Tactical Gaming

[Jack Nastyface]

Hey MR,
Not sure if you are still checking this thread...but I was recently reviewing the rules for Flintlock - Black Powder and Cold Steel by Lock n' Load publishing, and I found the initiative / activation rules to be quite interesting.  The basic concept is that Leaders have an initiative and command radius rating.  Activiating a leader means that you can activate units within command radius.  If, after activations are complete, you want to activate another unit, you have to roll vs initiative to succeed.  However, the opposing player can attend to "steal initiative" away from you (penalty to him if he fails).  Other units outside of  a leaders command radius can also be activiated via seperate conditions.  As a result of this, the game doesn't actually have "turns"...just a series of activation phases that change depending upon player tactics.

By the way, Flintlock is a Richard Berg game.  I believe Men of Iron may use the same mechanic.

Anyways, I thought it looked quite interesting.  Rules are available for free at the LnL site for the game.

Yours in gaming,

Jack Nastyface

[Mad Russian]

Yes, now that the computer game I've been working on goes on sale tomorrow, I've got more time for board gaming. :)

I'll take a look at it.

The game I am developing has both random impulses, with different sized ratings for the event as well as leadership command range ratings.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

I have just taken some time over the past few months, since the release and hectic schedule that came with releasing Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm, and played some Combat Commander.

I HATE CARDS in a wargame. BUT, I was given a copy of CC last year by GJK as a present. So, like all good gamers, I looked at it. In this case, I ended up playing it.

There are a few things that come to light with it being card driven. Of course there are all the cards and no 'dice'. There are dice like results but no dice. What this has done is to level out the extremes. Nobody will roll 'snake eyes' three times in a row. (That particular event one time saw a King Tiger get knocked out by a Russian 120mm mortar in ASL.)

I do like some things about CC but not having action cards in my hand to do SOMETHING every time it's my turn just goes through me. I like that CC is quick and dirty and we play it every so often.

I don't think it's the evolutionary result I expected after all these years but it's close.

As they say, 'if you don't like it, make your own.' Time to get to doing just that. After being out of board games all this time, it's time to try to create a board game. Hopefully it will be half as well received as the computer games I've been associated with.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Nefaro]

On a related note; I don't think that it's been mentioned in this thread but I have a copy of Soldiers: Man-to-Man Combat in World War II, the old John Butterfield design.  I haven't played it but have glanced at the rules.  I believe that it is impulse driven.  I'll have to ask Steve if he's tried it.  I did like what I've seen in the rules.  I may have to put this one on the table some time soon.

I had the West End Games version long ago.  It was a rather unusual game system, but once it clicked it could be quite fun.  The morale & pinning system was interesting because your individual soldiers are limited to what they can do depending on their morale and pinning status using the action point system.

It was so different that at first I wasn't all that crazed about it, but I busted it out years later and played a game with a buddy.  I must've previously pre-judged the thing because we had fun later on.  Unfortunately, I have no idea where my copy went.  It's been gone since the 90s.