|
My wife who is not a war games enjoys playing C&C Medieval. There are fewer rules to memorize due to the limited number of units, iirc there are three light, three medium and a couple heavy Foot and Calvary units for each army.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Terminally Bored posted:What's the better step up from Memoir 44? C&C Ancients or Medieval? I think Ancients is probably a simpler game - Medieval seems just a little bit more fiddly. I'd agree that Nappy is probably my favourite in the system though. You really do get a feel for how different the armies are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Thanks for the impressions. Any recommendations for a good introductory air warfare game? Wing Leader looks really cool but I read it's heavily procedural (whatever that means) and players decisions don't really matter. Is that true?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Whoever told you there are no player decisions in Wing Leader is dumb and stupid and most likely hasnt played WL. One thing to keep in mind is that WL plays at a scale that is unusual for the player. The distances involved are greater than the board might suggest and, after all, the game is about wings and squadrons rather than individual planes. Anyways, yes sometimes you get diced or locked out of options because you suck at charming the dice gods; but generally you can change your altitude or direction (iirc). Choosing targets is also especially vital for the player to understand
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Oh and campaigns are a thing with the expansions so more yes on player decisions
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
Is there a best place to start with WL or can you just pick any game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Is there a best place to start with WL or can you just pick any game? Havent had the opportunity to play the latest one "Origin" but in the initial game you can play any of the first 5 or so rather easily. They arent complex, and mostly serve to teach the mechanics
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
From my flicking through the scenario booklets, I think it goes from simpler-> more complex.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
tomdidiot posted:From my flicking through the scenario booklets, I think it goes from simpler-> more complex. Yeah but the first like 2 or 3 are very simple. Like, one wing of aircraft per side or so and easy interception
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Has anyone here played the old Zveda "Samurai battles" system? It's based on C&C and I see that GMT has a preorder for a C&C block based version of it. The miniatures always looked too frail to use regularly for such a game but if it's good I'd be interested in getting the GMT version.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
Ars Technica recently reviews Undaunted: Normandy at Essen. Has anyone here gotten a chance to play it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
How do all y'all store your perspex? I'm looking at buying three 100x75cm sheets for 1985.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
I store mine vertically and they warp a bit that way. I clamp em down to my table when in use so that doesn’t matter to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
[woah, SA is being really weird right now -- sorry for the double post!] AARP LARPer fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Nov 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Can anyone comment on how Pavlov's House plays solo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 07:33
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Can anyone comment on how Pavlov's House plays solo? Well, considering it's designed as a solitaire game (the 2p version was tacked on later), I'd imagine pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Well, considering it's designed as a solitaire game (the 2p version was tacked on later), I'd imagine pretty good. Sure, but is it a compelling game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
Hot take: playing 2p wargames against yourself is more fun than "true" solitaire games
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 13:57
|
|
|
Knee-deep in Stalingrad, please send help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Knee-deep in Stalingrad, please send help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 14:11
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:you fell for the classic mistake Attempting to roll 11 when its overcast?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:you fell for the classic mistake alternate win condition where you abandon racist revanchism and just build the EU several decades ahead of time instead
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Chad Jensen passed away today, go play some Combat Commander or Dominant Species in his honor
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Chad Jensen passed away today, go play some Combat Commander or Dominant Species in his honor Dominant Species booked for Sunday, probably a 3p game. Could add SpaceCorp, he did the rulebook and some development for that didn't he?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
I’ll have to finally break out Fighting Formations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
What's the best introductory COIN game atm? Cuba Libre or Falling Sky? Neither appeals to me theme-wise but FitL seems too difficult to get into. How's the COIN series in retrospect? What hapoened to that Irish Civil War game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
If you're looking at either of them as games that build into different, more complex games like Fire in the Lake or ADP then you want Cuba Libre because Falling Sky is a little bit different. If you're content to simply play a good game and have fun, however, Falling Sky is a little bit more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
How's it different? Sorry for all the newbie questions btw
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
Terminally Bored posted:How's it different? COIN games all use the same basic system -- dudes on a map, area control, player turns controlled by the draw of cards, campaigns punctuated by "passage of time" cards (called Propaganda or other things), etc. But Falling Sky is set thousands of years before the other games in the series and it has very different types of units. The Romans are sort of a counterinsurgent faction, in that they have legion units with a lot of firepower and they are trying to wipe out their Gallic foes. But the Gauls don't really play like insurgents at all, because they don't have the guerrilla units common to the other COIN games. Guerrillas have poor combat ability but can't be killed by government troops until they've become revealed, while the Gallic factions have warbands which can engage in big battles whether they're revealed or not. Also the Falling Sky battle mechanics, the commands you can take, and the victory conditions are substantially different from other COINs. That said I introduced my non-wargaming group to FS and we had a pretty good time. Cuba Libre was my first COIN and I love it but I think Falling Sky might be a more fun way to see how your friends take to multiplayer wargames.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Just go for the one that appeals to you most thematically. You'll more likely play a more complicated game you're juiced up for than a simpler one you're kinda meh on. Fire in the Lake was my first COIN and easily the most complicated game I'd played at that point. You'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
One thing that helps a lot is that the COIN games have (generally) very good rule and playbooks so you can get a solid grasp on how the game mechanics work quickly. There are a few exceptions here and there (iirc the printing of ADP I have had an issue in the playbook where the board isn't fully set up in one graphic even though it claims it is) but the fact remains that there's a lot of text right in the box to get you on board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
Yeah FITL was one of my first wargames and the playbook really spoiled me. They introduce the rules gently using a sample game and tell you exactly what rules to read to get up to speed quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
Just go straight to whatever you are interested in. The Gap between Cuba Libre and A distant Plain is not very much in terms of complexity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Sure, but is it a compelling game? No, not really. There's not all that much that you can do. You most often get the pick of a lovely range of stuff. All the enemy actions arw card driven and you really need the cards to fall right for you to have a shot at surviving this onslaught. Mind you I've only played maybe 4 games? Kickstarter hosed up so I got two copies and I gifted the second one away but I will say that playing it while teaching it while getting drunk while the germans choked off all hope off redemption was a lot more fun than playing it solo. Edit: its basically a lovely tower defence game with a slapped on flavour Sleekly fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 09:43
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Just go straight to whatever you are interested in. The Gap between Cuba Libre and A distant Plain is not very much in terms of complexity. I came here to post that I had a Fire in the Lake sized hole on the shelf. So I filled it with ADP today. It was a good bit cheaper and seems really well suited to having four factions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 09:46
|
|
|
One paragraph reviews for all of the COINs from my own perspective: Andean Abyss: Decent if you manage to find a copy, basically created the archetype for the different types of factions that are present within the series. The first few COINs leaned heavily on the faction dynamic that AA created, so there are going to be a lot of similarity between AA and the three first COINs. Gameplay for the game is fine, but the card events overall are quite weak and most of the times don't really help/hinder you substantially, which makes the card economy kind of wonky since Operations + Special is pretty much the go-to for every single play in the game. Even acknowledging that, the game is balanced around the factions doing a lot of Operations and not a lot of events. Overall AA is pretty stable and sticks to the COIN formula pretty closely. Cuba Libre: Used to be the go-to beginner game in the series. Sticks very closely to the formula created by Andean Abyss in that the factions are quite analogous to the ones within AA, although the system of alliances is different (in that the Syndicate and Government are more closely tied to each other than the Cartel and Government in AA). Swings the other way compared to Andean Abyss in that the events are powerful and (due to the lack of resources for most factions) operations are quite weak. This leads to very wild, random and swingy games because you can go from victory to defeat or vice-versa on a single card. One of the factions (Government) can only do stuff at the start and spends the end game twiddling his thumbs and hoping for the best. I would not recommend buying Cuba Libre anymore because the game is of a similar complexity to all other COINs and the only thing that makes it easier is the smaller map. A Distant Plain: Still my favourite COIN, it has one of the most interesting faction in the game (government) and has by far some of the most interesting politics within the series in that everyone has some reason to ally with anyone else on the board, which is not true of all COINs (including AA, in which the AUC and FARC are never really going to ally together). Mostly sticks to the AA formula, but replaces the third insurgent faction for the US Coalition. Has a few issues when you first start to play due to how quickly the Coalition can accumulate points, as well as Coalition draining the resources of the Government too easily. Strikes a good balance between operations and events. Only other issue is that, compared to the other factions, Warlords are relatively boring to play. Fire in the Lake: I used to like it but I think that it has huge problems in trying to recreate a conflict that had both insurgencies and conventional warfare. All prior COINs worked because the model presented had one side having COIN troops and the other only had Insurgents. Fire in the Lake gets the formula wrong by having conventional troops on both sides, which only serves to highlight the problem with how COIN models conventional warfare, since it just becomes a matter of striking first. The game relies on the two-step flow of sweeping and then assaulting, and removing the first step really detracts from the game. The game had issues with having two distinct sides as well and not making the ARVN autonomous enough, like the Government in ADP. FitL does fix a few of the issues with ADP however, like not allowing the Coalition/US to gain 20 points in a single turn by pulling out your troops suddenly. Would not recommend it. Liberty or Death: Took all of the worst lessons from FitL and made them worse. The two sides are even more distinct, most of the fighting is conventional (although the battle system is a better replacement than the other present in FitL). LoD is probably not that bad, but it's a 2 player game masquerading as a 4 player game. The French and the Native Americans are pretty boring to play as well compared to the two big participants. Honestly a COIN in name only. Falling Sky: A decent game, manages to understand that you have to completely change how the factions work in order to model the period accurately. It's a poor introduction to the genre because it doesn't play anything like any of the other COINs. The sides are pretty interesting and different to play, although the Belgea are kind of boring and direct and there's not much scope for doing interesting stuff with them, although they are one of the sides most likely to win. The game gets good once every player understands the role assigned to them, especially for the Arverni since finding out how to actually beat the Romans (ie starve them out) isn't immediately apparent. Would recommend if you are interested in the period. Colonial Twilight: I would honestly still recommend this as a starting point. It has by far the purest COIN mechanisms within the series, since most of the Operations + Specials are straight copies of the ones present within AA. CT sticks closest to the COIN formula of the series and does well by it. The only difficult part of the game is how the pivotal events work, it's important to use them in order to regain the initiative, even if the event itself seems kind of bad for you. Overall I think this is one of the better COINs and understands that the series only really works for COIN operations and not much else. Pendragon: Huge, fiddly, kind of boring. Potentially a nice simulation of the period but the way that the factions have been designed means that, at some point, someone on the table will almost definitely be bored. Relies too heavily on dice rolls: dice rolls are something that every other game in the series explicitly tries to avoid you doing (it's never a good idea to attack using insurgents), but a lot of factions in Pendragon rely on dice rolls to get anything done/achieve their aims. Would honestly not recommend, it's just a fiddly mess of a game. Gandhi: Only played this once, but I think the Non-Violent factions work pretty well and the game overall is quite interesting in terms of how it tries to mix police actions with COIN operations. I think overall of the more recent COINs, this is potentially the best one of the big-map COINs (apart from ADP).
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
Awesome writeup, thanks! Looks like I'll have to find a copy of ADP then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 11:53
|
|
|
For the record, Tekopo is a bit of an outlier concerning FITL. It's the highest ranked COIN on BGG. Not to say he's wrong about the modeling of US v NVA combat, but it's not as flawed a game as he contends. All 4 factions are interesting to play, the huge map presents a lot of choices for pushing different fronts, and thematically it's a lot easier to get to the table than ADP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:One paragraph reviews for all of the COINs from my own perspective: This is fantastic. Thanks for putting this together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:For the record, Tekopo is a bit of an outlier concerning FITL. It's the highest ranked COIN on BGG. Not to say he's wrong about the modeling of US v NVA combat, but it's not as flawed a game as he contends. All 4 factions are interesting to play, the huge map presents a lot of choices for pushing different fronts, and thematically it's a lot easier to get to the table than ADP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 18:34
|
|