You view the term "eurogame" as a pejorative; I don't. Again, it really boils down to what we mean by the terms, and there's clearly little agreement on that.


That's summarizes it nicely. And it also highlights the difference with CC, which captures nothing but chaos in rules that feel far more "pasted on" (it's really just a card game) than those of CoH.

Yes, there are many ways to define a eurogame, and just about any definitive trait of a eurogame you can find in some other genre of games.

CoH, for me though, is reminiscent of all the things I really like about eurogames - from the quality of the components to how the game plays.

It also has the things I like about ameritrash and wargames - as in a very rich theme, and a complexity that provides depth and variety.

Regardless of what fits in what genre, CoH gives me the majority of traits that I enjoy in all the genres that I've played, and that is why I love it and play it so much.

Absolutely.

On average, I'm twice as likely to like an Ameri-game or a Brit-game as a Euro-game.

Phil.

What would be considered a "Brit-game"? I haven't heard that term before.

Although I agree that CoH's theme is very clear and an integral part of the design, I also think that its simulation value is clearly lower than other WWII tactical wargames around.



Why do you keep on using the same false argument over an over again?

Could you please at least provide some kind of base for that type of categorical statement?

I used the term Brit-game to differentiate from Euro-games. Games Workshop, Warfrog (Martin Wallace), Surprised Stare games etc etc.

Euro-games in general (and German games in particular... ask Moritz Eggert), tend to avoid aspects of conflict or agressiveness. They 'tend' to be about trading, building, collecting, excavating etc. Though not exclusively so, obviously, so please don't send examples that disprove a rule cos I'm stating a trend, not a rule.

Brit-games tend to straddle the genres of Ameritrash (an awful and demeaning description for mostly great games if you leave out MB, Parker Bros etc) and what is generally understood as Eurogames.

Phil.

Thanks Phil, that gives me a good idea. I have a Martin Wallace game (Empires of the Ancient World) and always wondered what "category" it would fit in, as it seemed to have a bit too much conflict to fit into the typical euro-game category, and seemed too abstract to be "Ameritrash" (a term I use lovingly, although I can understand why others are bothered by it.)

I'm starting to dislike the categorization of games, as the lines seem to be getting blurrier and blurrier lately as smart game designers are seeing ways to pick out the best parts of multiple genres to produce really superb games.

I have to laugh every time I see the "What constitutes a Card-Driven Game" debate come up again - people really get their knickers in a knot if you call something like Battlelore or Combat Commander card driven, even when the cards are what is driving the action.

What about the TANKS? oh nevermind

That depends upon how you understand simulation value. The tactical wargame displaying squads and platoons is flawed per se as no commander could have the level of control, communication and information displayed in the games. Also I found that the more complex rules of a game are, the more gamey a system can get. While ASL for example may accurately portray what happens when a 75LL round fired from 500m hits the side armor of a Churchill tank, there's also a lot going in the game which - if happening in reality - is simply absurd, therefore lowering the game's "simulational value". CoH is a rather simple game, where you can apply the 4Fs and be successful game-wise. (The 4Fs: Find 'em, Fix 'em, Flank 'em, Finish 'em. WWII combat tactic.) As another example it also pretty neatly portrays that squads can react very differently to incoming fire and not the same suppression-rout-elimination routine over and over again. This in my eyes is "simulational value".


Yeah, that's what I admit to in my post. Still ...
is clearly a wrong statement. CoH does not abstracts its theme, it simplifies the rules, but the theme is very apparent in the game's design. Theme is brough to live by Better: A game's atmosphere is set up by rules (no matter how complex they are). In eurogames, theme is only a means of giving flavor to the game's clean-cut rule system, e.g. Agricola is not a farming sim, it's a worker placement/variable player power game with a farming setting.

I partly agree with this, although some games such as CoH or CC have brought some innovative mechanics to reflect the lack of control and communicaton that was missing in previous wargames.



I also feel that ASL is a rather poor simulaton given the ridiculously high level of attention paid to the smallest details.



You're right. But when you come down to how those 4Fs work in practise, the game seems to have plenty of unreal and gamey tactics: It is incredibly easy to hit enemy units given the low morale of many units and the incredibly high firepower of some (such as German LMGs), op fire can only be used to fire at a single hex and renders the firing unit "used" for the rest of the turn, red FP units can support blue FP units when attacking armored units (even at long range), close combat is not simultaneous, the fixed end of each scenario opens the door to "end of the world" tactics, etc., etc.



Damage chits are a nice idea. The problem is that IMHO that kind of system gives way to all sorts of random results that have little to do with good strategy and lots to do with pure luck.

Edited for typos

I think you're using a different meaning of the term "abstraction". I'm using it in the modern, technical sense.

It certainly does. Know this: the complexity of modern tactical combat taken as a whole defies analysis. The hope that you can gain something from a system that is jejune rather than simple is illusory. Its not going to happen.



Nighttime attacks are sometimes successful, and this is usually because the attackers know what they are doing, despite a near-total lack of "control, communication and information". Also the player of the game is able to fully portray his mistakes in a manner that the real-world situation would disallow. It is better to say that control in combat doesn't exist at this level. If so, who should decide what squads do? A combination of the player and enemy fire would seem to suffice.



The designer of CoH has found that if you don't know what you are talking about on a public forum, it shows. Educating him has been rather expensive for the rest of you.



A criticism of CoH that doesn't apply to ASL is that the game could be improved by changing the numbers on the countersheets, but there's no point wasting extra money on the buyers since few of them are likely to realise any benefit.