|
For some reason I don't really understand I found myself quite hyped for the newly-released MMP's Kingdom of Heaven. Did perhaps any of you upstanding wargaming übermenschen had his hand on this game? I'd be very interested in some early opinions.
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2012 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
But the problem is not that the British are too good, but that a single - unexpected by the designer - thing they can do is too good. I don't think that historical accuracy is a problem at all, it has more to do with that excepting some major component changes or adding convoluted rule exceptions all you can do is pretend a portion of the map does not exist.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
The route via the coast allows British to really blitz it: - They've got a shitload of ships, meaning the turn you grab a frontier port you're ready to go. Also you can add them to sieges for an extra oomph. - It's just Halifax/Port Royale - Louisburg - Tadoussac and suddenly you're a step away from Quebec. - In addition to that this is the safest route into French territory in terms of raiding possibilities. If pushing through mainland, you have a longer route (both in terms of locations to travel and beginning with one or two - can't remember - bateaux), giving your opponent time to grab some fortifications, soldiers and raiders (with many more possible staging grounds). Inability to throw ships into sieges helps attempts at stalling you, I guess. Honestly, the real problem lies in the British money engine - in that the starting colonies are so good and self-sufficient, that further expansion actually hinders your economy. When you literally have all the logistical support you need, all that is left to do is churning out soldiers and pushing. With no mechanic to artificially delay adopting this route, there's little to no reason to do anything else, leading to a "why didn't they just build the Trojan Horse at the very beginning and get it over with" situation. It's pretty hard to think up a good rule fix, because even if you take out some obviously powergamey stuff (like instantly dumping less-wealthy starting locations into reserve so as to achieve even leaner pure money, ships and guns deck) it's still very powerful just by pushing your factional advantages (cash and fleet) to the fullest. And it's the part that really sours the experience - how much should you delay concquering the VP-rich coast before you're powergaming? How much useless stuff should you put in your deck before you're abusing? And so on. The 'historical accuracy' thing about the coastal route is like saying "these Nazis turned out too tough, so they'll play without tanks". It's supposed to be powerful, but it's the other broken stuff that elevates it to complete crazyness.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Mokotow, don't please don't buy in Graal though. They're a soulless retail franchise filled with random guys knowing jack all about games - it's pretty much Empik* of boardgaming. There's Bard, Wargamer, Rebel and many little game shops employing passionate/nerdy people. It's a small thing, but I just like to support cool guys that I can seriously talk about games and news with. Jedit: Sto Lat is also Sto Lat in English version. By the way, does anyone know when is MMP's Kingdom of Heaven going to hit the stores? I think so far they only sent pre-order copies. I need to know when to start being angry about it being late here. * For non-polish goons: it's a local, basically monopolist, book and multimedia retail chain.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
AgentF: The downside of putting cards into space race is that you effectively lose this OP's/move and that the event may return to bite your rear end later. So if you can properly control the damage, you'd probably rather want to use it right now. PaintVagrant: Thankfully the last decade made a huge progress in making wargames more of a proper games. While I tend to avoid the really monsterish ones, medium-complexity wargames are my favourite genre by far. Have you and your fiance tried Manoeuvre? It's a simple pseudo-napoleonic borderline abstract game. It's a bit like Summoner Wars (including different factions with varying gameplay style), but with card play being more restrictive in terms of what your units can do. You can try it on wargameroom.com.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
Oh, there's only one thing we should mention about Manoeuvre, and that is the armies are not exactly balanced against each other. Which is not a bad in itself, as there's still a lot of fair match-ups, and it's easy to set up various handicaps when players are of uneven skill. Grab France and UK for your first play, they're a bit boring, but both are top tier armies and should play well against themselves. Ottomans do own indeed. In proper hands they transcend this universe.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
Yeah, Austria is meant to be weakest of all. Someone on boardgamegeek did some statistical analysis of average attack power, unit strenght and so on and it actually turns out Russia is ahead the other mid-tier powers in most categories. I actually like Spain a lot (and it's probably the easiest army to stop Ottoman onslaught), while guerillas are one of their biggest advantages, it's really their defensive capabilities I love. If you feel out your opponent and manage your cards properly, you can buff your unit's defensive strenght to ridiculous levels and then strike back on wounded, card-depleted enemy. Made easier by keeping him hurt with guerillas. Prussia is to the Russia like France to Great Britain - a sort of offensive twin. Their base strenght is low, but the attack dice make up for it, some nice "spell" cards to bolster attack and totally awesome cavalry, that gets buffed even more by von Blucher. Prussians are meant to push, push, push, plop down some redoubts when overextended and then push some more, with some forced marches for ninja encirclements. Volleys on every infantry unit is nice to have, too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
[quote="Tekopo" post=""407493861"]No Retreat 2[/quote] As I liked the GMT-published first game in the series, I thought about giving it a try on vassal. And I'm sure I understood the rules wrong, as my solo rules-trial did not have sense. Starting on first available date I found that axis player has really nothing to do in terms of meaningful stalling, as general british superiority combined with high supplies made their rushing in quite consequence-free. And then I draw the card that gave brits another offensive, effectively ending the game. Any ideas on what could I get wrong? As I'm fairly sure te Italians are supposed to have some meaningful decisions to make, even during hasty retreat. Also, how's the card play, without using them as resources and Malta stuff? On topic though, I think I'm falling in love with Red Winter. It's a Grand Tactical, purely hex'n'chits game of Battle of Tolvajärvi, during the Winter War. It's fairly quick playing (it's got about 20 pages of rules and only one counter sheet), yet meaty in the decision-making department. It feels like a nice, classic game with some extra chromey rules - all of which really do feel they're in for a reason. My favourite little touch is that the units get a better chance to recover by standing far from enemies, forcing the players to rotate his reserves like a proper commander. The really interesting part is the presented situation, though. First off, the map is pretty interesting. It forces you to either slog through rough terrain around frozen lakes (literally everything that's not lakes is LoS-blocking, MP-eating harsh terrain of arious sorts), or take shortcuts/raid exposed flanks through them, bearing in mind they're the biggest death traps known to grogking. Secondly, the forces involved are vastly asymmetrical - something I enjoy a lot in games. The Soviets are the juggernaut, swarming with units and having powerful indirect fire support and armored forces at their disposal (the Finns have literally only two AT Guns, represented by a single chit, and no other way to harm them apart from risky close assaults), yet eventually doomed to crumble as the losses keep mounting. The Finns on the other hand, are heavily outnumbered and outgunned, yet enjoy greater mobility and are better prepared to cope with supply and winter attrition problems. So one player tries to mantain his momentum and trying not to bleed out, while the other one struggles with controlling it's withdrawal, unable to sarifice neither men nor territory, while at the same time guerillaing his way into possible counterattack. All in all, it's a sweet game. Simple and familiar, yet full of flavour and unique touches, as well as constantly throwing interesting problems at you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
While Virgin Queen was quite predictably out of his league, Quinns is a total scared dummy when it comes to wargaming. I mean, he plays Twilight Imperium and deals with all bloaty Descent 1. ed. expansions, and yet he gets stumped by mere Hornet Leader which I find kind of weird. I hope he would get his hands over some lighter CDG (he's played 1960, right?) or perhaps No Retreat and it'll finally click for him. It's a drat shame, as I love Quinns. On the other hand, it makes watching him reviewing anything remotely wargamish more exciting, as I root for him 'getting it' in a similar fashion I root for Spoony to become less insane.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
I think he'll like it, it should be both comprehensible and fun to him, while at the same time he's not groggy enough to complain about simulation stuff. Perhaps it'll push him further to try more CDGs (hopefully after checking what he's getting into beforehand). I wonder why they didn't try the Twilight Struggle, rather picking the blander 1960 - and now pushing for Labyrinth, while TS keeps occupying top spots on BGG listings.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
Rudy Riot posted:How is Campaign Manager 2008? I already have 1960 if that makes a difference and if it's more of the same. It's okay I guess, but it's a very, very small and light game. You draft like 20 (IIRC) cards and keep shuffling them until you run out of swing states. It's fun to play once or twice, but honestly it feels like a deckbuilder without actual deck building. I'd recommend against it, but feel free to check it out yourself on yucata.de.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
I'd suggest taking a look at Intrigue. It's a microscopic game, with like about five rules total, and it consist solely of being an rear end in a top hat towards rest of the table.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2012 12:14
|
|
|
Arkhamina posted:I'm looking forward this weekend to taking a crack at 'Here I Stand'. 'Estimated time - 360 minutes'. Fun with the Protestant Reformation! Habsburgs are kind of playing versus everyone, so make sure not to give it to a noob. In general, though, make sure you invite rather strong players, I find that even one player getting overwhelmed by the game spoils it a lot. Apart from that, just choose what seems most fun to you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
BANKING. Make sure you understand the combat and movement rules rules, it's a bit of a typical Wallace mess. Maybe look for some FAQ/errata beforehand. Also, GRAB BANKING GODDAMNIT. After that, snatch some government reforms preemptively when you've got an action to spare, there's going to be a hell of a race for them during endgame.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
On the topic of CDGs, does omeone have an opinion of Clash of Monarchs? I'm Frederics fanboy #1 so I'm interested in the topic, as well as willing to have a proper, meaty game about it (as opposed to simple, yet very good Friedrich and so). While briefly skimming the rulebook I got a feeling it's trying to become CDG's first monster game. So, is it playable? I'm no stranger to complicated games, but hate when they're tedious. In other news I finally got my hands on solitaire Field Commander: Napoleon, since buying it at Udo Grebe stand in Essen turned out to be cheaper by about  and I'm loving it. Regardless of BGG praise I was a bit hesistant to get it, mostly scared by enemies operational AI being a single die roll, without any conditions or flowcharts built in. It turns out the tables are well constructed and the maps are small enough so that isn't a problem at all. It's a really fun solo Total War-lite and I especially admire how Verssen managed to stretch the simple rules to make each campaign fel really different. I'm strongly considering using it as faux-coop when introducing friends to wargaming.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 10:22
|
|
|
Thanks a lot! Is it feasible (lenght-wise mostly) for a game night/day, or is it rather a game weekend/vassal affair?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:It's even worse for wargamers: i've bought plenty of stuff which realistically I will never manage to get on the table. I try to think about it as collecting rulebooks, with added bonus of pushing counters out being more sophisticated alternative for popping bubblewrap.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 11:48
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:
I think it provides an accurate hook for these who could be interested in our sort of games. Or, alternatively, just call it Grognard Station and write a long and hateful rant about how multifaceted warfare is, extending beyond military action. If you really don't like the "Historical Simulation" name, how about writing up a sub-type of "Political Simulation" games, explaining that while for purists it is often technically not a wargame, but it's usually associated with wargaming ghetto due to being long, boring and spergy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2012 10:18
|
|
|
So apparently Shut Up & Sit Down's Paul was a wargamer, back when he was young and handsome. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
Personally, I hate the way Vlaada writes his rulebooks, especially with the whole novice - intermediate - advanced divide, as my gaming group is used to complex games and prefers to begin with the full ruleset and it's awkward to find stuff or get to the point quickly when picking it up for the first time on a con.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:I am looking for a game for my nephew, he totes digs on STRATEGO. Like, a whole lot. More than I would have thought it possible for anyone to like Stratego. Is there a game Uncle Winson might get him that would be in that ballpark but maybe step up the game a little? I'd risk Sekigahara, though it might be hard to get right now. Yes, it's a GMT game, but really it's abstract Stratego-like with cards (none CDG deck mastery poo poo to learn, though) on a map of Japan. Check out the rules, I think that if you'd explain it to him personally (wargame-style rules may seem intimidating) it's really simple and quick to explain. It also looks kickin' rad:  Also, what kid does not like the samurai? You're basically moving these little blocks around on a simple point-based map, the Stratego-like element being that you need to engage the enemy force to see what it actually consists of, as well as play a card with matching clan symbol to actually make it fight (so that for example you can bluff some massive stacks of stuff that actualy cannot do jack poo poo). If you don't keep a matching card in reserve, the opponent may spring a betrayal on you and you can spend the cards to gain initiative or move more dudes around. And that's pretty much it. The Columbia block games might scratch a similar itch with their hidden forces, but I haven't really played them so I don't know which one would be suitable. Still, I feel Sekigahara would strike closer to home, as it's more abstract (no dice and stuff) and really concentrates on the bluffing/limited information aspect.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 14:11
|
|
|
Myself I'm pretty pumped for Navajo Wars, The Hunters, Unconditional Surrender, Operation Dauntless, Churchill and No Retreat 2. I'm somewhat surprised there's really nothing euro-ish I'd be looking forward to. It probably doesn't really count, but I'm also wishing that 2nd printing of Flash Point: Fire Rescue finally hits my country. I'm also looking forward to reading Internet comments about 1914: Serbien muss Sterbien.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
SERPUS posted:Anyone know if there's any recent games like Ambush? (Solitaire, card-based, war) Fields of Fire is pretty much card-based solitaire game of company command. It's rather complicated and ha worse rulebook than Arkham Horror, though. You might also want to check out the Leader series from DVG (preferably Thunderbolt-Apache or Hornet Leader) if you don't mind managing planes rather than little infatnrymen. It's much more sane than FoF, very good and rather quick playing. Also, similarly to Ambush, various events keep happening and forcing you to adapt and making each raid more unique, so that may scratch your itch better. I also vaguely remember Lock'n'Load series getting a solitaire module or mission which pretty much directly ripped the hex'n'book event from Ambush.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 08:19
|
|
|
How about Imperial? It's basically Diplomacy with the added twist being that ownership of countries keeps changing during the game.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
Video game tie-ins. We're gonna get flooded with that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 10:30
|
|
|
Munchkin is never suitable for anything.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Revitalized posted:I've never played Risk ever but I always hear about people bitching about how long the game takes and how it's pretty uneven if you know what to aim for. Are the other variations of Risk any different? Like Risk Legacy, Metal Gear Risk, or whatever. I don't know. Is there like... a 'good' Risk game? Risk Legacy is different in that you're supposed to permanently If that gimmick does not excite you by itself, there's really no point in playing Risk in XXI century.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
I know this might be a weird request, but could anyone, for reference purposes, point me towards area-movement games whose maps emphasise road/railroad network?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:A wonderful door!. Honestly, I'm not that sure about that. Yes, it's a fun and rather simple affair, yet I feel it's really made for wargamers that want to step back for a lighter, quicker experience, as there's a shitload of little chrome rules that It's still a good choice (it's a wonderful game, really!), but my first choices would be either a lighter CDG or something off Columbia Games repertoire (especially since four-step bucket-of-dice style blocks are pretty much the same as Memoir '44 squads). After giving it some thought I'd actually recommend Red Winter as a nice starting place. It's simple, relatively low on counters, presents an interesting situation and forces with very different feel, introduces most popular hex'n'counter concepts and can act as a gateway for both tactical and operational games - all with but a handful of chrome rules. Also when you gently caress up and get a whole battalion killed as Red Army you can claim you were just roleplaying.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Carteret posted:In regards to Vasel, I use his videos not for an opinion but to get an idea of the mechanics involved and component quality. I feel the same way about Marco Arnaudo, the Vasel of wargames. Dude loves absolutely everything, but he's a fine way to get an overview about the game and it's major gimmicks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
There is only one downside to ever using GMT trays. I can't fit all of Fields of Fire back in the box with them, I have to take the cards out. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:the number of players is bad 2 player games are the best games. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
Forget it Jake, it's Kotaku.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
I haven't had the chance to play it myself, but Chris Taylor (not the Total Annihilation one, but the one behind Fallout) made a Space Hulk rip-off, Forlorn: Hope. I think it's gimmick is that the aliens get to evolve and gain new abilities.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
I might be interested. I'm eurotime.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
So, it's mafia?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Khorne Cultists are a fine drop when you're on yur last point, or stalling. Just place all of them in the Empire, you either have it for yourself to ruin slowly, or have others come to you, which is fine as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
You totally should mention the "colonists" of Puerto Rico, perhaps extended to general colonisation themes as portrayed in euros or wargames. The whole Dragons Hoard Prince-in-distress thing should be worth a mention. Other than that, there's Free At Last I guess. Perhaps Labyrinth: War on Terror (...), as it's quite political due to its topic? It's hard to talk about good portrayals in board games, as when they're not obviously offensive, they just are. It's not like there's much place for dialogues or backstories to really define particular characters, as opposed to video or role-playing games.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Aftter a brief thought, I'd like to defend Zulus on the Ramparts! for a bit. It's a part of a solitaire series dealing with similar kind of situations (namely one force being besieged by the enemies). While in this case the Brits happen to be under players control, other titles in the series sometimes pit the player against the white men - eg. Ottoman Sunset and We Must Tell the Emperor! in which players take the roles of Ottoman Empire and Imperial Japan fighting against Entente/Allies. There is also a plenty of other, two-player games covering the topic of Rorke's Drift, though truth be told I'd expect most players to prefer picking the British side, but I'd attribute that to the general mythology of that battle, outside of the pure reresentation-in-board-games discussion. I feel it'd be really unfair to dismiss the game on these grounds.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
Paradoxish posted:$40 with $17 shipping, which puts it around the same $60 price point it is everywhere. I've actually been tracking the price on Amazon on camelcamelcamel for a while. Odds are I'll just cave sooner or later, but at the same time I know it's probably not going to get enough play to justify $60. And it's just $30 locally (  ). Take that, first world!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2013 18:26
|
|