Memoir '44: to buy or not to buy?

For some reason—maybe because of a desire for light, easy-to-play World War II 'wargame' with a proven system, maybe because of little plastic army men—I am considering buying into Memoir '44. I was thinking of starting with the base game, the Eastern Front expansion, and the winter/desert board map. The question is, do I really need this?

For the Command & Colors system, I already own Abaddon and BattleLore Second Edition. For easy-to-play WWII wargames, I have Conflict of Heroes, Storm Over Stalingrad, and Band of Brothers: Ghost Panzer. For plastic army men, I got an old '80s copy of Axis & Allies (third edition) and Tide of Iron. Yet, Memoir '44 combines all these things together.

Obviously, Memoir '44 has a stupid amount of expansions, many of them expensive and pointless. But, there are a ton of scenarios available, so the game has much replay value. I am looking for recommendations for and criticisms against buying Memoir '44, hopefully your opinions can sway me one way or another.

I got persuaded to play this a couple of WBCs ago. Keep in mind, I am a wargamer so 'wargames lite' is not a 'thing' with me. Anyway, I played because they were desperate for someone to take over 'a front' (read....a board).

I hated it. It really didn't tell a story, it was stoopidly simplistic involving lots of throwing dice to get hits. I expect this in Descent but not in a 'serious' wargame/simulation (and the players tried to tell me it was a really good simulation). I rate this as worse than Risk (and that is saying something because I really hate Risk). It's trying to be miniatures lite but is definitely not for me.

Like you, I was intrigued at one point but, after playing, it is just too much of a dice fest involving very little thinking.

Given all that, this may be just what you are looking for if you want a miniatures lite style game. Just not my cup of tea.

it is the simplest iteration of the C&C system. I found it a little too simplistic personally.

I would get it only if;

i wanted to play the 6 player mega version (needs some expansions obv)

I wanted to play it completely hammered (which i don't).

Otherwise i would say most of the games you already have are better.

M'44 isn't bad, but it is the system that I don't mind. The setting I don't think came through, and since the C&C system has been translated to so many eras and theaters it is a game that is more about the system than the topic.

I sold mine years back. I'm content with just sitting on Battle Cry as my only C&C system.
If I wanted to do a light tactical WWII game I'd go with ToI personally.

ThirstyMan is obviously incorrect, because there is a 500 page strategy guide coming out for the game:

Based on the magnitude of this book I think it's reasonable to assume that Memoir '44 is simply the most nuanced, detailed play in wargaming history, and that it will take you years (if not decades) to master.

My recommendation is this -- get the online version and pay two bucks to play a few games against someone on the Internet. The interface is top-notch and maps to physical gameplay instead of trying to transform it into a video game. Rules are identical to the board version. Based on the other titles you listed I think you'll be done with it after an hour or two of play, but it's a cheap way to find our regardless of the result.

S.

Its a lot more about hand management actually, though the dice can be annoying, you'll find the best players online tend to win much more often than luck would dictate. It can be a problem though that its a bit "zugzwang" in that getting men into good terrain, and waiting around is often the best move, when the system itself is geared to a "light fun" level where throwing yourselves at each other is more appealing. It probably got bogged down with too many rules and expansions but the entire ruleset has quite a lot of flexibility and its fuck easy to houserule and modify, I personally liked a bit more variation in units, also just stuff like varying numbers of figures in units and some fog of war tricks I added. For what it is, its great, but its not going to satisfy anyone looking for a real wargame experience. I dont know why you would get M44 unless you specifically have tried Conflict of Heroes and Tide of Iron and felt like you wanted a more streamlined simplistic system. A lot of variation in scenario quality but again lots of ways to fix up your own and loads of user created stuff. Super cheap to play online too, and you can play against a decent enough AI (to see if you like it). the theater expansions probably a must, and I think Winter Wars and the Stalingrad map that have extra decks that add more functions are good.

I like it quite a bit, both for a bit of beginning painting project, easy to play with the wife and later kids if they're into that kind of thing.

Since I just recommended this to a friend's girlfriend to buy as a gift (and had a bang playing it), I'm in the aye camp.

The Commands & Colors system is a solid game system. Period. Some things are in your face, but it's quite actually a subtle system. Moving plastic pieces on hex board is always fun for me.

It will *not* represent WW2 warfare, but there are other games for that. I was blown when we had to "drop plastic pieces from box length height" to represent paratrooper drop.

If you are the kind of people who enjoy subtler games (such as Kingdom Builder, for example), then you can get a lot from M44.

yeah its the definitive sandbox plastic soliders game that most closely represents what most of us played as kids with those airfix plastic soldiers, a handful of dice and hand drawn grids on pieces of chipboard. You can get quite a bit out of the system if you want to put some time and effort into tweaking in or out things you miss or don't like. But the basic game system is pretty good as is.

I own a ton of Memoir '44 stuff specifically for the purpose of playing Overlord games. Overlord is pretty much the ultimate party game. 2-player is just ok. Way back when I hosted weekly gaming one friend would show up early and we'd play M'44 until others arrived. So it kind of hits that filler spot for me. I'm not that excited about the commands & colors system but if you already dig it, why not? The base game is super simplistic but the expansions add some rules depth that makes it a little closer to Ancients.

M44 campaigns are the best time I've had with a C&C game. M44 individual scenarios are the worst.

It's only worth buying into if you're prepared to buy a lot of expansions. I'm not even sure the campaign books are still in print. Otherwise, stick with Ancients.

I like M44 for its simplicity. I've always felt that the C&C system was just as much about hand management as tactics, and a bunch of extra rules (BattleLore, Ancients) never felt to me like it gave the game any greater tactical depth. It's completely possible that I haven't played the C&C games enough to experience all the great tactical depth that I keep hearing about, but in the meantime I'll take M44 over the other C&C games.

You don't need to buy a bunch of expansions either. There's quite a bit of game in the base box, and if you really dig it you can pick and choose the expansions that add stuff that seems interesting. I only have the base game with Eastern Front and the Winter/Desert Map pack, and there are many hours of game play there.

Matt, what's so bad about the individual scenarios?

wadenels wrote: Matt, what's so bad about the individual scenarios?

Essentially, the base game ones are all too short/small. In virtually every case, they play out as tit for tat unit exchange, and it comes down to whoever gets lucky with the card or dice to grab the last flag. There's no time or space to maneuver, or gain an edge. It's fun enough for the first few plays, but gets boring really quickly.

The longer Eastern Front scenarios with more stars are a huge improvement. I've had a great time with those. And playing linked scenarios into a campaign is even better. When you've got more stars and more troops on the board I totally get what you're saying about its strength being its simplicity. But, as I said, it needs expansions to shine. Generally, the more the better - I'd say Eastern Front, Terrain Pack, Air Pack, Campaign Book 1 and Winter Board.

I guess you could get a flavour with that free D-Day Campaign. I'd forgotten about that - could be worth a try for the OP.

It's my second most-played game after Twilight Struggle (~60 games) so it's possibly just over-familiarity. But I just won't play those base game scenarios any more. And I don't remember thinking any of them were that good in the first place.

MattDP wrote: There's no time or space to maneuver, or gain an edge. It's fun enough for the first few plays, but gets boring really quickly.

My son and I have revamped the victory conditions in Ancients, making them more based on a traditional ancient outcome of rolling up a flank or chasing enough units off the field of battle. As far as I'm concerned the entire C&C line suffers from kill-five-first syndrome which has little if any connection to the battles it purports to simulate. You win battles in real life by taking and holding ground. Last time we played my boy said, "I hope you have steak in your baggage train, because I'm eating your dinner tonight." He had my entire left rolled back behind my center, and that's what a win looks like. Little fucker raked the entire front lawn the next day.

S.

Sagrilarus wrote: As far as I'm concerned the entire C&C line suffers from kill-five-first syndrome which has little if any connection to the battles it purports to simulate. You win battles in real life by taking and holding ground.

Indeed. And I forgot to mention that the scenario designers in M44 seemed to learn this iteratively as expansions came out. Many of the expansion scenarios give you bonus stars for taking and holding terrain features. And in the longer ones, those become enormously important and usually swing the game. The result is a simplistic but passable feature of real battles.

It's a far bigger issue in M44 than Ancients IMO. In the latter, you can kind of imagine how gradual losses would eventually lead to a morale collapse and a rout, as was the case in many historical battles. By the time of WW2, better training and command structure meant that just wasn't the case any more.

I haven't played enough CC:N to know if it's an issue there. Historically it ought to fall somewhere in between the two.

CC:N does have the kill 5 then home for wine and cheese problem, however some of the scenarios in the base game have objective hexes and the expansions up this quite a bit. So it becomes less about losses and more about map control.