|
Jesus, the Falling Sky PBP is really writing itself!
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
This CL game is getting a little surreal- the Govt got a Aid boost early on and got up to 50 resources second prop card. They had a cash marker in Havana and couldn't do anything with it, so they ended up with a base in Havana.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
CL game before last prop card: Syndicate (my little sister, who was convinced she was going to lose the entire game) won on last prop- Trafficante blocked Skim and she made a ton of money to put her over the margin. I was M26, got into trouble early with a couple of unnecessary moves that didn't go anywhere so DR sailed into both the 2 pop provinces and we spent most of the game whacking him down. Government had a stupid amount of money all game thanks to the Syndicate continually running out (in part because of some good kindaps and a running inability to Profit) and picking events that boosted both Syndicate resources and Aid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
I'm trying to organise a Falling Sky game on Vassal at some point this week. Already have a few people interested. Hit up the goon tradgames discord if you are interested.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I'm trying to organise a Falling Sky game on Vassal at some point this week. Already have a few people interested. Hit up the goon tradgames discord if you are interested. If nothing else I'd like to watch it. Also someone just sold a Sekigahara on Facebook for $38 and I missed it. drat it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I'm trying to organise a Falling Sky game on Vassal at some point this week. Already have a few people interested. Hit up the goon tradgames discord if you are interested. I suppose this means I need discord. (FYI I'm available some weeknights and bascially all the weekend, EST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
I'd be game if it's at a reasonable time being a working American.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
I found copies of "Valor of the Guard" and "For King and Country" from a great resource. It's an individual guy who does this for ASLers so if you want the info send me a PM. Fast service, reasonable prices. I'll definitely be going to him with out of print ASL stuff from now on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
oh god what have i done
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Nice!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
You made the right choice, Viv. I enjoy Cuba Libre quite a bit and I have high hopes for Falling Sky, but Fire in the Lake is on another level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Apparently the US is too good so they're testing some errata for the next edition: http://www.insidegmt.com/?p=11196
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Cuba Libre and Fire in the Lake are both rated 5 out of 9 for complexity, on the back of the boxes. I shudder to think what would count as high complexity! I've only done the intro walkthrough in the playbook so far, but I like how the COIN system translates to a larger, more intricate conflict. I think I'll do my first solo game by just playing each faction myself, because the non-player bots add even more to the mix. Maybe I can get some humans to play this with me on my birthday or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Desert Fox Deluxe has been one of the games at the top of my radar for a while, as a sort of... CFNA-lite. My copy just came in the mail today, and it's a gorgeous looking game. And comes with a magazine mostly about Rommel's Africa campaign! (I mean, sure, the S&T magazine IS the product, but I was more interested in the game itself). And it has such a tastefully compact and clean map!  ... ... ... PSYYYYYYYYYYCH, THIS IS NORTH AFRICA BOYS, WE DON'T DEAL IN COMPACT AND CLEAN MAPS!  I'm equal parts excited and terrified of this game. I don't even have table space to play it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Cuba Libre and Fire in the Lake are both rated 5 out of 9 for complexity, on the back of the boxes. I shudder to think what would count as high complexity! You have to compare them with wargames, not board games in general. GMT considers COIN to be lower complexity because you don't have to add up DRMs, cross reference hit and damage tables, calculate initiative, check command ranges or line of sight, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:PSYYYYYYYYYYCH, THIS IS NORTH AFRICA BOYS, WE DON'T DEAL IN COMPACT AND CLEAN MAPS! Hey, did you ever pick up the historical version of that anime Barbarossa card game? Wondering how it plays.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:You have to compare them with wargames, not board games in general. GMT considers COIN to be lower complexity because you don't have to add up DRMs, cross reference hit and damage tables, calculate initiative, check command ranges or line of sight, etc. Also, the complexity scale is rated by the designer, not GMT, so every designer is literally "My game is like, heavy enough to be interesting, but not heavy enough to be intimidating. Right?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:PSYYYYYYYYYYCH, THIS IS NORTH AFRICA BOYS, WE DON'T DEAL IN COMPACT AND CLEAN MAPS! Looking forward to your solo-play write-up. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Ilor posted:Hahahaha. When I saw that first map, I was all, "Just Tobruk and El Alamein? Pssh. Weak." Being very recently divorced, I'm working on picking up all the games I didn't have time for before. I'm about to buy Fields of Fire for the 3rd time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:
I feel like this map needs a topologically equivalent spiral replacement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:
Do you have enough blank wall space to make this into a pushpin map? I think it'd be a lot easier to manage that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
No, no, no, pins are for amateurs. Mount it on sheet metal, hang it on the wall, and put magnetized backings on all of your (beautifully clipped) counters. I dare you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Being very recently divorced, COOL CORN posted:I'm about to buy Fields of Fire for the 3rd time. Don't drunk sext your exes, man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Don't drunk sext your exes, man. But I remember what a crazy freak she was, and how fresh and exciting things were between us! Until we actually get back together and I realize that crazy is sometimes a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:But I remember what a crazy freak she was, and how
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Haha I didn't notice the FoF 2nd ed. is now in "Early 2017" on p500 e: Sorry "Possible" Early 2017
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:Haha I didn't notice the FoF 2nd ed. is now in "Early 2017" on p500 Yeah, the designer got re-deployed or something so he's unable to work on it for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Ben Hull is a man with a death wish, be it fighting on the frontlines, or working on FoF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
 Finished a short scenario where I played all the sides. VC won, taking the lead away at the last minute from ARVN. The US and NVA both did quite poorly. I guess US has to balance between fighting enemies and focusing on spaces to pacify, whereas my US did a lot of fighting but wasn't able to increase support much. NVA faces a real resource crunch which doomed them in my game; an early event giving bonuses to NVA resources or the Trail could be really useful for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
The creator of Invierno Cubano (expansion for Cuba Libre) posted a video that goes over the main features of the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4blUzVKmTY It's certainly not risking being too similar to the previous game, some weird stuff in there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:
The short scenario is not the best because the events can affect a lot of territory and you don't have enough time for them to "even out". Also, success for the US depends on surging and then withdrawing troops at the right moment, which works better in a longer timeframe. In my experience, VC strategy is the easiest to grasp and so they win more often at first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
So Wothington did a weird thing and made a kickstarter for a kickstarter that is about to ship. Basically, you can kickstart Band of Brothers deluxe a year late and get it shipped in a month. I'm somewhat tempted myself, as I like the system, though I'm still mulling over the expense. Lichtenstein fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
That's kinda great! I was really upset when I found out about the initial run after it was over. Edit: thanks for the heads up, I would have been bummed if I'd missed this one too! Shart Carbuncle fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
I really, really like design decisions this system takes to tackle on some sacred cows of tactical wargaming. I was kinda miffed by how it worked in practice initially, as despite being d10 based, it felt a bit like low-variability puzzle and a field manual, rather than combat simulator. Also, being used to higher-scale games and fields of fire I was really not used to scenarios being about defenders trying not to get wiped completely in a given time limit by a dominant offensive force (even though it makes sense historically, what with concentration of force and poo poo). Thankfully, those feelings mostly vanished in the later scenarios, involving vehicles and highly asymmetrical forces of Ghost Panzer. I guess there's so much excitement one can expect from early "learn as you go" scenarios. Weird things about it: - Since the series began with Western Front and wanted to keep unified style for more geomorphic map combinations, so Sovkhoz 79 looks kinda like a Villers-Bocage vineyard. - Despite overall elegance, infantry and vehicle rules are kind of two independent systems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
Those counters make my eyes bleed, especially their typography (font, color, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
So I've got some deep questions for y'all. I played For the People recently, and though I had a bunch of fun, the rules were quite a slog to learn. In my searches for clarifications on BGG, I found a post complaining about the rules, which had this reply by the designer, Mark Herman (bolding my own): quote:The problem with the rules is they attempt to capture every situation that has ever occurred over a decade of being on the market. That said, it is not that difficult a game, but I can appreciate that it can be difficult to get into if your method is to read the rules until you understand them fully before you play. I would offer that this is one way to learn a wargame, but not my personal choice. Do any of you consider this type of naturalistic game learning the best practice for learning wargames (or all games)? If so, why do you feel that way? Am I crazy to think that simply reading the rules, along with some key examples, should be a viable way to learn the basics of any game, regardless of complexity—or that we should at least aspire to that standard? Would you say that wargames are different from non-wargames in a way that makes naturalistic learning better for learning them? I ask this because, as a professional rulebook writer/editor, I'd like to get inside the heads of veteran wargame designers and players. I personally find many of the ways that wargame rulebooks write and organize their rules to be completely confounding—for example, the COIN Series' insistence on putting paragraphs-long descriptions of components before getting to the core rules, or many wargames' cramming of every edge case into core rules paragraphs or sections, trying to make it as comprehensive as possible while sacrificing learnability and sometimes even referenceability. However, I came to play wargames only after playing euro/ameritrash games, so I don't know if my confusion is because I'm just used to non-wargame rules, or whether wargames rules are indeed, in some ways, harder to learn because of their writing/organization tradition. Why do you think wargame designers write and organize their rules writing so differently from non-wargame designers? Are there specific parts of the wargame rules tradition that should be transplanted to non-wargame rules, and vice versa? Caedar fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jul 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Caedar posted:Are there specific parts of the wargame rules tradition that should be transplanted to non-wargame rules, and vice versa? Numbered paragraphs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
This is my own philosophy when it comes to rules, but I'm very much a person that needs to read the full rules before I play a game. Unfortunately the time I actually have for wargaming is low and hence the naturalistic approach doesn't work for me, so I strive to play games in adherence to the rules as much as possible. Also, I play in public venues so the "read them as you go along" approach doesn't give me enough time to actually play the game. I have a probably very weird thing about not wanting to play games unless they are played with the ideal number of players. It's why I don't play multiplayer games solo, and also why I don't like to do solo games as a learning experience. I generally prefer wargames rules to euro/other board games because the ease of referencing is so important to me. As well as that, the list of components is actually present in every game, but usually non-wargames do not need to be as thorough as wargames in order to explain what a counter actually does. Wargame rules tend to be more technical in terms of writing and I think they need some getting used to, but overall once you understand the structure of them, he rules tend to be more iron proof than most other board games. There are some fuckup a of course (which GMT is partially guilty of doing), but overall I've never been in a situation that could never be resolved by the rules in a wargame (FoF doesn't count, gently caress you Liechtenstein!). You mentioned COIN, but I would suggest you read the rules of Napoleons triumph, those are a real treat if you like to give yourself headaches.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:(FoF doesn't count, gently caress you Liechtenstein!). FOF isn't a wargame, it's an experience generator
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Numbered paragraphs. Combined with a thorough index, this would dramatically improve most rulebooks. It's the best thing about the COIN rules. That Mark Herman quote is a chicken and the egg conundrum--did he start out with that "just play naturally" opinion or did he start out writing terribly organized rules?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 20:02
|
|