Recommend me

Combat Commander: Europe - I found this game to be extremely frustrating. Yes I know units don't always do what you want them to but this game's level of chaos drove me nuts. That and it dosen't have tanks. Everytime I tried CC:E I wished I was playing ASL or Up Front instead. If there's someone in your area that's willing to teach this to you, by all means give it a try. For me it's a pass.

Commands & Colors - Best implementation of the C&C system. The combination of leaders, line commands and subject matter come together to make a fun game. When my friend and I play this we ususally end up playing 3 or 4 times. Yeah you have to sticker the blocks but it's not a big deal. And honestly, the blocks are easy to set up, use and they look great.

Here I Stand - A fantastic game but it really needs 6 to shine. Also its a bit rough for a first CDG. If you're interested in the history the game covers. then by all memeans try it. It plays relly well via e-mail if you don't have a dedicated group willing to tackle it f2f.

Conflict of Heroes - A really fun WW2 tactical level game. I give this one a big thumbs up. It incorporates a lot of gameplay without a ton of rules.

Paths of Glory - Haven't played it so I can't comment.

Successors - Another great multiplayer CDG. Just cut and past what I said about Here I stand for this one.

Hannibal - A great choice for a 2 player CDG. You would be hard pressed to find a better game to start off with.

Fields of Fire - Looks like it can be a lot of fun and really pushes the innovation factor. For a new grognard it might be a bit much to absorb. The rules and several examples of play are posted online. Check em out for yourself and see how you feel about the game. It does have the benefit of being a solitaire game.

If you ever do decide to give ASL a try, I would recommend the ASL Starter Kit #1. A lot of game for $20.

-Will

Of the tactical-level games, I've played Tide of Iron a couple times, Conflict of Heroes once (just a little bit ago, actually), and Combat Commander games four or five times. I'm absolutely no expert on real-life combat or even wargames.

Despite looking the most like a standard wargame, Combat Commander would be my pick, not on simulationist grounds but on narrative and fun grounds. This game for me does a good job of telling a story. I think it has something to do with the centrality of the named leaders. I'll admit, though, it took me a few times to come around to really liking this game, mostly due to the frustration factor that others have listed as both a pro and a con. CC also gets a big thumbs-up from me owing to its flexibility, as the game can be played either with the included scenarios or the random scenario generator.

For the OP's needs/wants, Conflict of Heroes may be marginally better, my personal preferences aside. I think I will like CoH quite a bit, and its high interactivity--well beyond that of Combat Commander--makes for a tense game experience. It also has a low-complexity ruleset taught in stages, and the system integrates armor and infantry, which, famously, CC doesn't. The counters are also top-notch, more like those for Phalax's edition of A House Divided than anything wargamey--they're closer to Carc tiles than standard counters. There's some nice variety in units, although less than more serious wargames. To me, anyway, it does feel a bit more "gamey" than CC. The use of action points and command action points make it almost like a resource-management Euro. I was annoyed on my one and only game so far that my opponent knew exactly when my German reinforcement unit was coming and when.

Tide of Iron. Phew. It's hard to know exactly what to say about this one. I own it, have Days of the Fox, and am getting Normandy because I had a good Amazon preorder and a discount certificate, but this game just does not get played because no one really wants to play it. And, really, even I would probably rather play CC or CoH, which makes it hard for me to sell it. Had it come out a couple years before it did, I think we'd be oohing and ahhing a bit more, but CC's "grittier" and CoH is simpler and more fluid. The squad bases are fiddly and may need some user modification to make the holes a bit bigger. Owing to the use of plastics, there's a relative paucity in unit variety, although specialization tokens do help somewhat with infantry. The out-of-the-box scenarios are generally regarded as poor (with an exception or two), so the new hardback scenario book is almost a must (although I think players thought the Days of the Fox North Africa scenarios were better than the base game's). Still, ToI has a pretty decent (if not ideally organized) set of rules, plays pretty well, and looks super 'trashy.

Edit: I see you're also interest in C&C:A. I'd agree that it's the meatiest and perhaps objectively the best of the C&C system, but I would also say that it's a lot fiddly, with the various units breaking the standard rules, until you get to the point of mastering the various moves, attacks, retreats, etc., of the units. I'm enjoying it a fair bit, although I had to buy a sheet of plexiglass to put over the crappy GMT cardboard board that is actually worse than a decent paper map owing to the "mountains" and "valleys" it creates along the folds. Plan to invest in a good storage system, too, like a couple of big Planos or numerous smaller ones. (There are pictures and files on BGG with the various setups.) As far as personal enjoyment goes, I would rate C&C:A a bit behind M'44 for me right now but ahead of Battle Cry and well ahead of BattleLore.

jpat wrote:

Of the tactical-level games, I've played Tide of Iron a couple times, Conflict of Heroes once (just a little bit ago, actually), and Combat Commander games four or five times. I'm absolutely no expert on real-life combat or even wargames.

Despite looking the most like a standard wargame, Combat Commander would be my pick, not on simulationist grounds but on narrative and fun grounds. This game for me does a good job of telling a story. I think it has something to do with the centrality of the named leaders. I'll admit, though, it took me a few times to come around to really liking this game, mostly due to the frustration factor that others have listed as both a pro and a con. CC also gets a big thumbs-up from me owing to its flexibility, as the game can be played either with the included scenarios or the random scenario generator.

For the OP's needs/wants, Conflict of Heroes may be marginally better, my personal preferences aside. I think I will like CoH quite a bit, and its high interactivity--well beyond that of Combat Commander--makes for a tense game experience. It also has a low-complexity ruleset taught in stages, and the system integrates armor and infantry, which, famously, CC doesn't. The counters are also top-notch, more like those for Phalax's edition of A House Divided than anything wargamey--they're closer to Carc tiles than standard counters. There's some nice variety in units, although less than more serious wargames. To me, anyway, it does feel a bit more "gamey" than CC. The use of action points and command action points make it almost like a resource-management Euro. I was annoyed on my one and only game so far that my opponent knew exactly when my German reinforcement unit was coming and when.

I agree with you about Conflict of Heroes. When things get really down to the wire a large portion of the gameplay will be on conserving those CAPs (Command Action Points) to make sure you can react/do something with a unit when your opponent can't. Trying to force your opponent to spend CAPs and possibly waste APs of units is a large portion of the game, and ultimately is gamey. I, however, don't feel it's any more gamey than Combat Commander's card play.

The crux of both CoH and CC:E is managing your resources. In the former by making the best possible use of CAPs and the latter by managing your hand. Both gamey concepts, but both fun.

CC:E has more chaos though and the inevitable frustration of not getting the card you want. I'm generally not bothered by games where your actions are dictated by cards. It can be frustrating, but their is a certain amount of tension as well. Some card based games are better than others, but CC:E is by no means bad.

Have I mentioned it doesn't have tanks, which I think is great?

And with regard to the chaos of CC:E it does have a ton of replayability due to the random objectives and the nature of the card play. Plus it has a random scenario generator.

I still like CoH better, but CC:E is great for different reasons.

Tide of Iron. Phew. It's hard to know exactly what to say about this one. I own it, have Days of the Fox, and am getting Normandy because I had a good Amazon preorder and a discount certificate, but this game just does not get played because no one really wants to play it. And, really, even I would probably rather play CC or CoH, which makes it hard for me to sell it. Had it come out a couple years before it did, I think we'd be oohing and ahhing a bit more, but CC's "grittier" and CoH is simpler and more fluid. The squad bases are fiddly and may need some user modification to make the holes a bit bigger. Owing to the use of plastics, there's a relative paucity in unit variety, although specialization tokens do help somewhat with infantry. The out-of-the-box scenarios are generally regarded as poor (with an exception or two), so the new hardback scenario book is almost a must (although I think players thought the Days of the Fox North Africa scenarios were better than the base game's). Still, ToI has a pretty decent (if not ideally organized) set of rules, plays pretty well, and looks super 'trashy.

Tide of Iron was just to simple for me. In theory I should have loved it but ultimately I didn't. The unit variety was a tad too simplistic for my tastes. I guess I just wanted something a little more historical? I don't know but I prefer the lighter tactical wargames out now such as CC:E, CoH, Panzer Grenadier, and World at War: Eisenbach Gap.

I really disliked the fact the game only shipped with six scenarios. That was really a huge mistake. I mean, how many scenarios did Descent and Doom ship with? More than 6, thats for sure. Not to mention the scenarios were sort of generic feeling.

I also felt like their was too much stuff going on. Such as getting points for objectives to be able to buy those cards and stuff. The whole thing just felt really clunky to me and inelegant with all those counters on the board next to the awesome plastic infantry.

It's not a bad game really, just not what I am looking for these days.

World at War: Eisenbach Gap is pretty cool too.

WW3, buckets of dice system, chit pull activation, etc.

Only 6 scenarios in the base game though

Fortunately the 1st expansion is pretty cheap.

Here I Stand adds a very different flavor to the mix, and plays more than two if that's a concern for you. It's really long tho . . . oh wait we're talking wargames. It's a quick play too.

Sag.