What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

Egg Shen wrote: All those choices to place your workers don't mean shit. As the game progresses you feel more pressure to accomplish a little bit of everything...it's just frustrating.

Well said, I agree completely.

The only way I play Agricola anymore is the solo version on the iOS app, because it turns Agricola into a single-player efficiency puzzle, which is probably what it was designed to be in the first place. The solo version is a lot of fun. It's played over successive rounds with increasingly difficult point goals (starting at 50 and going up from there). You get to keep one occupation card when you beat a round, which gives it almost a role-playing "leveling up" feel.

Sagrilarus wrote: It seems to me that concealment of some sort needs to be present in this level of game to present any sort of reality. I don't know what level of that is available in full ASL and four kids this time of year means I'll have a devil of a time reading up on it.

This came up in my tutorial with Andy where I have one demolition charge to use, and I asked if its location is apparent to my opponent. The answer was yes (at least with Starter Kit rules) which turns the demolition charge into more of a scarlet letter than anything else. Something that fits into a small backpack becomes half the game. Whichever unit carries it becomes the primary focus of all defensive efforts for good reason. It becomes the queen on the board.

Three inverted chits, two blank and one demolition charge, each placed on different units would seem to be a better reflection of reality (which appears to be a primary goal of the game) and would result in a need to treat all units as equal threats. It's cardboard so you can't expect it to be perfect (and even "good" is likely an impossible goal) but that would seem to be a remarkably simple solution to the problem. This is a small piece of equipment, not a unit.

Are there any tactical games where the two sides receive their scenario information from two different sheets, in order to maintain some level of unknown regarding the enemy strength and configuration? Granted the map setup would give away a lot, but that would fit a little better to the concept of ConSim. Something as simple as not knowing how many or when would seem to really add a layer of uh-oh to the game.

By the way I haven't played Combat Commander so I'm a spectator on that part of the conversation.

I spent several years playing Star Fleet Battles which is similar in concept and arguably as complex as full ASL. A lot of rules and permutations, but the real challenge was the black-box nature of your opponents. You could see there was a Federation Cruiser coming at you and read his direction and speed, but his options on internal configuration meant that he was a potential threat from 20 hexes out even though he might be set up to hit you twice as hard but only from four. You had to be really cagey coming in, especially if there were three of them in a line. Any attempt at procedural solution went away because it was about the read as much as about the rules. That really softened the ground under your feet.

ASL SK1 just isn't grabbing me, and I'm beginning to suspect it's because the lack of that unknown aspect. I feel like everything is apparent to me, and I should spend the hour it takes to make the technically most correct move. (I.e., it takes me an hour because my head is in the rule book each move trying to find the four places that apply to each situation.) The rules are much more the game than they are a framework.

S.

Obviously I utterly disagree with this. The rules are NOT the game they are the framework which makes the game operate as a sandbox. There IS concealment, as I have explained in a previous post, BUT for ASLSK to be workable in all of its massive 12 pages of rules, 2 of which are cover sheets, they elected to leave out concealment, whereby you have no idea what is in a stack. I am playing with concealment at the moment and it is quite nerve wracking. Using your guns and what not blows your concealment but it is possible to recover it back again in buildings and stuff and even exchange things like flame throwers and demolition charges between squads if you want. Invariably, there are about 50 more important other things to worry about in a real game, concealment and swapping gear is very low on the priority list. There are NOT technically correct moves, there are moves that have a better probability of you not dying. ASL is not chess. It is, however, hierarchical you don't dive into 25 squad games without first being able to handle three of them effectively. You aren't going to win an ASL game by memorising typical situations (as in chess), they aren't going to come up. Saying this does not alleviate the steep learning curve of learning to fire at the right time and working out how not walk out, into the open, in front of armed and dangerous men.

In one of the current games, we've had people getting lost in sewers and popping up, wondering which direction is North. We've had a guy on the second floor shooting every fucker that moves with a HMG until he mistakenly tried to shoot at shadows, allowing people to run out in the open while he is busy shooting at nothing. We've had, previously entirely hidden, guys pop out of nowhere and start shooting and we've had guys panic in the smoke they just laid, causing them to start shooting each other rather than the enemy. Everything covered by the rules, proving once again that contact with the enemy can cause all sorts of things to happen. Planning is still essential but so is thinking on your feet when your meticulous plan doesn't quite pan out.

The queen on the board is because we had a grand total of 4 pieces with no concealment. Of course it becomes a queen. When it's hidden and you have 23 other priorities it is not something you worry about. ASL does an excellent job of concealment and hidden units which allows playability without going to the time consuming ridiculousness of double blind refereed games.

Well, that answers my question, doesn't it? There is indeed stealth elements in the bigger rule set. You had indicated that wasn't the case when I asked earlier, making a reference to Close Combat (presumably only) having it. That really surprised me. If the confusion was me using the term "stealth" and it having a specific definition in the rules instead of some other term that hasn't been codified that's fair enough.

Edit -- Just looked it up, "stealth" has a defined meaning in the game. I stepped on a mine apparently, how fitting.

There's a photo up on BGG's hot list right now showing a big map with a lot of units on it for ASLSK1. That situation is chaotic enough that you'll spend an hour per turn just getting through all your guys. In that situation I could see there not being an identifiable "right" way just because there are so doggone many ways to go, and you'd have a huge array of pick-your-poison options to pull from.

And if equipment is hide-able (trying to not land on a reserved word) then I'm a little more optimistic about the game. I was under the impression you were saying it wasn't, something that is the case in SK1.

S.

Finally got around to taking Death Angel for a spin after owning it for straight up four years. My guys were all dead by the time they got to the third location in a solo game. Yup, that's Space Hulk alright. Was it me, or was that rule book more convoluted than it actually needed to be. Game's pretty simple, but it sure didn't seem like it from the book.

Crap, now I want all the expansion stuff.

Chaz wrote: Finally got around to taking Death Angel for a spin after owning it for straight up four years. My guys were all dead by the time they got to the third location in a solo game. Yup, that's Space Hulk alright. Was it me, or was that rule book more convoluted than it actually needed to be. Game's pretty simple, but it sure didn't seem like it from the book.

Crap, now I want all the expansion stuff.

Yeah, I hated that rulebook. The rulebook alone actually sort of killed the fun of the game for me, because there are some passages in those rules where I really could not figure out what they were trying to say.

I've never played ASL, but from what I've heard, talked to, etc... is that it's more a fun game than a realistic simulation.

It's fun due to the turn order, the ability to do anything (so sandbox-y)... it's not a realistic simulation, because while it simulates a lot of factor and even has concealment, its simulation model doesn't necessarily result in historical behavior.

Wowee. Lots of defending this game from people who've never played it. Anyway.

A consim game does not have to repeat the historical results of the particular battle in order to be a sim. It only has to have the ability to do so if the same choices were made and the same random events happen. "It's more of a fun game" reveals, more than anything, that you have never played it.

It is a mind bending game of huge complexity that requires constant thought and application to achieve reasonable results. An experienced player will beat you because he has better strategy not because he knows the rules better (although that will be the case early on). There is no better game simulation on the market than ASL and it took decades to get to this position with thousands of play tested games. ASL realises that most battles are not balanced so to achieve ahistorical balance every scenario has an option where an advantage can be given to either player for the sake of balance due to experience in the game or ahistoricity. In the end, a fine balance is drawn between game playing and simulation to such an extent that it is, easily, the most played tactical sim on the planet.

I entirely disagree with you from the perspective of an actual player, it's representation of historical events is uncanny. Of course it does not give historical results every time but that is not what a sim is, given the vagaries and randomness of tactical level combat.

Should you want to learn how to play, I have very many tutorial scenarios and would be happy to teach you via VASSAL and PBEM. It works amazingly well with this format allowing you to take it at your own pace. You can be taught as a total beginner (never read the rules) or as someone who has read rules but doesn't grok them or as a returnee to the game. The game covers small arms tactics all over the world from the Pacific theatre to the European theatre, even extending to the Spanish Civil War and Korea. All you need is patience and lots of time to think. This is why PBEM is good for beginners, allowing them time to think and apply instead of being under time pressure. I'm basically encouraging AP for beginners.....

I don't know, a friend who's a big ASL player sort of agree with me. That you can throw smoke grenade or ram a building to kill soldiers on the second floor, doesn't mean it's done with enough frequency to have their own rules so players are using them much more than what historically happened. You have loads of options, yes, the thick rule book almost guarantee every eventualities. But does soldiers at that time realize that they have all those options? It allows for fun, and sometimes wacky games, even.

ASL simulates the hardware. It doesn't give the same attention to the software.

Sure there are scenario-specific limitations (or even self-imposed limitations), but that's more overhead on what already a complex game.

Thanks for the offer. That particular friend also made the same offer, but right now I'm satisfied with the BoB system, which is, admittedly, less visceral, and thus less "fun".

Sagrilarus wrote: Well, that answers my question, doesn't it? There is indeed stealth elements in the bigger rule set. You had indicated that wasn't the case when I asked earlier, making a reference to Close Combat (presumably only) having it. That really surprised me. If the confusion was me using the term "stealth" and it having a specific definition in the rules instead of some other term that hasn't been codified that's fair enough.

Edit -- Just looked it up, "stealth" has a defined meaning in the game. I stepped on a mine apparently, how fitting.

There's a photo up on BGG's hot list right now showing a big map with a lot of units on it for ASLSK1. That situation is chaotic enough that you'll spend an hour per turn just getting through all your guys. In that situation I could see there not being an identifiable "right" way just because there are so doggone many ways to go, and you'd have a huge array of pick-your-poison options to pull from.

And if equipment is hide-able (trying to not land on a reserved word) then I'm a little more optimistic about the game. I was under the impression you were saying it wasn't, something that is the case in SK1.

S.

Passing equipment between stacks of chits, is something you are not going to have time to do. While you are messing around trying to get your squads in the same place to actually do this, you will have been shot. Stacking is generally bad. All chits are hidden in a stack anyway unless you fire from that stack at which point the stack is visible to the opponent. Stealth is the ability to enter close combat and initiate surprise giving you an advantage. Stealth and hidden units/chits are not synonyms, even outside ASL, so it isn't really surprising that I would take your question literally.

I guess they could rewrite the rulebook and take out all abbreviations, acronyms etc Probably double the size of it and, seeings as people don't read it already, it would seem to be a waste of everyone's time. The fact is the ASL rulebook actually WAS devised and play tested with non ASL players, not a tiny group of elitists, as you seem to think. The objective was never to hold a beginner's hand it was to be concise and precise. It is. It even has loads of detailed play examples in it, but of course, you actually have to read it, in order to then understand the point. Like I have said many times, I learned ASL from the rule book alone and I really didn't see a problem with that and I am not even smart. Then again, I am used to big rule sets, being a war gamer, probably why I despise Euros so much.

Yes, yes I have SFB in all it's glory and no, it is not the same complexity as ASL although it does have a lot of chrome. Chrome is not what makes ASL complex BTW, it is, however, a common misconception.

Sevej wrote: I don't know, a friend who's a big ASL player sort of agree with me. That you can throw smoke grenade or ram a building to kill soldiers on the second floor, doesn't mean it's done with enough frequency to have their own rules so players are using them much more than what historically happened. You have loads of options, yes, the thick rule book almost guarantee every eventualities. But does soldiers at that time realize that they have all those options? It allows for fun, and sometimes wacky games, even.

ASL simulates the hardware. It doesn't give the same attention to the software.

Sure there are scenario-specific limitations (or even self-imposed limitations), but that's more overhead on what already a complex game.

Many units cannot use smoke and those that can, risk not being able to do anything else while the dice decides if the smoke succeeds, therefore, smoke is not used all of the time. The very best elite squads can lay smoke on a 50% chance, the rest are far lower than that. If you try it all the time you WILL lose. Vehicles are a different story and ramming a building is only done by inexperienced players who don't care about losing their squads and are just in it to try to play Call of Duty on a board. It really is not like that at all. The rulebook is not applicable to every scenario, it is split into vehicles, pacific theatre, solitaire play, terrain descriptors and finally infantry. Guess which section you actually need to read? That's right, the very first section on infantry consisting of 40 sides. Yes it's a lot, but not the whole RB by any means. ASL restricts unit actions using probability. You don't shoot or smoke, just because you can, because you will attract sniper fire and possibly break the weapon from over firing. Of course, you can have wacky games as well. Depends if you treat it like Call of Duty, if you do you, will be beaten by any experienced ASLer.

Disagree with the software/hardware idea. It's not about the size of the rulebook, it's about internalising a small number of rules and making them work for you, like any other game. Jesus, scenario specific rules do not change the complexity one iota.

Here is the balance rule of an intro scenario

US: change one 8-0 leader to an 8-1 leader
German: add one 447 squad

Not really that onerous, but quite amazing what a difference those additions can make to the ease of playing that side.

With due respect, you need to play it, if you are going to criticise the internal workings of it with any degree of accuracy. I have played BoB, CC, CoH, ATL. 100% these are not sims, they are games, plain and simple. I own all of them and play them all occasionally.

Maybe someday. I used to be quite interested to ASL. I sat along a guy who was being taught by another, just because I couldn't commit to the session. I watched for 2 hours or so, and decided it wasn't for me. Playing BoB and reading Jim Krohn's notes completely obliterated my desire to play ASL.

I like BoB's approach with hard limits instead of probability-based restrictions. I also like that if it's Call-of-Duty-ish, it's not in the game. Of course, again, this means less Yays and Hoorays. I also find it to be too fixed on 4F, I read somewhere that it's more of an American late war tactics, but otherwise it suits my requirements to be a sim.

I also don't understand why you consider ASL being a "fun" game condescending. When I see big ASL maps I see fun. When I see various equipments I see fun. When I see various narrative inducing mechanics (jammed weapon, picking enemy MG) I see fun.

Introduced a friend of mine to Mage Knight last night. Went through the learning scenario, which really just scratches the surface. It was fun, although a lot of the monster tokens we ended up with on the board were simply too powerful to ever battle in the short time we had. The good news is that he liked it and is open to trying the full game some time.

Sevej wrote: Maybe someday. I used to be quite interested to ASL. I sat along a guy who was being taught by another, just because I couldn't commit to the session. I watched for 2 hours or so, and decided it wasn't for me. Playing BoB and reading Jim Krohn's notes completely obliterated my desire to play ASL.

I like BoB's approach with hard limits instead of probability-based restrictions. I also like that if it's Call-of-Duty-ish, it's not in the game. Of course, again, this means less Yays and Hoorays. I also find it to be too fixed on 4F, I read somewhere that it's more of an American late war tactics, but otherwise it suits my requirements to be a sim.

I also don't understand why you consider ASL being a "fun" game condescending. When I see big ASL maps I see fun. When I see various equipments I see fun. When I see various narrative inducing mechanics (jammed weapon, picking enemy MG) I see fun.

I'm sure the fun thing is just cultural use of language. Don't worry about it.

I think I would have been put off, watching someone else play, that is why God gave us VASL.

Played my first 'full' game of Mage Wars with my friend today. We had tried out the game in beginner mode and enjoyed it a few weeks ago, so we decided to use the same characters with the full rules. I played the Beastmaster, and my strategy was to lock his mage down and summon a bunch of creatures to beat him into submission. He played the Wizard. I was able to lock him in place with the tangleroot spell, and I summoned the grizzly bear on the space to start hammering on him, along with other monsters. He summoned big creatures of his own like the Hydra, which I was able to kill off to so I could focus on his mage. The pivotal moment occurred when my Grizzly bear attacked his mage, who revealed the Reflect Attack enchantment. At this point my buffed bear was rolling all the dice in the game (9!), so it likely would have murdered itself. However he was also dazed, so I rolled a 6 and his attack counted as a miss, and the reflect attack was wasted! We play a lot of MtG together, using the friendly sealed league system I learned from San Il Defanso, so Mage Wars feels like a bit like a fun extension of that system. Being able to actually move around with your mage and creatures is really neat and doesn't add too much in terms of rules complexity for us. My friend is excited to try out the Warlord and I'm thinking of trying out the Warlock the next time we play.