|
VoodooXT posted:It's getting reprinted in December, as per their monthly update that came out today. EDIT: Just read Cuba Libre, there's not much there different except for different resource system and the fact that it's the commies this time that get permanent upgrades! Tekopo fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Aug 30, 2013 |
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
Ithle01 posted:What time and day are you planning on scheduling this for because I wouldn't mind getting a game of this in before my actual copy arrives.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
So yeah, I should be free from now to play anything. Also let me know people interested in Cuba Libre when you are free tomorrow. Catch me on the #boardgoons channel.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
I should be free right now till 11 pm GMT so if anyone wants a game of something let me know.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
Me and some other goons decided that we were mad enough to try out Axis Empires (which is Totaler Krieg and Dai Senso combined). I'm currently playing as the Japanese and 1939 has just finished with me holding Nanking and Beijing and the germans having just attacked France (without attacking Poland first). Dai Senso is pretty interesting, although slightly weird since the naval warfare is so abstracted. Also I'm pretty much free this week so let me know if anyone is interested in a game.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 11:25
|
|
|
I'd love to see it: I'm still getting a handle on the game and I'm really interested how different people approach the positions given in the game.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Dre2Dee2 posted:I just read the Distant Plain rules, and drat it looks cool. Looks like there's some even more interesting ways the factions can interact with each other than even Andean Abyss. The fact that the Coalition can spend the Government's money and even force gov. troops to move with them looks like it could be helpful/annoying in equal, hilarious measures. LoCs might be even more important in this since you can "ride" them for movement as long as they aren't sabotaged. There's no Support x2 or Opposition x2, so it seems like getting regions to flip will be a lot more frequent. Also, still up for completing our game of AA/starting a game of Cuba Libre as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
That sounds really interesting. Are the rules for the game online since I'd be interested in having a look at them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
Alright, we played a brief tryout of Cuba Libre with a few goons and although we didn't manage to get too far (only until the first propaganda), I have to say that I'm very hyped about the game now. I was really afraid that the game was going to be a carbon copy of Andean Abyss but the changes really manage to flavour the conflict well and it make the strategies for all sides substantially different from what you would have in Andean Abyss. 26 July, which is pretty much the FARC analogue, plays very differently because they don't have the guaranteed extort income and are thus very low on money. On the other hand, they are able to infiltrate, which makes them turn police/troops into new guerrillas and they can also rally at 2xpop, 2xbases, meaning that they can literally swamp the board with pieces. DR isn't an AUC analogue at all and they act as a balancing mechanism between the government and 26 July, although they also want to carve out their own territory. They are more of a third faction that generally favours neutral support rather than the explicitly anti-FARC guerrillas that the AUC represent. Where the game takes a sudden difference is between the relationship of the syndicate (the green, money faction) to the government. First of all, the government in CL has a tough job, even tougher than the one for the government in AA: it's harder for the government to get troops around the board since there aren't any LoC (these are replaced by Economic Centers, or ECs). Aid can help the government, but aid goes down if the alliance with the US degrades, which happens if you don't have enough support on the table. As well as that, although initially it costs you 2 to perform COIN actions as the government, if the alliance degrades it can cost you 3 or even 4 to perform an action: this coupled with the lack of aid plus the fact that ECs un-sabotaged give a maximum of 8 income means that it is really, really easy to cripple you economically. This is where the syndicate comes in. The syndicate needs the help of the government for several reasons: for one, they can only construct their casinos in syndicate or government held spaces. As well as that, any troops or police in a space with an open casino prevents that casino from being closed by the 26JUL/DR forces, and there is even a syndicate action that allows you to move government pieces to do just that. Of course, the government can still close those particular casinos, but there is an incentive not to: for every space with an open casinos, the owner of that space (ie the faction with the most pieces in that space) receives 2 income from the syndicate. Due to the limitations on casino construction and the fact that government troops actually help casinos stay open, there is a real symbiotic relationship between syndicate and government. The syndicate doesn't have enough troops to both expand and protect its casinos so it is almost necessary for it to rely on a strong government in order to expand. On the other hand, the skimming (and maybe even the transfer of cash shipments) is necessary for the government to expand without running out of money. I really like so far how the above reflects the semi-legal nature of the syndicate. I was looking forward to Cuba Libre (much more so that Distant Plain) but now it has become a guaranteed buy for me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
Well the deck is only 52 cards instead of 64 cards as for a standard game of AA so it is going to be shorter than AA just because of that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Yeah, it's one of the reasons why I'm not buying A Distant Plains. Well, that and I don't have a particular interest in a game representation of that particular conflict. I want to see the scenario booklet though, since I'm interested to see if they have different scenarios (pre-invasion, bush years, obama years etc). I am more interested in Lake in the Fire due to both sides having conventional forces, but I'll probably try before I buy. As well as that, I never get AA on the table so it's unlikely I'll get another long one on the table ever. On another note, I bit the bullet and bought Combat Commander: Pacific. I'm interested in the theater of operations because frankly I don't know anything about it, but does it stack well with Europe and Mediterranean?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:They're mostly empty.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
I was kind of shocked because the copy of CC:P I bought did not have a roll of zip-up plastic bags and did not have a note that it was hand-packed by someone called Jim in the box.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 10:10
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:Did it have a free counter tray? If not, that's just poor form
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
It's kind of a shame because they could have done some interesting scenarios with russians/pre-invasion. I'd like to try and see how the game flows but I'm definitely not as excited about it as I am about Cube Libre.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
I think I actually like the fact that americans/commonwealth play differently to the japanese in Pacific. Mind you, I haven't had a chance to try it yet but the scenarios seem diverse enough that you aren't always going to get stuck with the americans setting up fire-bases and the japanese are forced to charge in. Is there much difference between the sides in CC:E?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 11:27
|
|
|
The invasion scenarios are only 2 out of the ones available (a river crossing and a beach landing): it was actually one of the selling points for me and I think it would be hard to do the pacific theatre justice without at least one invasion scenario. I got to try one of the Napoleonic 20 battles yesterday on Vassal (Bussaco 20) and it was a lot of fun. The combat resolution is kind of swingy but it does reward good strategy/tactics and the system is easy enough and quick enough to play that the inherent swingyness of the system doesn't actually detract from the game. I can't imagine that the game takes much more than an hour to play in real life. As well as that, it didn't take that long to learn the system either: it does have a few quirks, though, like the fact that you are required to attack if you are in an EZOC and all enemies that have an EZOC on you have to be attacked. Still, makes me feel better about my (yet unplayed) purchase of Fading Glory.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
Got to try one of the easier Combat Commander: Pacific scenarios with another goon on Vassal and I can already see why people like this game. We stumbled through some of the rules but overall it was relatively easy to play and a lot of fun. Can't wait to give it another shot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
So, is there anything you guys are looking forward to that should be coming out soon? Personally I can't wait for Cuba Libre to come out but other things I'm looking out for are the GMT deluxe edition of No Retreat 2, Fields of Fire getting reprinted and the Hunters to come out as well as for the new No Retreat based in Italy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Those are some nice counters. I've played the GMT Spanish Civil War operational game and I liked it quite a lot, it's a bit scripted but not too much and does seem to be able to replicate the war pretty well. The weird thing about it is that at set times you lose units from the front so you always need to find a way to rotate new troops in before the others go away. It was pretty easy to pick up as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Oh, another thing I forgot to mention (and that I'm only interested because I got into Red Winter) is Operation Dauntless which is based on a similar system to Red Winter. The only doubts I have about it is that the scale of the fight is much larger (in terms of units present) and that, of course, a much more detailed anti-tank system needed to be implemented. However, the rules examples seem pretty good so I'm keeping up hope.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 10:49
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm hoping they cut down on some of the stuff on those, but in terms of readability it isn't too bad as long as you know that stuff on the top is AT firepower with superscript range. It's why I've said that I'm a bit worried about it, although it still looks like it might be a good game.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 11:42
|
|
|
I think Guns of Gettysburg was more effort, but Napoleon's Triumph was more annoying. Stickers do not stick well to metal pieces, I ended up having to use glue to make them keep on and it was a god-drat mess. I've never had the pleasure of having to stick C&C/Other block games though. Have fun!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2013 10:07
|
|
|
I ended up using superglue as well but I did make a huge mess of it, although I guess it looked okay in the end. GoG was more effort but in the end, much easier. I'm pretty lazy though when it comes to preparing my games (sorry, no clipped corners for me!).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
Just finished sleeving all my CC:E and CC:P cards: Europe does indeed come with a tray so it should be easy to get the counters off the sprues once I can be bothered.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Just had a look at the A Distant Plain cards and they seem rather off-putting, strangely, but it isn't Labyrinth-level bad in terms of how the conflict is characterized. I'd like to try the game just to see how the coalition/govt dynamic works but it's becoming more and more unlikely that I will actually buy the game. There is more conflict between govt and coalition work, especially since the govt is detached from their usual job of creating support and instead just care about control/and patronage of course. Warlords seem more of a balancing mechanism but they seem to have more affinity with the govt rather than the taliban although there are events which help warlords/govt or warlords/taliban. I should have some time next week/weekend to give it a try on Vassal. I'm starting to look forwards to Fire in the Lake now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:What do you mean by "off-putting"? Mechanically, or content/theme?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
On my side, it was the issue that it attempted to replicate how Twilight Struggle handled the Cold War, but without explicitly saying so. Twilight Struggle works on the assumption that Cold War theories and doctrine actually worked: this is reflected in the domino theory-like expansion of influence and the way that coups/realignments work. Labyrinth tries to do the same and thus works from an angle that middle east intervention is explicitly a good thing and regime changes can and do work (as showcased by the 'Gore Wins the Election' scenario, which makes it much more difficult for the US to win). This alone would probably push a lot of buttons and actually diverges from Twilight Struggle. TS is also satirical to the point of parody (The hippies are actually helping the commies by denouncing war!) instead of being overtly partisan like Labyrinth is. There's no parody in saying 'Democrats/Liberals/Etc are out-and-out wrong in regards to the Middle East'. I think the major difference is that intervention in TS is the entirety of the game while in Labyrinth, you are given alternatives but you hinder yourself if you attempt to use them. There are also some events in Labyrinth that didn't seem to be handled with the greatest of tact, either. ADP is not going to be as bad as the above, I feel, since at least it doesn't attempt to make a value judgement on interventionism like Labyrinth did.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
I do understand that (which is why I feel apprehensive about ADP as well), but I think the issue for me is that instead of outright saying 'interventionism works' like TS, it provides an alternative but doesn't actually make it viable in any way. That seems to me to be more of a political statement in comparison to TS (which doesn't make value judgements on non/interventionism).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Playing as the Government/Syndicate is a real mexican standoff in that game. The best part was when you played an event that screwed me out of a province, only for like three of your casinos to get shut down, eventually ending on a 'well let's forget that every happened' because fighting would screw us both over. I really enjoy the interactions within Cuba Libre a lot more, although it has slightly more defined sides there's still a lot of scope to break out of the traditional alliances. I'm gonna do a massive effortpost in my blog sometimes this week about CL/AA and their differences.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
Wargaming companies usually print in runs: even 'big' companies like GMT can't afford to be continually printing like mainstream other boardgaming publishers. I've got two local shops that stock wargames: one of them has a decent selection of GMT/Colombia/MMP (including some ASL) and the other one is probably the best shop I've ever seen and even stocks the VPG 'plastical wallet' games. I guess it's a case of being lucky and finding a local shop that stocks the stuff: even if it's 'out of print' the market is small enough that specialised retailers should have copies in hand from the last run. I haven't tried the secondary market for wargames so I can't really comment on that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
If you are interested in playing ADP right NOW, hop on #boardgoons on synirc.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
I too blame Lichtenstein for making me want to buy FoF. And Red Winter. And probably whatever you showcase next (finish showcasing Red Winter btw  ).So, ADP: we gave it a trial go and got about half-way through. It was better than I thought it would be but it feels very different from other games and slightly more complex than AA/CL. The latter two tend to be very direct, since working out how to hurt someone is easy, but ADP does make it harder, especially if you are the coalition. It's actually pretty hard to balance helping the government without just giving the game away to the Govt. Govt, on the other hand, has a easier time to outright decrease support (and thus hurt the coalition), which helps feeds it patronage anyway. So far the dynamic (at least to me) works thus: coalition and taliban are in outright conflict, the warlords are the usual green-faction mercenary side (it doesn't align itself to anyone as closely as the syndicate aligns itself with govt in CL), but the govt has really the choice of working with either warlords or coalition: there are two main ways to gain patronage. One pisses off the coalition, the other warlords. I think there's actually quite a strong alliance available between the coalition and warlords as well. Overall, pretty weird. Really need to complete a game to know what I really think of it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
I gave CC:E a try and I'm not quite sure which of CC:P or CC:E I like more (although I think they are both pretty good games). I found it frustrating that in CC:E you could get routed so easily (most of my losses were due to getting routed rather than getting shot at) and that recovering was equally random. On the other hand, breaking within CC:P doesn't seem as much of a problem because the revive cards give guaranteed rallies. I'm not sure which I prefer, to be honest.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
So cover saves add to your morale for the purposes of routing/rallying? Wow, well, that changes a lot. I do like the game a lot in that it encourages you to hug the terrain since going out in the open is veeery dangerous. I really can't wait to give it another try!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Yeah, I can see that, especially since it turns an almost certain rout (with 6 morale for most Russian troops) into an 8, which you aren't as likely to make. The game seems more deadly that CC:P in a way: the game between me and Morholt started with him running a squad just a single hex into the LOS of a HMG, which promptly cut down both a squad and a leader. It really made it a difficult proposition to run out in the open.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Moving house and no internet means that I've decided to buy a solitaire wargame which in this case turned out to be Thunderbolt and Apache leader! I've had a brief look over the rules and it looks to me to be a much more interesting take on '* Leader' games than, for example, Phantom Leader, which didn't seem to give much of an option in terms of how you attacked the target (there always seemed to be at least one approach that you pretty much had to choose). Has anyone tried it? There's a lot of choice in how to setup a squadron, do 'gimmicky' squadrons work (fex an all A-10 squadron)?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
Yeah I got Steel Wolves but the game itself is a tedious, boring chore that has very little in the way of meaningful choices. I should probably sell the game. I have Phantom Leader on my iPad so I sort of knew what I was getting myself into but there's so much more to Thunderbolt + Apache Leader, it seems like a much more refined game. I'm really interested on how The Hunters from GMT pans out, since managing just single U-Boat seems much more fun. Has anyone played U-Boat Leader from DVG? I wonder what that one is like as well. I might get my copy of Cuba Libre in the next couple of days: I'm really excited since I want to have a look at the Playbook/Design Notes/Strategy sections. Anyone had a chance to read them yet?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Blitzkrieg does sound pretty interesting but I've always been afraid to revisit some of the older Avalon Hill classics since when compared to modern wargames some of the mechanisms for them seem so (endearingly or otherwise) clunky. For example, I got the game called Luftwaffe for my dad since he remembers playing it when he was young and we played it once and the game felt pretty badly designed. The entire thing was a mess of record keeping: I had to, as the american, show where every single bomber formation attacked which particular cities, which meant writing on a pad criss-crossed with lines. We also played Rommel in the Desert and even though it has a similar level of book-keeping, the game felt much smoother. Trip report for Thunderbolt Apache Leader: I like it quite a lot, even though the first campaign I did was a loss after the very first day. As suggested by the game, I tried the Iraq 1991 scenario using Surge, which meant I had to destroy two battalions in the first day or lose the scenario. My line-up was a Thunderbolt, 3 Apaches and 2 Cobras. I decided to attack an artillery battalion (it makes you lose Special Operations so I wanted to get rid of it quickly) and a Tank Leader (they setup in the friendly transit area so I wanted to get rid of them quickly). The first attack involved an A-10A, an Apache and a Cobra and it went extremely well: I destroyed the SAM sites before they could do anything and only received a single lasting damage on the A-10. I managed to clear the board for extra XP as well. So far, so good. The second mission was a disaster. The on-target event meant I got two less loiter turns and along with a crappy dice-roll for my scout, it meant that I only had 4 turns over the target before my planes would go bingo on fuel. The enemy setup was pretty bad as well: the two AAA covered each other and would likely rip anything to shreds since the central part of the map had pretty much no ridges. I decided that I would strike the AAA first but as soon as the mission started, one of the AAAs dived for the cover of the ridges, which screwed up my plans since now I couldn't do a stand-off attack. The attack on the other AAA failed which meant that one of my Apaches now faced 6 minor hits, doing a bunch of lasting damage, structure damage and adding some stress as well. The mission went downhill from there and I was pretty much forced to gtfo, losing the campaign. TAL provides a bunch of improvements on the formula that really make the game much more interesting than its predecessors. The map makes all the difference, since you have to make use of the ridges and work out what's the best path to the enemy. I also like how the planes and pilots are now two separate entities, with planes getting various permanent damage that needs to be repaired. Special Operations also work better since in most scenarios you get a certain amount of them per day, which means that you can continue using ordnance to your heart's content. Weapons also use ordnance points now as well, with 10 ordnance points equalling one special operation. The battalions also work well, since the battlefield feels more organic (enemy can advance so there's pressure on you to get rid of them). Overall the game is a blast to play and feels much more fun to play than Phantom Leader. I might look for an iPad app to do the bookeeping since that's the most annoying part of the game but overall I would seriously recommend it if you are interested in a game that simulates CAS operations.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
Is there a Vassal module for it? I wouldn't mind giving it a shot after I've had a chance to read over the rules. Still need to finish my TK and AE games though, they were just about to get interesting. The prices for those games are crazy though, I went to my local (well-stocked) shop and they had a copy of Dai Senso for about £90 pounds. I like the game but not that much, and I can imagine that it's a complete pain to play IRL in comparison to using the relatively good Vassal module. Can't wait to get internet back so I can start playing wargames online again (also considering during an LP of TAL because it should be pretty easy to run if I use Vassal).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 11:33
|
|