though, so if the goal is CoC I don't know if I'm working at cross purposes to start off with BA and then switch at a later date - particularly since I am driving the entire concept with figures, board, ruleset, etc. Any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 11:40
|
|
|
coc is good
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 11:47
|
|
|
Speaking of CoC (as in Chain of Command you filthy degenerates), I remember seeing a PDF with collected recommended fan-made fixes, houserules and rule explanation posted in this thread a long while ago. Anyone got that on hand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 12:20
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:Speaking of CoC (as in Chain of Command you filthy degenerates), I remember seeing a PDF with collected recommended fan-made fixes, houserules and rule explanation posted in this thread a long while ago. Anyone got that on hand? i have only the official errata some of the rules aren't written very clearly, and for some special circumstances there aren't rules, and the rules are quite wonky in certain situations, but on the whole, they're fast and excellent and feel realistic
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 12:22
|
|
|
Bolt Action is a much more finished wargame where you can just plug in whatever your two factions are and have a good time. CoC will benefit from you having more of a conversation about the game and what kind of battle/story you want to replicate, or looking at their many many campaigns/books and going for that. CoC will reward you engaging with it more seriously, but BA just lets you throw dice much, much faster. If your opponent isn't buying in equally as much as you, then CoC is going to be a bad time tbqh. Perhaps you can find a third friend and GM the game for them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 12:24
|
|
|
I want to take lardies hostage and make them released CoC2E, with actual editing, the 28 page FAQ and the Blitzkrieg morale rules rolled in. Anecdotally, some corners of grogdom seem extremely hostile to idea of a new edition. I make a half serious comment about it on Battlegroup FB and even the official creators were "NO SECOND EDITION, MAYBE UPDATE AND FIXED RULEBOOK" and I'm like, drat, shorty, that would be enough of a second edition for me. Did 40K bite them at some point? Because a lot of grogs seem to be afraid of 2E invalidating all their army book and all that, when even 40K doesn't really do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:i have only the official errata I’m thinking primarily of the crunchy minutiae like rolling 2 dice and picking higher vs lower toll depending on whether obstacle is above or below figure eyeline, tables for injuries and tracking command initiatives for junior leaders which impact force morale, the need for Jo off points to be placed in the back of a cross delineated by nearest adjacent enemy patrol markers but behind cover too, etc. - lots of fiddly bits which I feel could be “sensible agreement” rather than bloodthirsty tournament rules lawyering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:I’m thinking primarily of the crunchy minutiae like rolling 2 dice and picking higher vs lower toll depending on whether obstacle is above or below figure eyeline, tables for injuries and tracking command initiatives for junior leaders which impact force morale, the need for Jo off points to be placed in the back of a cross delineated by nearest adjacent enemy patrol markers but behind cover too, etc. - lots of fiddly bits which I feel could be “sensible agreement” rather than bloodthirsty tournament rules lawyering. after bad experiences with warhammer, i've never played in tournaments, only with friends miniature games weren't meant to be played competitively
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
I haven't played CoC yet (but am planning on it soon!) but I've taught a lot of people BA and its pretty easy to grasp. I think it helps that there are only six actions a unit can take and they're written right there on the order dice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:We played Battletech with 4 mechs per side and I think he was generally OK with the game, but there was a good deal of me having to spoon feed him his options and the consequences of each - rather than him participating fully.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Did 40K bite them at some point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:bloodthirsty tournament rules lawyering. I would absolutely love it if someone gave CoC a pass with "bloodthirsty tournament rules" in mind, at least with regards to clarity and eradication of natural language. I absolutely do not want engage in game development when playing a game, especially if I only do it rarely and all the house rules will have been forgotten. Some people find it a funny statement, but I found BA a lot easier to remember and play. It is, however, not a very """realistic""" game. Sorta like playing Company of Heroes vs. Combat Mission.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:Speaking of CoC (as in Chain of Command you filthy degenerates) Ah, yes, those drat Call of Cthulhu players, getting up to degenerate things like SAN loss and Idea rolls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I would absolutely love it if someone gave CoC a pass with "bloodthirsty tournament rules" in mind, at least with regards to clarity and eradication of natural language. I absolutely do not want engage in game development when playing a game, especially if I only do it rarely and all the house rules will have been forgotten. I just ran into a good example of this while reading the Through the Mud and the Blood rulebook. They have a whole section labelled "Rolling Barrage" where they lay out the rules for what it is and how it works, and then proceed to refer to it as a "Creeping Barrage" in the rest of the rulebook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
That's an unfortunate case of failing to grok that the things are synonymous, defining the rule as "Thing A/Thing B/Thing C" and then "all the above are synonymous, and henceforth referred to as <Thing X>, however some players may use other terms in practice".
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
I think the obstinance is just an age thing. There's plenty of game designers, even historical ones, who have no problem going back in cleaning up or rectifying their stuff. Of course if they just did it right the first time this wouldn't be an issue which is why Sam Mustafa is the gold standard in layout design. He's working on a naval game now and I'm very interested in whatever his take on ww2 fleet actions are going to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
So I guess my point is that I acknowledge that CoC is better, but I’m worried about scaring him off: I would rather play BA and it be less than perfect but something we can do reliably. The consensus does appear to be that BA is lighter and easier - and having hooked the fish, we could pivot to CoC at a later date rather than risk trying that and putting him off entirely. He has at least bought in on his own force of Soviets so that’s at least some commitment! Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Dec 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
BA feels a bit 40k-y, so if you want familiarity go that way. CoC produces way more anecdotes about dumb/funny/cool poo poo that happened, though, and the battles always feel more like stories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
I find that it’s the scenario design that matters a lot more than the rule set when it comes to memorable moments. The reason that Bolt Action is worse at that is probably because it’s a lot easier to just set up a pick-up game where you’re just bashing two armies together and people don’t feel compelled to do anything more than that. Sometimes it’s just too easy to play a game in its most boring incarnation. I don’t even like Chain of Command all that much, but it forces you to make more interesting scenarios happen straight from the outset with the patrol phase, and if you add in a pint-sized campaign you’ll end up with some interesting scenarios on top of that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2022 23:46
|
|
|
I just wish the Ladies cared about Sharp Practice as much as CoC. It seems like all they care about is fuckin Arnhem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
With TFL you get whatever suits their current hobby whims. Rich has been on a WW2 Burma trip lately, so that's what you're getting!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
alg posted:I just wish the Ladies cared about Sharp Practice as much as CoC. It seems like all they care about is fuckin Arnhem. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
alg posted:I just wish the Ladies cared about Sharp Practice as much as CoC. It seems like all they care about is fuckin Arnhem. Ladies love the CoC, am I right? (Sorry, I had to capitalize on your typo.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
To show I'm not all mouth - here's the progress on my 3mm 1808 Austrians: I need to sort out some grenzers and and jagers for a DBN force - but it's all gone well. The left hand painted base is green painted chinchilla dust and the right is flock - I think I prefer the left. I'm less excited about the cavalry, they look very 'forced' 
Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Dec 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
Maybe not having them in orderly ranks would help?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Maybe not having them in orderly ranks would help? Yeah forming them up more like they are riding ”boot to boot” is more accurate (and looks cooler). cavalry would look more like wavy lines riding quite close to each other, until they’d turn into more of a swarm/clusterfuck the last couple of dozen yards on the charge. It’s fiddly but you could cut up the bases and form them up closer in width but less even in depth. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Dec 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
I guess i could insert a row between each staggered slightly to make them closer ordered and vary the frontage. Sigh - more horsies!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
I've been painting Panzer IVs:
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2022 08:50
|
|
|
Thanks for the tips, chaps - i need to fill out the missing columns but this loks alot better already:
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
Been building some VDV for my TY and the vehicle kits are lovely so far. Are they alternatives for the infantry anyone knows of? I'm being a bit judgy maybe but the infantry have some real bonk faces.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
Need a bit of advice here- I'm working on objective markers for Saga using livestock and shepherds, I can fit a couple onto a base but so far my usual process for metals with the cast on base is to glue to base, apply basing material, then prime and paint; and it looks to be kind of a pain to do that with multiple models on a base
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Need a bit of advice here- I'm working on objective markers for Saga using livestock and shepherds, I can fit a couple onto a base but so far my usual process for metals with the cast on base is to glue to base, apply basing material, then prime and paint; and it looks to be kind of a pain to do that with multiple models on a base Stick to coffee stirrer in a straight line, paint, then snap off and glue to real base
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 08:13
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Been building some VDV for my TY and the vehicle kits are lovely so far. Are they alternatives for the infantry anyone knows of? I'm being a bit judgy maybe but the infantry have some real bonk faces. The Plastic Soldier Company might be what you’re looking for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
If you've got a 3d printer Turner Miniatures just did a line of VDV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
Thanks both. I'll check the prints first but that PSC box looks very good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:I’m thinking primarily of the crunchy minutiae like rolling 2 dice and picking higher vs lower toll depending on whether obstacle is above or below figure eyeline, tables for injuries and tracking command initiatives for junior leaders which impact force morale, the need for Jo off points to be placed in the back of a cross delineated by nearest adjacent enemy patrol markers but behind cover too, etc. - lots of fiddly bits which I feel could be “sensible agreement” rather than bloodthirsty tournament rules lawyering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
A lot of people struggle more with knowing what they need to bring to the table than they do with what happens when you already have things on the table. I spent several consecutive days last month explaining BattleTech force generation to someone who just could not grok that it's not like a FFG/Atomic Mass Star Wars game and there is no "standard" game size. The phrase "you agree a number and pick units until your points hit that number" was uttered at least daily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 20:03
|
|