|
bunnielab posted:I looked at Sails of Glory and liked what I saw. My main turn off to minis is mostly storage space, transport, and in some cases a fussiness about scale. Hell, I am thinking of selling all my OGRE counters and 3D models and buying two sets of the old style chits because I cant stand how big the actual Ogre counters are. Yeah, I remember the ship figures being decently small. No idea on scale, personally I'm not too bothered by it myself. I do recall all the stuff taking up a lot of space, but that might have been because the guy who owned the copy I played with had the fully tricked out kickstarter edition.
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:28 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Of course when I played it in seventh grade I had a bad habit of messing up my orders and ramming my ships into each other This would be the best part if I do end up putting together an LP. How much interest would there be in such a thing? The plan would be for everyone who signed up to get a ship - I'd probably start with a 2 per side scenario to test the concept, then maybe open up a 6 per side if people were enjoying it - and mostly just worry about moving their ship and deciding what to fire at while I ran all the back-end rules stuff and die rolls.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:drat yous. Move to the Midwest and I'd play all your cardboard wars. Where in the Midwest? I'm in the Twin Cities with many wargames and few opponents. Gutter Owl posted:EDIT: On the topic of wargooning, none of y'all happen to be in or near the US southwest by chance? I've got four COINs plus Sekigahara, TS, and A House Divided sitting very sad in their little boxes. Will you be going to GenCon again this year? I know you ended up being pretty busy last year, but I'll probably have at least a few wargames travelling with me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:I may be moving to the MPLS area in the next year or so, I'll definitely keep you in mind! Hooray! Feel free to PM me if you have any questions (gaming-related or not); I've lived here most of my life so I know the area pretty well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
SavageMessiah posted:Nobody has any idea what they are doing or how to translate our various actions into victory. StashAugustine posted:~realism~ I'm still hoping that someday someone will find two people who know nothing about World War II and have them play a WWII wargame while only telling them half the rules. It would be the most realistic session ever played and probably pretty amazing to watch.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I haven't fully grasped the rules yet or seen any reviews but this game looks really cool and I am excited to play it - assuming I can find two friends up for a non-war wargame! The negotiation aspect of the game and necessary cooperation among rivals seem to have a lot of potential. There will be bot rules along the lines of the COIN series, so it can be played 2-player or solo in a pinch (though I suspect it won't shine quite as much as the full 3-player game). I think I saw one post from Mark Herman saying he even ran a couple 0-player games to test the bots, so in theory you don't need any human players to finish a game!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
I am so excited for this, crazy obscure tiny print run games are the best (also looking forward to more Tikhomir)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Not knowing a single thing about EotS rules, what is the reasoning behind that? It sounds somewhat weird. It's for attrition due to being out of supply in the supply phase, not a general rule (that context is pretty important)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Gutter Owl posted:Yeah I get that, but the procedure could still be streamlined for ease of use/memory. You still have to roll for the second space in my hypothetical revision, and with the exact same dice odds--i.e. it's only possible when you have 10 or greater strength (and thus couldn't fail to advance), the odds are increased one-to-one by the strength over 10, etc.) But it condenses the two procedures into a single formula, and with consistent valuation of high-roll versus low-roll. Also irritating is the fact that there's a million extra stickers and pieces, but they couldn't be bothered to make a Truman sticker for replacing Roosevelt or some kind of marker to show who won the Normandy/Central Italy race (extra annoying because it's the only VP source that can't be determined by looking at the board or pieces). I like the game a lot, but there's several little annoying issues that an extra 2 months with a developer probably could have smoothed out. I might actually use Gutter Owl's rewrite next time I play because it's so much easier to remember and use
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:What are the little wooden blocks with leaders on them for in Churchill? Another way of showing if they're active or inactive - you can put them on the spots on the chairs that say "active" or "inactive" if you don't like using the markers
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
I'm torn on the new solo President game - on the one hand, I love solo games and the theme is cool but on the other hand it looks like it's from the awful school of "get 5 actions, every action involves a die roll, hope you roll well enough to beat the automatically advancing opponent" solo design.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:I don't know why they don't design CDGs with multiple fronts to have one ops value per front per card to force you to play in those areas. Like a WWII one could have West, East, and North Africa ops values on each card or something like that. Because it took Ted Raicer 10 years and 2 games to realize that ops tend to be better than events and games shouldn't be balanced around players only using 3 or so ops rounds. Having him realize that concentration of effort is better than dispersion unless there are significant countervailing factors would probably take another few game designs. (Also he designs around his belief the Germans could and should have taken Moscow in 1941 so all his WWII games are a little weird.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:So what's the verdict on Churchill now that people have played it some? It looks like it would be a fun solo experience, plus something I could potentially introduce to my Euro gamer friends. Die rolls for front advances are a dumb mechanic, the scoring system can be really obtuse and it's hard for first-time players to formulate goals, the UK-Soviet global issue locking out nearly all the potential alignment placements can really mess with early game flow, and giving an incentive to actively work against winning the war is weird. Other than those issues it's a pretty solid game - the core cardplay mechanic works well, the decks are well-designed, the faction flavor is solid, and the bots work acceptably to substitute for one or two players. I think the tournament scenario works well as a medium-weight game that doesn't overstay its welcome, but I'm not sure there's a lot of depth there in the long term
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Is Reds! worth picking up at half off? I seem to remember hearing mixed things, especially regarding the accuracy of the simulation
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
tomdidiot posted:Aw man, I'd be tempted by Normandy '44. I'll even be in the US for a week (between Nov4th-8th) in the Twin Cities area for Netrunner worlds. You play with Tekopo right? Since I live in the Twin Cities, I'm half tempted to ask you to ferry a copy of Totaler Krieg back to him since he can't get it cheaply over in the UK.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Just clipped Paths of Glory in about an hour. Now I have the finger blisters of success. There were a couple major rules revisions due to the game being broken, just make sure you have the most recent living rules.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:
I think instructing players to burn the board could be a liability issue...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Is anyone interested in playing some Vassal Totaler Krieg/Unconditional Surrender? 3P or 2P? I'm really itching to give either of them another go like we did at the start of this thread. I am always up for a game of TK.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I'd rather do a live game to be honest. I'm usually free Sundays, Saturdays are more variable. I also have this Monday off so I could potentially play during your afternoon/evening
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Sounds good, we could do a session sunday/monday, let me know the time. This Sunday might be a little iffy due to Valentine's day. I'm free all day monday - I think you're 6 hrs ahead of me, so maybe 9am(me)/3pm(you)? Or if evening is better 1pm/7pm would be good too
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Y'all should read the latest Mr. President update, it's pretty funny. Every article I have read about this game makes me think it will be every bad part about Labyrinth turned up to 11. Which is a shame because there's definitely something neat that could be done with the concept.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:blackmongoose: wanna continue our TK game? I do! I've been on vacation which is why I've been out of touch but I'm getting back today so I should be available semi-regularly again
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Twilight Struggle is coming to Steam tomorrow! AI is still really bad, but they seem to have figured out most of the mp issues. I'm not a huge fan of the interface, but it at least doesn't get in the way much so it's acceptable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Wanna do something this weekend? Definitely. Sunday?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Sure, what time? I might have someone come over to play OCS but I'll let you know (tomdidiot email meeee)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:You can even leave out the logistics and air game and just play the land game. What heresy is this. If you play CfNA, you play it ALL. THE. WAY.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Holy poo poo what IIRC, it's a game about Gulf War I. There's a bunch of optional rules included to give the Iraqi army things like Godzilla in order to see if that's enough to stand up to the US. Back when I read BGG a lot, that counter would show up in a bunch of Post Your Favorite Game Piece/Counter/Weird Rule geeklists.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
WAR DOGS OF SOCHI posted:Germany got all upset because the Belgians wouldn't be nice, understanding guys and let the German army violate their sovereignty to march on through to France. Instead, the Belgian population resisted and slowed them down. Germany responded with massacres of entire towns. Not so much as a reaction to being constantly sniped at, but out of frustration because their precious Schlieffen timetables were being hosed with. They were really anal about that goddamned Plan, which I guess is understandable after 20+ years of Schlieffen indocrination being drilled in their heads, but the bizarre thing is them just tossing it out the window a week or two later and pretty much losing the war at the end of August 2014 because of it. I like how this post decreases in accuracy as it goes on, from reasonably correct through exaggerated into outright wrongness. Also I wish people would stop using Schlieffen plan since Moltke's plans were massive modifications to most of Schlieffen's concepts and shouldn't really be lumped under the same umbrella, but that ship has sailed quite some time ago.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
WAR DOGS OF SOCHI posted:Ain't no thing. I was just being a doof. WW1 is my thing. But seriously, it's my understanding the The Plan was pretty sacred and that Moltke's deviation from it pretty much on the eve on the invasion put things on the path to failure. And also made further deviations options that could be considered -- something that would have been nearly unfathomable a few months prior. There's actually been quite a bit of revision in understanding because of some documents that were captured by the Soviets in 1945 being made available after German reunification - I've generally focused my reading on Strachan's work, but my understanding is that it's close to a consensus now. Aufmarsch I West (what people usually think of as the Schlieffen Plan) was based around a war only against France and included armies going through the Netherlands as well as Belgium. Moltke generally focused on Aufmarsch II West which was a plan for a two front war that anticipated a more defensive stance in the West, but modified it with some of the concepts from Aufmarsch I West (arguably because he had a strong belief in the benefits of offensive action). It turns out that the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan) is actually fairly good and covers a lot of the modern thinking, including some stuff I hadn't come across before; jumping down to the 1990s-Present and Aftermath sections has a lot of cites to some of the more recent writing on the subject. For something easily available online, the paper on page 55 of this collection from a London WWI conference seems to cover a lot of the basics pretty well from my skim and is a good introduction (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58892137/londonww1conferencepapers.pdf).
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
The Great War in Europe has an expansion that lets you add the Middle East too, and I think it is also divisional scale (might be larger hexes though)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Apparently the US is too good so they're testing some errata for the next edition: http://www.insidegmt.com/?p=11196
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Just a reminder how great our hobby is. This quote is in reference to World In Flames, taken from Boardgamegeek: Given that he was playing a terrible game like WiF, it's no wonder his wife divorced him.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you may be infected with early-stage Wehrabooism. Recommended treatment is playing games that aren't crazy Axis fantasy simulators.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:How is it any more wehrabooey than other strategic level WW2 games? Production is the big one, the Germans get way too much. Compounded by them getting more division and smaller size pieces which can take losses as well as corps for much cheaper. Just take a look at the Let's Play - despite playing the rules wrong and building Soviet units and evacuating factories he shouldn't have been able to, the Germans are into the Caucasus in Winter 1941. That was not a 100% serious thing though, I don't really think playing WiF makes you a Wehraboo. My bigger issues are mostly the ridiculous stuff like South American maps and individual light cruiser counters that make the game insanely fiddly without adding any simulation value. The overpowered Germans problem is pretty common in all WWII games, and there are some inherent design issues that make it somewhat understandable, but the excessive detail is a specifically WiF problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:It's amazing that game is as good as it is for all the fuckups. This is how I feel about all the wargames I like (including NR and TS since they are the current topic). The one possible exception might be Combat Commander, but I've only played it twice since I don't enjoy tactical games that much. I assume frequent players have a list of fuckups for that game too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:I'm slowly getting Fatal Alliances to the table. Looks like it's going to take over my entire den though, not just my gaming table. This is a WWI game right? So the entire second map is to play out the generally bloodless occupation of the German Pacific possessions and one cruiser driving around for a while?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:Allied Interventionist forces, the Polish state, the Baltic states, Cossacks, anarchists, Latvian riflemen, just to name a few Czech Legion could probably be it's own faction
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:As an aside, I've won three of the five games we've played and I didn't feel like I earned it in any of them. The first was through kingmaking, the second I won by a single point since I took my foot off the gas when I was too far ahead and the screwed up so bad I had to rely on a die roll to reclaim the lead at the end, and the third was on another low percentage die roll. Normally I get kind of irritable about stuff like that, win or lose, but I can look back at each of those games and point out specific things that were poor play on my part. I really enjoy learning from my mistakes in any game and it makes me think more highly of this one. This is why I gave up on the game, the ending often feels like either Kingmaking: The Game or Rando-chess. Neither of those is a good game experience and even though I really like the conference mechanism, everything about how moving armies and the victory conditions work just leaves a really sour taste for the end of a multi-hour strategic game.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
WAR DOGS OF SOCHI posted:That's why I P500'd the next printing of Unconditional Surrender and Cataclysm. I heard they're solo friendly in the way you describe. You could try The Barbarossa Campaign from Victory Point Games, it's probably the closest to what you're looking for. If they ever actually publish The World Will Hold Its Breath that would probably hit a lot of your goals, but there's been no sign of movement for a while
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:28 |
|
|
COOL CORN posted:From Fire In The Sky: There's a prostitute counter in an ACW game too I believe. I'm pretty sure BGG has several geeklists on weird counters
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2016 18:17
|
|
: