|
StashAugustine posted:Everything is a wargame Except wargames, which are euros
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
The OP of this thread has 1960. I'm not even sorry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
If Versailles 1919 was published by Z-man, no one would call it a wargame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:
I keep getting results where France wins in turn 2-4. They seem to have pretty significant momentum at the start -- what can Britain do to stop an early victory?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
 GCACW's All Green Alike with Tekopo. On the Shenandoah side, Patterson is sent into panic. Johnston decides to call off the pursuit early to head back and help Beauregard at Bull Run.  McDowell is getting ready to try to force his way to Manassas Junction. I'm not too hopeful about my chances here, but we'll see. One of the things I noticed right away is just how vulnerable Patterson really is- the 2 tactical disparity makes it life-threatening for any unit of his to be remotely out of position, and i'm not even sure he needs to have the stance system to keep him in check. Johnston's army is considerably better but needed to the East. All Green Alike's foibles are fun, if a bit frustrating- in most GCACW games it is possible to set up a decent flank attack from nothing in one activation, but in All Green Alike, it's impossible- the armies become more clumsy, especially as they are also slower than in other games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
Really enjoying AGA: the union troops are pretty bad, but the rebs aren't much better so it kind of evens out, even though due to the relative sizes, the small advantages the CSA has are a little bit magnified. I feel a lot more in control than in HCR, which was fun but I felt I wasn't really doing much for half of the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Really enjoying AGA: the union troops are pretty bad, but the rebs aren't much better so it kind of evens out, I mean that's literally on the box
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I keep getting results where France wins in turn 2-4. They seem to have pretty significant momentum at the start -- what can Britain do to stop an early victory? Tough to say as the game can be so situational but I'd definitely say the Brits are doing something wrong if France is winning autovictories consistently. I see from the pic you posted that France has a lot of spaces that provide advantage tiles. The Brits probably did not contest those spaces vigorously enough. It's also surprising that France has dominated India. The British should have contested there better but it's tough to know how without seeing how it happened. I will say that if France goes for the Vandevassi fort I like to push the First Carnatic War hard and hopefully make what seems like a secure French position in India collapse. As the Brits my fav ministry card combo starting off is Jonathan Swift and Edmund Halley. I like to flag all of Ireland and Scotland cheap then get cheap boats. I feel like that sets me up to properly contest the seas and the Jacobite Rebellion for the rest of the game. That is super situational though. As both sides I try to let the situation dictate what I am going to do. https://discord.gg/gZVGpV BTW here is an invite to the IS discord server. My discord name is ezmacncheese if you ever want to get a game going.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I keep getting results where France wins in turn 2-4. They seem to have pretty significant momentum at the start -- what can Britain do to stop an early victory? Given the way our game is going, you just need me to pilot France and you'll do swimmingly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
nomadotto posted:Given the way our game is going, you just need me to pilot France and you'll do swimmingly. Or me
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
Huskalator posted:Tough to say as the game can be so situational but I'd definitely say the Brits are doing something wrong if France is winning autovictories consistently. I see from the pic you posted that France has a lot of spaces that provide advantage tiles. The Brits probably did not contest those spaces vigorously enough. It's also surprising that France has dominated India. The British should have contested there better but it's tough to know how without seeing how it happened. I will say that if France goes for the Vandevassi fort I like to push the First Carnatic War hard and hopefully make what seems like a secure French position in India collapse. Yeah I'm playing more balanced games now. Here's my latest, where France pulled out a victory in final scoring because of success in the Caribbean and India, but it was close all game:  So when spending CP, I only need to worry about Conquest Lines if I'm trying to take a Territory, right? Like, if I win 1 CP as BR in the WSS, can I just grab Louisbourg? The Playbook seems to imply this is the case, and that the dotted lines between Forts shouldn't really be there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I only need to worry about Conquest Lines if I'm trying to take a Territory, right? Like, if I win 1 CP as BR in the WSS, can I just grab Louisbourg? The Playbook seems to imply this is the case, and that the dotted lines between Forts shouldn't really be there. Correct. However, the designers mentioned that requiring conquest lines for forts also should be considered an optional rule (as it was taken out of the standard rules at the last minute) and I prefer playing that way personally
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
I think I got a little better at IS. Here's my most recent solitaire game, where France came from behind to win in final scoring again. It's pretty obvious to say but this whole game is about maximizing the effect of limited investment points and preventing your opponent from doing the same. That means you want to get lots of advantage tiles you can use effectively. I'm feeling the war system is fiddlier than necessary -- like, it's not that obvious how few VPs you get for winning wars in India and the Caribbean. Also it seems like spamming conflict markers is too effective for gaining an advantage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
The vassal module for All Bridges Burning is now available - has anyone taken a look? It seems to have a lot "extra" going on, for a COIN - there's enough to learn that I haven't been able to really get a solitaire game going yet. The map is quite ugly (squiggly trains!) 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
Anyone played a game or two of All Bridges Burning or Versailles 1919 yet? For what it's worth, GMT is fixing the IS, ABB, and V19 errata with a free kit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Anyone played a game or two of All Bridges Burning or Versailles 1919 yet? For what it's worth, GMT is fixing the IS, ABB, and V19 errata with a free kit. My copy is supposed to be here tomorrow but will likely remain unopened until the update arrives. The errata is getting longer and GMT gets should reprint the rule book along with the cards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 04:38
|
|
|
The new round of Pax Pamir's going out!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 04:47
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:My copy is supposed to be here tomorrow but will likely remain unopened until the update arrives. The errata is getting longer and GMT gets should reprint the rule book along with the cards. Wow, THAT bad? I keep hearing worse and worse things about GMTs errata lately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Anyone played a game or two of All Bridges Burning or Versailles 1919 yet? For what it's worth, GMT is fixing the IS, ABB, and V19 errata with a free kit. I've "played" Versailles 1919 twice now 4-handed, as a learning experience. With the right people it should be a lot quicker than Churchill. But it's not that difficult to math out the final scores, so I'm worried games may drag out once the final issue is drawn, with people doing everything they can to prevent it from leaving the waiting room unless/until they know they can win the game. Hoping to play against others as soon as this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 05:21
|
|
|
NUMBER 1 FULCI FAN posted:Wow, THAT bad? I keep hearing worse and worse things about GMTs errata lately. I’m probably being overly critical but there are a lot of little mistakes. Someone on BGG claimed some of the board mistakes are left over from a 2017 version of the map. GMT should allow someone to help them solve their quality control Issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 13:20
|
|
|
I decided to play some VG Vietnam again- it's kinda hilarious knowing this was designed by a teenage Nick Karp. So, this is the US 3rd Marine division. I've shown its three regiments in all the possible deployments for US regiments/brigades because it's one of their advantages in this game. The bottom left number is a unit's combat strength, which affects its contribution to the odds ratio as well as which column casualties against the side go on the combat table. The bottom middle number is the artillery rating of a unit- non-HQ non-Artillery units can't offer this to anyone else, but artillery serves to both contribute to the odds ratio AND add to the enemy's combat strength with respect to the column they go on for casualties. The number to the bottom right is the movement points for a unit, which is self-explanatory. Some units with artillery have dots underneath that indicate extended range. One dot indicates a unit that can provide support two hexes out, two dots three hexes out. No dot artillery that isn't integral to a combat unit can contribute in adjacent hexes. US units can be deployed in several deployments and they all have their use. The top-most deployment, with the HQ seperate from 3 battalions is most efficient for search and destroy, maintaining a good pursuit rating on the units while also allowing them to fan out for seperate ops or to block off the enemy. The middle deployment represents the HQ artillery integrated with each battalion. This is good if you want to defend over a wide area. There's also putting the whole regiment into one unit which is powerful if you want to try to pursue a unit all the way and tee off huge attacks on NVA units. The problem with US units in the scenarios is that their casualties are quite expensive(1 VP per US replacement point used instead of 1/4 for ARVN). In the campaign, actual US units use up a lot of commitment and will over time contribute to drops in US morale. It's significantly cheaper commitment-wise to use ARVN divisions, but then ARVN divisions have their own problems. The US has a ton of options in terms of what divisions to bring in and they all have their advantages and disadvantages.  These are the ARVN 2nd and 9th divisions. The 9th division is augmented, so you can see its higher stats(augmenting is something the US can pay extra supplies to do). On the right, you can see independent battalions which are decent for garrisons and shot-catching for US forces. ARVN units have some disadvantages, over US forces, and not just in their stats. First of all, based on the commander and corps commander's effectiveness, it's possible for these units to be ineffective, rendering them mostly useless outside garrison duty for a season. They also provide a +1 to the alert roll when they're involved in an op where a VC unit is a target. This is bad, as the alert roll is how many movement points the VC unit has to get away after you get done moving in to engage it. The big limitation on the use of ARVN in the campaign is that they rely on the RVN draft for their replacements and unlike the NLF, the US player cannot spend commitment to go over this. Once they run out of draft, the units become very brittle and easy to shove aside(the Fall of South Vietnam scenario demonstrates this very well). One thing i'll say that's a little weird in this game is ARVN rangers, where you just make an investment and then depending on the size of the op you'll get these guys who show up and then disappear and are available for every op. It's kinda nuts, though if they die they require 5 ARVN replacements to get back. The limiter on them is that because operations are a sliding initiative, it's in the US's interest to use as few units as possible in an op to keep units available thusly there won't usually be all the ARVN rangers available.  This is the VC. They're the bread and butter of the NLF forces for much of the game, as they're much more efficient in commitment terms than NVA units up until the point that the NLF draft exceeds their controlled population at which point the NVA units become more competitive in terms of cost. VC units are also always unrevealed until they get into combat, and then get unrevealed afterward. All are eligible for alert rolls, where after the US player declares an op and a target, any VC units can roll a dice, modified by the terrain cost(harder is better) to see how many movement points they get, and then they get to move away with no pursuit available for the US player. This is how such weak units avoid dying. On the top left are three VC battalions. VC battalions have random attributes and are dirt cheap. Three of them can combine into a regiment, costing some more supplies, and it's useful to keep some regiments around because they keep the US player guessing and sometimes you can get some cheeky casualties that way. They're also more useful on offensives and let you take more casualties out of the replacement pool rather than on battalions which can contribute to US morale. The division HQs can also be bought directly to provide some useful artillery support. The political sections are 'dummy' units but because all VC units count the same toward pacification, they're still useful. In the campaign and scenarios, the presence of any NLF unit contributes to VPs or pacification, and that's how this game handles its politics- it has a very detailed ARVN general command situation, and it considers the control of population that is contributed by the presence of units. The game gets a lot of crap for not considering politics, but I don't know if that's really the case. It seems about as equally facile as Fire in the Lake in that regard.  This is the NVA. The NVA is very much the blunt force instrument for the NLF player, as they're more powerful, have better artillery, and can be augmented into very powerful units, but because they don't have the benefit of the alert roll, they are very vulnerable to attack themselves. Typically you want to use them alongside VC so you can use more plentiful VC replacements to take hits for them, but by the time the NLF player in the campaign wants to use them en masse, VC replacements aren't really any cheaper than NVA replacements. Still, even with their vulnerability, they can sit around across the border and threaten the DMZ and other border regions while the VC is a going factor, and the need for more NVA tends to coincide with a US need to withdraw, so they get more of an ability to punch weaker ARVN units later on. All that being said, next post will be exactly how the game works, so we'll begin with the tutorial scenario: Operation Starlite 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 13:35
|
|
|
The beginning of Operation Starlite. In a real game, I wouldn't know which VC unit is the regiment and which is the political section, so i'll try to make US decisions assuming I don't really know which is which. The goal of this scenario is to destroy, disperse, or force the regiment to break down. The NLF player has 4 VC replacement points, and the US player has 4 US replacement points, 4 Air points, 1 helicopter point, and a cruiser. If the US loses any units, it loses, though the replacement points are free. The NLF units have a -2 modifier to their movement allowance for all purposes, including alert rolls. The NLF player is also not allowed to conduct strategic movement, which triples their movement rating and has no other restrictions on combat. In all operations, the NLF player has control over initiative. They always decide who goes next. The NLF player can pass freely without giving anything up. If the US player passes, the NLF player can end the turn if they like, which is quite beneficial if they have a high unit presence. Because of this, the NLF player will go first and move his units away from the coast to improve their chances of getting away. This also makes it somewhat difficult to operate without causing the other unit to react. With both NLF units ops-complete, they pass and give the US player a chance to operate.  The US player has a bit of a problem. When they do a search and destroy op, they can declare one hex a target hex, but there's another unit sitting there. If we knew the one on the road was a political section, we wouldn't care about its reaction movement, but let's assume it might be the regiment. In that case, a reaction move into bad terrain would be possible if we don't work to block it off. Thankfully, the MPs on the NLF units are significantly reduced which means we can effectively block them from the good terrain. I'm going to select the leftmost hex as my target for the op as it's easier to block in the right-most unit from any untidy reaction moves. Units can move from zoc to zoc freely, but it's +1 movement cost any time you leave a zoc. You can even move THROUGH units in this game, but you have to have enough movement to exit, and exiting a hex with an enemy unit in it is +2 MP. Also, if you move through someone's unit, they can force you to incidental attack them, which is a round of combat with no pursuit they have to take before they can continue. We'll use our one helicopter point to airmobilize the HQ(note that this HQ can only support operations by the battalion of the 7th regiment, 1st marines. we'll have to rely on the cruiser and air, as well as the independent artillery for the second op, if needed. One of the advantages the US has in this game is that they can commit more units to an operation after each round, so we'll take advantage of that by only using the single battalion and HQ. We'll commit the cruiser and nothing else.  We've moved into position. The US will then use the 6 artillery points(normally 3, but because this zone is not free fire, US support effectiveness is halved) of the cruiser to put down an interdiction-1 marker on the target hex. This means that any movement leaving the hex will cost one more. Combined with the -2 for the scenario, this should keep the target in place. The VC unit to the right, however, is not a target unit but had a unit move adjacent to it, thusly, it gets a reaction move. The alert roll is a 1. If the alert roll had been a 5 or 6, the unit would have been able to escape, as the alert roll represents the amount of movement points a target VC unit gets in response to a US or ARVN unit operating against them. Subtract 2 MPs from that for the scenario rule, and 1 MP for the interdiction, and understand that it costs 1 MP to leave a ZOC, and that means a 5 or 6 allows enough movement points to get into the cultivated hexes. If no combat can occur after the first movement of an op, it ends right then and there. Thankfully for the US player, the VC unit does not get away. An attack begins, and the VC unit is flipped, to reveal that it is the regiment. Nice! If we survive the round, we'll roll in the other two battalions, but for now we just have the one. The US strength for odds is 3+(15/2), the 15 artillery being the 7 from Chu Lai(it can support operations in range even if not activated), and 8 from the HQ. The cruiser doesn't count, as its strength was used for interdiction. Divide it by half for the lack of free fire, and this is 10.5 strength. The VC regiment has 6+2 strength, giving it 8. This is a 1:1 attack. Now, for the loss column, the US is 3 combat strength + 2 enemy artillery, which makes it 5. The VC regiment is 6 strength+7.5 from US artillery, making it 13.5. Terrain is cultivated, and we now have enough information to begin combat.  VG Vietnam has an incredible vassal module and it's one thing that makes it very playable despite its complexity. We just enter in all the information and it spits out a combat result and pursuit number. vassal posted:* Attacker Loss Column = 4 to 7.5 Bad roll for the Americans. The US loses 2 replacements, VC loses 1, and the VC unit will retreat. Thankfully, it's down to 4 MP by the scenario rules and the interdiction 1 prevents it from retreating into the mountains, so it must retreat. The smartest point is probably 5018 or 5119, as the marine HQ has a pursuit rating of 0, which means that a -1 pursuit result renders it immobile. The Marine battalion with a +3 rating can pursue, as the -1 result will still give it 2 MPs. The VC unit retreats to 5119, and the target hex follows. The 1M battalion pursues into the hex that the unit exited. Because combat did happen, the operation goes into round 2.  The US throws everyone into the operation, knowing now that the regiment is here. Alert rolls happen only on the first round of an operation- they represent intelligence more than actual mobility. Everyone will be thrown into the operation. Knowing it's a 'do-or-die' thing, I could move a unit into the hex with the regiment to make it harder to retreat, but i'll just do a normal attack. In a real game, that would mean that the unit in the hex must fight until it gets enough pursuit to leave the hex and that's often a recipe for disaster. Instead we'll move to cut off the retreat paths. The US has 9 combat strength, with 6.5 in support. The HQ is out of range, but the cruiser is available again(it refreshes each round of an operation, though it will be gone after the op, same for air points had i used them). This is a total of 15.5 for odds. The VC unit has a combat strength of 6, and artillery of 2. This is 8. Still a 1:1. Terrain is clear, and pursuit modifier is 0, as none of the units have any remaining pursuit(use the lowest if you have different pursuit values). A single air point would've made this a 2:1 attack. For losses, the US is 11, the VC is 12.5. vassal posted:* ********** Combat Roll = 3 Modified Roll = 3 ********** Oof. Decent pursuit, though. The retreat possibilities are 5218, 5018, and 5120. 5120 would normally be ideal, but allowing the 1M HQ to get back in range to support(with an effective pursuit modifier of +0 it cannot move) would be bad. 5018 would also be good, but the retreat path would be tenuous(If the regiment is driven out of Quang Ngai completely, e.g. not on the border hex. 5218 is a possibility as well, but that doesn't really change anything. The VC player will stand and fight. Next round, but with a +3 pursuit modifier. It is impossible to reduce the US loss column without incurring a bad odds DRM, so we go in with this attack again. vassal posted:* ********** Combat Roll = 2 Modified Roll = 5 ********** With the pursuit modifier, the combat goes much better for the US, and that positive pursuit result lets the marine HQ move in pursuit. Without any good retreat hex, the regiment will stand and hope for a bad result, but it's toast now. The pursuit mod for the attacking units is +3, which makes total pursuit mod +5(none of the involved units moved, and even if one had, i would not have involved it in the attack), new round of combat. US Forces are now 9+((8+7+6)/2)=19.5, VC is still 8. This is a 2:1 attack. US is still 11 for losses, but ow the VC is 16.5 for losses, which pushes them up on the loss table. vassal posted:* ********** Combat Roll = 1 Modified Roll = 8 ********** Good result. The airmobile point is lost- in a campaign game or longer scenario, that would matter. But for now, we just keep chugging on. The VC regiment can't retreat anywhere useful and will probably die in the next attack. vassal posted:* ******* Combat Resolved ******* And, splat. With only 1 replacement left, this attack destroys the VC regiment handily. Scenario over, US wins. In a campaign, i could break down the regiment to try to take the losses, but a breakdown would still be a US victory, so, no need. Victory Games put out some really good games, though I don't know if I would want to do a bunch of these in a campaign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 12:05
|
|
|
Thanks for the effort post, that seems like a really interesting system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 13:34
|
|
|
So, I just got my opponent's set up for the Easter Offensive. This is a mostly historical deployment except the Marines have left I Corps to go to Kontum and Pleiku. Historically, this was the focus of the NVA attack in II corps, but I don't see a great reason to attack there. Historically, the reason attacks went there is that this is where their logistics network would allow full scale offensive action. In game, I can take a much more southerly attack than was historical. I do still plan to attack here, but any attack will be a bloodbath no matter what. Historically the closeness to the DMZ and to the more undamaged part of the Trail made this the most effective sector of the Easter Offensive.  Strong Divisions sit in Pleiku, Kontum, and Ban Me Thuot- i really don't want to attack here, especially with the two ROK divisions sitting in reserve on the coastline. I do need to put in enough troops to keep them from strat moving away, but this is all risk little reward. A lot of force was put into attacking in this sector in the real Easter Offensive to relatively meager gain.  III Corps also doesn't offer much reward outside Saigon and the environs. There's a great deal of benefit to threatening a city as I can force the ARVN player into attritional battles where his replacements cost 1 VP to my .25 but attrition is a two-way street and i only have 110 NVA replacements for 4 turns.  IV corps is actually quite promising. He's giving me several provincial capitals for free and the forces there aren't very strong. He can redeploy from Saigon there but i'm fairly comfortable fighting in a place where I can retreat and still hang out in cultivated zones. I get points at the end of the game just for having units alive in south vietnam, and units in cultivated land are twice as valuable as units in non-cultivated. The provincial capitals are double that if I can stay there, but they do tend to be on roads which allow for fairly efficient ARVN security road-clearing ops. In addition to the 7 NVA divisions that are already 'spoken for', I have two more NVA divisions with free setup, four NVA regiments, 3 NVA artillery battalions, three VC divisions, three VC regiments, 45 VC battalions, and 15 political sections, which are dummies. I can also augment 6 of the NVA divisions and 3 of the regiments to add armor and signifcantly beef them up, though they then become mechanized and have mechanized movement costs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
They've announced the next COIN: Red Dust Rebellion, about the Martian Revolution of the 2250s.  Factions are the Martian Provisional Government (traditional COIN), the Megacorps (the government's ally who has tons of money but doesn't want to spend it, also interested in terraforming), the Red Dust movement (traditional insurgents), and the Church of the Reclaimer, who are opposed to terraforming and somehow exist outside of the normal activation system. The game includes dust storms, terraforming, extremely slow convoys from Earth, and a fifth nonplayer faction, Earthgov, which shifts support between the Government and the Corps. Also it appears to have some sort of population-placing mechanic, like A Distant Plain or the Algeria one. Also Mr President is marked as 5-9 months away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
I might be into a futuristic COIN now since lately I haven’t been into historical games
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
That looks both really ugly and really stupid. No more COINs, please!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 04:30
|
|
|
Dang, Mars isn’t aesthetically distinct? Count me out. Kidding aside, I like, in abstract, the cyberpunk appeal of the pitch. I have no idea how it will work in practice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
Seems it was also designed by the dude who runs the 3 Minute Boardgames YouTube channel, who I think seems like a really nice guy who's obviously very happy to have got a design printed. Also lol at Mr President being "5-9 months away" The Duke Nukem Forever of GMT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 10:24
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:That looks both really ugly and really stupid. No more COINs, please! That's the tabletop simulator playtesting board not the final design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 11:27
|
|
|
CaptainApathyUK posted:Also lol at Mr President being "5-9 months away" The Duke Nukem Forever of GMT. *cough* *the russian campaign* *cough*
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2020 08:04
|
|
|
AARP LARPer posted:*cough* *the russian campaign* *cough* lmao GMT’s “updated” version can only be found on milk cartons (“Have you seen me?”) while Compass has just announced a straight reprint of the 1974 version for 1/2 the price, that’ll actually end up in our hands this spring, probably a good year before GMTs proofs get dusted off
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
is Russian campaign actually good? I got a copy on a whim from an estate sale a while back
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:is Russian campaign actually good? I got a copy on a whim from an estate sale a while back I played it a couple months ago. It's pretty fun, offers a lot of options and can be finished in a night if one of you knows the rules. I absolutely blow at being the Germans because I am either too aggressive or not aggressive enough, I can't figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
NC Wyeth Death Cult posted:I played it a couple months ago. It's pretty fun, offers a lot of options and can be finished in a night if one of you knows the rules. I absolutely blow at being the Germans because I am either too aggressive or not aggressive enough, I can't figure it out. Yeah it's one of the easier EF games if you want something with a little more meat than No Retreat!. Compass, I will say, has some quality issues but you will probably see the game long before GMT reprints it. The big weird mechanic of TRC that makes it interesting is that every unit adjacent to an enemy unit must attack and all enemy units adjacent to friendly units must be attacked. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Oct 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
Finally managed to get around to a play through of Fire in the Lake recently. The only COIN experience all four of us had was a previous partial play attempt of the medium scenario. We are crazy people however, so we decided that it would be fun to set aside a day and play the full war scenario. We do all have a lot of experience with various other genres and games with lots of interlocking systems, so I think that helped in a way it probably wouldn't have with a traditional war game. I don't think we'd want to play a full game more than once a year or so, but it was definitely fun. We probably made lots of interesting strategic mistakes from inexperience. Game ended on the fourth coup with a VC victory. We all underestimated his position after a Tet Offensive that whiffed every single combat roll. Other highlights included an my NVA offensive in the south fairly early, made to take heat off the VC who were getting creamed. It would have led to the Easter Offensive but was trumped unsurprisingly by Vietnamization. Then the USA crushed the troop concentration. We also had a turn where we knew Wild Weasels was next, so I bled all my remaining resources into the VC. It was a hard game money wise for the insurgent factions. VC was very hesitant to tax, which I understand now too be a common error and the COIN factions jacked aid up to like 60 or something in the first few turns. Consequently they could vomit money all game. Trying to lower aid was basically pointless. Despite losing, I did gain a moral victory of sorts. Following my southern gambit I had eventually invaded into the regions just south of the DMZ. ARVN ended up sweeping into Hue and pushing me mostly out. Then they played a card doubling his troops there, despite me warning them not to. They redeployed some of the forces holding Saigon to do it. VC and ARVN had both already played their trump cards and the USA had conducted a massive reduction in commitment so surprise Easter Offensive! I'd been able to keep the trail at 4 for most of the game and they hadn't accounted for the highway next to the border. Suddenly everything I had on the board was headed south and I ended up with something like 25 cubes in Saigon and guerillas clogging every highway south. I managed to hold on to Saigon until the end a few turns later, but ended up just a few points short when the coup tripped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2020 03:21
|
|
|
 GCACW, especially pre-1864 is an attacker's game. It's an attacker's game even when you have a bunch of rules to make attacking less appetizing. Welcome to All Green Alike, where you can't actually move a flanker before launching an attack in a leader activation and the leader radius is tiny. Tekopo is doing pretty well after disaster in the Shenandoah valley. Johnston is on the way but he's at least two days out with his advance force. Some help from the Winchester garrison is on the way but it's not enough. I need Johnston there to form another counterattack group.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
How are Simonitch's games for solitare play? Looking for something to scratch the operational itch until Struggle Against Japan comes out
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
The Russian Campaign (finally) continues. Around March/April 1944. After a long retreat, the Germans fought the Russians to a standstill but the removal of the two SS Panzer Corps to the West proved to weaken the center enough that the Russians are poised to come flooding in. Next turn may be a race to the Vistula.
NC Wyeth Death Cult fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 23:50
|
|