Grognard Wargamer Thread!

Especially since the 2nd edition’s example of play was taken from the 1st edition. Oops!

I’m hoping he does them in his fox persona again.

The second edition of the rulebook is better, it is still an absolute bear to get into though. I urge you to look at the rules forum for the game on BGG, it currently has 2.3k posts.

There is, however, nothing quite like it as a solo game to simulate small unit combat. It would drive Tom absolutely nuts though…

It does seem like a game where edge-case exceptions have edge-case exceptions, yes. I’ve heard people grumble that the rulebook still isn’t the most organized piece of work, which makes it hard to find the information that you need.

But for every post like that, I see people saying that the journey is worth the effort.

As someone who has made the journey I think it definitely is. Many, many people would disagree…

I agree on Fields of Fire – lousy rulebook, terrific game. I especially like the “volume of fire” mechanic. It made me think differently about how war works at a tactical level.

A post was split to a new topic: Could Japan have won World War II?

WEGO Stalingrad: WEGO World War II: Stalingrad is coming soon

For grogs in Toronto, just thought I’d post this link to a Kijiji sale that I came across as I was trawling for good board game deals. I have no affiliation with this person whatsoever, I was just impressed by the quantity of games for sale and disappointed that I could only find one regular board game in a sea of wargames ($100 for Twilight Imperium 3rd edition? Come on!)

Third World War set for 250 bucks is a bargain…

Yep45

Because of the news I’ve been thinking of A Distant Plain a lot over the last few weeks. I’m going to try to keep this as apolitical as possible but it’s always interesting for simulations in contemporary settings, representing conflicts that aren’t over yet.

I think A Distant Plain was first published in 2013 and I wonder how it bears out in light of our current situation here. I like to think it taught me a little about the conflict. I certainly learned to appreciate the FATA event in Labyrinth more because of it and hopefully that translated into a (slightly) better real world understanding. I know there are people here better equipped than I to comment on the actual conflict and how it relates to the 2013 game.

All I know is that shot is eerie. I mean, I remember watching the evacuation from Saigon, so, yeah, it hits home. Especially as I watched the 1975 event with my father, a man who served in Vietnam 1967-8, and who died in 1978 partly due to complications from wounds he received during Tet. Then, though, I had zero understanding of what it all meant.

Today? I’m not sure I have any greater understanding of what either of these two events mean. Other than that the definition of insanity is supposed to be doing the same failed thing over and over again and expecting a different result…

Had the chance over the past month to play a couple games on the big board with face-to-face opponents. In mid-July a friend visited for the week while I was off, and we played Holland '44 pretty much start-to-finish over three days.

The game never ceases to surprise me: even though I know how good it is, it seems like I should tire of it, but I never do. The bridge die rolls and the way there are really four separate “theaters” on what is not really a lot of real estate, geography-wise, makes for a different path every time. This time, I played the Allies and got a great result in Arnhem, where almost Col. Frost’s entire force made it to the bridge and set up a perimeter. Looking good! (Pictured: just-eliminated Panther!)

But down XXX Corps way, the tanks got stuck on the polder and whatnot. My friend’s deft defense (crowding Hell’s Highway JUST enough to slow me down each turn to seriously wreck my timetable) left me way behind schedule

and Gen. Gavin’s 82nd Airborne never got its act together and had to fight off counterattack after counterattack rather than taking Nijmegen bridge.

In the end, my catastrophic drop of the Polish Airborne north of the Rhine accomplished nothing except giving my opponent the final VP he needed for victory. The British 1st Airborne sacrifice was once again in vain. But it was just cardboard and they went into a nice plastic bag until next time.

Yesterday I spent an enjoyable day playing Normandy '44. (I guess I should have played them in reverse order.)

My opponent had actually never played a wargame face-to-face before, having previously only soloed. We got through three turns (including the extended Turn 1 with the D-Day invasion), with a break for lunch. I’m less satisfied with this application of the Simonitch system, and feel like it just doesn’t have the right level of chrome to keep my attention. There are 22 turns, but the advances on each turn are pretty incremental. Yeah, you have five beaches, but Gold-Juno-Sword pretty much become one thing, and while the “drive on Cherbourg” and “drive on Caen” are distinct things, the latter is like, what five hexes away? Caen was a real meatgrinder, and in the real thing, wasn’t taken until after the end of the period represented by this game. I like the “choose your reinforcements” system wherein you buy stuff from the “In Britain” box based on whether or not you have built your mulberries, rather than a historical timetable, but it all feels kinda-sorta samey. I dunno. Maybe it’s because Holland uses the same system and is so good that this feels less so.

The next big board game I want to pull out is At All Costs: Metz 1870. Need my regular opponent to come back from across the mountains, though.

Nice reports! Holland '44 sounds like an excellent game.

I have Normandy '44 on pre-order (awaiting reprint release) but have been thinking of just ditching it and going with Dark Summer instead. Any chance you’d have thoughts on which way to go here? (Or for that matter, anyone have thoughts on this?)

I mean, I’m happy to get all the Bulge games I can get my hands on, because who can get too much Bulge, right? ;) But I’d like to only have one game at the moment on Normandy.

EDIT: I’ve canceled the Normandy '44 order and gone with Dark Summer instead.

Normandy is one of those game subjects that for me really depends on the scale. At the tactical or grand-tactical level, it’s pretty great, with beach landings, air drops, tanks, gunfire support, cool terrain, all that. As you move up the level or abstraction though it gets less and less interesting. By the time you get to brigade or division level stuff the theater is rather compressed in size and the situation is just too unbalanced strategically to make for a really cool game. That, and there are not a lot of choices to make, really. The real choices were made well before the landings.

I think that’s the right choice. I haven’t played The Dark Summer yet, but I do own it and from my reading of the rules, it looks like Ted has once again designed an interesting system. I’ll find out next month as I have plans to play it with a friend.

I think the Simonitch Normandy game is fine, but as mentioned, regimental scale doesn’t usually work all that well for the campaign. I have Dark Summer, and am very interested in some of the design ideas in it, but it is mainly regimental scale as well.

I think something like the Normandy campaign works best at battalion level, but of course at that scale you are talking about a monster game. Great for some people, not viable for others.

I’m holding out for The Dark Fjord.