Coin Games

[judgedredd]

I always thought they were called coin games because they used blocks and spheres.

Anyway...toying with getting my first coin game and was thinking Fire in the Lake.

I've heard it's pretty complex but it's really a conflict I'm interested in. I also read it plays decent solo which is a must.

Anyone got any advice? Recommendations? Enjoy Fire in the Lake?

[BanzaiCat]

Fire in the Lake is tops with me.

However, they most definitely are on a range of complexity; some are easier to digest than others. For example, I think Pendragon is currently the most complex of them. I would hazard a guess that Colonial Twilight is the easiest of them.

I have Colonial Twilight, though I'm not a huge fan of the setting (it's just not very interesting to me, in hindsight). Fire in the Lake is great because I'm very interested now in the Vietnam War. I also have A Distant Plain.

I'm interested in eventually getting Gandhi and maybe Red Dust Rebellion. Here's a full list if you would like to see them all (currently):

https://www.gmtgames.com/c-36-coin-series.aspx#[PageNumber(0)|PageSize(50)|PageSort(Name)|DisplayType(Grid)]

I really like the automated bots. I should have kept my P500 with the Bot Upgrade Pack they did with FitL, but I doubt I'd have time for it, so I passed on that. But, overall, it's an excellent system. You'll probably need to watch a few playthrough videos just to be sure.

If FitL is what you're interested in thematically, that will help drive your learning of the game.

[judgedredd]

Thanks BC

I watched a video by The Players Aid where they were talking about GMTs COIN games.

They did say FitL was the most complex and also Colonial Twilight was the easiest (with Cuba Libre) - but Vietnam is a real drive for me. Part of being able to get into a game is enjoying the theatre - and I love the Vietnam theatre.

I am also very interested in A Distant Plain - being a modern conflict. So it would be very familiar to me I think. There's a copy going for £50 on BGG - so I might pick this up too.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I love the idea of the games yet every time I play one, I come away disappointed.  They seem like they should be very thematic but I inevitably find them to come across as too gamey and abstracted for my tastes. 

I've owned, played,  and sold Andean Abyss and Pendragon.  I've played Fire in the Lake a half dozen times, Liberty or Death a few times, and Falling Sky and Ghandi once each.  Every time was a 4-player session and every time, it felt like someone would jump ahead on the scoring track and just keep spamming the same option to grind points.

I wonder if they'd be better as a two player game?  I say that because they look and feel quite similar to Labyrinth: The War on Terror and that's one that I enjoy playing immensely.


At any rate, if it's your first foray into the system, I'd say avoid Pendragon.  It's the heaviest of the lot.  Of the ones I've played, Andean Abyss seems the most straightforward.  Fire in the Lake was in the middle. 

[Barthheart]

^All of this.

[bayonetbrant]

I don't think Fire In The Lake isn't going to be the Vietnam War experience you're looking for. It's so high level that it's far more of a political game that a military one.
Plus, the COIN games play better with a full table that really gets into character and start negotiating / backstabbing each other, and you've rarely shared much experience gaming with other people instead of exploring them by yourself

My experience has been different than SDR/Barth.  I've enjoyed them, and had some great experiences as a GM with ADP and LorD at Origins.  But I also was expecting something closer to Diplomacy than Case Blue, so the difference in expectations maybe tempering the experience.

[thecommandtent]

I have Falling Sky and enjoyed it but have only ever played it solo. I enjoyed learning about the period and from what I"ve read and from my experience it was much more "war" driven than some of the other COIN games.  As others have mentioned it seems it would be a very different experience have a table full of people and not just playing against the bots.

[judgedredd]

I don't think Fire In The Lake isn't going to be the Vietnam War experience you're looking for. It's so high level that it's far more of a political game that a military one.

I would agree it's not the Vietnam experience I generally look for...but I've got Front Toward Enemy and Heroes of the Nam and two Fields of Fire games for my combat fix. I'm aware these are much more high level and more about managing the war - the politics - the people - the resources - than games I generally look for.

Plus, the COIN games play better with a full table that really gets into character and start negotiating / backstabbing each other, and you've rarely shared much experience gaming with other people instead of exploring them by yourself

That's one of the reasons I have generally stayed away from these games. I agree that having people around a table secretly support others whilst you have no idea what's going on is what brings them alive - but I've read they play well solo.

Three reasons I was looking at Fire in the Lake were

• It's an area of conflict I'm hugely interested in - topped only by my interest in The Falklands Conflict
• It apparently plays pretty well solo
• It's got an expansion which makes the solo experience better (apparently)

I'm tempted to go for A Distant Plain because I can pick that up for £40 whereas FitL is going to skin me £100 + another £30 for the expansion. However, I've heard A Distant Plain plays less well solo - something about the bots being rather convoluted. So it could be that I buy A Distant Plain and come away disappointed but not because COIN games aren't my thing but actually because my experience was marred. Having said that, that could happen with FitL and I could find it out £50 cheaper with a Distant Plain.

I appreciate all your feedback - thank you. I also appreciate you guys know what I like and try to save me some dosh.

I do know these aren't combat games and are more political in nature - and honestly, that's why I was giving them some viewing time...I think I might jump on a Distant Plain. It's cheap, apparently easier to get into than FitL and another area of conflict I'm interested in.

[bayonetbrant]

I've enjoyed ADP quite a bit and we've used it a lot at Origins, and there's even an article out on the front page a few months ago about how we modify it at Origins to go above the four-player game that it is out of the box.

For ADP, it's not that the bots are necessarily convoluted but that one of the factions is very much a 'kingmaker' faction that isn't naturally aligned with anyone, but will temporarily align themselves with everyone throughout the game for the purposes of keeping scores down across the board so that they can eventually pull ahead. That's sort of ever shifting unreliable alliance partner is a very realistic portrayal of the Warlords faction, but very hard to capture as a bot.
The other challenge with ADP is the symbiotic relationship between the government and the coalition where the coalition have all the resources and the ANG have way more manpower. Again, it's tough for a bot to replicate the give and take of trying to negotiate the resources and demand power involved with those two factions.

BC can tell you much more about FITL as he has played it a lot.

I've played all of the first five at least once, but ADP and LorD the most.
LorD is a very interesting challenge but with at least one mechanic that seems broken to me - for a longer game, it's almost impossible for the Natives to lose because all they have to do is build villages. Works out great for me since their leader is named Brant (seriously).  There's no incentive for the British to prevent their allies from taking space away from the colonials, the colonials aren't strong enough to keep the native spread in check while still holding off the Brits, and the French aren't even in the game that early

I know a lot of people who have very little interest in the topic of Cuba Libre That's still greatly enjoy the game. A lot of that has to do with the small map in limited maneuverability that forces a lot of high stakes interaction from the very beginning of the game. The term you hear everyone use is "a knife fight in a phone booth" because you have no way to avoid everyone else.

Andean Abyss was an odd one for me, because it was being worked on in play testing at the same time I was working on a defense contract for a game about counter-insurgency in Colombia. So it was a topic whose background I happened to know quite a bit about, through utterly accidental circumstances. I think it's one of the easiest to learn because as the original bass line system, there wasn't a lot of extra chrome bolted onto it. The challenge for some players is that while there are two natural sides - the government and the FARC - The other two sides feel very much like sidekicks rather than independent actors of their own. It is possible to win playing one of those sidekicks, but it very much feels like a 'gamey' thing to say that the AUC 'won' when you expect a victor in a conflict like this to very much control the country rather than simply exceed historical conditions.

[judgedredd]

I decided on Fire in the Lake.

Although I also have an understanding of the conflict over there, I'm more inclined to enjoy the Vietnam theatre than Afghanistan. Also, FitL is a newer version of there coins games and I've read because of that, more refined. More difficult to get into - but I'm sure an enjoyment of the theatre will help me overcome.

I've heard Cuba Libre and Colonial Twilight (might've been Andean Abyss) were good entry level games into the genre. But  hey ho...I need to challenge the auld grey matter!

[JasonPratt]

I can agree with FitL, having now played three others (Andean Abyss, Falling Sky, Liberty or Death). It kind of stands in the middle of complexity, and so allows you to expand to less and more complex COIN games (e.g. AndAby and LoD respectively Falling Sky is more complex, too.)

In effect, FitL represents the full maturity of the basic COIN system, with some subsequent games building upon that to add unique characteristics of their own, such as a far more complicated battle system in LoD, or a 5th bot-run faction in FS (which can be partly manipulated by the main four factions, one of them moreso than others.)

I can't speak to the bots, however: all my games have been with other people (via TTS or Vassal), aside from practice games where I played all four factions in FitL to learn the mechanics.

[TTC]

I have played Andean Abyss, Cuba Libre, A Distant Plain, Falling Skies, and Fire in the Lake.  FitL is easily my favorite.  I enjoy the complexity of the interactions between the two loosely-allied sides, but the tension with their differing victory conditions.  But mostly I enjoy and appreciate the maneuver element of the forces, as the map plays more than any other like a wargame. The "maneuver" on ADP is too constrained, Cuba Libre is like a knife fight in a phone booth, but FitL allows for many more options.

One complaint I have about the COIN system is that, at least in our group, anyone can win.  Once you get near the victory conditions you get beat down by the others, and someone else becomes the king, until they get beat down.  It seems to be more about lucky timing on that last Propaganda Card.  For example, in our last game of ADP, I would have taken the lead (and met my victory conditions) on the next card, but a PROPAGANDA card was revealed.  So I didn't win.  And in practically every one of our games, someone has been within a card or Propaganda/Election/&c. of winning, but ended up not winning (and often pummeled down to the bottom).  While this makes for tension and drama--and even fun--I don't know if it actually rewards good play or a viable strategy.

[bayonetbrant]

I mean, it's not unrealistic that lots of people have "almost won" a COIN conflict....

[bayonetbrant]

here's a nice walk through of a solo game playing as the Taliban

https://twitter.com/donaldfsmith3/status/1365541616509997058