Tactical board gaming funk

[Tolstoi]

JD! Welcome back!!

I think I finally worked out what it is though...missions with a finite turn set and some meaningless victory hexes to grab just sent making me happy.

I think the problem is I want a campaign with these games. I don't want unlinked, meanings missions. I want something with a bit of meat to it.

I agree, after learning a game, having something more substantial than one scenario is better. I'm sure you've checked already; however, are there scenarios you could combine into a series to create a campaign? I did a wee bit of poking around and found this threat about Starting an OST campaign that has links to a blog with this title: OST Campaign East Front 1942. I only skimmed the blog entry and I've never played OST, so this might not be helpful at all. If another system has a campaign system, maybe there's a way to convert it to OST?

Looking forward to what others recommend, as I agree with you, a victory in a tactical mission with no follow up missions impacted by your recent decisions, can feel a bit empty after a while.

[JudgeDredd]

Thanks Tolstoi - it's good to be back. And thanks for the links

I've downloaded the mini campaign on the OST pages on BGG - and that looks interesting and exactly what I was looking for...mission, rebuild, mission, rebiuld...It's actually by the guy you linked to...so I'm about to set that up and give it a go.

Moving across the whole OST map with targets to grab over several missions is much more appealing to me. So I'm looking forward to giving it a go.

I'd rather games provided the means for a campaign. Not necessarily create a campaign for you, but give you a structure to follow - as Norm has done.

[JudgeDredd]

Regarding this tactical gaming funk....

I mentioned earlier that I had read the rules for Band of Brothers - then I setup a scenario...and then packed it away. The reason for that was this thread...a small battlefield. I'm sure it was adequate overall, but I was just underwhelmed with the scale and depth. Rukes? Fantastic. Compenents? Excellent. Maps? Small.

Then I started reading the LnL Tactical ruleset. I was blown away (again, because I have read these rules before) with the amount of tactical functionality in it. Hit and Run. Crawling. Double speed. Move and fire. Assault. Charges. There were so many options available. I took the book on holiday with me and read it by the pool drinking Long Island Iced Teas (Long Island know nothing about tea!!) in Cyprus.

When I got back - I got out one of my favourite conflicts - Heroes of the Falklands. I set it up and played it...and was just not happy. I kept thinking - and yeas, it might still be a bug bear of mine, that it was the fact that shaken squads are effectively out of the fight when their officer is not around. Not just not around - he has to be IN THE SAME HEX. Now The Falklands area of operations is pretty baron...so having an officer run across the open to get to a unit that was hit is a tough ask. On top of that, you need to try and get that shaken unit into cover - of which there's not alot - so your officer will likely end up out in the open anyway.

I know - that sounds like a whinge. But it is the reality. You can't keep all your units together...you do have to spread them out. I would much rather that game - for all it's tactical options - gave a shaken squad the ability to rally themselves...even if it was a reduced chance.

The thing is, Heroes of the Falklands really should have grabbed me because of all the tactical options and a familiar and favourite area of operations. Even the missions have real context. But it didn't.

So I then packed that up and was about to put The Russian Campaign on the table when bob kept firing me emails about how much he was enjoying OST...so that ended up on the table. And then I got to this stage..."What's the point of those 4 victory locations?" and "Why is this fighting area so small when I have all this map?" and "Why are there tracks for 49 turns when there's not a single scenario in the book going past 12 turns.

Seems a waste.

Anyway - Norm's campaign seems like it might hit the spot and I'm about to set it up.

[bob48]

 

[Wolfgang]

Not sure if I can serve with some informations about Assault Sicily 43 Gela Beachhead campaign. The Assault System is designed for developing campaigns with a high replayability value. Due to our formation mechanic no battle will be the same as before. I want to share the campaign plot for the Gela Beachhead campaign (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y2IrHhE49ZUdDSogj5myUgSeYXQO0oec/view?usp=sharing)  in which you can assume that the outcome can be one of a lot different. Each battle will decide where to go and you will take care about your units you get from the start of this campaign.

In Assault Red Horizon we use a campaign close to this - but with four battles instead of six.

[bob48]

 

[JudgeDredd]

Good news Wolfgang.

[Wolfgang]

Good news Wolfgang.

I love good news! 

[JudgeDredd]

And I've just been and bought your expansion 

[Wolfgang]

And I've just been and bought your expansion 

Seen it - Thank you much supporting us!

[bob48]

Well done, JD :-)

Let me know when you're ready to start a campaign!

[JudgeDredd]

And I've just been and bought your expansion 

Seen it - Thank you much supporting us!

It's not at all an understatement to say your game is worth supporting.

Well done, JD :-)

Let me know when you're ready to start a campaign!

Well you got me started on OST!

I think it's going to be The Russian Campaign after OST and then Assault Red Horizon

[bob48]

 

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I've been having fun with Heroes of Normandie: Battle for Caen.  It's a goofy system that plays more like a minis game than a board game and the map area is quite small but it's clicking with me for some reason.  It does come with campaigns for the Big Red One on D-Day through to Falaise, the Brit 50th Infantry Div for Epsom, Charnwood, and Goodwood; 43rd div for Jupiter; and the 3rd Canadian Inf for Windsor.

[bayonetbrant]

as requested by JD....  copying over from the OST thread

Just going back to the beginning and JD's conundrum about setting up support weapons, illustrates the issue I have with this type of tac level game. yes, I can hear some of you groan (Vance?) because it is a soap-box thing for me and a subject that I've banged on about on more than one occasion. Yes, I accept all the arguments about abstractions and playabilty, many of which I agree with, but also a few which I do not.

Support weapons, such as the panzerfaust were, at this point of the war, in plentiful supply and would have been widely available, so its quite probable that all the squads in the game would have had a least one and more likely, several more.

Then there is the question of the MG-34 or MG-42 for the Germans, or, for the US, the BAR a few of which are given to distribute to the squads. This is a squad weapon. All infantry squads would have such a weapon. Its a squad MG!

Same with leaders. A squad would have an NCO (Sgt) to lead it and an assistant SL. The platoon would have an LT and Platoon Sgt. and so on. Instead, we are given a few leaders to distribute amongst the squads.

I still maintain that these are things that could be factored into a squad; an AT value, a MG value at different ranges (Assault - 41 does this) and a leadership value.

I should add that, as a game, I really do like OST