I much prefer tactical gaming. The third wargame I ever owned was PanzerBlitz. From there I have either owned or played most tactical level games.
When I got out of the service in, 1978, I got both Squad Leader, the entire series - including a copy with the dark blue German counters, all the tactical games of the time. After Squad Leader there was ASL and the first modules of that series.
In 1987 I bought a game called 'Fire Team' by Jon Southard. I bought that game in 1987. I liked the series so well that I contacted West End Games to do the NATO expansion. This included the British, West Germans and additional Soviet units. West End agreed that I do the expansion, which I completed in short order and sent to them. At that same time the board wargame industry imploded and I got the module back, with a short note saying, "Thanks, but no thanks. We don't sell wargames any longer." So the one and only expansion model of Fire Team sits in a box in my closet.
I had already started to convert ASL to Fire Team system. I really liked the impulse system that was meshed with the nationality based unit activation. It was the best system I'd ever seen. It had everything I wanted.
* More chaos - I never really cared for the "I take a turn - You take a turn" of the other tactical games.
* Nationality based activation - my nickname of Mad Russian tells how I felt about how gamers played all the national tendencies. With FT you finally had a system that seamlessly integrated nationalistic tendencies with game play. Nothing the gamer had 'know' about their side to 'play it right'.
* Fear - I really liked the Fear aspect of the games combat results. After having recently come out of the military I knew that units were far from either fully capable or broken.
Converting ASL just seemed natural to me. Up until that time I had a regular gaming partner that was as avid about tactical gaming as I was. Then he got a different job and moved to another city 500 miles away. End of the tactical board gaming situation for me. Another friend and I redid PanzerBlitz. So, I was pretty well versed in creating what I wanted out of a hybridization of ASL and FT.
With that result and the condition of the board wargaming community I moved to computer games. I no longer needed a local opponent. Now we could play over the miles with either PBEM or live.
I stayed in computer gaming, am still involved with it, but had an event turn me back toward board gaming. I now have another tactical gamer that lives very close and wants to play. My Grandson. He was going through my games and found Fire Team and all the expansion work I'd done on it and we played.
From 1987 until 2012 the game was just sitting there. 25 years.
I determined to see about 'reactivating' it for us to play. A friend and I had redone PanzerBlitz all those years ago....I knew I could make the maps and the vehicles. But what to do about those infantry counters. Simple I'll just use the weapons to show what the units are armed with. I can do whatever I want, there will just be 2 of us playing this and I'm one of the two.
I decided to look at the evolution of tactical games since I left the hobby 25 years ago. I looked and purchased copies of several of the current crop of tactical games. I thought most games would be impulse and activation driven, with chains of command.
SURPRISE!!!!!
Nothing of the sort has happened. Instead we have tactical game series that have NO LEADERS, where sides take turn activating one hex or leader at a time, CARDS, no dice, etc. Not the basic Fire Team system at all.
A tactical level game with no leaders is worthless to me. Don't tell me that I'm the leader. I already got that. I know I'm the leader. I'm the commander in charge. The Big Dog!!! I want the little dogs to affect the fighting with their skill set and my Glorious Leadership. For me personally, it's quite simple, NO LEADERS and I'm not buying the game.
Small segment impulses are nothing more than bite sized versions of "I take a turn - You take a turn". The whole idea of having impulses is to interject randomness. At least it is for me. Not a single game system I've looked at has random impulses. After 25 years. That really surprised me. One of the major draws of computer gaming was the WeGo system. Things happen.
Cards. Really? Yes, I know all about Up Front. I was one of the first one to buy it and the modules. I recently GAVE IT AWAY!!! I was extremely anti-card until I looked at the Combat Commander series. Which in my opinion is the best tactical gaming system created in the past 25 years. Take my opinion on that and $10 and you can get a cup of coffee anywhere you like.
The cards for the most part seem to be a way to do away with dice. Okay. I got it. I do numbers really well. I know some that don't. You really HATE looking at a chart to get a result? You really do? Because I despise the structured results of having a specific set of combat results in a pool. Again, I do numbers very well, I understand the randomness of the numbers on a 150 cards. I also understand that you cannot get the randomness that you get from rolling any number of die. In all cases the cards are implemented to create a simpler system.
Simpler seems to be the main direction that the hobby has gone in the past 25 years. A single card draw can do multiple things, die rolls, special events, multiple events, etc.
Not having gone through the evolution I don't really like the new Euro style games. I don't like the fact that the games are still mostly ASL clones. But to be fair to some extent they will be when they are the same scale. What I do see is the systems all trying to be ASL lites. As much like ASL as they can be without the tremendous suffocating rule book. I stopped playing ASL over 25 years ago and haven't looked back since.
With all that in mind I have been propelled forward with my own game design. I've looked and learned. Some of the things that are better overall, easier to understand rule books, nicer maps, far more substance in the games that are sold.
I have made a small name for myself by making games/scenarios that I like and then sharing them with other gamers. I may do that with the tactical series board game I am creating as well. If it works out that way I'll be happy with that. I had a lot to learn in today's world of gaming. The first and foremost thing was art. I'm not an artist. I also find that I much prefer the older games like ASL, where you have the detail of the system and everything is not glossed over. Having said that, I left ASL over 25 years ago and have not intention of going back.
As with all my projects I do construction sets. This Fire Team evolution series was researched in detail. It has all the weapons from WWII through the present and into the future. The historical detail is there. Dice are there too because I believe in luck. Tables are there too because I believe in differing results and I like the variety of results that actually do happen. Chain of Command is there because the cheer leaders of ASL style games aren't realistic to me. Impulses and activation are there because I really like it.
What's not there are cards or structured turn sequences.
I have discussed the game series with publishers. I may do that again. When I get it finished.
What I'm curious about is the general consensus. Do those of you that play tactical games like the Euro style games, CDD or CDA, more or less structured?
And of course we can discuss anything you like concerning tactical games.
Good Hunting.
Mad Russian,
You make some interesting points. I don't necessarily want to "argue" with any of them, but if I may, here are some of my humble opinions and views. I should mention that I haven't actually looked at the Fire Team system, so I won't speak to comparisons (this better than that).
In no particular order:
1) There are about a zillion internetweb forum threads on combat results mechanisms. Here are some comments made on this forum: http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=6028.25 (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=6028.25). I would bet for most gamers the answer to the question "what is your favorite combat results mechanism" they would probably answer "it depends". For example, Avalon Hill's Gunslinger (STILL one of my favorite games on the theme) uses a results card deck with just over 100 cards. What's nice about the card deck in this game is it lets you figure out shot result, wounds, delay, stagger direction, and random events just by drawing a few cards. You DO need to look up damage amounts from a CRT, but I believe the game moves quicker because of the cards...and I never feel that the cards somehow "limit" my possible outcomes. Another example (discussed in the linked thread) is the buckets o' dice mechanism. Originally, I was suspicious of this system (sounded too much like Risk, etc) but I think it works because it supports ideas like unit supply, effectiveness, morale, etc without excessive CRT lookups. Force on Force and Bolt Action are two good examples. I really do encourage you to try one of these games and keep an open mind...I was very much a doubter but have enjoyed all my gaming sessions with these rules (well...except for those gaming sessions where I lost, but that's a different story). I still play games that use a CRT, but I do notice that some players are a lot better at "playing the odds" with a CRT game than in some of the other systems. I have also had some spectacular (random?) results while playing Buckets o' Dice games, which is great. The dreaded "golden bb" or lucky shot don't translate to CRT's without multi-table look-ups.
2) The LnL squad battles systems uses impule actions and leaders. Granted, the impulses are still based on an IGOUGO mechanism, but players can elect to "pass" on their impulse, so you can have one player move / act repeatedly while the other "waits" for an opportune moment. Leaders have effect on morale and combat effectiveness. The game also recognizes the importance of other combatants such as civilian mobs (Somalia '93), medics and heros.
3) There comes a point in our gaming playing continuum where we all need to make the decision about what KIND of gaming experience we want. Complex often = time consuming but detailed; Simple = faster but less detail. I just can't commit to 6 - 8 hour gaming sessions like I could when I was younger...and if I go to a convention or an event, I would like to play MORE than one engagement / game during my precious time off from home, work, life, etc. I don't know how many gamers are going for the massively complex game systems (ASL is still popular) but I am seeing more of the "simpler" games showing up on convention tables. I really don't think this is a good or bad thing...it just is what it is.
Yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface
Jack NF,
I'm not here to argue anything either. Discussions are good and generally worth while.
1) I have entertained using something like a "buckets of dice" system by using different sized dice for different weapons types. For instance bolt action rifles resolve combat using a D6 while a semi-automatic weapon would use a D8 and an automatic weapon uses a D10. Still looking at that.
2) I own some LnL games. The turns for me are too regimented. What I see there is smaller bites of IGOUGO. I do like the level of detail that LnL puts in their games though.
3) IMO, this is what the ASL lites want to accomplish. Something like the feel of an end of ASL game experience without all the rules depth. I can't imagine that there will be another game like ASL. The younger people don't read that much. Computer game play is instantaneous, without reading a single rule of any kind.
Thanks for you comments.
Good Hunting.
MR,
1) "debate or discuss" would have been better words than "argue". I did NOT take your post as contentious or confrontational and regret that I may have chosen a word that indicated as much. Sincere apologies.
2) FWIW, Force on Force (i have a pdf copy I can lend you) uses buckets of dice to reflect training, supply and weapon multipliers. So an untrained taliban force using 4 AK's and 1 RPD would get 4D6 for the AK's and 2D6 for the RPD. If they were poorly supplied, you would subtract 1D6 from their dice pool. An equal size regular USMC unit with 4 M16's would get 4D8 for the rifles, and 2D8 for a SAW. This basically assumes that most individual weapons (be it an SKS, AK, M16, FAL or Steyer Aug) are relatively "equal" and squad weapons (SAWs, LAWs, RPD, RPG, etc) simply "add" firepower to the equation. Heavier weapons, like a Ma-deuce or the DSK can add firepower weight, but also can create suppression (affect targets ability to move or fire). During gameplay, this creates some interesting (but perhaps more "realistic"?) scenarios - if the taliban player REALLY wants to hit the USMC, they need to bring larger numbers to a fight, because - trust me - despite appearances, 6D6 vs 6D8 is not as close as it looks.
best regads,
JNF
JNF,
1) I took it the way you meant it. We're good.
2) It seems that in the past 25 years die rolling has gone two directions. Completely away from die rolling, with the advent of cards added, all the way to LOTS of dice being rolled. I'm still working on the Combat resolution for the game. It's one of the reasons I came here to discuss what gamers like.
3) About weapons values, I would agree that, for the most part weapons show little difference. In most serious discussions about organizational value the ending valuation is on training and morale and not on the weaponry itself.
As an example here are the individual weapon values for the Vietnam era weapons in my game system.
M14 - 5.4
M16 - 5.8
M14A1 AR - 5.9
M60 LMG (bipod) - 4.9
M60 MMG (tripod) - 6.4
M2 HB HMG - 6.8
Bolt Action Rifle - 1.3
SKS - 1.6
AK-47 - 4.7
RPD LMG (Drum Fed) - 5.6
RPD MMG (Belt Fed) - 7.4
As you can see, if the technology is close so are the value factors. Now if you put bolt action rifles up against assault rifles that becomes another issue. The difference is training and morale in most cases.
What that means in practical terms is an NVA Fire Team with 3 AK-47's would have a fire power of 14, while a US Infantry Fire Team with 3 M-16's would have a firepower of 17. The communists were fine with that considering that the RPD was a better light machine gun than the M60.
Good Hunting.
Quote from: Mad Russian on August 21, 2013, 01:38:26 PM
M60 LMG (bipod) - 4.9
M60 MMG (tripod) - 6.4
What's the reason for the huge discrepancy here? Is it just firing platform stability?
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 21, 2013, 01:48:03 PM
Quote from: Mad Russian on August 21, 2013, 01:38:26 PM
M60 LMG (bipod) - 4.9
M60 MMG (tripod) - 6.4
What's the reason for the huge discrepancy here? Is it just firing platform stability?
Ammo availability.
An LMG is served by the gunner and assistant with some rounds being carried by squad members.
An MMG is considered to be served by at least twice that many crew members. They can simply carry more ammo.
Having more ammo means you can put out a greater volume of fire.
Good Hunting.
In game terms the difference in the M60 LMG and MMG is only 1.
The LMG has a firepower of 5 (4.9 rounded up to 5) and the MMG has a firepower of 6 (6.4 rounded down to 6).
Good Hunting.
MR, what do you think of Avalanche Press' Panzergrenadier series (http://www.avalanchepress.com/line_Panzer.php)?
It's a platoon level game. I like that level but to be honest, I haven't had time to play many games. As JNF pointed out, I have less time than I used to 4 decades ago when I first started playing wargames. Then I kind of went from playing them to designing scenarios to then designing the games themselves.
While I own a lot of wargames (over 400 at last count) it means I have less time to play now, than say, 25 years ago.
So, in answer to your question, it looks really good but I've not had a chance to play it.
When I do play, I like the units to be at the single vehicle and squad/fire team level.
Good Hunting.
Quote from: Mad Russian on August 21, 2013, 02:37:38 PM
In game terms the difference in the M60 LMG and MMG is only 1.
The LMG has a firepower of 5 (4.9 rounded up to 5) and the MMG has a firepower of 6 (6.4 rounded down to 6).
Good Hunting.
There is a similar situation in ASL where the German MG 42 is the basis for both the medium and heavy German machine guns support weapons. The key difference between the two being bipod vs tripod mounted. The firepower modifiers of the two is 5 vs 7
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-UcGaiS4VOqg/UhUvo2OFc8I/AAAAAAAAA4U/P0F89yPIdBo/w445-h297-no/ASL_GER_MGs.png)
ASL Rulez. 8)
One of the weapons issues I have with ASL is the German MG's. There are all three categories of MG's for the Germans in WWII. For my factors I track the bullet size, the rate of fire, the feed type and the amount of ammo a unit has available.
Here are the factors I have for the German MG's.
MG34 LMG (drum fed) - 5.3
MG34 MMG (drum fed) - 7.3
MG34 HMG (belt fed) - 9.1
MG42 LMG (belt fed) - 9.1
MG42 MMG (belt fed) - 11.1
MG42 HMG (belt fed) - 12.6
The fact that ASL doesn't differentiate between the MG34 and the MG42 is an interesting part of the game. As you can see, by looking at a variety of parameters, they don't have the same capabilities. It's one of the few things that was never expanded on from SL to ASL. Interesting that it wasn't.
Good Hunting.
Quote from: Mad Russian on August 21, 2013, 09:02:12 PM
The fact that ASL doesn't differentiate between the MG34 and the MG42 is an interesting part of the game. As you can see, by looking at a variety of parameters, they don't have the same capabilities. It's one of the few things that was never expanded on from SL to ASL. Interesting that it wasn't.
Good Hunting.
It does, they're "mislabelled" though. In ASL, the German MMG is the MG34 on tripod. The HMG is the MG42 on tripod. From the Chapter H notes on the HMG:
*† The German HMG counter represents the MG 42,
and is not available before 5/42.
So then, what ASL would have me to believe is that from 1939-1945 all HMG's are an MG42 on a tripod. How exactly does that fit for a time period before the MG42 was in production? How is it that there is a single LMG counter for the game?
No, the fact is that ASL didn't model the different MG's for the Germans in the game. They were not so similar as it being a one size fits all situation.
The maximum rates of fire for the two guns is very different. The MG34 is 900rpm, while the MG42 is 1500rpm. The MG42 is known to be an ammo hog. It's also known to be extremely deadly because of the number of rounds it puts down range.
This is not a discussion about what ASL does or doesn't do. That was a simple observation about the game. We can discuss ASL vs non-ASL games but I would rather discuss gamers preferences for what they like in tactical wargames and what they dislike.
Good Hunting.
Again, the Ch. H notes state "and is not available before 5/42." so a properly designed scenario should not include a German HMG in the OOB if the date is prior to 5/42.
QuoteThis is not a discussion about what ASL does or doesn't do. That was a simple observation about the game. We can discuss ASL vs non-ASL games but I would rather discuss gamers preferences for what they like in tactical wargames and what they dislike.
Well, it's your thread and you brought up the question about how or why ASL models the MG's for the Germans the way it does and so I'm just providing clarification. We can leave ASL out of the discussion entirely if you so choose. ;)
Quote from: GJK on August 22, 2013, 09:18:50 AM
Again, the Ch. H notes state "and is not available before 5/42." so a properly designed scenario should not include a German HMG in the OOB if the date is prior to 5/42.
QuoteThis is not a discussion about what ASL does or doesn't do. That was a simple observation about the game. We can discuss ASL vs non-ASL games but I would rather discuss gamers preferences for what they like in tactical wargames and what they dislike.
Well, it's your thread and you brought up the question about how or why ASL models the MG's for the Germans the way it does and so I'm just providing clarification. We can leave ASL out of the discussion entirely if you so choose. ;)
I'll discuss ASL with you if you like. It's the tactical game system that has sold the most copies and is probably the most popular. Every other tactical game will be compared to it at some point in it's life if it is in the same scale.
My point is that there weren't just HGM's after 1942. The MG34 had the exact same tripod as the MG42. The LMG's and MMG's aren't even brought up as being different.
Good Hunting.
Quote from: Mad Russian on August 22, 2013, 10:48:52 AM
My point is that there weren't just HGM's after 1942. The MG34 had the exact same tripod as the MG42. The LMG's and MMG's aren't even brought up as being different.
Good Hunting.
That's why I was saying that the counters are perhaps "mislabelled". Throw out the words "medium" and "heavy" on those counters and just associate the MMG counter as being the MG-34 and the HMG as being the MG-42 and that the HMG counter is unavailable for use prior to 5/42. And I may be wrong, but the LMG German counter would be the '34 but without mounting or optics. There was a very long a detailed discussion about all of this over on Gamesquad years ago. I could probably dig up a link to it if you like and we could relive that discussion over there if you like.
By the way, someone else mentioned
Force on Force. I'm hoping to give it a go this weekend. It's a simple mechanic, but higher valued dice for superior trained troops with extra dice for "heavy" weapons and a loss of a die for each combat round taken during a turn. Seems simple. I'll see how effective I think that it is. :)
Quote from: GJK on August 22, 2013, 11:23:35 AM
There was a very long a detailed discussion about all of this over on Gamesquad years ago. I could probably dig up a link to it if you like and we could relive that discussion over there if you like.
I don't really care. It's their game and they can do as they like with it. I simply made one comment. I'm not here to go over every detail of ASL's game accuracy or lack there of.
Good Hunting.
Sigh...this ASL rules clarification discussion is getting me all misty and nostalgic. Sniff.
@ GJK
As mentioned, I do indeed enjoy FoF but it does require a bit of mindshift. I didn't think the "different dice" mechanism would make a big difference as opposed to something like a +1 or - 1 on a CRT, but it does. I repeatedly put "same size" groups of Taliban fighters up against USMC units with dire results. On the other hand, my USMC opponent did have very hot dice (on one roll of six dice, I had four come up "6"...he beat all of my results).
Jack Nastyface
That's the issue with the bucket of dice system - you can get a wide range of extreme results, as you pointed out, where as with a CRT you know the exact range of possible outcomes. Some call it a liability of the BoD system, some call it an asset.
It would seem to me that the card driven games would have an issue with a finite set of results. I've only started to get into CC though, which is my only Card driven wargame, so I don't have enough experience with it to know how I feel about it. I guess the difference would be the overall chance percentages.
If we go by a 'normal' 2D6 roll you could only get 2 or 12 one time each if every possible result was rolled one time. The problem with probability is that there is a 1 in 36 chance that you get either of those results every single time you roll the dice.
With a deck of cards I can guarantee the maximum number of times to get either 2 or 12 by the number of cards in the deck with that number on them. Considering the number of games that are now diceless, that doesn't seem to be much of an issue with the community.
Good Hunting.
Perhaps an over-simplification but I would then surmise that:
1) If your game needs a set of varied but completely controlled results for combat (or random events et al), then you should use a card-driven system. You may need to "control" the range and frequency of results in order to keep the game historical or less theatrical or for play balance reasons.
2) If your game is designed so that a wide range of uncontrollable results (again, combat, random events, etc) won't break the design, then you could look to using a 'bucket o' dice' type system. Your design might even encourage some extreme results in order to add to the true chaotic nature of the battlefield.
3) This is the conservative-run of the mill solution: di(c)e and a CRT. If your game needs to have a fixed number of results that have a guarantee range of effects depending on a set of criteria, then this is your option. You get a select number of possible outcomes and those outcomes are guaranteed from one end of the spectrum to the other depending on your criteria (odds, etc).
Again, I may be over-simplifying it all but perhaps those are some rough guidelines.
I don't have even a fraction of the board game experience of you guys, so take my comments for what they're worth in that context.
Having said that, I suppose on deciding on what tactical board game I'm interested in depends more on what level of gaming I want: do I want to play a game, or do I want a simulation? It makes a difference. If I want to sit down with my friend on a Saturday afternoon and game for a few hours and have fun, I'm inclined to lean towards a more Euro-type game; I'm talking something like Commands and Colors level. However, if I'm doing a study on how some battle turned out the way it did, maybe something like Gettysburg, then perhaps the chrome is necessary. I break out Three Days of Gettysburg or something heavy like that, where while fun there is enough detail that I'm getting into the weeds, gameplay necessarily takes longer, and at the expense of difficulty and time I'm getting a better simulation of what the battle entailed.
Beyond that, though, I think computer games are inherently better at modeling the level of detail I perceive you desiring Mad Russian. Just by nature of computers you can store so much more information and manipulate it in so many different ways that you can get a better, more "realistic" result...at the expense of playing with a friend across the table.
My mind is going faster than I can type out my thoughts, but I'll just leave it like this: There are a number of air combat boardgames- things from Flight Leader to Air War. You go from something that is reasonably fast to play and captures some flavor to what is essentially a flight simulator in a box with Air War, taking minutes of real time to simulate seconds of game time. You might get a more accurate simulation of air combat with Air War. Yet Air War pales in comparison to a computer simulation like Falcon 4.0. The computer simulation does everything Air War does much better and then some.
I think tactical soldier-level board games like ASL are similar. At the end of the day it's a game. If you want to model tactical warfare, the computer can do it better; any level of detail you want.
I was going to go on about how Red Orchestra 2 models tactical combat at the individual soldier level but I'll stop here for now.
Yeah, I think that you hit on something Toonces and I agree - I think that computers make for better simulators and IMO, board games make for better games. Now that's generalizing quite a bit but the computers do simulations better I think is a given. They crunch numbers and they can do all kinds of things behind the scene and then present it as a nice and shiny GUI for the player. But if the player wants to know how the sim gets those numbers and to calculate some of that themself, then a board game might be better - though it could be painful if the guy is crunching numbers like a computer for a simulation!
Now the old argument that a board game makes for better gaming - well, sure, if you have someone to play against, the table space and the ability to leave a long game undisturbed then yes, gaming from across the table is probably the most enjoyable and intense ways to game a wargame. Playing a boardgame also gets players involved more heavily IMO. You get that tactile sensation when you pick up pieces, roll the dice, etc. Personally, I love figuring out odds and modifiers and seeing the range of possible outcomes and then letting the dice fly. Others (most?) hate that - "let me press a button and have all of that figured out for me" they would say. I think that's where PC games lose me. I can click in my sleep. I used to laugh with Mad Russian, but when we would play Combat Mission, I would get so lazy in our Pbem games that I would just simply group select several units and charge them forward. Click, click, click, click, click. Ugh, got too tedious for me some times.
But I guess the bottom line is that there are pros and cons for both and yes, I would agree that PC's do simulations better while (generally) board games make for a more fun gaming experience (if the conditions mentioned above are met). I don't know MR, but maybe you need to make the board game first and then a PC/Ipad/Android version next? :)
Quote from: Toonces on August 23, 2013, 12:49:52 AM
I think tactical soldier-level board games like ASL are similar. At the end of the day it's a game. If you want to model tactical warfare, the computer can do it better; any level of detail you want.
I was going to go on about how Red Orchestra 2 models tactical combat at the individual soldier level but I'll stop here for now.
I played RO2 the other night after I kept getting killed 10 minutes into a mission on ArmAII. This is funny, but I needed something more "gamey" and less realistic because it was getting old dying time after time so early in a mission! Maybe it gets to a point to where it's TOO much of a
simulation and not a fun
game. I guess that threshold would vary from person to person too.
And as an aside, the thing that really frustrated me in ArmAII was I saw the incoming and I knew what I wanted my little pixel representation of me to do, but my fat fingers would fumble over the keyboard and I would kneel instead of go prone or there would be a piece of fence that wouldn't let me lay down all the way and I would be half in air and half on the ground and then I'd die. Ugh. I know if it was me in real life, my fat ass would be on the ground as fast as a 300lb sack of potato's could fall. Point is, with practice, I could play that game better - that's fine - but am I really simulating the situation better or did I just learn how to better key-combo my key presses on the keyboard?
Another thing that I think that FPS games in general get wrong is the field of vision. There is no peripherial vision. People can just sneak up to your side without you knowing unless you hear something. I envision using three monitors with the two side ones being blurred to simulate peripherial vision or perhaps on a single monitor your panned out further but then the edges are blurred. I don't know - surely I'm not the first to notice this so there must be discussions elsewhere. Just some thoughts.
Quote from: Mad Russian on August 22, 2013, 02:33:45 PM
It would seem to me that the card driven games would have an issue with a finite set of results. I've only started to get into CC though, which is my only Card driven wargame, so I don't have enough experience with it to know how I feel about it. I guess the difference would be the overall chance percentages.
If we go by a 'normal' 2D6 roll you could only get 2 or 12 one time each if every possible result was rolled one time. The problem with probability is that there is a 1 in 36 chance that you get either of those results every single time you roll the dice.
With a deck of cards I can guarantee the maximum number of times to get either 2 or 12 by the number of cards in the deck with that number on them. Considering the number of games that are now diceless, that doesn't seem to be much of an issue with the community.
Good Hunting.
A related game mechanic is in Conflict of Heroes...the bucket of chits. When a tank gets hit, you pull a chit to see what the damage is and put the chit on the tank. OK for scenarios with low numbers of vehicles. But when there are more than a few...the chance of specific results does lessen whenever they are placed on a tank.
But it is still a fun game to play.
There is the sim vs game aspect of every game we create/play. A part of my issue with board games may well be that I've spent so much time working with computer games. As has been pointed out, I can make those with as much detail 'under the hood' as I like, while game play is relatively simple. Board games have to have a lot of that 'under the hood' done by the gamer. All the numbers crunching.
My Grandson is not good with numbers and he struggles when using a series of charts on a CRT. If I do the math for him he does okay. He likes to play and it doesn't hold him back when we play together. It would absolutely have stopped him from ever choosing that type of game to play on his own or with his friends. Maybe that's a big part of the issue. Gamers that are weak in math will, without doubt, gravitate toward the less complicated combat resolutions.
My goal was to have ASL condensed down to a system that would cover everything from WWII through modern in the same system. The game would be infantry centric as is SL/ASL. The research for weapons was all done at the same time so the system would be seamless for different weapons systems. Nothing would have to be bolted on later as it was in SL. 400 pages of rules was unacceptable. I wanted a basic rule book of about 30 pages.
At the moment the system is pretty complete.
I have what I'm looking for as far as the base game goes. What I'm not 100% set with is the combat resolution system. That's why I came here to discuss the systems that have evolved since I left board wargaming so long ago. I don't mind abstract. What I do mind is limiting. The various shades of die rolling were there to give a range of results that were plausible and varied. I'm looking for that same range in whatever combat resolution system I use with my game. I may try out more than one to see how I like them.
@ Toonces - Your experience, or lack of it, is not an issue in this discussion. You know what you like and why you like it. That's all the qualifier you need for this discussion.
@ Arizona Tank - I looked at Conflict of Heroes long enough to find out that there were no leaders and I've never looked at it again. I can't imagine a tactical level game where the most important units on the battlefield were left out of the game. I wouldn't like the bucket of chits process either. I would fix that in short order by making a lot more of the hit result chits. Not everybody has hundreds of blank counters laying around though.
Good Hunting.
Strangely enough, I'm going to lunch with my wife to a restaurant right next to my FLGS and I'm almost certain he has or had a used copy of Fire Team there. I'm going to grab it if I see it and I'll report back...
As someone fairly new to board wargames, I've started on some of the newer titles and worked my way back. Surprisingly, to me at least, my favourite so far has been the original Squad Leader. So much so that I managed to get a complete collection and several copies of the base game, though I've generally only played the base game and I can see that the expansions make the system overly complex in terms of rules.
I have one of the Lock 'n Load games, but I just can't get on with the rulebook in that one. Need to give it another go with the fan edited rules that are around giving it some more structure.
For pure entertainment, I love the Conflict of Heroes games, though it's a very different experience.
I also really like the Valor & Victory rules. Future of this one is uncertain, though I have all the original print and play files, and the newest rules have been posted on BGG.
I'm also really interested in looking at Retro from Minden games, which reuses ASL/SL components to create a simpler game. There have been some positive comments recently so I'll probably pick a copy up.
I'm not all that fussed by the card driven games, though I probably need to try a few out.
The two main problems with the original Squad Leader, aside from the fact that it's no longer in production, is that 1) as you add on more gamettes, you find that you have to unlearn what you've already learned in order to then learn a different way of doing or using things. By the time you get to GI, or even CoD, you have a mess with the 4 different rulebooks and 2) there's not a large community that still plays SL so you will be hard pressed to find other opponents. I'd highly, highly suggest picking up a $30 copy of the ASL Starter Kit 3 and try that one out. You can omit the vehicles and ordnance and just concentrate on the infantry rules. If you get stuck, there is a rather large online community that plays every day via VASSAL/VASL and they are very open to teaching new players (it's how I re-learned it).
Don't feel bad about not groking the LnL rules, you're not alone. Many have had problems and I got frustrated to the point that I sold my one LnL game. I *think* that there's a pretty good game system in there but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to play it the way the designer intends it to be played.
I have the first game for Conflict of Heroes and aside from the beautiful components, I wasn't too impressed with it. I understand that the rules changed after the first edition had been out for a while (I have a first edition of CoH) so I may have to look at it again some day.
The V&V stuff looks pretty good, if not a direct clone of ASL in the form of ASL-lite, which probably appeals to many people but I think that if you've already gone ASL and enjoy it, you wouldn't go "down" to V&V.
I REALLY like the way the V&V rule book is put together. IMO, it's one of the best in the hobby. Somebody must like that system lots of playing time seems to be happening with it.
With regards to buying a copy of the original Fire Team, they can be had for around $20 used. The game is dated but still plays well. Change out the maps with any other tactical map system, ASL/LnL/CoH/etc... anything with tactical level terrain - individual buildings, outlines of trees, elevation differences - and it's even better. IMO, the maps were not FT's strong point.
Good Hunting.
I do actually have a copy of the ASL Starter Kit 1, and I may have a pdf of the final rules from the last kit so I should be set for basic ASL. Problem is that was the first thing I bought as it was cheap, and I naturally struggled with it, from there I bought loads of lighter stuff and worked my way to Squad Leader. I should be fine to go back to ASL now, so I probably will once I'm done with some other games.
In the meantime though I've probably moved away a little from this sort of scale, and also even the period so I'm not in a huge rush while enjoying some other games. No doubt I'll get back to it though.
Quote from: Toonces on August 23, 2013, 04:08:04 PMhe has or had a used copy of Fire Team there. I'm going to grab it if I see it and I'll report back...
I have an unpunched copy in the Man Cave
Why did you never play it?
Now that I have hundreds of games, most of which I haven't every punched out the counters, it's interesting to me to see why others don't play their games that they have still sitting on the shelf.
I had a copy of Up Front/Bonsai and a friend of mine and his son really liked the game but their game of UF had some issues. Since I didn't care for the game I gave them both copies. I would rather see the game being played and give it away than sell it to a collector.
Good Hunting.
Quote from: Mad Russian on August 25, 2013, 11:11:24 AM
Why did you never play it?
I've played it a bunch, but somewhere along the way I tracked down a copy, and then moved to a town with fewer Grogs and fewer opportunities, at the same time I was working on the Warfighter games, so it my copy never got played.
What is your assessment of the impulse system? Did you like it better than a more conventional IGOUG?
My own personal preferences are:
System: Impulse
Scale: Squad/Fire Team - Single Vehicle
CRT: dice and charts
Good Hunting.
I'm a platoon-level guy w/ some leaders that stick out/have their own counters where they are more notable than other leaders.
I like IGOUGO w/ some interruptions. where relevant.
I've played quite a bit of platoon level games in my time too. At one point I had 10 sets of counters and 4 sets of maps for both Panzer Blitz and Panzer Leader.
Good Hunting.
Quote from: GJK on August 23, 2013, 05:55:36 PMI have the first game for Conflict of Heroes and aside from the beautiful components, I wasn't too impressed with it. I understand that the rules changed after the first edition had been out for a while (I have a first edition of CoH) so I may have to look at it again some day.
The impulse system in the first CoH game is not very good. Oddly (and this is running on memory of a conversation with the designer when I was low on sleep at Origins several years ago - so take it with a grain of salt!) - the system used in 2.0 and onward was the original design, but they were worried that it was too different, so they pulled back some of its more radical elements. The result didn't work. Uwe showed me the differences and I've never played by the 1.0 rules! :)
The big difference is that instead of alternating moving units for their entire action point allowance, with some crufty interrupt rules, you alternate doing single actions - move a hex, or fire once, or rally, etc. At its best it makes for a very fluid and dynamic situation. It doesn't model leaders explicitly, but the Command Point system is an abstraction of them. (CPs are action points, in a pool renewed every turn, that you can spend on anything an action point could be spent on (thus giving a unit more actions), or on influencing die rolls.)
The 1.0 components should be compatible with the 2.0 rules, right? I do intend to look at it again some time. Uwe is a real stand up guy. I did the Zuntzu game box for CoH when it was first coming out and he sent me a new copy of the game with the expansion boards. We spoke on the phone a few times - seems to be a great guy and avid gamer.
I don't know him well, but any time I've ever talked to him he's been a very engaging guy willing to take the time to chat. I doubt he even remembers who I am, but that makes it even better - he's perfectly friendly with people he doesn't even know :)
I've not yet played CoH - mainly b/c I've got too many tactical games laying around already that I need to get back to playing!
IMO, games that do single impulses that switch sides at after every action are too regimented. That's nothing more than UGO-IGO in smaller bites. That was the great thing about the Fire Team system. It was random. You don't know for sure who's going to go next.
Good Hunting.
there's something to be said for Tank-on-Tank's AP system, too. You draw your opponent's action points, and he goes until he hits the limit and you tell him to stop. Younever know for sure how much you're going to get done.
Quote from: GJK on August 23, 2013, 05:55:36 PMI'd highly, highly suggest picking up a $30 copy of the ASL Starter Kit 3 and try that one out. You can omit the vehicles and ordnance and just concentrate on the infantry rules.
I'd really like to get into the starter kits and learn the system, but the fact that whenever I go to the MMP site, so much of the system is "Temporarily Out of Stock!".
And ASL Starter Kit #1 is "Currently Out of Print!". If they want to sell this stuff, they *really* need a better production process. I see that 1 isn't needed for 3, but it sure would be nice to be able to learn the system in order, and have those scenarios to practice with. I guess VASSAL would work, but it's just kind of off-putting the way MMP handles these.
Another example: ASL Action Pack #4 - Normandy 1944 - contains:
3 ASL geomorphic mapboards (53, 54, and 55)
12 ASL scenarios featuring the new maps
2 errata pages for the ASL Rulebook
What are the prereqs for it? Do I need Yanks...? Which is out of print....
I hear ya. There should be no reason that the ASL Rulebook or Yanks or Beyond Valor be out of print (some of those are back in print but had been unavailable). Unfortunately the fact is that MMP and most other board wargaming companies are small biz affairs with part time employees (working full time I'm sure but they have "real" jobs).
I guess if there is some good news, the company IS in business so it's like only Avalon Hill ever made the stuff and what is out there is all that there ever will be. MMP WILL get the stuff back in print, one item at a time and at a very slow rate but as best that they can.
On the "cool!" front, my copy of Rising Sun came in yesterday! I've always wanted to play Japanese in an ASL scenario. Now I just have to read and comprehend the rules for them. :)
Quote from: smittyohio on August 31, 2013, 07:45:00 AM
Quote from: GJK on August 23, 2013, 05:55:36 PMI'd highly, highly suggest picking up a $30 copy of the ASL Starter Kit 3 and try that one out. You can omit the vehicles and ordnance and just concentrate on the infantry rules.
I'd really like to get into the starter kits and learn the system, but the fact that whenever I go to the MMP site, so much of the system is "Temporarily Out of Stock!".
And ASL Starter Kit #1 is "Currently Out of Print!". If they want to sell this stuff, they *really* need a better production process. I see that 1 isn't needed for 3, but it sure would be nice to be able to learn the system in order, and have those scenarios to practice with. I guess VASSAL would work, but it's just kind of off-putting the way MMP handles these.
Another example: ASL Action Pack #4 - Normandy 1944 - contains:
3 ASL geomorphic mapboards (53, 54, and 55)
12 ASL scenarios featuring the new maps
2 errata pages for the ASL Rulebook
What are the prereqs for it? Do I need Yanks...? Which is out of print....
I saw (I believe) one of the co-owners of MMP at their booth at WBC last month. He informed me that there were no current plans to reprint ASLSK1 but it might happen in the long term. Apparently reprints don't bring in nearly as much revenue as new releases, even when the out of print item is from a popular game system and commanding a steep price on Ebay!
They had 2 copies of ASLSK1 for sale at $19.99 (IIRC). I grabbed one and also a copy of
Where Eagles Dare from the Grand Tactical Series ($119). The store had already been open for hours. I can only surmise that there weren't many people knowledgeable about ASL in the crowds going through as the Starter Kits should have been snatched up much faster, for sale on Ebay if nothing else.
Maybe MMP should take note of what Victory Point Games is doing with their deluxe editions and self-publishing.
Quote from: GJK on August 21, 2013, 05:06:09 PM
ASL Rulez. 8)
There were some interesting threads on this topic at BGG recently. It's an old discussion the result of which is that everyone has their opinion and is seldom swayed.
I get the feeling Steve is a "realism" over "playability" guy but would be happy to find both if he could get both. I'm almost positive ASL doesn't fit into that category, making it a bad fit -
for him?
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on September 01, 2013, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: GJK on August 21, 2013, 05:06:09 PM
ASL Rulez. 8)
There were some interesting threads on this topic at BGG recently. It's an old discussion the result of which is that everyone has their opinion and is seldom swayed.
I get the feeling Steve is a "realism" over "playability" guy but would be happy to find both if he could get both. I'm almost positive ASL doesn't fit into that category, making it a bad fit - for him?
Not to garner a chuckle, but what tactical board wargame is more "realistic" than ASL? Many could claim an ease of playability over ASL so perhaps you have it backwards? I know that Steve can't stand the monster rulebook that ASL has despite the old counter-argument that you may only use 10% of the rulebook for any given scenario. I also know that he doesn't like structured turns (
in tactical gaming alone?) as he has indicated in this thread despite ASL not being a pure "IGO-UGO" due to the Defensive Fire principles/phase. Me personally, I think that he lost in ASL one too many times and thus has a little grudge against it. I'm sure that Steve will set me straight on that one. ;D
Quote from: GJK on September 01, 2013, 11:47:05 AM
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on September 01, 2013, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: GJK on August 21, 2013, 05:06:09 PM
ASL Rulez. 8)
There were some interesting threads on this topic at BGG recently. It's an old discussion the result of which is that everyone has their opinion and is seldom swayed.
I get the feeling Steve is a "realism" over "playability" guy but would be happy to find both if he could get both. I'm almost positive ASL doesn't fit into that category, making it a bad fit - for him?
Not to garner a chuckle, but what tactical board wargame is more "realistic" than ASL?
Search & Destroy, for one, but it had the advantage of being designed not to make a zillion dollars, or be "all-inclusive" of every combatant of every theatre of the world's largest war. It was written specifically to deal with the nuances of tactical combat in one specific conflict, and if Nick Stanopolis is to be believed, achieved the aim of simulating decision making - by both sides - far more realistically than Squad Leader/ASL.
It's a shame more games haven't tried to do this - i.e. actually model specific doctrines and approaches to battle. But it's not a very "sexy" topic (as my fav history professor used to say), and so most of the also-rans now emulate the ASL model - i.e. come up with formulas for morale and firepower and leadership, then throw in some chrome for "nationality rules" and try and blanket the whole Second World War, particularly with emphasis on equipment. Which seems like completely the wrong direction to take it all in.
A
realistic treatment would do more what S&D did - examine how command and control in the various armies actually worked, then go a step further by examining what the armies actually did on the battlefield, and why, instead of concentrating on trivia like armour penetration stats and the maximum speed of the medium tanks, towing capacity of troop lift trucks, etc. None of that mattered in a firefight, to the troops or the commanders. I'm almost inclined to say that it's mystyifing why designers become so absorbed by it, but of course, the people who buy the games are now so accustomed to having every piece of equipment identified (see up thread for the discussion of MG-42s) that they must seem absolutely hamstrung to do so.
They shouldn't.
That's a very thoughtful post, MD.
Search & Destroy. Immediately I thought that it must be an old SPI game and a search on BGG confirmed it. I had not heard of it before but had heard of its predecessor (Grunts!). Not a very well known or accepted game (S&D); if you take what BGG offers you as far as rankings go. I'd be up for giving it a playing - do you have a copy Mike? Is there a VASSAL module for it? I'll have to go look after I post this. Reading some of the comments, I see that one big issue (the big issue?) with it is that KIA's/WIA's aren't tracked so you could have this squad of infinate size. I may be misreading or not fully understanding their comments however. This might be a game that Steve wants to track down. I know that he's been "searching and destroying" all tactical board wargames that he could find in order to compare the game systems.
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.
Anyone got a comparison of Cityfight against any of the games discussed here?
I'm still kicking myself in the ass for not picking up Combat Commander Mediterranean at Prez Con this spring. Honestly I blame LB for my decision.
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on September 01, 2013, 01:40:49 PM
Quote from: GJK on September 01, 2013, 11:47:05 AM
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on September 01, 2013, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: GJK on August 21, 2013, 05:06:09 PM
ASL Rulez. 8)
There were some interesting threads on this topic at BGG recently. It's an old discussion the result of which is that everyone has their opinion and is seldom swayed.
I get the feeling Steve is a "realism" over "playability" guy but would be happy to find both if he could get both. I'm almost positive ASL doesn't fit into that category, making it a bad fit - for him?
Not to garner a chuckle, but what tactical board wargame is more "realistic" than ASL?
Search & Destroy, for one, but it had the advantage of being designed not to make a zillion dollars, or be "all-inclusive" of every combatant of every theatre of the world's largest war. It was written specifically to deal with the nuances of tactical combat in one specific conflict, and if Nick Stanopolis is to be believed, achieved the aim of simulating decision making - by both sides - far more realistically than Squad Leader/ASL.
It's a shame more games haven't tried to do this - i.e. actually model specific doctrines and approaches to battle. But it's not a very "sexy" topic (as my fav history professor used to say), and so most of the also-rans now emulate the ASL model - i.e. come up with formulas for morale and firepower and leadership, then throw in some chrome for "nationality rules" and try and blanket the whole Second World War, particularly with emphasis on equipment. Which seems like completely the wrong direction to take it all in.
A realistic treatment would do more what S&D did - examine how command and control in the various armies actually worked, then go a step further by examining what the armies actually did on the battlefield, and why, instead of concentrating on trivia like armour penetration stats and the maximum speed of the medium tanks, towing capacity of troop lift trucks, etc. None of that mattered in a firefight, to the troops or the commanders. I'm almost inclined to say that it's mystyifing why designers become so absorbed by it, but of course, the people who buy the games are now so accustomed to having every piece of equipment identified (see up thread for the discussion of MG-42s) that they must seem absolutely hamstrung to do so.
They shouldn't.
Take a look at what Fire Team did decades ago Mike. I think you'll find exactly what you are talking about there.
GJK got hit on the head with an ASL rulebook and his vision hasn't cleared yet. He'll be okay when he plays a real tactical wargame. Most of us quit playing ASL when he was barely in High School. We have the experience of what a good wargame actually looks and plays like.
Good Hunting.
Good Hunting.
Close Assault/Fire Power morphed with ASL is more what I'm looking at creating. I like the detail but I don't need every single squad and action that could have conceivably taken place in WWII to now, to have what I'm looking for.
Good Hunting.
Speaking of Close Assault/Fire Power there seems to have been a veritable explosion of single man counter games since Close Assault was released in 1983. Many of which seem to be much more inclined to be impulse games.
Good Hunting.
Quote from: Mad Russian on September 03, 2013, 10:31:25 PM
GJK got hit on the head with an ASL rulebook and his vision hasn't cleared yet. He'll be okay when he plays a real tactical wargame. Most of us quit playing ASL when he was barely in High School. We have the experience of what a good wargame actually looks and plays like.
A
love-hate relationship, this love of ours. :)
Since ASL is playing a big role in this thread, here's the shrinkwrapped Starter Kit 1 I'm auctioning on Ebay.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Advanced-Squad-Leader-Starter-Kit-1-New-in-Shrink-/231046804883?pt=Games_US&hash=item35cb767593
I picked up my copy of ASLSK1 used from a vendor at Prez con. I now need ASKSK2 and the expansion scenario pack to round out the whole ASLSK series.
I picked up an extra set of 1, 2 and 3 as each came out. I have them in shrink. I picked them up thinking that my son might get into ASL one day. We've played, it's not his favorite but I'll hold on to them just in case. But on second thought, seeing SK1 going for three times the original price (at least), hmmmm......
Discussing the game mechanics of ASL is completely different than talking about buying it in all it's iterations. I would think there are other threads that are concerned with the buying and selling of games.
Good Hunting.
MR
@MR...off-topic postings, unrelated personal anecdotes, tangential points of interest, obscure historical references, endless discussions of armour penetration values, debate about the 5.56 vs the 7.62 round, thread wobble, inside jokes, partisan political punditry and pictures of ta-tas (the Indian motorcar ;) ) are de rigeur in most threads here at Grogheads. Take it as a compliment - it means you are family.
P.S. Personally I blame the Whigs for the lack of clarity regarding the intensive fire round.
yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface
Well I would have an in depth conversation about ASLSK, but I've yet to even begin to comprehend the rules.
I'll stay out of the thread from this point on. Sorry.
Ah, my mistake.
Then, by all means, continue with the ASL sales promotions.
Who knows, I may promote a game or two while I'm here as well.
Good Hunting.
excuse me if this is aquestioned already answered. MR are you thinking of making your own game? or are you more into modifying existing ones? or is this just about discussing different systems?
if you plan to do your own, yould you elaborate what you plan to do?
Just re-reading some of this thread this morning and would like to submit a question: Why the interest in Nationality based modifiers or activation? Nationality (ie: doctrine) based capabilities I can understand (Banzaii charge for Japanese, human-wave attacks for the Russians, auto-surrender for the Italians (sorry...couldn't resist)) but what's the justification for "nationalizing" other game mechanics, unless you are using "generic" counters or melieu-specific rules. Aren't things like unit specific morale and training perhaps more important than a national rating?
My personal experience with national modifiers actually comes from some Age-of-Sail games I have played, where the British might have a gunnery advantage over the Spanish. Fine, I get that...it is also historically accurate...but why not just used a "crew quality" modifier instead? Of course, many games do reflect national / historical capabilities, but I most often see that as a quantitative rating on unit counters themselves (ie: US squad has an attack strenght 4; Brits a FP of 3; Italians of 1).
Just thinking out loud in a non-contentious way,
Yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface
Fire Team used national modifiers to show the differences in training and doctrine between the US and USSR forces in the 1980's. It didn't force a bunch of rules on you. It did it through activation costs for basic unit activities such as movement and firing at various unit sizes. I liked that well enough to apply to want to see it applied to other nationalities.
Good Hunting.
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on September 09, 2013, 01:43:20 PM
Just re-reading some of this thread this morning and would like to submit a question: Why the interest in Nationality based modifiers or activation? Nationality (ie: doctrine) based capabilities I can understand (Banzaii charge for Japanese, human-wave attacks for the Russians, auto-surrender for the Italians (sorry...couldn't resist)) but what's the justification for "nationalizing" other game mechanics, unless you are using "generic" counters or melieu-specific rules. Aren't things like unit specific morale and training perhaps more important than a national rating?
My personal experience with national modifiers actually comes from some Age-of-Sail games I have played, where the British might have a gunnery advantage over the Spanish. Fine, I get that...it is also historically accurate...but why not just used a "crew quality" modifier instead? Of course, many games do reflect national / historical capabilities, but I most often see that as a quantitative rating on unit counters themselves (ie: US squad has an attack strenght 4; Brits a FP of 3; Italians of 1).
Just thinking out loud in a non-contentious way,
Yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface
This is one of the persistent questions in wargaming. ASL for example takes some heat now and then for its use of national characteristics...US squads that break easily, but rally quickly...Japanese squads that do not break, but just take casualties...not to mention nearly unbreakable German SS units.
For me, I would rather not have national characteristics...because they apply too broadly. Did
every British ship really have better gunnery training? Did
every SS unit even in April 45 fight nearly to the death?
Instead, I prefer gaming systems that allow for variation in results due to training, readiness, equipment, quality of leadership and morale.
But in the end, if I enjoy playing the game or not is the most important thing. So while I am not a big fan of "national characteristics" I still enjoy many games that use them (I am a big ASL fan for example).
I think that the nationality based attributes can be broadly applied to each nationality but then specific characteristics can be uniquely applied to individual pieces or units. The base attribute is broad based across that nationality but unique to it (to reflect the different training doctrines) and then unit specific characteristics could be applied depending on the situation or the unit(s) in the conflict, etc. For example, while a regular US squad may break on a "6" and rally on a "8" (morale goes up when "broken", unique to the Americans), the "elite" US squads (airborne, USMC for example) will break on a "7" and rally on an "8". And within those defines, you can have things leaders, the weapons, movement rates etc can all be unique to a nationality but can be individually defined based on the battle. I would think that the nationality based attributes are just a simple starting point for the traits of unit/piece applied with a broad brush based on known historical data about the training and techniques of that nation, but then can be uniquely and individually defined based on several factors.
P.S. to Bison, if you want to connect on VASSAL/VASL some time for some basic ASL instruction, let me know. ;)
Quote from: GJK on September 11, 2013, 05:50:40 AM
P.S. to Bison, if you want to connect on VASSAL/VASL some time for some basic ASL instruction, let me know. ;)
Yeah I really need to take you up on this offer at some point in the future.
Quote from: Bison on September 12, 2013, 04:34:51 PM
Quote from: GJK on September 11, 2013, 05:50:40 AM
P.S. to Bison, if you want to connect on VASSAL/VASL some time for some basic ASL instruction, let me know. ;)
Yeah I really need to take you up on this offer at some point in the future.
Please do - I'm itching for some ASL(SK) action and I enjoy teaching new players!
Quote from: Keunert on September 09, 2013, 10:14:16 AM
excuse me if this is aquestioned already answered. MR are you thinking of making your own game? or are you more into modifying existing ones? or is this just about discussing different systems?
if you plan to do your own, yould you elaborate what you plan to do?
I am modifying an existing game into a new version.
Fire Team, designed by Jon Southard, was one of the most innovative designs I'd ever seen. I did the expansion for that and had it returned with a note that West End games no longer sold wargames. I shelved that and went to converting ASL to the FT system but lost my wargaming group about that same time. So, for the next 20+ years, it sat on the shelf until my Grandson found it one day and we played.
That rekindled my fire and I began to look at board wargames again. I had left them and gone into computer gaming for the past 20+ years. Did some scenario work and got on a couple of development teams. Mad some money. Nothing great.
The board wargame market seems to be making a comeback so I'm taking a hard look at where the evolution of tactical gaming has gone.
I looked at all the tactical level games since I left and was surprised at the direction the hobby went. Not sure if that direction is for me to come back to. As stated before I despise card driven or assisted wargames. With the exception of Combat Commander.
I started this as a feeling out for what gamers like in their tactical games. I'm much more of an ASL lite gamers. ASL depth but with about 40 pages or so of rules please. Charts and die rolls are just fine. Keep your cards out of my wargames.
I have been working on the board game update for about 2 years now. The toughest things are I'm not a graphics guru and I have to learn to create a Vassal module. I was, until this past Sunday, enmeshed in the release of a computer wargame. With that set for release, I can now take a little time off and see where I want to take my board game. Some publishers have shown interest in it. We'll see.
I have a thread on CSW that discussed the artwork and basic concepts.
I'll keep you posted.
That's the just of it.
Good Hunting.
MR
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
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
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
Quote from: GJK on September 02, 2013, 02:06:37 AM
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.