In most card games, there's an occasional run of luck that hands a win to one player or the other. In the very first game of Up Front I ever played, I drew a few terrific Fire cards and won in about three turns. Despite this, Up Front is a skill-heavy game, as is clear from the WBC results over the years (see the link http://www.boardgamers.org/yearbook/upfpge.htm).

As long as a game isn't too long, the fact that there will be an occasional blow-out isn't a huge problem. This also happens in Bridge, Poker, Backgammon and many other cards games. Just deal out another hand and play again.

I really wanted to like this game. The components are nice, the design is visually interesting, and the general idea seems pretty cool, but when I tried to play it, I felt ineffectual. Yes, I know what people have said about the fog and stupidity of war, but it didn't give me what I wanted in this game. Perhaps further plays will reveal the correct tempo and strategy to make the game shine, but for the moment, I'm a bit underwhelmed.

I usually hate game that are too random but I love CC, maybe I've not played it enough to get too frustrated with it's randomness. But it's very quick and it's gives me the felling of having to think on my feet and adapt to the changing situation - I'm guessing, in the types of fire fights this game is trying to simulate neither side would have a clue what they were up against and the cards create this atmosphere

As someone else mentioned, it's quick enough to re-start if you do get an unusual good/bad run of cards.

This is always happening to me; on the other hand when I win it's always down to my innate skill!


p.s.What do you mean by 'Access' cards?

Heh! That's ASL slang, veeeery hard to remove!
I used the term "failure to rout" in a CC forum some days ago...
Some habits... you know.

What you express is common with card-driven wargames (CDG). There are many similar posts with respect to Memoir 44, for example.

I understand what proponents are saying. That is, it is the true nature of battle such that unplanned for events will crop up. That, this is part and parcel of tactical combat.

What I think proponents of CDGs tend not to accept, is that due to the randomness of the card deck, it makes planning almost useless. Take for example, Memoir 44. If I only have cards for the right and centre, thus modeling that there is some communication problem on my left, I can't adjust my tactics toward the right and centre nor can I try to "fix" anything on the left. The reason is because it is in fact totally random. A few moments later, suddenly I will have the exact same problem on my right.

This makes any sort of planning and tactics basically meaningless. A game then devolves into a series of turn-by-turn reactions. And, although we are all aware of the nature of fog of war in reality, yet military command colleges all over the world have not closed down. The military at all levels still plans. There seems to be a disconnect between the notions of fog of war and how CDGs try to show it.

Another point is that these seemingly weird behaviours on the battlefield are totally disconnected from what is going on on the battlefield. Yes, to you the player, the commander, it seems there is no reason why that brigade of tanks is just sitting there, but that brigade's commander has a reason related to what is going on. But, in the game we know that it is really an entirely random occurence.

This leads to very odd situations on the game table where, for example, three armoured groups are just sitting there in the open next to an enemy gun emplacement being picked off one by one and not reacting. Yes, CDG enthusiats will come up with many possible metareasons for this. But, it still doesn't feel right. The player rightly thinks he just drew an unlucky set of cards and not that he was out-fought or out-gamed.

Poker was cited as an example. We know that Poker is a game of skill but also depends on a lucky initial draw of cards. If you watch Poker on television, you more often than not see players just toss in their initial hand, judging it unplayable. Keeping with the analogy, that doesn't wash for even a simple wargame.
.

Hey...if anyone has any move cards, please send out a pa-TROLL!

I really want to but I don't have that card.
.

I don' believe your victory or loss is EVER a foregone conclusion in ANY game of CC. If you think it is, then that is your own fault, not the game's. I've seen games where victory was obvious and certain changed to loss at the last minute. I've seen games where it really didn't seem possible you could win and it happens. What most affects that, I think, is what has been called "player morale." I'm sorry if you were withering under heavy artillery fire. But if that discouraged you, then you contributed most to your own loss.

I understand that the game is not for everyone and that its game mechanics may mean things happen that don't appear to be historically plausible or realistic. It is a game, after all. But don't say it's not a simulation when it clearly does simulate infantry tactical combat. Some details may be more abstracted than other games (or or more detailed than other games) but that is just a level within the category of simulation.

My problem is not that people don't like the game. It's that they think after only a handful of plays, they've exhausted it's play and seem to know everything about it. If you don't like it after a few plays, that's entirely fair. If the game just doesn't grab you, there's nothing wrong with that. But don't so easily dismiss the opinions of those who have developed a love for the game after many, many plays.

I guess the reason this does not "cut the legs from under the CC apologist camp" is that we in that camp like it as a game.

(I would prefer the term "CC-liker" or even "CC-lover"to the term "CC apologist" myself, as I dont think Combat Comander has anything to apologise, but regardless of what we call it, I think I am part of that camp.)

Personally I have never been in combat and cant tell whether it is a simulation or not but I have played many games, and I know for sure Combat commander is one of the most enjoyable one I have ever played.

(And while talking about simulation: Smulation can probably be defined in many ways, and I would be very suprised if Combat Commander was not a simulation of combat according to some of those definitions. On the other hand, I dont doubt that it is not by your choosen definition, whatever that is. But whther or not it is is not important for how I like it as a game.)

That's why I reported my feelings and level of enjoyment. I'm not sure yet I enjoy it as a game and I'm surprised that this is the case.



I was being deliberately snippy and provocative. Again I'm not unsympathetic to a game that calls into question tactical combat games that come to be about obsessive optimizing. (ASL question: Why would you CE an immobilized vehicle whose main armament is broken? A: to draw off an enemy sniper, of course). Over the years players have suggested that ASL be played on a clock. Though this is a great idea I have never seen or even heard of this being done. Part of the pleasure for ASL players is learning new rules and looking up things in charts. Putting it on the clock would do away with this part of the game's unwritten creative agenda. I respect CC's elegant timing mechanisms and can even swallow quite a lot of things that other players initially seem to have trouble dealing with (walking wounded, booby traps, etc. BUT, see below...



That's cool. You and I don't share the same level of enjoyment. Or I'm still trying to figure out how much more effort to put into a game that scolded both me and my opponent to an inordinate degree.



I'm a military language trainer for a western European army. I have a tiny part in division-level CPXs run by NATO. The military, in my mind, conducts simulations to teach particular lessons. In my environment, these simulations serve to teach our staff how to do its work efficiently under significant time pressure. At a certain point, realism is unknowable. An arbitrary simulation is unloved but the work still gets done, because doing that work is the whole point of the exercise.

Unlike you, I am surprised by claims that CC is a simulation. I believe the designer has already expressed himself on the matter as well (in favor of simulation). What are you simulating for? is always the question I would put. If the answer is "chaos in combat" then one could also simulate this by playing 52 pickup with the cards.

Again, I'm responding to CC as a game which is also an interesting critique of a well-established and rather contentious genre. The designer sometimes shows what I take to be right-thinking prejudices, but prejudices all the same. From the Introduction: "EVENTS, both good and bad, will occur at random intervals to add a bit of chaos and uncertainty to each player's perfect plan."

"...a bit of chaos..." or a damn sight more than that!

"...each player's perfect plan." This is a scolding assumption. I rarely play tactical games (or simulations) with anyone who wouldn't go along with Patton's often cited observation that "A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow." I don't optimize my play to come up with perfect plans and neither do my opponents. We passed that level of sophistication a long time and many games ago. We do come up with seemingly workable plans, which may or may not come off.

As another poster mentioned, the more arbitrary and powerful certain events can become the less the stakes are for planning.

I'm not sure you read my review very carefully. Or if you did you're not understanding it. I never imagined that victory was a foregone conclusion. As for player morale, let me ask you this: If a player has no more units to play with, can something called 'player morale' even be said to exist?

Really what I'm talking about is the question of enjoyment for both players. Since the same situation happened in consecutive games, my opponent and I talked a lot about how we didn't feel like participants in our own victory. The fact that one player gets hosed is sometimes funny. This is why people blame the dice or the cards. Dice and cards are there to take the heat. But I take no pleasure in hosing an opponent to an extent that I am handed a victory that required no imagination or mental effort on my part or any particular mistake on his. Remember, I take my situation at this point to be atypical. (I've played face to face four times and twice by VASSAL).



Let me be clear: as far as I understand simulations, Close Combat Clearly Does Not Simulate Infantry Combat. But who cares about this question really? It is an immersive game that makes the argument "Combat is more chaotic than envisaged by the philosophy of ASL/PanzerBlitz/whatever tactical game" and I think game play is allowed to go to extremes to make this argument.



Now I'm certain that you didn't take in the drift of my review. I didn't dismiss the opinions of those who love the game. I did, however, provoke them. These two aren't remotely the same thing.

Sorry. With my jargon-filled day job sometimes I simply can't bother to sort out the right terminology. One interesting aspect of CC for me is my setup behavior. I pretty much task-organize like I do in ASL. (I think task organization is rewarded by the game). One very nice aspect of CC cards is that they reward "correct" placement of machine guns, allowing for suppressing fire events. I suspect, however, that more experienced CC players have different setup behaviors.

How about: "Combat with chaos in it"? I feel that while I can easily see the chaos while playing 52 pickup with the cards, I have a hard time seeing the combat. I can, however, see the combat while I play combat commander.



Every tactical game I am aware of has enough randomness to prevent perfect plans to work. Combat Commander has a bit more of it than most other games I am aware of, and that is probly what he means to say in the introduction, which is perhaps a bit more bragging than it should be. It is sales talk, dont read to much into it.



The events in Combat Commander is indeed powerfull, but it must not be forgotten that the game also also gives a player the ability to short term plan (hand management) and long term planning (what to do to win the scenario). Both of these have a powerfull effect on the outcome of the game. So if we consider not only the power of the events, but instead compare the power of the events to the power of planning, we may find that Combat Commander is not to bad in this respect.

(Events like the one you described, which totally dominate the outcome is, in my experience, rare, but do happen.)

My impressions after a few plays is that Combat Commander is as much a simulation of WWII infantry tactics as Manoeuvre is of Napoleonic battlefield command, with a significant additional rules burden. I like Manoeuvre and will keep it; I'm planning on selling off Combat Commander: Europe.

I played both ASL and CC:E and I find CC:E more fun to play and less taxing (less rules, more surprises). We play games for fun in the first place right? And as long as I'm having fun, then I have no problem with the game.

But what I really like about CC's mechanics compared to ASL is that when you replay the same scenario again, the story may be completely different. More "colorful" and varied than ASL if you ask me.

The general planning is still there (which objectives to take, where to deploy and concentrate troops). But the game puts more emphasis on how you cope with the changing environment.

Yes, but no board game simulates infantry combat. In all of them (unless you're talking about double-blind refereed games), players have far too much knowledge of the situation and far too much control.

However, if we're allowing "simulation" to be used for any WWI infantry board games, then for what it's worth, the designer opted for a card-driven method to "simulate" the chaos of this level of battle, and a few players who've been in combat have said here on BGG that they find it reasonable. Not ever having been there myself, I can't fairly judge it on that level (though I'll unfairly do so and say that it seems to simulate it to me, too).

I'm not taking you to task for not liking the game; there are plenty of popular games that do nothing whatsoever for me but I just don't like them for one reason or another, and I certainly recognize that the level of chaos isn't for everyone. Heck, given the amount I enjoy Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph, I'm surprised at how much I do enjoy CC, what with all the inherent chaos. It's not for everyone, though, and I'm also happy that most tactical wargames aren't this chaotic; I think I'd stop playing them. I do enjoy having one on the shelf, though, that plays like "Band of Brothers" or "Saving Private Ryan".

I don't think any of us need your sympathy.

-A "CC:E-liker"

No, I got the drift. Words like "provoke" make me reiterate my request that we send out a pa-TROLL.

Harald, just as an aside, the word "apologist" doesn't mean "apologize" as in "say you're sorry." It's from the Greek "apologia" which means a "defense." To give an apology or be an apologist in this Classical sense means making a reasoned defense of something, not being ashamed or "apologizing" for it.

Language lecture mode off.

According to my "Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English language", apologist means "One who make an apology or defence in speech or writing", and apology means "written or spoken expression of ones remorse or sorrow for having insulted, failed injuried or wronged another."

Webster lists other meanings too, but from this it is clear to me that apologist is a word close enough to one who apologice that I dont want to be called that.

I apologize, then.

I've always found CC to be a bit of an enigma. I own it, I've played it a number of times, I've had both interesting games and some odd games for lack of a better term. What I've always found strange is the response to CC. If this were any other game (euro, wargame etc.) it would have been written off long ago for it's often head scratching randomness. But somehow it has risen above that. Somehow this game has avoided the fate of many games in the database with relatively minor problems that become a death sentence for the game.

Most wargames have a central focus that the designer has zeroed in on as being the key element in a battle or an army or whatever. Rommel in the Desert has a strong emphasis on supply, Western Front Tank Leader puts a lot of emphasis on command and control, ASL puts a lot of emphasis on the grimmy little details, Gettysburg: Badges of Courage emphasizes command structure and leadership. You get the picture. CC however shines the spotlight on chaos in battle. Not that there isn't any, of course there is chaos and any commander will tell you it's a major determining factor in battle. It's the reason wargamers have been rolling dice since wargaming began. It's the reason wargames are shunned by many (it's got randomness, ewwwwwww ). But in the end it just seems an odd choice to hold up in front of all to see. It seems to put the game on the same level with so many other random games that we all love to hate. It leaves me wondering why I like this game much more than all those other random games. It leaves me wondering why I should like this game more than others that aren't nearly as random. But most of all it just leaves me wondering whether I like the game enough to want to play it more.

For me the more random the game... the better.
This adds to the replay and surprise factor.