https://www.flickr.com/photos/thegascon/14994883594/
I would like to think the above establishes my bona fides on the matter. I have certainly given at the office.
So I wonder, WHY do we play these and not Tiller's SB (which looks the most like them)? Or CMx2? Or even CoH on the PC? Each of the depicted games has its merits, and some are very lovely, but, especially on a time-to-reward basis, I have this nagging suspicion that I've been at the losing end. And don't even get me started on the brain-melting complexity of ASL. I write laws for a living and there have been times when I wanted to punch those rules straight in the face...the starter kit, mind.
Am I just jealous because I don't have a regular game group to play these with? Or is there some secret hidden within that I need to know a handshake to unlock?
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
For my part, I play both the boardgames and all of the PC games you mentioned.
The only big difference between the two types for me, is that the PC lets me off the hook for knowing the rules. So I often play these games after work when my brain is tired.
I don't really have a preference for either type.
Given that much of the joie de jeu for skirmish and squad-level comes from the intimate and gritty details of combat (an AT squad down to it's last PIAT, a desperate crew trying to un-jam an MG, a single man throwing a satchel charge), it seems intuitive that a computer, with it's gigabyte-per-second data tracking, access and retrieval processing speeds, would be the sine qua non (if I may mix romantic languages) for this gaming genre. And indeed, I have had some remarkable gaming moments from behind a keyboard / mouse as I watched a particularly heroic avatar wrest victory from certain doom. However, while you may have a feeling of being on the losing end of the time / rewards continuum, I on the other hand sometimes feel that the computer is somehow cheating me with its algorithms and random number generation. How else can one explain (when I lose, anyway) how a PIAT team can miss a 10 metre shot at the back of a Panther? Or how a single sniper can melee an entire 5-man MG crew into "serious WIA" status?
For me, squad and skirmish board games provide me the irrefutable and undeniable evidence of rolled dice and printed CRT's so that I know that the outcomes of my command decisions are real and imminent, and not subject to a faulty database entry or illogical "AI" routine.
Yours in gaming,
Jack "now how could the computer even see never mind kill my flammenwerfer?" Nastyface
I've got and play all the CoH games and both BoB SE and GH.
Not played any CC games as yet, and been many a long year since I played any SL games.
I much prefer squad level tactical games as board games rather than PC ones.
Not sure if that really answers your question though Jim.
It goes back to your initial thread about PC vs board wargames; it comes down to how much control you want over the experience and with whom you have to share that experience with.
Hrmmm...perhaps I'm fighting a shadow here.
Do the folks that prefer f2f, analog squad-level WWII gaming accept that the Tiller SB games are good game in their own right, just not preferable to chits on cardboard?
I had this lingering suspicion that the games were thought declasee, but, given the relatively kind words spoken here, perhaps I was mistaken?
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
never played the Tiller games, but I've played a lot of the board games.
So, Brant, were you up on the Fresh Coast (Milwaukee is desperately trying to ditch the "brew city" thing) and I offered you a LAN game of Tiller's Vietnam, say, would you be in?
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
perhaps, but having never played it, I'd need to know how much learning curve time we'd be spending :)
@Cyrano...IMHO, the Squad Battles games are good, but not great. The AI is admittedly not that challenging when you give the computer an offensive posture. In those games, the AI tends to sprint for the Victory Points, so only a little bit of planning (ie: determining best enfilading positions) can often lead to very one-sided victories against the AI. On the other hand...the AI doesn't do a half-bad job at managing static defense, so if you play "assault" scenarios as you as the attacker, you can have a good gaming experience. Red Beach 1 at Tarawa is one such example. After finishing that game, I like to think I had a deeper, more sober insight into the challenges of that operation. To wit: things like a coconut tree seawall don't seem like such a big deal, until you try to launch an assault over one.
The Vietnam games have also provided some enjoyable gaming experiences as the enemy pops out of the jungle at the worst of times and places.
I had fond memories playing Combat Commander on Vassal. It's very random and chaotic. :D