|
So, I've been reading the playbook and rules for Andean Abyss as a warm up to the arrival of Cuba Libre and so far I like what I see, but with one exception. Dice. Why are there dice in these games and more importantly is there a way to modify the games to take the dice out completely? I already have the card deck and player interaction to satisfy the 'random element' factor and I don't need dice luck playing a role in this. As a followup, to those that have played the COIN series how significant are the dice to the game? Do you ever feel like you've won or lost due to pure chance on one or two rolls or is it not such a big deal? I don't mind a little bit of randomness, but I also don't want this to end up like CitOW where Khorne can do everything right and then whiff one turn's rolls and get taken out of the game or (worse) be relegated to playing king-maker. I love CitOW, but I really hate the combat system and I don't want this to end up the same way.
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
Panzeh posted:The dice are not very important at all in Andean Abyss. Dice are used for two things, conventional attacks(which you rarely do), and kidnapping, which can happen, but is also somewhat rare. Thanks for the quick reply. Glad to hear that the dice are just a small luck factor that I can tolerate pretty easily.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Anyone up for Cuba Libre? Rulebook and Vassal modules are available now! 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 07:44
|
|
|
CNN Sports Ticker posted:Just played my first game of Command and Colors Ancients with my wife. What an awesome game! Pretty simple rules with a good kind of randomness to them, particularly with the way the command cards can force tough decisions. We played the first scenario and I scored a Syracusan (Roman) victory. When you play the C&C scenarios I'd recommend switching sides after the first game and playing a second one if you have time. The scenarios are usually in one side's favor and it's fun trying to figure out how to develop a strategy against the side you just played as. The large amount of setup time also makes this an attractive idea because all of the pieces you need are already out of the box and quick to put into place. A friend and I have played through maybe about twenty or so scenarios, most of the core and some of the xpacs, and we usually do this. The only times we don't bother to do so are when the Romans have a clear advantage because he's much better at playing as the Romans so there's no point in him switching over to the Punic forces and the two of us playing a game that's going to end as a massacre. edit: also, I've found that the Roman forces are much easier to learn to use effectively, but it helps to try playing as both sides so you get the experience of using the large numbers of medium infantry that the Romans favor versus the combined arms approach of Carthage.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
A couple of things to add to that. Cenotaph is the French (blue) and I'm the Alliance (red). My massive blunder was a really unfortunate misreading of how to use artillery (or, more accurately, how to not use artillery). The game didn't feel like it was over when it ended, I guess it was because of all the units still on the board, but most of mine were greatly reduced in strength and I was running on fumes just trying to get that lost point of morale damage. Cenotaph lost a lot of morale to early attacks that I was able to defeat by using my manpower advantage to throw wave after wave of men into counter attacks. There wasn't a lot of flanking or feinting and I think we both could have used that to our advantage much more than we did. Cenotaph was much better at dividing my corps by making attacks that forced me to pull men to the approaches, but even then my superior manpower almost carried the day. All in all, our worst enemy was ourselves - but what war gamer doesn't say that at the end of the day? (The ones who play games with dice, obviously) Look forward to another battle when we find the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
I think the thing that happened here was that it was really really obvious to both us what was going on at all times (you could say we have a rapport) so moving a unit up to a position or an attack didn't carry the same element of surprise that it might otherwise. As a result, feints weren't used as much as they could be if only because we both knew what the unit making the feint was capable of. The problem with artillery is that if your opponent attacks you can't put units into the defense if there's a unit already in the advance so an artillery versus a 3 strength unit means that the artillery gets rolled and every unit in the locale is forced to retreat. I lost about 9 morale to this mistake. My preferred method of getting artillery ready was to hope that there was a feint by a corps nearby and to get the artillery into position without revealing what they were.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
TS is a game where, if you've never played it before it's going to suck. So much of the game is knowing about the card deck. For example: want to put influence in Cuba pre-emptively? NOPE! Don't do that. Want to put influence in Israel? Okay, but remember that Pan-Arab War can reverse that in a heart beat. Egypt? Well, that one is actually a bit of a toss-up depending on whether Saddat has been played. I'm not even going to touch India/Pakistan or Iraq/Iran. I really like TS, but as a first time play the game is a total clusterfuck because if you don't know the card deck prepare to be surprised. And not in a good way. edit: I would say this, if your wife is first time player either give her the Soviets and play America, but play poorly once you get out of the Early War. Or, play America and let her get ahead in the Early War, play weak in the Mid-War, and then play 'meh' in the Late War. I don't mean this as an indictment against your wife, but I'm not kidding when I say that TS is absolutely punishing against first time players. This way at least she might actually get to see the card deck on her first time through. A good Soviet player will end the game by the Early to Mid war depending on their luck. Anything that goes to Late War is usually going to go USA unless a well-timed War Games hits the table. Ithle01 fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Gutter Owl posted:It does raise a peripheral question, though--can (and should) a designer attempt to gamify such an immediate conflict? Particularly since the cartel war seems to have no end in sight, partly because none of the parties can really articulate an end goal (other than "eradication"). ADP seems to have worked out pretty well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
The Up Front game was pretty drat close and there were a couple times where if either of us hadn't had a weapon misfire things would have gone a lot differently. That and I lost my assistant squad leader on the third or fourth turn when a lucky fire roll put a bullet through his head. At the end I had two very good fire cards with just not enough fire power to get them to go off because I was either short a man or I had a weapon jam. That being said, I got ridiculously lucky with movement cards and drawing almost all of the building cards in the first go-through of the deck so it evens out. There were either three or four failed infiltrations with that satchel charge. Lesson here, don't try to infiltrate by running down a hill (the best terrain at the worst time). All in all, I'm not really a fan of the shared-deck aspect because over half the games we play have the same problem - one player draws all of the movement and the other guy sits around twiddling his thumbs. Still a fun game though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
I think that the actual map of Europe in the Eagle's Nest may have been less detailed than that one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's actually eleven wargames put together. How many more to get in the Pacific too?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Diplomacy is a good example of the game designer not really thinking things through. How do you negotiate as Russia? "Hey guys help me knock out the Ottomans and/or Germany so I can kill you next with my overwhelming army superiority!" While Italy and Austria are surrounded by neighbors that have no reason to actually honor their agreements instead of stabbing you in the back because Central Europe is intransigent without support from allies and serves as a picking ground for their Eastern and Western neighbors when everyone turns against them. On the one hand this makes sense considering the situation in Italy, Austria/Hungary, and the Ottomans at the time.... but who wants to play as the losers? Short of Imperial (not actually a war game...) I can't think of a game that makes playing in that situation fun.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Selecta84 posted:Pendragon sounds really really great. Pendragon sounds really cool to me too. I'm a Roman history fan, but Conquest of Gaul isn't that big a deal to me so I'm glad there's something else in the works. Plus, I already want to play as either the Saxons or as the Dux.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
It also hurts that since we're splitting the game up there's a 'what was I doing last week' start to each session where I have to remember why all my armies are arranged they are and if they got that way by accident, in anticipation of something, or if it was some brilliant scheme of mine. Also, the turn-to-turn special rules and me staring at a screen trying to figure out how to cut USSR supply as best possible or whether to push through Sevastopol. Playing as the Germans I'm spending a lot time trying to minimize my chances of damage due to the expense of reinforcement.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Might as well follow up with my opinions. The game was a bit of a clusterfuck around the middle and that's when it was the most fun. The last six turns were just trying to evacuate from my Eastern holdings as fast as possible and forming a wall around Berlin while the Soviets rolled 'defender retreat' results against fortified units or multiple layers of German defenders. There was some pretty amazing instances of dice luck that had some serious repercussions throughout the game, but overall I liked the CRT. I'd definitely play it again, but like Cenotaph said the last ditch defense of Greater Germany feels tacked on and not fun. At least when the Soviets are getting kicked around at the start of the game they know at some point things are going to get better. Ending on Turn 22 would've been preferable. My only complaint about playing the tournament scenario is losing my precious kampfgrupps, those things are so vital for maintaining the coherency of the German line once the Soviets start punching back.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:So I played Cuba Libre a couple of weeks back and even though I really like the game I'm starting to have some issues, especially with the Government faction. I know it is more or less a design aim, but the Government of CL is a 'win early or not win at all' faction and once it is past its moment in the spotlight, it is pretty much dead in the water. This can lead to situations in which the Government is just playing in order to keep the game going at the end without even a chance of victory. Has anyone experienced the same for CL? Kind of? I've only played CL twice, but I was the government both times and that's more or less exactly how things worked out for me. Then again both times the Syndicate was just running its own show and didn't really care if I had any resources so it may have been a newbie thing and because in my group there's no chance the Syndicate is going to give funding to the Government due to our player mindset.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Uggggh, give me Ireland and fall of roman Britain already GMT. I'm really looking forward to seeing Pendragon too. If only for the inevitable collapse of the COIN alliance in the game, would make for a fun 2 player co-op at the start.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Is Sekigahara recommended for people new to block wargames? Or rather serious wargames at all? My experience in wargaming is 1812 and Twilight Struggle so I do not know the majesty of moving blocks with stickers around. The rules are very simple and straightforward by wargame standards. I'd say it's a very good intro in some ways. Just make sure to mention that its easy to lose Tokugawa if you throw him into every battle for his leader bonus and that the Uesugi clan aren't going to get reinforcements during the game (their cards are still useful for movement even after they've all been removed).
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
The 2nd Battle of Miyasu castle effectively ended the game on Turn 5A or 5B I think, but it was still a very close game that came down to points, about 14-13 or something like that. Fun game, lots of action. Hand and block management is so much more preferable to rolling dice. The end game was just a formality of trying to secure castles and resource locations, but it didn't take very long.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:Traditional Games › Wargames Thread - It's kind of hard to explain without a diagram. Usually the one who plays as the government is the one with the most experience / has actually read the rulebook because you'll probably lose and you have the hardest time trying to figure out how to play well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:We all read the rulebook, who do you take us for, some kind of bloody casuals? You have no idea how envious I am right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
All told it looks like the Japanese player managed to beat the historical outcome and at least didn't lose Kido Butai as early as the Japanese did.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Gutter Owl posted:HIS/VQ get split opinions in this thread. On the one hand, nifty interrelation between mechanics. I've only played about one-and-a-half games of HIS and from what I can tell of the PbP game VQ is better although I'm more enthusiastic about the HIS time period. The religious gameplay at least isn't so messy. The 5+ rolls are infuriating and it can be disheartening to realize that another player is going to win and there is literally nothing you can do about it. I would love to play with a group that actually wants to be involved in a political wargame but all the people I know prefer merciless free-for-all stabfests and don't mind scuttling a game if it means player A gets to rail player B for some irl bullshit grudge.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
After seeing the PbP Churchill game I'm kicking myself for not getting that on the p500. I have a great group for it because we somehow always end up with three people and the coop-etition aspect would be perfect for the group personality. Plus, it looks amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
How is the solo AI for Churchill? I really want to give it a try, but at the same time I don't want to play it and then have to introduce it to the group and have too much of an advantage.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Cool, sounds good, thanks for the input. I feel it could be helpful to just have people read that over before they play for the first time so that they know what's going to work and what isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I'm bad at reading rule books so I made a lot of mistakes explaining the game, especially with how score is calculated. I guess that just means we'll have to play again. Soon hopefully. One thing I want to ask, I've read the rulebook front and back twice (or so it feels) and I can't find a satisfactory answer to how conference VP are awarded. On the board a / means 'and'. So, if Roosevelt or Churchill wins a conference is that 3vp for both of them or only for the conference winner? The little chits and the quick references both say +3vp UK/US and that is confusing the hell out of me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:It means that if Roosevelt or Churchill won the conference then they get 3VP, and if Stalin won the conference he gets 5VP. Thanks that's what I was going with.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Yeah that is a little bit weird, for example in our last game the US player was trying to go for a condition 3 victory and basically blew up his score as much as possible so out of spite I handed the game to Cenotaph by forcing him into Germany and ending the game with a condition 2 victory. By the end I was squarely in last place and the US had about a thirty point lead over me(UK).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
I know for certain that the classical history nerd in me is going to make me buy Pericles, Pendragon, and Falling Sky shortly. Looking forward to Absolute War too, only played No Retreat once, but I really enjoyed it even though I can't remember a good chunk of the game and many mistakes were made.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
I think the other appealing aspect of the COIN system is that it also models some of the political component to wars which is non-existent or minimal in most other wargames. In a way it helps simulate some of the random bullshit that happens in warfare by adding reasons for players to play 'stupid'. Or short-sighted, treacherous, and outright dickish - all common aspects of real wars. A Distant Plain is probably the best example of this. The Coalition doesn't care if the Government is weak or strong just as long as they're loyal. The Government doesn't care if the Taliban are slowly subverting the people against the Coalition forces as long as the Government is rich and in control. The Warlords don't care what people think as long as they're rich and everyone else stays out of their business. And the Taliban are pretty much a straight-forward insurgency, but even then they don't really care if the Government is in control because as long as they have support they can subvert it to anti-Coalition sentiment and basically win in the long-term anyway. poo poo, I might have just talked myself into buying ADP in the near future, but fortunately I know I'll never get to play it so I don't think the danger to my wallet is too great.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Pendragon isn't going to be out for about a year and we have no idea how it's going to turn out. On the other hand, Cuba Libre is getting released again soon as mentioned and it's a very good intro to the COIN series. The board is small, the factions are fairly simple, and you can play a full campaign in one session on your first time through. If you don't want to spend the money you can get the rules from GMT's site and play it on Vassal. GMT is very kind about letting people play electronic versions of their games for free.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
I've been setup FitL on my ping-pong table and have been playing solitaire, the scripts seem pretty effective for the most part and the US almost won in the first Coup! round in my current game as the insurgent side. Then again, that's actually fairly likely to happen because they start close at -12 to victory and can easily bump that to -6 by pacifying Saigon and getting good events for next 6 points. I hate the RVN so much, no matter who I play as they always make themselves a huge pain in my rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:I've found that quick wins and big swings are more likely the shorter the scenario. However, the bot getting set to "LBJ mode" and/or ARVN draining resources below the threshold can make it very difficult for the US to get those last few points for the win. In this case it was the RVN taking their first action to pacify in Saigon and then the US getting the event Senator Fulbright to push them up to 48 by the third card. NVA and VC don't start in a very good position to attack support and if the US were a player they could have taken an action to pacify in Hue or somewhere else on the fifth card to push them up quite a bit. Of course, if the RVN were a player this scenario would never even remotely happen. This could've been a typo though because my copy of the rulebook says that RVN will only increase support from passive to active if Support + Available < 45 in the section on RVN pacification, but then in a later paragraph it says 40 (I didn't notice that until later so I'm not about to reset the board) which makes far more sense. I have to say that running the script for the insurgent factions is much more pleasant than for the counter-insurgent side.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
After two 5 hour sessions I've finished my second Fire in the Lake solitaire campaign. This time as a combined counter-insurgent side and much more confident of how to run the non-player scripts because the insurgent scripts are considerably easier to handle. I have to say, that after a close-call on the second coup round this felt much easier than playing as the insurgents because I could go out of my way to lock down their ability to generate resources. After that point I began to systematically crush the insurgents and push them out of South Vietnam aside from a brief NVA resurgence in the final round that I was able to limit to Quang Tri. In terms of score I think the highest insurgent victory margin was the NVA with a -13 (the VC were at -26 because by the time I was done there were only two provinces with opposition left on the map) compared to my lowest score of +12. I probably should have called it after the 3rd coup round, but wanted to see it through to the end. In terms of difficulty I made one adjustment and that's the shuffling the Coup cards into the bottom six of each twelve card pile, but resolving the card instantly as it pops up. To compensate I resolved not to fall below the victory margin for any insurgent player in the 2nd and subsequent Coup rounds. My thoughts on this so far: Some of the 1964 and 1965 capabilities are powerful and feel almost mandatory. The worst of these is the Cadres VC capability that lets you agitate in one location when you rally. This is the sort of thing that should have been added to the rally action and not left up to chance because without it you're not even playing the same game. The 1978 capabilities aren't an issue - by the time they pop the game is at least half way over. The Support + Available bar for the US victory feels far too low, especially with Saigon giving 12 points out of 50. VC feel somewhat the same way though because there are a great number of events that can shift support in the blink of an eye. The NVA and RVN feel slower and have more build-up to them, but there are some events for the RVN that can create a large sudden shift in Patronage. That being said, I think the Counter-insurgent forces have a significant advantage over the insurgents and I'm not sure how I feel about that in a Vietnam war simulation. Overall, I enjoy the hell out of the COIN series and am looking forward to more additions if only because I enjoy the asymmetrical and political aspects to the series more so than I enjoy typical wargames.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I haven't tried the AI scripts but most of the wins I've seen in 4 player games are for either the NVA or the NLF. I haven't tried team games though so i don't know what's the balance there. I found that if the NVA targets the US, they are in for a lot of trouble and a well ran Easter offensive can remove a very large US presence from the board. You also need to be able to leverage the use of ambush (which is an incredibly powerful ability) to remove US troops. I have to agree that in a four player game things are going to be completely different because you can't predict the behavior of the other factions. You also can't set up power plays where you use Faction A to Op+Special and then pick the event you want with Faction B. This is just my solo experience and when I was playing as the US without the RVN it felt like the greatest threat to me from the RVN was that they would let the VC win the game. When I was playing as the insurgent side it felt like the greatest threat to me was that the RVN would let the US win by blowing all their money pacifying everything. I actually managed to negate their ability to stealing through Govern by draining all their Aid and then during the Pacify phase in Coup rounds they would spend all their money on boosting support instead of using it for anything else. As for Cadres the reason I think their so powerful is because they present the RVN player with a choice. Either pacify every space you have troops in to at least passive or surrender that space to the VC player at Active Opposition in one strike. Sure they can only hit one space at a time, but it's still a Sophie's Choice. To make matters worse VC can still do this as they Subvert so if the RVN even think about leaving a space open they're not only at risk of giving the VC points, but losing points as well when control and patronage disappear. Arc Light and Search & Destroy are both really powerful, no question there, but S&D has US player priority and Arc Light runs into a wall depending on the event deck because there are so many momentum and capability cards that shut down or weaken airstrikes. I see what Tepoko is saying about killing off US cubes because when I played as the insurgents I was racking up casualties with ease through ambush - it really is the most effective way of striking at the US, but they were still the greater threat to me somehow even with four bases and twenty troops in the out of play box. The problem here is that solitaire is extremely different from actual play and there's no way in hell I'm ever going to get a game going with actual players. edit: I think the reason I'm feeling this way is because in my first full game I played as the insurgents and barely won with a combination of lower difficulty and lots of luck (almost two entire coup rounds where the US couldn't Air Strike due to momentum events). When I played as the US/RVN I had one close call where I was one point off from losing due to Easter Offensive leaving lots of NVA control on the map combined with low RVN patronage, but other than that I crushed the insurgents and by the third coup round I was just going through the motions to finish the game. Ithle01 fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I'd need to try some of the single player bots to see what I can make of it, but yeah, the dynamic in most of the games of FitL I have played is that the US can get a lot of casualties very easily and once they lose presence on the board, the ARVN is rampant with governing as they desperately try to get as much Patronage as possible before they are over-run. That sounds more like what I was expecting. Unfortunately, the solo experience was a bit different. That being said I still enjoy the game and once I'm less burnt out from having played two full length scenarios I'll be playing more, probably with different scenario setups. At least until I'm distracted again by Falling Sky.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
COIN games are basically area control so the limitation on march-and-attack is very much intended. You have to force your opponents into a situation where they have to react to you and you can't just build up and then strike out. The cube limitations are, of course, a big part of this, but the game doesn't punish you for going on the offensive. It punishes you for trying to go on the offensive too late or attack a well prepared position. This can lead to some lovely stalemates though, which I guess is what the card deck and player politics are for. Of course, if everyone is near their win condition then a stalemate is almost guaranteed. My first couple games of Cuba Libre went this way because my group was learning the game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Thankfully, Volko Runkhe seems to understand the wargamers dilemma so although they are designed for four players the games support 1-4 with bots filling in for the missing people. The scripts work best for the 'simpler' insurgent factions because they don't have the options the counter-insurgents have. That being said, FitL is definitely playable as the insurgents or counter-insurgents and is a good deal of fun in my opinion (although there are things I still love to grouse about). Keep in mind it's not really possible to write a one page script that will handle all the situations you would encounter. As for Cuba Libre I just finished a game last night as M26. Tied with Syndicate in final prop round so I consider that a victory (gently caress DR and their Subvert action. As the literal last play of the game the bot marched 8 guerrillas into Las Villas and Subverted it to neutral bringing me from +3 to -1). If you play solo it's going to feel as if the bots are ganging up on you and they will happily let each other win which is the big difference between them and playing with real people. On the other hand, they will often miss 'optimal' plays that a player wouldn't. In the end it balances out. It's funny that in my last two solo plays of Cuba Libre as M26 my enemy list both times has been the Directorio, the Syndicate, and then the Government. If there were real AIs programmed for the COIN series I would buy that in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
sonatinas posted:Surprised there isn't one on iOS yet tbqh. Unofficial of course. Well I guess we have to ask ourselves how many people actually play these games who have the skill, time, and dedication to do this? Falling Sky looks like it's going to be a hugely popular installment in the series and there's less than 2000 individual orders for it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 21:18
|
|