|
Have you guys managed to play World in Flames? How is it?
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
I think it was World At War where I played as the Italians once (we only used the Europe map), did nothing because of my meager forces and lost half my fleet the first turn I actually did something. I think the game can be fun so don't take my game as gospel (just don't play with more than one player as Axis if you are just using Europe). I managed to get a game of Red Winter today: we only got as far as the end of the first day and my explanation of the rules was really rushed but the game seemed really easy to grasp. We are going to try again Monday, hopefully I can give a better session report then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
I think I like the positioning and movement in GoG better than NT. NT gets confusing as hell in small locales, particularly if a corps gets shattered and you have a couple of units in the approaches.Zombie #246 posted:Have you guys managed to play World in Flames? How is it?  one day...
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Guns of Gettsysburg Part II Okay, you are REALLY making me want this game....
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:I think I like the positioning and movement in GoG better than NT. NT gets confusing as hell in small locales, particularly if a corps gets shattered and you have a couple of units in the approaches. Why would you ever need a hex map of North America in a WWII game? Just for the Japanese west coast raids? Will those hexes in the great plains ever be touched by a counter? Don't even get me started on South America; not a single country there would have joined a war in that time period on the opposite side of the US. It's especially strange because it looks like they don't even bother with East Africa, which at least saw some actual fighting and could be especially useful if you're starting pre-1939 for the Italian invasion of Ethiopia (also solves Tekopo's problem of having nothing to do as Italy!) Edit: Also, no Murmansk extension. If you're going to make the players use brain power on irrelevant areas of the map, at least that area had opposing troops in it historically blackmongoose fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Aug 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
That's for America in Flames.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:I think I like the positioning and movement in GoG better than NT. NT gets confusing as hell in small locales, particularly if a corps gets shattered and you have a couple of units in the approaches. I don't think the actual war room for WWII was that intense 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Now I want to go there with a leafblower 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 10:43
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:That's for America in Flames. That would explain why South America is about half again the size of Britain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:Why would you ever need a hex map of North America in a WWII game? Just for the Japanese west coast raids? Will those hexes in the great plains ever be touched by a counter? Don't even get me started on South America; not a single country there would have joined a war in that time period on the opposite side of the US. It's especially strange because it looks like they don't even bother with East Africa, which at least saw some actual fighting and could be especially useful if you're starting pre-1939 for the Italian invasion of Ethiopia (also solves Tekopo's problem of having nothing to do as Italy!) blackmongoose: monstergame vibeharsher
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
Nothing as fun as getting halfway thru your game when the cat jumps onto the table, counters now flying everywhere. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Nothing as fun as getting halfway thru your game when the cat jumps onto the table, counters now flying everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
Guns of Gettysburg Having called a hold in my last turn, I get the possibility of calling a multi-hour turn in my next turn (the player with initiative, in this case the Confederates). The upper limit of hours is determined by counting the number of blocks that the player with the least block has on the board: for every three blocks, an extra hour can be added to the turn: in this case, the maximum is 2 hours since the union player has 5 blocks on the board. If I decided to only do one hour, I would be forced to attack or retreat next turn (this rule is present in order to prevent the player with initiative from needlessly stretching turns by using hold orders instead of consolidating them in one large multi-hour turn). There are some advantages to calling multi-hour turns: first of all, you draw one token per hour, you get to see more reinforcement tokens and you get to march further/bring in more reinforcements. Marching is slightly different for the two players as the player in initiative gets +2 movement per hour while the non-initiative player only gets +1 per hour. The most difficult thing about multi-hour turns is the effect on reinforcements: since they come at a certain hour it's important to keep track of when a unit comes into the board. I decide to call the two hour turn and hence the next turn will be from 12 to 2pm. The Union player draws two tokens and flips the next two reinforcement tokens: both rumours. He moves up his last Sedgewick brigade to extend the line northward and then calls a Withdrawal general order: it's clear that he's worried about his right flank, which is why he called the order. He does, however, have to discard half of his tokens due to calling a withdrawal. My turn comes around and I draw two tokens, replenishing my hand. No withdrawals or attacks, so I draw my two reinforcement tokens: one from Mummasburg and one from Chambersburg! Second Corps is finally on the field. The Chambersburg division is Johnson's, while the Mummasburg one is Rodes. I make everything enter by off-road movement: Pender comes in on the first hour in Chambersburg while Rodes comes in at the same hour in Mummasburg. Johnson, having arrived on the second hour, also comes in off-road but can't move further that turn. Rodes and Pender use multi-hour movement to move up. Since there is an obstruction on the right flank of the Union line, I can sneak past without worrying about FoF. It seems like the Union player did the right thing by calling a retreat! For my marches, I also move Heth to come round the side: I want to be able to threaten the Union flank if possible. I call attack on the next turn (helping the Union player on his decision to vacate the area) and the Union player gets two movements of objectives (one per hour).  The current situation: one of the objectives is already behind Cemetery Ridge, but there's nothing I could have done to prevent it. Since I called an attack, the next turn lasts from 2pm to 3pm. The Union player drops back his line, abandoning McPherson's Ridge and taking up a position on Seminary Ridge: still a strong position but it has a danger of being flanked since the terrain North of Gettysburg doesn't feature much in terms of defensible terrain. He also pulls back Buford's brigade since there's no point covering the Harrisburg pike anymore. As reinforcement, he finally gets another Corps, from the Baltimore Road: Sykes has arrived on the field. Fortunately, Sykes' Corps is one of the weaker one, having not a single strength-2 reduction. During his movement, he brings in one of Sykes' brigades using on-road movement and then shuffles his lines to strengthen his north-facing right flank and calls a hold for next turn. I get no further reinforcements this turn and since there is nothing to attack, go immediately to marches: I decide to use a march token (give +1 movement to 3 blocks) to move Heth up to threaten the left flank of the Union Army while I quickly march Pender and Rodes to the Union right. Johnson also moves up: I want to place him next to Rodes so that I can keep the 2nd Corps together. I call an attack next turn: the ground north of Gettsyburg has nary a ridge in sight so I'm confident I will be able to smash through.  Next Update: The Confederate attack!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Guns of Gettysburg Looking forward to this. These are really informative AARs. I'm a computer grog gamer, but I've never really dallied in the world of board games. This thread has gotten me really interested in the idea and GoG in particular.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Dre2Dee2, hop online on the boardgoons chat if you can, thinking of starting relatively soonish for the Andean Abyss game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:ASL, consider the number of rules it has, probably has rules for a cat's interaction with the board. I once had a WHFB game interrupted by a rat scurrying across the table (protip: don't leave bags of dog food unattended in your garage.) We treated it as a Hellpit Abomination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Andean Abyss Myself and 3 other goons played most of a game of AA yesterday on Vassal, here's a brief rundown on how it went:  Here's the board the start of the game. We have: ConorT: The Government (dark blue & light blue) The faction leading the counterinsurgency campaign. To win, the government has to earn the popular support of Colombia. The government starts with 50 support(see the support/resources track on the board's periphery) from each of the cities and areas that it has passive or active support (blue tiles) on. At the start of the game, this is every city but Cali (the only city with Cartel presence, representing the influence the Cali Cartel has on the city's population) Plus Santander-Boyaca, where government troops (dark blue cubes) and police (light blue cubes) train at the lone government base (dark blue disk) to root out the guerrillas hiding in the mountains. To create support in neutral (no tile) or opposition (red tiles) areas, the government needs the presence of both troops and police in that area, and more cubes than the combined pieces of all other factions in that area. They can then spend resources to shift the population of that region to active support, at which point the population of that area contributes to to the government's total support. If the government has >60 support when 1 of the 4 propaganda cards in the event deck comes into play, they win. Panzeh: Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia - FARC (red) The FARC is here to lead a revolution against the corrupt and ineffectual government that has failed the people of Colombia. To win, they need to incite opposition in the population of Colombia and establish themselves as an armed force capable of overthrowing the government. They win when their combined number of bases (red disks) and opposition (which works just like government support, the opposition (red tiles) on the board show which parts of Colombia contribute opposition for the FARC) exceeds 25 (when a propaganda card comes up). They'll spend most of the game in a tug-of-war with the government trying to generate opposition for their cause while reducing the government's support. They start with bases established in the rural areas of Colombia, but they won't be there for long: expect the FARC to build up their army of guerrillas in the jungle and mountains (where the government has a hard time finding them) then march into cities and LoCs (lines of communication, the numbered roads and pipelines connecting the cities, which the government needs to protect in order to keep its resources high), where they can commit acts of terror and kidnapping to cripple the government's economy and generate opposition. Dre2Dee2: Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia - AUC (yellow) Believe it or not, terrorism and kidnapping does not convince everyone to take your side. The AUC represent the people living in the rural parts of Colombia that are sick of the FARC's presence in their homes. They have lost faith in a government that seemingly won't lift a finger to help them, so they've taken taken up arms themselves to fight the FARC where the Government can't. The AUC win the game by establishing themselves as a superior force to the FARC. They win when their total number of bases exceed the FARC's (when a propaganda card comes up). Easier said then done: look at the board at the start of the game. Yup, the AUC have 1 measly base compared to the FARC's 6, and the AUC can only have a maximum of 6 bases on the board, while the FARC can have up to 9! Clearly the AUC have their work cut out for them, but that's okay, because they have no qualms extorting, terrorizing, assassinating, or massacring anyone they perceive as a FARC sympathizer. Tekopo: Cartels (green) What's the number 1 export of Colombia? Probably coffee, but the cartels would prefer if it was cocaine. The cartels win by establishing a drug empire in Colombia and raking the cash in. They win when they have >10 bases on the board and have >40 resources (when a propaganda card comes up). Easier said than done: the cartels have the smallest pool of guerrillas of any faction, which makes protecting its bases (and its primary source of income) pretty difficult. Worse still, the government is being given aid (see the resource track) from the USA to help its "war on drugs". Aid increases whenever the government eradicates a plantation using airborne chemicals. Fortunately, resources can be transferred between all factions as non-binding agreements. The politics of this game allow a smart cartels player to bribe other players into ignoring him. There's also an in-game bribe ability which allows the cartels to spend resources to remove hostile pieces from the board that threaten their bases. Tl;dr: Government needs to protect its cities and roads while pushing out and flipping more areas to active support. FARC need to build an army, push onto the cities, roads, and mountains and establish presence there to flip areas to active opposition. They also need to watch out for AUC troops. AUC need to destroy FARC bases and build their own. Cartels need to build a lot of bases and make lots of money. Let's rock:  Here we are a few turns in. The government has put most of its troops and police on the board, spreading them out among its cities in case of a FARC or cartel incursion. Two areas of note: there is now a huge police and troop presence in Cali, allowing the government to perform civic actions there to bring active support back to Cali, giving it 3pop x2(active support) = 6 support, for a total of 56. The police presence also keeps the cartel player wary of expanding there. The other area of note is Huila-Tolima, the mountain region east of Cali. The government got a great event card that let them put a base and 3 troops anywhere on the board, allowing them to establish themselves in Huila before the FARC could create a strong presence there. The base will make it much easier to put police there, making it easier to flip Huila to active support. But first, the FARC need to be eliminated there! Even though the government has an overwhelming force, its still difficult to eliminate guerrillas from these areas. Troops can only assault and eliminate guerrillas that are active(i.e. their star side is pointing up, all of the guerrillas in Huila are active right, now, for example). If the star side is down, they are underground and the troops can't find them. The government can perform a sweep operation first to turn underground guerrillas active, then on their next turn they can assault. Unfortunately, the nature of the game makes this difficult to pull off: the event cards give priority on who can act, but if you have acted off an event card you are ineligible for the next one, and only two players max can act off one event card. This means that after a sweep, the insurgents have a chance to perform rallys and go underground again. Sigh. All government operations are also extremely expensive: a few troops placed on the board and a couple of sweep operations have left the government with only 16 resources of its original 40, because it costs the government 3 times as many resources to do anything in this game compared to the insurgents (redtape  ). They get this money back during the propaganda phase, but only if their LoCs haven't been sabotaged.The FARC are having a rough time right now. The government got an event card that allowed them to build a base in Huila, and this is stymieing the FARC's attempts to establish opposition in this valuable 2pop zone. The AUC also wiped out their base in Arauca (we missed a rule here, the AUC can't rally in areas that have opposition). It's not all bad: they're positioned in Meta-East, Meta-West, Putumayo-Caqueta and Guaviare to perform kidnap operations to steal resources from the cartels here, but they're waiting for now because the Cartels start the game out relatively poor. The AUC are doing what they do best: building bases and eliminating FARC. The government has ignored them completely allowing them to rally in Antioquia-Bolivar and Atlantico-Magdalena, and they've got a good presence in Arauca as well. The Cartels are taking it slow and steady, building their bases up while trying to be ignored by the other players. They got a nice event card early on that let them build bases in the deep forest areas of Amazonas, Vaupes, and Guainia. These areas have 0 population and cannot contribute support or opposition to the Government/FACR player, which makes them good to have bases in. The Government player eradicated the base in Guainia already (war on drugs ), increasing its aid by 4, but pissing off the locals and giving the FARC a free guerrilla there. The cartel player has no chance of winning the game on the first propaganda card (look at its resources: it has 4 and needs 40 to win) but each propaganda card gives it 3 resources per base, so if it can keep its base count high it will be in good shape going into round two. The first propaganda round! The government to control Huila, but the FARC was on the move: first onto LOCs connecting the government's cities. The government responded by patrolling its police and troops onto these LOCs, activating the guerillas before they could sabotage them, but this let the FARC player march into the relatively undefended cities of Ibague and Pasto. Since a propaganda card was coming next, the FARC player took control of these cities, which sabotages all connecting LoCs during the propaganda round and let it convert them to active opposition! The sabotaged LoCs meant that the government player only got 17 of its 30 resources that propaganda round, and because the active el presidente was Samper, all foreign aid was rejected. At the end of the round, government support is less than 60, so Samper loses the election to the next guy (pastrana) who will accept government aid, but takes a more passive approach to the combating the FARC by declaring a FARC zone on Guaviare: the government cannot do anything here whatsoever as long as that FARC zone token remains there. AUC now have two bases in Antioquia and are moving into choco to eliminate the FARC base here. Through shipments and bases, the cartels player was able to wrangle 39 resources together, combine with its 10 bases, this means the that cartels placer has the smallest margin to victory, a distinction that is only important on the final propaganda card (assuming no one has won outright).  About halfway through the 2nd round of the game: This is where all the other players agreed that the AUC was probably getting out of control. I sent some police after them in Arauca (off an event card) but that just let the Cartels player establish a base in Cucuta, the city adjacent to my most valuable pipelines  . I've done sweeps in Arauca, Ibague, Pasto, and Cali in the hopes of Assaulting there when I next get an action, with my primary target being Cali, where the cartels player has built another base and a shipment of cocaine, mocking my inability to stop him. Look at the current event card and next event card: the cartels player has priority on both of those, he uses one of them to rally and get his guys in Cali underground, making me look like an idiot.The FARC tried to elimate my cubes in Ibague and Pasto using attack rolls (if 1d6 < # of your guerrillas, inflict 2 casualties) but he whiffed both because dice rolls are bullshit. Meanwhile, his forces in Meta-East, Meta-West, and Cesar are ready to march into my cities at a moment's notice. He's also committed acts of terror in meta east and guaviare in order to kidnap and extort the cartels for resources. The AUC player wiped out the FARC base in Choco and is ready to build his own there, which will tie his bases with FARC's. Sigh. The rest of the round happens in a blur as I become absorbed in the game and all 4 of us become swept up in its politics. Up until this point we were mostly acting in our own interests, but with all of the insurgents closing in on their victory conditions, opposing factions began helping each other. FARC did not trigger an event preventing the government from using air lifts, air strikes, or eradications for the rest of the round under the agreement that I use these strictly on the AUC. The AUC offered me resources to move my troops out of Arauca. The cartels demanded resources from me or they would trigger an event card that permanently crippled my ability to perform civic actions. Negotiations were, um, heated:   Here's how the game looked at the end of round 2. FARC pulled the ole' city LoC siwtcheroo again, landing on LoCs this time, giving the government only 11 resources + 8 aid for this round. They also act first on the next card, so things are looking a bit rough for the government. The AUC are in a pretty nice position: they marched a ton of guerrillas to Cesar, and with >6 of them can auto-succeed on attacks. They're tied with FARCS for bases now, can they pull ahead? The Cartels are also sitting pretty: they used an event card giving them 4 times their bases instead of resources for this prop. round instead of 3, and are now floating 67 resources. Can they find room for just two more bases before the final prop card comes up? Next time: the last two rounds, which I will try to document better than the previous ones. ConorT fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Aug 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Keep in mind that there are two more prop cards to go, not one. Anyway, good writeup, though. I will say that as a FARC player, I want to keep AUC in the game because as long as AUC is in a position to win, the government will not hit my bases, at least not until AUC is weakened further, and a cash-strapped government has a lot fewer options than usual.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Ballsy FARC play, imo. Taking control of those cities prior to the prop card looks like it really knocked Gov't off its stride. Looking forward to seeing the outcome. What's happening with Gov't capabilities, anyway? Just no opportunities to take them or have those cards not been coming up? Looks like Govt really needs the discounts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Ballsy FARC play, imo. Taking control of those cities prior to the prop card looks like it really knocked Gov't off its stride. Looking forward to seeing the outcome. What's happening with Gov't capabilities, anyway? Just no opportunities to take them or have those cards not been coming up? Looks like Govt really needs the discounts. Only 2 came up and I opted not to use them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
No update for Guns of Gettysburg, but I did play a game IRL so here's the end result (me as the confederates). Very messy fight, lines got broken after I managed to bag Sedgewick's Corps. Union never really withdrew to recreate his lines, which was probably his biggest problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:No update for Guns of Gettysburg, but I did play a game IRL so here's the end result (me as the confederates). Very messy fight, lines got broken after I managed to bag Sedgewick's Corps. Union never really withdrew to recreate his lines, which was probably his biggest problem. It looks like someone sneezed on the board.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
ConorT posted:Only 2 came up and I opted not to use them. Rough. Come to think of it, I don't think in the 9 or so plays my group has had of AA, we've had a Gov't victory. I don't know if that speaks to our failings or how difficult the gov't is to play compared to the insurgent factions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
When do you think is the next time we can finish that AA game? Cause poo poo was getting really good 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Rough. Come to think of it, I don't think in the 9 or so plays my group has had of AA, we've had a Gov't victory. I don't know if that speaks to our failings or how difficult the gov't is to play compared to the insurgent factions. I think the Cartels are probably the likeliest faction to win in any given game of AA because they tend not to intersect heavily with other factions' goals and don't give a crap about pop at all. Government is hard to play, especially against a FARC player that's being aggressive. I feel like FARC is difficult to play, but it's the second likeliest faction to be able to win a game, then AUC, then government. One of the interesting thing about the next-gen COIN games is that the government's role is separated between support and control, which makes them a lot easier to play, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Gencon had copies of Maria and Guns of Gettysburg in the vendors hall for decent price. Now I have Maria and Guns of Gettysburg  Hopefully I can get these to the table soon. Two-player games have been a problem for me recently due to my main gaming buddy being busy with work; and three players is a very oddball count.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Sorry for the crappy lighting: I was playing as the Finns. This was at the end of the 2nd day: he grouped up most of his front line and dug in since he was worried about night attacks. The first night was brutal: I destroyed a full stack of mortars/mgs after getting a good night raid roll since they hadn't been stacked with any infantry. In the same night, he left his supply chain open so I was able to raid his artillery park: he didn't get very far in day 2 but he was beginning to flank. Very interesting game!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Ouch! I'm afraid that with that losses and lack of ground coverage the soviets lost already. Still, don't tell that to your opponent and you'll enjoy few more hours of an enjoyable learning game and testing various maneuvers and tactics. Yet, with so many costly mistakes to learn from he might become a fearsome opponent in a rematch. Note that in future busting mortars via night raids will be almost impossible due to ZOC coverage (the eternal wargaming problem of players not being as surprised by what's going to happen). It's the one aspect where it's got this CDG thing where the first game has a different feel than all that come afterwards. Where did all soviets go? Near the supply source and dead? Even though you probably mostly just did some pushing along the road, how do you enjoy the game? And speaking of Red Winter, I'll try to drop a next part of the overview in the coming days, since I'll go offline for two weeks after thursday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I think the Cartels are probably the likeliest faction to win in any given game of AA because they tend not to intersect heavily with other factions' goals and don't give a crap about pop at all. Government is hard to play, especially against a FARC player that's being aggressive. I feel like FARC is difficult to play, but it's the second likeliest faction to be able to win a game, then AUC, then government. Yeah, I agree. The Cartels also can do basically everything they need to do with Rally, so there's rarely many hard choices with them. Panzeh posted:One of the interesting thing about the next-gen COIN games is that the government's role is separated between support and control, which makes them a lot easier to play, IMO. Not sure I know what you mean, the gov't has two scoring tracks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Ouch! I'm afraid that with that losses and lack of ground coverage the soviets lost already. Still, don't tell that to your opponent and you'll enjoy few more hours of an enjoyable learning game and testing various maneuvers and tactics. Yet, with so many costly mistakes to learn from he might become a fearsome opponent in a rematch. He had most of his AT guns and a stack of infantry covering his artillery depot. Two stacks of infantry were attempting to flank me from the north as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Not sure I know what you mean, the gov't has two scoring tracks? Well, they have the Coalition/US side, and then the Afghan Govt/RVN side, which have different objectives, splitting the functions of the counterinsurgent side up a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 12:30
|
|
|
I'm really curious on how they are going to preserve the balance of power that is the crux of AA within those designs since there is much more explicit co-operation within those particular coalitions than between the AUC/Govt and the Cartels/FARC. It's why I'm looking forward to Cuba Libre, since I'm hoping that it will deliver an experience similar to AA without taking an entire day to play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:Why would you ever need a hex map of North America in a WWII game? Just for the Japanese west coast raids? Will those hexes in the great plains ever be touched by a counter? Don't even get me started on South America; not a single country there would have joined a war in that time period on the opposite side of the US. It's especially strange because it looks like they don't even bother with East Africa, which at least saw some actual fighting and could be especially useful if you're starting pre-1939 for the Italian invasion of Ethiopia (also solves Tekopo's problem of having nothing to do as Italy!) Actually, the Murmansk extension is there, just not in that picture. It's toward the top right in this picture: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1552295/jgauthie001?size=large Full thread: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/922333/perhaps-i-went-a-little-off-of-the-handle
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Does anyone have any experience with the Field Commander series? I'm interested in solo games and I always wanted to try out Field Commander: Napoleon but I was always unsure if I would like it or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
I have Napoleon, haven't played the earlier games. You know how some simple PC wargames, like Panzer General or Unity of Command sometimes feel more like a sort of efficiency puzzle rather than a game about commanding soldiers? It's a bit like that, but in cardboard form. It's not bad by any means (I like the way Dan Verssen did battles in this one) but I have a hard time recommending or discouraging from it. It's a slightly different taste than the usual wargames. Lichtenstein fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
I have Alexander, and my thoughts are similar to Lichtenstein's. Also, there's a great deal of randomness, which is probably necessary to some degree to keep it interesting, but if you don't like that sort of thing it could get frustrating. I do have to admit that the battles in Napoleon look pretty interesting - certainly more so than Alexander (roll dice to kill dudes, repeat)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
I think that randomness is a bit of a given but I was hoping that they would bring slightly more of a challenge: guess I'm stuck waiting for the Fields of Fire reprint or for the second one to come off P500 if I want to get my fix of highly tactical solitaire games. There was an LP of FoF that was REALLY interesting but I think it's gone to the archives now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Sadly, yes.  I have a tendency of not finishing things, but this was some mummy's curse poo poo, with PC breaking down and me getting sick repeatedly. Still, I'm pretty sure the official game page on GMTs site now has all the player aids needed to try it out on Vassal. Just be warned that with this game it's either love/hate or hate/hate. There is no other option, perhaps apart from Stockholm syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Talking about LPs, who would be interested in one involving Guns of Gettysburg? It's something that I've been talking to silvergoose about. Basically, the idea is to have the goons take a side (or ideally, if we can do it, both sides). Rule knowledge would not be required, with only basic concepts being told to the 'players'. The 'players' would have an hierarchy of sorts, while two mods (one per side) would actually play out the turns based on the plans of the 'players'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Tekopo posted:Talking about LPs, who would be interested in one involving Guns of Gettysburg? It's something that I've been talking to silvergoose about. Basically, the idea is to have the goons take a side (or ideally, if we can do it, both sides). Rule knowledge would not be required, with only basic concepts being told to the 'players'. The 'players' would have an hierarchy of sorts, while two mods (one per side) would actually play out the turns based on the plans of the 'players'. I would! ...oh, wait.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:15
|
|
