Megamissen posted:

every field of glory 2 battle ive played has been me trying to keep my troops in a nice line but instead it devolves into two seperate messy brawls

Frosted Flake posted:

The number one best seller warms my heart

gradenko_2000 posted:

what the gently caress it's just playing CMANO* by hand

* yes I know CMANO is a descendant of Harpoon the computer game, which itself is derived from Harpoon the boardgame, which this apparently is, on its 5th edition already

Mister Bates posted:

Command: Modern Operations is 50% off along with all its DLC and Tacview, and I am still blown away at how one-sided the scenario design is

if you take CMANO into account it's been a solid loving decade of development and there's still basically jack poo poo for scenario options if you don't want to play as the United States

I am pretty sure I have made almost this exact post in this thread before, but it never stops being frustrating how limited the singleplayer wargaming experience is, most post-WW2 games that do not have a fully dynamic campaign limit you to one side and in the overwhelming majority of scenarios that side is the US.

I am still kind of annoyed about Combat Mission: Shock Force literally having no red side campaign at all, when they were always more than happy to let you play as the Nazis in all their previous WW2-era titles

Frosted Flake posted:

Really want to try that icebreaker DLC but I don't think I'll be able to expense it for my PE through work...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-_pmS8rTEA

Megamissen posted:

every field of glory 2 battle ive played has been me trying to keep my troops in a nice line but instead it devolves into two seperate messy brawls

Frosted Flake posted:

Feel good scenarios of BLUFOR getting an easy W if the player can learn the UI and quirks of the scenario, is probably much easier for devs and satisfying for their Clancy Hat target demo.

Tekopo posted:

yeah but Galula wrote a book!

and also Colombia or something

see COIN works

gradenko_2000 posted:

Volko Ruhnke's Maidan, a new COIN game focusing on the four-way tug-of-war between NATO and the EU, the Ukrainian government, the Donbass separatists, and Russia

quote:

The Hunt for Gaddafi is On

In March of 2011, Libyans in opposition to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his government took up arms. For eight months, the opposition, fighting under an interim governing body, the National Transitional Council (NTC), fought Colonel Gaddafi’s Loyalist forces all across the country. In October, during a fierce battle in the coastal city of Sirte, Gaddafi was captured and killed.

Days of Villainy is an expansion that can be played with ANY core/base games of the Lock 'n Load Tactical series. Days of Villainy depicts four of the fierce battles that occurred during the Libyan Civil War, including Colonel Gaddafi’s final epic confrontation. Both sides are loaded for bear, armed with RPG-7s and FN MAG and PKM machine guns. The Loyalists have the armored support of BTR-60s and T-55s, but the NTC rebels have plenty of well-armed Technicals to drive into battle, as well as KPV heavy machine guns and the aid of seasoned fighters from the Katiba Tiger and Al-Saiqa commando brigades.

Scenarios include:

Hold or Die: An armored column of Loyalist forces attempted to retake the vital oil hub of Marsa al-Brega, on the road to Benghazi. A tough fight was ahead of them, and the sun was setting.

On the Road to Sirte: A convoy of NTC rebels and Al-Saiqa commandos tasked with delivering ammunition to Harawa was ambushed by a small force of Loyalists. Despite the initial blasts of roadside mines, the remnants of the convoy had to push through.

Assault on Bab Al-Aziziya: In late August, NTC rebels entered Tripoli. Many neighborhoods were easily taken, but the Bab Al Aziziya compound, a symbol of Gaddafi’s contemptible regime, was still intact. The compound had become a fortress that had to be taken.

Game Over: pro-Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte, an American Predator drone identified a Loyalist convoy leaving the city of On October 20th, 2011. The drone and French aircraft in the area attacked the convoy, and NTC rebels in the sector closed in on the commotion. Little did they know that Gaddafi was a passenger in the convoy. The stage was set for a vicious, climactic battle.

gradenko_2000 posted:

lmfao come on man

anyway,

Frosted Flake posted:

You're not far off

atelier morgan posted:

i'm not sure which of these is more deranged

Frosted Flake posted:

Defiance primarily utilizes Political Tracks to restrict and enhance operational/military capabilities of each side. Regarding the Political Tracks, four model will/cohesion of Ukraine and Russia and the assistance of their allies:

Zelenskyy: models strategic will of Ukraine to resist invasion
NATO: models levels of aid to Ukraine
Lukashenko: models Belarus’ participation during initial campaign
Putin: models infighting and friction within Russian power centers

These four Political Tracks, plus random events and game developments, impact Russian Strategic Morale; specifically as it relates to maintaining the attack on Kyiv and Chernihiv. If RSM gets too low (i.e. too far too the right on the RSM track), Russia may decide to disengage from their attack (or rout!) on Kyiv and Chernihiv. Our view is that Russia’s rout in Volume 1: Miracle on the Dnipro was a strategic morale break precipitated by Ukrainian battlefield success, an immediate critical threat to Russian lines of communication (LoCs), and quickly deteriorating Russian army morale. In future volumes of Defiance we intend to swap out the Lukashenko Track with a Russian Allies track, representing the Russian allies (ex: Iran) providing it with more capabilities (Logistical Points).

The position on a particular political track generates benefits and costs for a side. For example, as one moves to the right side on the NATO track (on all the tracks, the extreme right benefits Ukraine and the extreme left benefits Russia), Ukraine receives more LPs (Logistic Points), HQ chits (allowing for bonus HQ activations), and potentially additional units (platforms). Regarding the Lukashenko track, Russia gains more strikes, supply, and most importantly access to an invasion route further west (one with an actual supporting rail line) they either failed to use or were prevented from using.

The Political Tracks in turn drive the Russian Strategic Morale (RSM) track. The position occupied on the RSM generates a die roll at the end of the turn on Unity/In-Fighting Table: adding/subtracting LPs (Logistics Points) for Russia… and possibly tossing Mutiny, Inaction, and Infighting HQ chits into the mix. Essentially, as RSM wavers, more friction/less efficiency results for Russia to accomplish their tasks.



If players choose to play the Historical Scenario, there is an option to use pre-ordained positions on the political tracks each turn (our assessment of where those political tracks were each turn during the campaign); and avoid the mechanics that move the chits.

We’re also still baking in personalities. More on that another day.



Defiance uses various game design mechanics to reflect political dynamics in Volume 1: Miracle on the Dnipro including:

Political Tracks: Zelenskyy, NATO, Lukashenko, Putin
A Russian Strategic Morale Track
SitRep Cards
Unity/Infighting Table
Friction Chits: Mutiny, Inaction, Infighting HQ

So “movement” in the political sphere is driven by our assessment of what occurred – or reasonably could have occurred, random events, and player action/choice. We believe it will generate a strong narrative, provide players with a better understanding of political dynamics and, most importantly, create a “richer” simulation experience. The reason why some of us engage in conflict simulations (or play wargames) is to add a storyline to “chess”, introduce randomness (that unscripted stuff that happens in the real world and impacts the course of history), and place military conflict within some political context. Defiance reflects this.

e: "Churchill Status" and "Arsenals of Democracy" are going to come back to bite them if they ever get around to Vol. 3.

Frosted Flake posted:

The position on a particular political track generates benefits and costs for a side. For example, as one moves to the right side on the NATO track (on all the tracks, the extreme right benefits Ukraine and the extreme left benefits Russia), Ukraine receives more LPs (Logistic Points), HQ chits (allowing for bonus HQ activations), and potentially additional units (platforms). Regarding the Lukashenko track, Russia gains more strikes, supply, and most importantly access to an invasion route further west (one with an actual supporting rail line) they either failed to use or were prevented from using.

BadOptics posted:

Too bad their possible Vol II game went up in flames along with all those Leo2's.

Typo posted:

for me it devolves into like a 3+ small brawls in larger battles which is annoying. Realistically in ancient battles armies normally kept some semblance of a cohesive formation until one side routes

Tankbuster posted:

lukashenko gameplay better be things like growing beets and raising dairy cows.

BrotherJayne posted:

I mean, "which left flank will break the fastest?" was also a common archetype

Haven't played fog yet tho

my dad posted:

Typo posted:

https://acoup.blog/2024/01/26/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ib-subjects-of-the-successors/