Armchair Dragoons Forums
Wargaming => The Modern World => Topic started by: JudgeDredd on June 09, 2023, 02:39:30 PM
-
I seem to be in a bit of a board gaming funk.
I'm currently playing Old School Tactical Western Front...and whilst I like it's simplicity, I'm just feeling empty when I get to the end of a scenario.
More than that...I'm constantly tempted to end the scenario early and start a new one. Kind of looking for fulfillment.
There's not a lot to dislike with OST...Nice simple rule set, decent tactical options, decent scenarios.
It's not only OST though. Before starting OST, I had read the rules to Band of Brothers...then dropped that and took the rule book for LnL Tactical on holiday with me...learned that and played a couple of scenarios and dumped that.
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.
And this might be exclusively for tactical games because I didn't feel like this with Holland '44 or Enemy Action Ardennes.
I liked the campaign I played in Fields of Fire.
Anyone else suffer from feeling like the victory in a tactical mission with no follow on missions leaves you feeling wanting?
-
Hopefully Assault '43 Sicily will be with us before too long :-)
The main 'Gela' campaign is amazing.
-
I may have put this in the wrong forum...as I was talking about OSt, I shoved it here.
Yeah - I had fogotten Assault Red Horizon has a campaign and never fired it up.
I think maybe I should put a bookmark in the scenario book where I got to and crack on with something else. I need a bookmark so I remember what scenarios I did - otherwise I just start at the beginning again!
I've been reading the rules for The Russian Campaign...I think I'll stick that on the table. I don't seem to have the same issue with more strategic games for some reason.
-
Combat! vol. 1 and Combat! vol. 2 are supposed to give you that need to continue feeling. Still saving my pennies for vol. 2 but everything I read about it says it's just what yer looking for. There's a guy on BGG that's running a campaign with vids and commentary and it sounds like a blast.
Here's the Youtube playlist:
-
Oh and welcome back JD! :bigthumb:
-
I've been suffering from a general overall gaming funk for the past 2 weeks now. I play a game trying to get into it and put it down fairly quickly, having gotten bored sooner rather than later.
I can't explain it but yes, winning a tactical battle but not being able to advance in some way or show some sort of reward that can be used for the 'next step' leaves me feeling hollow. I think all these years of gaming with war or warlike strategy games (cardboard and digital) have instilled such an expectation in my mind that trying to play a stand-alone scenario in a board game makes for an empty feeling, win or lose.
-
Oh and welcome back JD! :bigthumb:
Thanks :notworthy:
-
Combat! vol. 1 and Combat! vol. 2 are supposed to give you that need to continue feeling. Still saving my pennies for vol. 2 but everything I read about it says it's just what yer looking for. There's a guy on BGG that's running a campaign with vids and commentary and it sounds like a blast.
Here's the Youtube playlist:
Good try...had it. But of course I'll watch them!
I mean I didn't hate it - but I got bored making excuses for the German AI. Maybe I was too harsh. Maybe my excuses were viable.
The second one has a campaign iirc - but it also has vehicles which, honestly, I wasn't interested in.
-
Norm Smith has produced a very good (and free) campaign system which can be used for all the OST games.
The dynamic campaign included with 'Assault '41 Red Horizon' is also very good and has and almost unlimited amount of replayability built into the system.
-
...
I mean I didn't hate it - but I got bored making excuses for the German AI. Maybe I was too harsh. Maybe my excuses were viable.
The second one has a campaign iirc - but it also has vehicles which, honestly, I wasn't interested in.
Vol. 2 is supposed to add more depth to the AI. You don't have to use the vehicles.
-
Norm Smith has produced a very good (and free) campaign system which can be used for all the OST games.
...
I've used this and it works well.
-
...
I mean I didn't hate it - but I got bored making excuses for the German AI. Maybe I was too harsh. Maybe my excuses were viable.
The second one has a campaign iirc - but it also has vehicles which, honestly, I wasn't interested in.
Vol. 2 is supposed to add more depth to the AI. You don't have to use the vehicles.
???
-
Norm Smith has produced a very good (and free) campaign system which can be used for all the OST games.
...
I've used this and it works well.
Yeah you mentioned that before I think...maybe it's time for me to take a look.
-
JD!
-
Stagger! :rockon:
-
JD! Welcome back!! :bigthumb:
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 (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2452665/starting-ost-campaign) that has links to a blog with this title: OST Campaign East Front 1942 (https://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2020/06/ost-campaign-east-front-1942.html). 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
;) :bigthumb:
-
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 (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.
-
:bigthumb:
-
Good news Wolfgang.
-
Good news Wolfgang.
I love good news! :bigthumb:
-
And I've just been and bought your expansion :hug:
-
And I've just been and bought your expansion :hug:
Seen it - Thank you much supporting us!
-
Well done, JD :-)
Let me know when you're ready to start a campaign! ;D
-
And I've just been and bought your expansion :hug:
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! ;D
Well you got me started on OST!
I think it's going to be The Russian Campaign after OST and then Assault Red Horizon
-
:bigthumb:
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
Sigh, I’ll copy my own response here. ::)
You rang? ;) ;D
Yes all squads had a squad mg and leaders. I am comfortable with the idea that these are already in the calculation for the combat factors printed on the squad level counters.
The extra msg that are “sprinkled”, as you put it, throughout a force during setup represent platoon level or even company level assets that have been passed down to the units for the mission at hand. As for the leader counters, they represent exceptional individuals who make an impact through the power of their prowess/fighting knowledge/charisma on the battle at hand.
Back to JD’s AAR. :)
-
I'm still not convinced.................. :whistle:
-
:hug:
-
:hug: :hug:
I think its all down to just an abstraction in order to allow playability, and in that respects, it works very well. We could have lots of rules which would only serve to complicate and slow down the game, and we don't want that, do we. Indeed not!
However..........for example; if a German squad has a firepower of 4 and a range of 6, and this squad includes an MG34 (or 42) which has a firepower of 2 and a range of 8, why can the squad not fire at range 8 with a reduced firepower?
;)
-
if a German squad has a firepower of 4 and a range of 6, and this squad includes an MG34 (or 42) which has a firepower of 2 and a range of 8, why can the squad not fire at range 8 with a reduced firepower?
See, if you type your post in a different order, you answer your own question! :cowboy:
I think its all down to just an abstraction in order to allow playability
but it's certainly not an invalid question!
-
Now how would that have been any fun?
-
:hug: :hug:
I think its all down to just an abstraction in order to allow playability, and in that respects, it works very well. We could have lots of rules which would only serve to complicate and slow down the game, and we don't want that, do we. Indeed not!
However..........for example; if a German squad has a firepower of 4 and a range of 6, and this squad includes an MG34 (or 42) which has a firepower of 2 and a range of 8, why can the squad not fire at range 8 with a reduced firepower?
;)
It’s your game, let them! ;)
-
Now how would that have been any fun?
:hehe:
-
if a German squad has a firepower of 4 and a range of 6, and this squad includes an MG34 (or 42) which has a firepower of 2 and a range of 8, why can the squad not fire at range 8 with a reduced firepower?
See, if you type your post in a different order, you answer your own question! :cowboy:
I think its all down to just an abstraction in order to allow playability
but it's certainly not an invalid question!
ooooohh....that is clever right there :bigthumb: :notworthy: :applause:
He got ye bob.
-
Nope. I assure you he didn't.
I give up! I'm trying to explore the ways that an existing game system could have been done in a slightly different way without changing the fundamental system but to make it a bit more 'realistic' for want of a better term. In the case of OST, I have several idea's that would do this.
had I posted my 2 statements in the order suggested by Brant, then yes, I would have answered my own question and thus the topic would have been deader than it now is.
I don't know why the smeg I bother.
Lets talker about hockey or movies or PC games instead, huh?
-
:'( :brokenheart:
-
I was just making a joke out of how he took two of your statements and flipped them to make his point. >:D
You know I agree with you...we've talked about various issues with different board games. But Brant also has a point. I agree with you both.
Whenever I've asked a question about LnL Tactical, Brant (and others) has answered it sufficiently for me to go away and play...and then think about it months later again because really there could be a different way of doing things and still keep gaming easy.
Like allowing a unit to self rally in LnL Tactical without a leader nearby, but at a reduced chance. Just one example.
OST - another example is the panzerfausts not being one use weapons but having a die roll to allow them to fire again - 5 or 6 and they keep the weapon, signifying the quantity these weapons were in use (I've only seen the movies..I have no hard knowledge of how many a squad of soldiers would carry).
I talked to you at length about LnL Tactical and how I found it dripping in tactical nuance with so many options and yet the entire experience for me is ruined with the vehicle "To Hit" check which makes it very, very difficult to hit anything from a tank and then the leader issue...really puts a downer on the game for me. I hate having to have my leader move, in the open often, towards a shaken unit because, if I don't, that squad is useless.
Often I come away thinking I'm just playing it wrong.
-
I'm trying to explore the ways that an existing game system could have been done in a slightly different way without changing the fundamental system but to make it a bit more 'realistic' for want of a better term. In the case of OST, I have several idea's that would do this.
I think what you've stumbled on is probably how a lot of game designs start - they take something unsatisfying about an existing game and 'fix' it, then build a new game around it.
On one hand, if that's the only change you're making then it's a simple enough house rule. On the other hand, if there's more to be changed, then you end up w/ a new game.
That's how Mitchell Land turned Crisis Korea 1995 into the Next War series (https://www.armchairdragoons.com/articles/interviews/5-questions-with-next-war-series-designer-mitchell-land/)
But, first, the original idea was Gene Billingsley’s with Crisis Korea: 1995. I became interested in the game right around the same time he had begun working on the remake (which would eventually become Next War: Korea, 1st Ed. [NWK1E]). I pestered him enough with my ideas for “improvements,” that he finally just said, “OK, why don’t you do it.”
-
However..........for example; if a German squad has a firepower of 4 and a range of 6, and this squad includes an MG34 (or 42) which has a firepower of 2 and a range of 8, why can the squad not fire at range 8 with a reduced firepower?
The effective range of an MG34/42 can be extended through the use of telescopic sights or the Lafette tripod (weighing in at 20Kg). Additional crew members and/or ammunition would also play a factor in extending firepower. I've heard it explained that these are the kinds of factors that differentiate the performance of an infantry squad with inherent MG34 vs a MG34 support weapon in ASL.
-
It's nice that every tactical system finds its own way of representing various details. When it comes to realistic support weapons or equipment, you very quickly end up with awkward ways of representing them.
Regarding playability, we have decided in the design of Assault that we will integrate light support weapons into the unit values.
Heavy support weapons and support teams are shown as separate units. We have also integrated the difference in armament between different factions with the same unit type into the unit values.
For example, compare the unit cards DE Rifle Squad with SOV Rifle Squad. The German infantry group had a light MG34/42 permanently assigned to it. Therefore, the German squad has a slightly higher range and a little more (blue cube) firepower.
The NKVD group had primarily submachine guns and is therefore extremely strong at short range. The German heavy machine gun is a squad that has a longer range and a much greater effect due to the lafetted weapon.
-
:bigthumb: