|
I don't know if I'd participate but I'd love to see it.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
I'm down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
I would play this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Sounds like a great idea, Goon on goon battles are always great fun. Its always a great way to showcase a game and introduce it to new players.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Sounds like a great idea, Goon on goon battles are always great fun. Its always a great way to showcase a game and introduce it to new players. He's going to loving murder me, fyi.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
Not if you cheat. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
Gentlemen, there is NO CHEATING in the war-room!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Not if you cheat. Hoenstly, GoG has *much* less of a "OH poo poo I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WAS THERE" feel than Napoleon's Triumph. In GoG, everything starts at 2 strength except the cavalry which you can see at the start, things are either 2 or 1 when they're hurt, and how much artillery your opponent can bring to bear is determined both by the units *and* by the tokens which you also can't see. In NT, you send a corp against what you thought was a weak line and suddenly the next turn cavalry destroy your entire force. In GoG, you know the troops, and try to do things better than your opponent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
There is, however, a very satisfying feeling when your opponent loses sight of the Iron Brigade (it's -2 on defense so it's pretty awesome), and you manage to sneak it to your other flank when your opponent isn't expecting it to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:There is, however, a very satisfying feeling when your opponent loses sight of the Iron Brigade (it's -2 on defense so it's pretty awesome), and you manage to sneak it to your other flank when your opponent isn't expecting it to be. Too true, too true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
Anyone play Phantom Leader/Hornet Leader? They look pretty cool, but they also look really heavy so I'm not sure if it's something I would like...
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
I've got Phantom Leader on my iPad and it isn't a bad game. It's not actually that heavy: the combat is really simple and there aren't that many rules. If you do have an iPad I would recommend at least giving it a go, although I'm not sure if the cardboard version of the game is worth buying. I've heard Apache/Warthog Leader is much better, though, and much more tactical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Phantom suffers from simply having less stuff to play with than the other games in the series.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Hornet Leader is great, and not really heavy at all? Missions aren't that long, and there's a fair bit of strategising beforehand (choosing who to send, loadouts, even picking the right target) but nothing too heavy. Thunderbolt Apache Leader has slightly more detailed mission resolution, and it's a hell of a lot of fun. Again, nothing too heavy. Phantom Leader is basically Hornet Leader with less content (the old version) or similar content (deluxe), with the addition of a politics track to discourage excessive napalm. I'd go with Hornet out of those two, but definitely prefer Thunderbolt Apache Leader. The rulebooks are on dvg.com. Lots of pictures and examples. dakkadakkadakkavreeeeowkaboom
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
Oh ok, cool. For some reason the games looked scarier than they are, must be the little chits  Thunderbolt Apache Leader sounds cool as hell, so I might go with that one
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Dre2Dee2 posted:Thunderbolt Apache Leader sounds cool as hell, so I might go with that one I, too, would like to hear more about this game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Guns of Gettysburg In the 3pm to 4pm turn, the Union player doesn't do much apart from moving Sykes up to cover his flank, while shuffling troops around to make sure he's got his flank covered: at the moment, he's only got a cavalry block protecting his extreme right and that's not going to stand up to attack. He gets no further reinforcements this turn and calls a hold for next turn: I'm glad he did since it means he probably won't be able to reshuffle his lines once I bring up Heth. I start my turn by immediately declaring the attack: one block from Rodes' Division and one from Pender's. I don't use two blocks each because that would require me to use 4 battle tokens: since I'm not doing an attack up a ridge and my flanks are covered, I don't need to worry too much.  The Union place his artillery tokens and I place mine. He reveals three single-cannon *Any* tokens, while I reveal one double-cannon Pender token and a single-cannon *Any* tokens. My artillery knocks out one of his tokens and since he's not on a ridge, he only gets 2 cannon symbols overall: not enough to force me to take a step loss. In GoG it is possible to do group attacks to up to two adjacent places and there is a bonus for winning the combat in the first position: I select the position closest to the enemy center, hoping that I'm facing cavalry, only to be slightly dissapointed that it's actually another of Sedgewick's brigade. Still, both blocks are strength 2, but thanks to the confederate bonus I win the position! Even winning a single position will win you the entire fight. At the second position, the Union player shows one of Sykes' brigades, while I show one of Rodes: It's two to two strength, but I have the confederate bonus for +1 and I won the first position for another +1, so I win by +2: this means he has to take a loss and I don't. Having won the combat, the defenders need to retreat, but that will only happen during their turn. I deliberate on what I need to call next for a general order: attack would allow me to keep the pressure, but I'm running out of tokens and I need to bring Johnson up to support. I finally decide to call hold.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Does anyone know how hard/expensive it is to mount a couple of maps by hand? I have a few one-sided maps for wargames which I'll probably use enough to justify putting it on something that will avoid holes in the creases. Repostin in case any of you counter clippers have ever experienced strange mounting urges, gnomesane?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Talking about LPs, who would be interested in one involving Guns of Gettysburg? It's something that I've been talking to silvergoose about. Basically, the idea is to have the goons take a side (or ideally, if we can do it, both sides). Rule knowledge would not be required, with only basic concepts being told to the 'players'. The 'players' would have an hierarchy of sorts, while two mods (one per side) would actually play out the turns based on the plans of the 'players'. Is this still a thing that interest can be expressed in?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Yeah, of course. I need to clear up a few things on how I'm gonna run things and find someone with the time to run it with me. It'll probably happen after I finish my Dungeon Petz PBP since otherwise it'll never get finished.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Yeah, of course. I need to clear up a few things on how I'm gonna run things and find someone with the time to run it with me. It'll probably happen after I finish my Dungeon Petz PBP since otherwise it'll never get finished. Nifty. I've got GoG and NT, but it's hard to find anyone else willing the spend the time to learn them!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
Regarding playing, if anyone feels like playing any wargames on vassal/wargameroom hit me up on the boardgoons channel on synirc since I should have time this weekend/next week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
I've been looking for an OCS-lite for a long while. OCS is cool but it's complicated as hell and takes a long time to play. I just got a copy of Campaign Commander Vol II: Coral Sea. $40 for a weird looking Spanish game at an online retailer that I gave even odds of actually sending me anything. Wasn't too sure what to expect, but man this thing is a blast. Rules are written terribly, unfortunately- lots of errata and ambiguous. Mechanically this is the most interesting wargame I've played in ages, gonna do a AAR of a few rounds to show how it works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
To explain a little better, because attacks reveal all your guerillas, you generally only do them when you're sure to be successful(thusly you have six guerillas in a province you don't even need to roll except to see if you roll a '1'). Ambushes use your special action but let you reveal just one guerilla to automatically succeed as if you rolled a '1'. The vast majority of attacks in this game are ambushes. Sometimes when FARC makes a big push it will do a conventional attack, but that'll generally be done in such a strength as to assure success. The other factions generally have better ways to remove pieces even without ambushes(bribes, assassination).
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
The AA dice combat mechanics actually add a nice mechanical distinction between gov't (consistent, robust) and insurgent forces (inconsistent, relatively impotent, do well when they are lucky or numerous). As for kidnapping, it shouldn't really be a reliable income anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
I'll agree with other people's assessments of Andean Abyss: the dice luck is very limited and largely there are ways to compensate it/avoid it altogether, which really I see as the central aim of any wargaming ruleset: the ability to manipulate the odds in order to allow you to have a better chance of winning. I've finally written my review of Guns of Gettysburg, so if you are interested in reading it, check out my blog.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Also I'm in the process of losing a game of Guns of Gettysburg with Tek, and it's definitely a super cool game. I do also agree with his other note, though; I think Napoleon's Triumph is a superior game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
 So, uh, my first game of TK2 lead to this. Bizarre War 2 has involved Hungary joining the Allies in a coup d'etat, Sweden joining the allies, Germany invading the USSR first with the help of an allied Poland, Yugoslavia joining the Axis in a pact of steel. Blackmongoose is the Axis, i'm the Allies, and Tekopo is the Soviets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
How long does TK take to play?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Pre-war took us about 3 hours, including setup and getting everyone together. Based on that, I'd guess the full thing will end up being around 15-ish hours total. I've only played PBEM before, so I'm not 100% sure how long a live game is going to take us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
OK wargamers, I have a weirdly specific question. I'm a long-time player of Battletech and Federation Commander/Star Fleet Battles, and consequently my favourite thing in the whole world is overly-complicated tactical games with individual record sheets for the units. Anybody have a tip on good naval wargames that fit this description? I'm tempted by things like Harpoon, Seekrieg, etc., where I can sit and simulate battles in ridiculous detail about real ships for once instead of off-brand Star Trek ships  Era doesn't matter to me so much so long as I get that detailed simulation vibe. While I'm at it I figure I should look for less ludicrous systems that can simulate larger battles without taking days -- that AAR posted earlier in the thread from Serpents of the Seas is kind of what I'm going for. Is that a good place to start for that kind of system? I'm also absolutely dying to try War Galley if I can actually find a copy somewhere, since I love ancient naval battles. Iron and Oak looks like a nice mix of both in a way -- not massively complicated, but ships have individual cards to track damage, etc. Anybody try this one?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 11:58
|
|
|
I've done some solo campaigns with Iron and Oak and the game is alright, but it's very heavily designed around the dice mechanism that is present within the entirety of the game. The basics of it is that you roll challenge dice and response dice to do pretty much anything. So a gun might have a rating of a D6, D4 and D12 and the enemy armour might be a D12 and D6. You roll each bunch of dice separately and pick the highest dice in the response/challenge and compare them against each other. The results in Iron and Oak can be pretty random, which I guess simulates the fact that ironclad combat was pretty much decided by random shots hitting critical points at opportune times. Another thing about the game is that movement is very abstracted: instead of having hexes you just have boxes where you can attempt to cross the T if you are in the same box as an enemy. I kind of like the system since I also liked Kaiser's Pirates (a card game using similar mechanisms) but since you need to roll dice for pretty much anything, it might not be for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
thorsilver posted:OK wargamers, I have a weirdly specific question. I'm a long-time player of Battletech and Federation Commander/Star Fleet Battles, and consequently my favourite thing in the whole world is overly-complicated tactical games with individual record sheets for the units. Anybody have a tip on good naval wargames that fit this description? I'm tempted by things like Harpoon, Seekrieg, etc., where I can sit and simulate battles in ridiculous detail about real ships for once instead of off-brand Star Trek ships How big is your table? Serpents of the Seas is all on one mapsheet, uses 1 hex (.5"x.5" counters) units, mostly gunboats, frigates, etc. Flying Colors (vol I) does the big ships-of-the-line 2-hex (1"x.5" counter) units, on two mapsheets. Serpents has an additional 1v1 duel system, FC has an expansion you could get if you want. FC's system is descended partially from War Galley IIRC, so that may work for you as well. As far as being a good place to start, if you've played Battletech and SFB you shouldn't have trouble with the rules, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 12:42
|
|
|
If you don't mind playing with starships just a little bit longer, Saganami Island Tactical Simulator is pretty close to peak  .
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
Am I mistaken in thinking the Cuba Libre module on Vassal is playable? Because if it is, we should play it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:If you don't mind playing with starships just a little bit longer, Saganami Island Tactical Simulator is pretty close to peak You can get Attack Vector: Tactical's rules in (paid) PDF these days. That's the classic hard-SF hard- wargame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
chrisoya posted:You can get Attack Vector: Tactical's rules in (paid) PDF these days. That's the classic hard-SF hard- I've always been interested in Attack Vector, but never took the plunge. Did I miss anything by skipping it? I'd hate to think I passed up a great though game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:07
|
|
