|
 Welcome to the Wargames Thread! Wargames? Man, I LOVE miniatures... Wait, wait, wait, not those kind of wargames. This thread is meant for traditional wargames, the ones that don't involve model soldiers and terrain, but instead use a good old hex map and some counters, although that is only one of the many genres that will be touched upon in this thread. If what you are searching for comes in a box, has more pieces than you can count and has a map, then you are probably in the right place. Although Avalon Hill are a shadow of their former self, wargaming (along with board gaming in general) is currently in a golden era: there is an unprecedented number of games available currently, of various complexity levels and featuring battles and wars from across the globe. There isn't a better time than now to get into the hobby!  It can be extremely daunting getting started within wargaming, both due to the high level of choice of games available as well as the fact that it can be difficult sometimes to find players for a particular game. As well as that, getting through the rules for a wargame is going to take a substantially longer effort than most standard board games. The length of some games is also an issue. Thus, if you absolutely want to get started with a wargame but are unsure at what to get to start off with, here's a couple of suggestions. First of all, 1812: The Invasion of Canada  This is a good beginner game that can be played by up to 5 players! The mechanisms for the game rely on dice for combat, but the game manages to bring some interesting concepts to the table, including having some troops qualitatively better than others, making movement possible in several different ways (marching/using boats to cross the lakes/etc), as well as hand management that is somewhat reminiscent of card driven strategy games. The game time is low and the game is interesting enough that it's likely even non-wargamers will enjoy it. Another good beginner game that is slightly more complex than the one above is the Command & Colours Series(Including Battle Lore, Battlecry, Battle for Westeros and Memoir '44)  There are many different types of Command & Colours games, featuring both real life and fictional wars. Most of them rely on you having a hand of cards: during your turn, you can play one card that actives a certain number of units, which can then move and fire as normal. Which units are activated depends on the cards, with Command & Colours: Ancient, Napoleonics and Memoir '44 allowing you activate a specific number of units in a specific flank. Hand management is therefore important, since if you ran out of cards for a specific flank and it becomes under threat, it will be difficult to reply to your opponent, modelling the chaos of battle and the difficulty of command and control. These games often come with modular boards with hexagonal, cardboard terrain that can be used to play a multitude of battles just by shuffling the terrain around. The last beginner recommendation is a bit more specific and is not truly a wargame: 1960: The Making of the President  1960 is a game about the Kennedy/Nixon Presidential Election. You might ask how this ties in with wargames, but 1960 shares a lot in common with a genre of wargames known as Card Driven Strategy Games (CDGs). This game is an easy introduction to the genre and has a lot of the things that make CDGs great: hand management and area control. If you want to get a leg up within the realm of CDGs and aren't sure of what you want to start with, this game is a good introduction within the genre.  There are many different genres within wargaming, I will touch upon the main ones here and provide some examples of beginner, intermediate and advanced games within each. Hex And Counter This is the old daddy of the wargaming scene: popularized by many of hex and counter games made during the 80s, this genre is still the ones many people think about when wargaming is mentioned. Hex And Counter games tend to be some of the more difficult wargames out there, but many current games published today focus more on play-ability rather than a nitty gritty focus on realism, although there is something here to cater to almost any taste. The genre is known as such for the use of cardboard counters to represent troops and almost exclusive use of hex maps. The two main sub-genres within Hex And Counter games are operational and tactical level games. Operational level games tend to have a wider focus: rather than simply modelling the fight for a single village or wood, operational games tend to show whole campaigns, thus requiring the modelling of supply chains. Tactical level games usually focus on single engagements between small sized formations, even going down to modelling the movements of single tanks or even single men. Beginner: Red Winter, Fading Glory (based on the Napoleonics 20 series of games), Conflict of Heroes, many of the Victory Point Games. Intermediate: No Retreat!, Combat Commander, A Victory Lost/Denied, Fighting Formations Advanced: Advanced Squad Leader Block Wargames My particular current darling, block wargames are just what they sound: games that use wooden blocks instead of cardboard counters in order to represent their troops. Wooden blocks (along with looking much more pretty), allowing to create more of a fog of war about the capabilities of your troops, since you don't have to reveal any information about your troops at all (excluding position, of course): although hex and counter games do have a similar fog of war when stacking chips, if units are spread out or there is a lower number of units available, most if not all of the information is on the table. As well as that, block wargames have created a sub-genre of completely diceless wargames, in which combat is resolved by comparing the strength of units, with randomization handled by you not knowing exactly what you will face. Beginner: Strike of Eagles, Hammer of the Scots Intermediate: Rommel in the Desert, Sekigahara Advanced: *Front Series (West Front/East Front/Etc), Napoleon's Triumph, Guns of Gettysburg Card Driven Games (CDGs): CDGs came out as a means of simplifying operational level games and have now become hugely popular. The main mechanism of the game is that each turn you are given a hand of cards, from which you alternatively play a card either for the event or for 'Operations' (which allow you, for example, to move troops/get new troops etc). The event allow the games to take the character of the war: instead of being fixed events within the game that have special rules, they are an integral part of the game and almost a resource that you have to decide if it's worth using. The deck of cards used in these games can vary from a single shared deck to individual decks per side. The maps for these types of games usually divide the playing area in different boxes rather than using the traditional hex maps. Although largely easier to play than hex and counter games, there are still games within this category that can take days to play a full game. Beginner: 1960: The Making of the President, Washington's War, 13 Days Intermediate: Sword of Rome, Twilight Struggle, Successors, Wilderness War Advanced: Pursuit of Glory, Paths of Glory, Empire of the Sun, We the People Solitaire Have no friends? This is the right genre for you! There are many games out there that can be played solitaire, without the need to find someone else to read the rules and work out how a game works! Usually the role of the enemy in solitaire games is handled by results tables or dice in order to model the unpredictability of the enemy. Systems within solitaire game can vary and depend largely on what is being attempted to be modeled/it's complexity. Beginner: States of Siege Series (By Victory Point Games), The Hunters, Silent Victory Intermediate: Thunderbolt/Apache Leader, Phantom Leader, Navajo Wars Advanced: Field Commander Series, Silent War Multiplayer Have loads of friends? This is the right genre for you! Most wargames tend to be designed for two players at most (although some attempt to replicate chain of commands, successfully or unsuccessfully, in order to allow more than two players to play). Multiplayer games in which there aren't two defined sides tend to involve a high degree of diplomacy. Beginner: 1812: The Invasion of Canada, Maria Intermediate: Sword of Rome, Successors, Diplomacy, Advanced: Here I stand, Virgin Queen Classics Yes, there is a space for the likes of Axis and Allies and Risk within this thread. What is there more to say? Some of the more commercial offerings are present within this particular genre, although they can still be fun to play! Sub-Categories COIN Melding together the genres of CDGs, block wargames and even Euros, COIN (Counter-Insurgency) games are the creation of Volko Ruhnke. The games handle asymmetrical warfare pretty well while representing large scale conflicts in simple, thematic ways. Most of them are 4P games and although bots can be used with lower players, they truly excel at that number. Beginner: Cuba Libre, Falling Sky Intermediate: Andean Abyss Advanced: A Distant Plain, Fire in the Lake, Liberty or Death OCS OCS (Operational Combat Series) is a operational level game which is currently one of the best system out there for big map games. The thing that really makes OCS stand out is that the game isn't so much about fighting your enemies, but being able to set up logistical lines of advance, with depots. Every time you move, you will use up supplies. Every time you attack or defend, you will also use up supplies and since you have to individually move the supplies up to your front lines, being able to set up depots and keep them defended becomes key. The rules can be hard to get into and the scale of the games can be intimidating, but fortunately there are smaller games that are easier to handle. Keep in mind that beginner games are quite advanced in of themselves! Beginner: Reluctant Enemies, Tunisia II Intermediate: Burma, Sicily II Advanced: Blitzkrieg Legend, Case Blue, Guderian's Blitzkrieg II Advanced Squad Leader If you ever wanted to model any given battle, in the entirety of World War 2, in excruciating detail at the tactical level, then ASL is for you! Each 1/2" counter either represents a single man (e.g. a leader), or a group of 3-5 men (a squad). There are also 5/8" counters for every single vehicle that existed in World War 2, as well as every single manned gun (e.g. German 8.8 cm "eighty-eight" guns, or British 40mm Bofors anti-air guns). And when I say that ANY battle is represented, there are well over 1000 ASL scenarios out there. But fear not! There is a stripped-down version of the ASL rule set called "ASL Starter Kit", that is a much easier entry-point to the system. Starter Kit doesn't have fun things like fires or buildings crumbling. Full ASL tells incredibly detailed stories - nothing can beat being upstairs from your opponent in the same building, and throwing a Molotov cocktail downstairs, only to have it catch the building on fire and then rubble it, killing you both. If you want to get into full ASL, you'll have to buy the 2nd edition Rulebook (ASLRB), as well as Beyond Valor, which includes all of the game system counters. After that, go hog wild and buy whatever you want! Beginner: ASL Starter Kit #1 Intermediate: Beyond Valor (ASL Module #1) Advanced:   The best way to buy wargames is to go to your FLGS and hope that they specialise in wargames. If that's not an option, the usual outlets like CoolStuffInc can suffice, otherwise you'll have to order directly from the publisher. Here are some of the better companies out there: GMT Games: One of the larger wargaming companies, they produce very high quality games and publish most if not all of the CDGs available. They run one of the better pre-ordering systems within the industry. Victory Point Games: Victory Point Games aren't flashy, but they produce some of better low complexity games out there. Have partnered up with GMT many times in order to spruce up some of their better designs. Multi-Man Publishing: Producers of some of the best hex and counter games out there, including ASL and OCS, among others. DVG: Horrible site, but excellent games! DVG is currently one of the foremost, well-known publishers for solitaire games. Simmons Games: Designer/Publisher for my own personal favourites, Napoleon's Triumph and Guns of Gettysburg. Columbia Games: One of the most well-known producers of block wargames. Think another company should be up here? Let me know and I'll add it!  The best way to play the wargames above is currently Vassal: Vassal allows you to share a map with other people and track movement of counters in real time. The only issue with Vassal is that some modules for it are better than others, with ones automating most of the rules of the game while others only provide a bare-bones interface. Many of the CDGs above can alternatively be played in Wargameroom. All of the games there are rules-enabled, with the only issue being that many can't use the official map of the game. Also, many of the games are still beta versions which can potentially have a ton of bugs. If you are ever interested in setting up a game, you will find like-minded goons on #boardgoons on SYNIRC! If you think there is a mistake in this OP or you would like something added, let me know by PM or IRC! 
Tekopo fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Dec 12, 2019 |
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Nice op!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Nice, glad we have this thread so I can repeatedly post about how cool Paths of Glory is and how much I want to get something like It never snows
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Paths of Glory is indeed seriously, seriously good. The only problem is that I hardly play it offline anymore so when I play it on wargameroom I don't remember half the rules because, you know, it does everything for me 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
I'm not sure I would put Andean Abyss on the same level as VQ or HiS in terms of complexity. That game is dead simple.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
I dunno, Andean Abyss isn't totally straightforward. Weirdly, it could go in solitaire as easily as multiplayer..
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
I've been playing a couple of medium-weight GMT hex-and-counter games lately. Infidel is one of them. It's in GMT's Men of Iron series, covering battles of the the first through third crusades. The ruleset is pretty interesting. One player is given the a first, free activation dependent on the scenario, and from there, players have to roll to activate commanders and their associated units. The inactive player has the choice of waiting for the active player to fail an activation roll, or to try to "seize continuity" with one of their commanders- whether or not a roll succeeds depends on the quality of the commander being activated. Combat is pretty straightforward, generally resolved by a d10 roll modified by the type of troops involved, quality of the troops involved (written on the counter), and a few other factors. Heavy cav and knights can do charges from afar, knights can be provoked into charging by missile attacks, and there are a few other interesting twists which make for a pretty dynamic battlefield. I recently played the Battle of Antioch as the Fatimids (green counters), with my wife as the Crusaders (blue counters), which highlighted some interesting aspects of the game. The battle starts with troops almost entirely undeployed- the crusaders have to sally out of Antioch onto the field, occupied by Fatimid skirmishers and cavalry, while the Fatimid general Kerbogha gets his fractious troops together and tries to deploy them against the crusaders. Here's the field a couple of activations after the scenario start:  On the left, Turcoman light cav archers block the road from Antioch while Duqaq's Damascan heavy cavalry (green stripes) prepare to charge Hugh of Vermandois' Flemish (red stripes) knights, archers, and men at arms (in this case, dismounted knights- the crusader's horses hadn't fared well). Godfrey of Bouillon (blue stripes) prepares to exit the Antioch gates onto the field with his troops. I get a couple of good activation rolls for the Muslim army and manage to control the field for the time being:  Although Duqaq's charge didn't work out as well as it could have (the "d"s in the yellow diamonds indicate disorganised troops- Duqaq's heavy cav charge has broken on Hugh's knights and men-at-arms- crusader heavy units are TOUGH), I get a couple of good activation rolls and think I'm being clever by bringing Soliman's Syrian light and medium cav (light brown stripes) on from their entry point near Antioch's gate (marked E above the gate) to block Godfrey's entry. The crusaders get the next few activations and I find out just how dumb an idea that was:  Godfrey's troops have utterly crushed Soliman's cavalry command and are moving to deal with Duqaq's heavy cav who are still in a good position to threaten Hugh's troops. Godfrey himself charges into Duqaq's unit to relieve Hugh of his badly flanked position. Kerbogha has managed to get Qaradja of Harran (blue stripes) on the field, but Qaradja is nowhere near in position to get involved in the melee. Duqaq is killed by Hugh's charge, but I get lucky, as Godfrey gets carried away in his efforts to rescue Hugh as continuity passes to the Fatimids:  Duqaq's replacement (Repl) manages to kill Godfrey, but the Muslim army is extremely shaky- you lose in Infidel when your army flees the field as a result of retired and destroyed units, killed leaders, etc, and the loss of Soliman's cavalry and Duqaq has put me on my back heel. All the same, the crusaders aren't doing too well either, having lost a number of high value units. Figuring I'll pull Duqaq's heavy cavalry back and let Kerbogha's main army fight it out, I spend my next few activations bringing the Fatimids on in good order. This turns out to be a critical waste of time, as the crusaders are able to bring on Adhemar of Lepuy and finish off the remnants of Soliman's command, forcing me dangerously near my flight level. I try to end things by rallying Duqaq's heavy infantry and going after Hugh:  This manages to force a draw- both armies break off on the same activation due to losses. Much like the historical outcome, Kerbogha's army shamefully retreats from the field having mostly not seen any action at all. I really enjoy this system, it creates a lot of fluid situations with interesting choices (should I try to bring up my main army or press the attack with these cavalry? How many guys can the Crusaders get out of Antioch if I don't contest the area around the gates? etc), the scenarios are pretty varied, the armies play really differently (Seljuk armies rely almost totally on cavalry archers, Fatimids are more straightforward brawlers, Crusader knights are insane death machines that can blow holes through 4-counter deep light cav formations if you let them, etc). I have some criticisms of the way the activation system works, but generally speaking I think if you're interested in this period at all this game owns bones and is worth checking out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:I dunno, Andean Abyss isn't totally straightforward. Weirdly, it could go in solitaire as easily as multiplayer.. Most of the tough stuff in that game is centered on the government player, who, with a good reading of the playbook and Propaganda phase rules can infer what they need to be doing, I think. The insurgent factions are fairly easy to play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 12:30
|
|
|
I love GMT games, Twilight Struggle is my favorite wargame, I like it a bit more than 1989, which seems to be balanced very favorably towards the Democrat side. Whereas Twilight Struggle I feel is able to hold a good balance till the Late War, where it becomes just superpowered against the Soviets. Still I love their games, I picked up a used copy of the first printing of Paths of Glory and a copy of Pursuit of Glory, though I haven't read the rules for the game. I've been meaning to download the latest rules for PoG instead of reading the included rules. My one problem with GMT is that their rules tend to be very tedious, and confusing or maybe that's just the TS rules. It took me and 3 other people reading the rules to parse it out and even then I still end up in arguments about how scoring works in the game. I'm under the impression that if you have domination, you don't get the points for having presence since, well you need that to have domination, but if your opponent has presence that gets subtracted from the total VP gain? I feel like the suffer from FFG syndrome where they make awesome games but their rules can be confusing as gently caress. What is the general opinion on Lock n' Load games? I've been thinking about picking up a few of them since they seem really cool, especially World at War which reminds of the video game Wargame:European Escalation and Airland Battle. Though it looks like their hosting is down  well I guess that ones for the TG as an industry thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 12:39
|
|
|
Warning: Heresy may be committed in this post. Would people consider FFG's Tide of Iron to be a wargame? It's squad based on a hex map, has terrain and LOS rules and most of the other features of a wargame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 12:52
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Warning: Heresy may be committed in this post. Don't fret too much over this kind of stuff. As long as it's not a minis game we're not exactly the BGG wargame forum where we debate over and over what is and isn't a wargame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 13:25
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Don't fret too much over this kind of stuff. As long as it's not a minis game we're not exactly the BGG wargame forum where we debate over and over what is and isn't a wargame. My only Wargame is Samurai Battles, which I got specifically because it is also a miniature game. Kind of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Most of the tough stuff in that game is centered on the government player, who, with a good reading of the playbook and Propaganda phase rules can infer what they need to be doing, I think. The insurgent factions are fairly easy to play. Depends who you're playing with, I guess. The insurgent factions aren't as tricky as the gov't, but it's not the kind of game where there's an obviously superior action at any given moment, and it's mechanically complex enough that I wouldn't describe it as "dead simple"- 1812, sure, but not AA. Probably intermediate weight is a good description. KomradeX posted:My one problem with GMT is that their rules tend to be very tedious, and confusing or maybe that's just the TS rules. It took me and 3 other people reading the rules to parse it out and even then I still end up in arguments about how scoring works in the game. I'm under the impression that if you have domination, you don't get the points for having presence since, well you need that to have domination, but if your opponent has presence that gets subtracted from the total VP gain? I'm surprised to hear this, GMT generally has some of the best-written and best-edited rules on the market. They also tend to keep up with living rules on their website, have reasonable FAQs/errata, etc. The TS rules are pretty straightforward- you score whatever level of control you have in that region (you score EITHER presence OR domination OR control), plus bonuses for superpower adjacency and battlegrounds. The scoring marker moves the difference between the two players' scores. KomradeX posted:What is the general opinion on Lock n' Load games? I've been thinking about picking up a few of them since they seem really cool, especially World at War which reminds of the video game Wargame:European Escalation and Airland Battle. Though it looks like their hosting is down If you have trouble with GMT rules, you're not going to like the Lock n' Load rules. I have Forgotten Heroes and it's never been on the table because the rulebook is terrrriibbly written. I feel like there's a good game in there, I just don't have the patience to work through the chummy conversational rulebook and figure out how to play. Then again, some people like that style. I prefer my rules pretty procedural.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:
I thought that is how it works, I've just gotten into too many debates with other people who have interpreted the rule differently. It might also be that when I first started playing it it was the first wargame I had ever played and was the only one gung ho about it. And while I was confused about some rules for sometimes, it looks like I got a hang of the rules sooner than I thought. How are GMTs COIN series of games, I really want to get Fire In the Lake and Cuba Libre? Paper Mac posted:
Hmm, it might be tough but I'm willing to attempt to tough it out. Cause I just love the concept of Cold War gone hot scenarios. Are there any games like that on an operational level? Since as much as World at War intrigues me, I don't really care for tactical level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:What is the general opinion on Lock n' Load games? I've been thinking about picking up a few of them since they seem really cool, especially World at War which reminds of the video game Wargame:European Escalation and Airland Battle. Though it looks like their hosting is down I really love the Lock 'n' Load series. World at War is slightly larger in scale and I've only played to once, but it seemed like fun. I couldn't suggest a particular WaW game as a starting point though, and you might want to check the scenario dependency geeklist on BGG if you plan to go beyond a base game. Corps Cmmand: Dawn's Early Light is their World at War Cold-War-gone-hot setting at an even higher level, which might be for you, but World at War is probably closer to Wargame. There is an LnL game for the WaW setting - Heroes of the Gap? - but I've never found a copy. This thread reminds me that I need to put Lock 'n' Load - Heroes of the Blitzkrieg on the table soon. It has cavalry and motorcycle troops! Also, everyone should have a copy of Thunderbolt Apache Leader for when computer games get dull.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
COIN is pretty drat awesome but currently the only one out (Andean Abyss) takes quite a long time to play. You also need to find 4 people willing to go through with it which is a struggle (i've only ever gotten it out once). It does asymmetrical warfare really well and the system that it uses is really innovative: although it takes cues from CDGs, it's actually radically different. Basically there is a single deck from which you can see the current card and the next one available (no one has a hands of cards, people play the same cards). On the cards there is an initiative order and an event, that can be fired one of two ways. The smart bit is that if you play this card, you can't play the next, making it a real choice which one you go for. Only two people can play a card and what the first player does affects what the second can do. It's one of the better innovations in CDGs I've seen in a while and shows that Volko Runkhe, the designer, really learnt from Labyrinth (which I consider a really bad game).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
That does sound interesting as all hell. And everything I heard about Labyrinth said it did suck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
I'm gonna go more in depth when I do my big effort post about Simmons games ( ), but the issue with Labyrinth is that, in a genre pretty much inundated with dice, the game used too many dice. When you have to roll dice to literally move troops or do anything at all, patience starts wearing thin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:How are GMTs COIN series of games, I really want to get Fire In the Lake and Cuba Libre? AA is really, really, really nice. When I first got it my group had it on the table weekly for about 3 months before we burnt out on it, and the only reason we haven't gone back to it more recently is because I'm generally drawing 5 and 6 for games night these days. For me the best thing about it is that it's one of the few wargames that actually takes its subject matter seriously enough to state its biases up front, gives you all the sources that were used, etc- it's not quite a PhD thesis, but it's the closest thing I've seen to an academic treatment of a conflict in boardgame form (amazingly, it's still fun). The contrast with Labryrinth couldn't be starker: Lab is probably the most absurdly childlike treatment of Islamic terrorism this side of JihadWatch, AA engages with and synthesizes Marxist treatments of FARC's program, products of American right wing think tanks, the memoirs of Colombian officials, etc. The game really never lets you forget that there aren't any good guys- I don't think I'll forget the first time I played gov't, turned to the AUC player and offered to fund his death squad attacks, and the next card to come up had a photo of AUC victims floating in a pond- it was like a punch in the gut. It really drives home how brutal that conflict was. The system itself is really elegant and a lot of basic concepts associated with state and non-state actors that aren't explicit in the rules end up getting expressed in gameplay, which is great. The biggest criticism I have of it is that scoring drives player behaviour maybe a little more than it should- because "Propaganda Cards", which check victory conditions and potentially end the game, are salted randomly through the deck, I often found myself taking actions that made sense in terms of scoring but were kind of silly in terms of a military campaign. It can sometimes feel like you're not really stringing operations together in some kind of coherent strategy but just cranking levers attached to other players' scores. I think I actually planned to try not checking for victory on the first and third cards as a variant, or something like that, but I never got around to it. Another thing I'm not totally on board with is that the population are pretty much part of the "terrain"- that's I guess standard American COIN doctrine, but it's sort of bizarre that the population in the game just kind of lay there as waves of terrorism wash over them, responding totally predictably the entire time. Come to think of it the events in the cards do mitigate this, and I don't know that there were many relocations of population in Colombia, but how do you do the strategic hamlet strategy of Vietnam? I don't know how that will be handled. As far as the other games in the series, I don't know much about them. I was looking at A Distant Plain and it looks like Ruhnke is constitutionally incapable of dealing with conflicts involving Muslims with anything approaching the same level of curiousity and sensitivity that he portrayed the Colombian conflict with in AA, so I'm steering clear of that. Not sure if he'll be able to do Vietnam without rah-rahing for the Americans, frankly. AA's greatest strength for me was the portrayal of the dirtiness of counterinsurgency- the gov't will get funded by drug lords to stomp ex-ally death squads while cutting a deal with their ostensible communist enemies, etc. It's not clear to me that the other games are going to have that sense, but we'll see I guess. KomradeX posted:Hmm, it might be tough but I'm willing to attempt to tough it out. Cause I just love the concept of Cold War gone hot scenarios. Are there any games like that on an operational level? Since as much as World at War intrigues me, I don't really care for tactical level. LNL is pretty much the only game in town for cold-war-gone-hot these days. As chrisoya mentioned, they have the Corps Command series at an operational level. Otherwise your choices are pretty much old SPI and GDW titles. There are VASSAL modules for games like The Third World War, but if you want physical copies of that stuff you're pretty much SOL unless you're willing to pay collector's prices on Ebay. Tekopo posted:COIN is pretty drat awesome but currently the only one out (Andean Abyss) takes quite a long time to play. You also need to find 4 people willing to go through with it which is a struggle (i've only ever gotten it out once). Also I didn't find this to be true- the "AI player" sheets (basically algorithms to play the insurgent factions) actually work decently well. I've started games with just Govt vs FARC played as human, AUC and Cartels run as algos, had people drop in to fill the AUC/Cartels slots for a few hours, and drop back out, and it worked fine. You can also split the factions so one player plays Gov't + AUC, and the other plays FARC + Cartels- this works, but it's confusing to play. In any case, AA is excellent with 4 but it's decent with 3 and workable with 2, IMO. Paper Mac fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
i had really bad experiences with the Labyrinth AI hence why I'm a bit skeptical of the one for AA: I dislike having to go through resolution flowchart in order to find out what to do and frankly the diplomacy aspect of AA seems to be the real focus of the game. No wargaming this weekend, was hoping to get in a game of GoG or TS at least, no such luck. It's kind of difficult to get a game for me since my wargaming buddy left the country. Do you guys have issues finding people to play?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
The AA AI reliably beelines for their victory conditions and generally deals with the cards pretty well. The major change to diplomacy is automating the Cartels, as they no longer use their warchest to fund other factions, but I didn't find that it made a 3-player game much less interesting to automate either Cartels or AUC (the first time we did it we actually had an AI cartel win because the 3 humans couldn't agree on a ceasefire to tackle them  ).I have a pretty good group going but to the extent they're interested in wargames it's the big multiplayer games like 1812, AA, Maria. I have a couple of white elephants that are never going to get on the table (OCS: Burma and Elusive Victory come to mind) with these guys- I should probably learn how to use VASSAL and find opponents for these online at some point. Paper Mac fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:i had really bad experiences with the Labyrinth AI hence why I'm a bit skeptical of the one for AA: I dislike having to go through resolution flowchart in order to find out what to do and frankly the diplomacy aspect of AA seems to be the real focus of the game. I find that I can get someone engaged in a game as long as they have an interest in the history represented within it. Case in point, two weeks ago a friend of mine endured (and seemed to like!) a learning game of Guns of Gettysburg, which I expected to be too complex for him (he does not play wargames). He stuck with it because of his interest in the ACW and ended up enjoying himself. I don't think he would have had as good an experience had I thrown him into a comparatively simpler game, like C&C ancients, which depicts a period of history he does not care about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
I've had that issue when attempting to get people interested in Napoleon's Triumph/Guns of Gettysburg: most people I know do not have interest at all in Napoleonics/ACW. Or, for that matter, the COIN operations in Colombia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I've had that issue when attempting to get people interested in Napoleon's Triumph/Guns of Gettysburg: most people I know do not have interest at all in Napoleonics/ACW. Or, for that matter, the COIN operations in Colombia. Let's face it: we're gigantic history nerds. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:Let's face it: we're gigantic history nerds. Maybe that's true for some, but I play these games because their rich both in theme and play (at least, I play the ones that are rich in theme and play, which is a lot of them). I love the asymmetry of Andean Abyss and Virgin Queen, the competitive nature of Twilight Struggle, and the what-the-gently caress-itude of Advanced Squad Leader. I don't have particular interest in the Colombian drug war, Elizabethan times, the Cold War, or WWII. I can appreciate the history, but it's secondary to how I appreciate the game. I mean, where the gently caress are you going to find another game like Napoleon's Triumph or Guns of Gettysburg? Those Euros ain't got jack poo poo on that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
I come from both fields, to be honest. I love the gameplay of wargames because it is so different from everything else and sometimes you need to play something that is directly competitive but still has a strong rule-base present. It's also the sense of aesthetics: I love seeing how front-lines progress, or how Corps square up against each other and create a living map in NT/GoG. Everything tells it's own little story, but that's only possible if the rules are strong. I'm usually more of a fun of euros, but I think I said to another goon that I love wargames because they give you all the tools possible in order to mitigate your luck, so it never feels like a decision is out of your hands. On the other hand, I'm currently reading World on Fire (a book about UK/US relations during the ACW) and the last few books I've read have been Gettysburg, Villa & Zapata: A Biography of the Mexican Revolution, The Spanish Civil War and Shelby Foote's Civil War: A Narrative. I'm definitely in there for the history aspects as well, especially ACW.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Having recently just listened to Dan Carlin's podcast on the Spanish-American war, I'm all fired up to find a good wargame that is set during the period (either Spain v America, Spain v Guerillas or the follow up conflict of America v Phillipines) any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:Let's face it: we're gigantic history nerds. Interestingly, I had zero interest in any sort of military history before I played a few of these wargames. I have enough acquaintance with Cold War history that playing Twilight Struggle didn't really get me to read any history. However, when I played Andean Abyss I got really interested in learning about all the events (and I shared the punch-in-the-gut feeling that Paper Mac mentioned a few posts ago). Then when a buddy introduced me to Hannibal: Romve vs Carthage I got really sucked into the history of the Second Punic War -- I watched a documentary on Hannibal and then read a book on the Battle of Cannae. If you'd told me two years ago that I would read a book on the history of an ancient battle, I would have told you you were crazy. It works a bit the other way, too -- now that I read War and Peace last year, I'm interested in trying some Napoleonic games (especially featuring the Battle of Borodino) if I get the chance. This weekend I played Sword of Rome with some friends. Three of us were totally new to the game (though two of us had played Hannibal: RvC, which shares a lot of rules). I played Rome. The Greeks got hammered pretty early by a Roman/Etruscan/Samnite alliance. By Turn 4, the score was 7 for E/S, 7 for Rom, 6 for Gaul, and 3 for Greece. Then I (as Rome) backstabbed E/S in a particulary ineffective manner and at the start of Turn 6 I was down to 3 points. *sigh* We had to call the game at that point due to time. I enjoyed it a lot and would play it again, although you have to be aware that the combat is really unpredictable and can be brutally swingy. And, as above, knowing that we were playing out a historical conflict (and recognizing a few of the general names) added an extra layer of interest to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Anyone played Empire of the Sun? I think if I go for another CDG I'd like to try something different, the CDG-driving-hex-and-counter concept seems really interesting.The End posted:Having recently just listened to Dan Carlin's podcast on the Spanish-American war, I'm all fired up to find a good wargame that is set during the period (either Spain v America, Spain v Guerillas or the follow up conflict of America v Phillipines) any suggestions? There's very, very little out there on any of these topics. Bolos and Krags has been "coming out soon!" for years now, but if it ever does get published it'll probably be the only thing in print on any of these conflicts, as far as I know. Paper Mac fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Aug 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
I loving hate history, and having to deal with history spergs is probably the worst part about wargaming. Also, 3000 exceptions to rules because of said history, and how the spergs would cry if it wasn't included. Give me a wargame with elves and poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Anyone played Empire of the Sun? I think if I go for another CDG I'd like to try something different, the CDG-driving-hex-and-counter concept seems really interesting. It's a good game, but extremely complex. Keeping track of all the air zones of influence, the ranges of all your opponents ships, the reaction possibilities for each attack, and so forth adds a lot of mental work to each turn. If you don't mind that, there's a good solid game in there, but both players need to be on top of the rules and focused for it to work well. I definitely think it's a multi-session game, as it can get quite mentally exhausting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
The General posted:Give me a wargame with elves and poo poo Done. blackmongoose posted:It's a good game, but extremely complex. Keeping track of all the air zones of influence, the ranges of all your opponents ships, the reaction possibilities for each attack, and so forth adds a lot of mental work to each turn. If you don't mind that, there's a good solid game in there, but both players need to be on top of the rules and focused for it to work well. I definitely think it's a multi-session game, as it can get quite mentally exhausting. Thanks for the heads up, I should read the rules more closely. The counter density looked pretty low, so I wasn't expecting it to be a big mental load. I should watch calandale's playthrough on BGG, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 09:01
|
|
|
Don't worry, guys. My comment about us all being history nerds was tongue-in-cheek. The General posted:Give me a wargame with elves and poo poo Besides the above-mentioned Wizard Kings, there's GMT's upcoming Fury that's based off Manoeuvre though it looks like it's gonna take awhile since it's hasn't broke the P500 target since quite some time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
Huh, nothing like seeing random pics of my RL friends playing obscure games on BGG. I'll have to play that one. Also, recommend some good SF wargames? gently caress the past, the future is where it's at Bonus points for drones and hive races.VVV: Space Empires 4X is about the only one I know. Pierzak fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Aug 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
Does Space Empires 4X count? There's also Space Infantry but I have no idea how good it actually is, although it's a solitaire game. Talking about Columbia games, Rommel in the Desert is seriously, seriously good. I really liked the supply system (although I'd house-rule it to make it so every player has a seperate deck with even distribution): the way it works is that you get supply cards, some of which are actual supply cards while others are blank. During your turn if you have the initiative you can play cards: at least one has to be supply. A single supply card allows you to move a single formation and then fight, two supply cards allow you to move two formations and fight or move one formation and fight with twice the dice, while playing three cards allows you to move a formation, fight, then move another formation and fight (useful for exploiting holes created by the first fight). The blank cards can be used to bluff, allowing you to threaten a breakthrough even though you don't have enough supply to exploit it, thus making it more likely that your opponent will retreat to protect his line. As well as the above, after every combat phase you roll a number of replacement points: in order to replenish units you have to move them all the way back to the home base (this can be done by using replacement points in order to ship them by boat or making them travel all the way back). This is a good system since the further you are from your base, the more difficult it becomes to replace your stuff. The combat itself is simple enough that I could get even my dad to give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:Also, recommend some good SF wargames? gently caress the past, the future is where it's at Space Empires 4x seems to be getting good reviews, although I haven't played it, definitely be interested to hear from anyone who has. There's lots of SF stuff available, though, depending on what you're interested in. At one point I was trying to convince myself that I had the time and energy to learn Attack Vector: Tactical, which models Atomic Rockets/Winchell Chung compliant torchships flying around in 3d with full vector movement and shooting at each other with physically-possible weapons 
Paper Mac fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Aug 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 10:38
|
|
|
I've made a death pact with a fellow board gamer. If I play The Blitzkrieg Legend with him this weekend he'll play None But Heroes with me at a later date. Wish me luck! I've never played either before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
The Blitzkrieg Legend is a great book! No idea if it's a good game at all though
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I've made a death pact with a fellow board gamer. If I play The Blitzkrieg Legend with him this weekend he'll play None But Heroes with me at a later date. Wish me luck! I've never played either before. OCS is a really, really nice ruleset. It took me a couple of days to learn it but it's got the best supply system of any game I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Pierzak posted:Huh, nothing like seeing random pics of my RL friends playing obscure games on BGG. I'll have to play that one. There's Steve Jackson Presents: A Steve Jackson game by Steven Jackson: Ogre by Steve Jackson Games. I'm looking forward to getting my copy of the Kickstarter edition sometime this decade. It's a fast playing game that's a bit deeper tactically that it might appear at first glance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 04:17
|
|
