I have had this game for a few months now, but since I have moved, I havent had much of a chance to play it. Over Christmas my brother and I had a chance to play two rounds, so I have played 4 or 5 games total. I really want to like this game.... but we both had a few issues:

1. The game seems to end prematurely. Some of the scenarios play to 4 points, and even though a player has scored 4, I look at the board and cant realisitically decalre a "winner" without feeling cheated. Units seem pretty easy to kill, making the scoring system seem a little off.

2. It seems very, very, dependant on what cards you get as well as the dice. I had a handful of special cards and only 1 manuever card for the first 3 turns, which left me basically standing there to get run over by German tanks.

Im wondering if we are missing some of the strategy? We were both being pretty agressive....should be focus more on protecting units? Are there any tips? Do most people play with rule mods?

We are both experienced gamers, so maybe this game is a little too "light" for us? Are any of the expansions reccomended over the others to add a little more strategy and reduce the luck?

Which scenario were you playing? The scenario can make a difference to the "feel" of the game. As for units being easy to kill, yes they are - but this is true on both sides so it's often a matter of skilfully outmanoeuvring the enemy.

In other games which use this system (C&C - Command and Colors) there are often rules involving collective morale and reactions/counter-attacks. M44 kept it simple to give a fast-flowing, modern, mechanised warfare feel.


The system is governed by the cards; they represent your command and control. So yes, you could be sat there waiting to be overrun; but I doubt your cards were entirely useless.


Aggressive is usually good; but over-extending yourself can have a detrimental effect. You can pick and choose amongst the expansions, but if the basic system grates on you too much you would probably be wasting your time. Like most wargames, the expansions add in special rules and exceptions to bring the game closer to reality, however the C&C system was never intended as a direct simulation. There are rules modifications here on BGG (look in the forums for M44), but I cannot vouch for them as when I want something with more meat on the bones I tend to play something else.


Maybe it is a little light for you; but if you try playing against an experienced C&C player you may find yourself defeated quite easily. Try a different scenario, perhaps one with objectives rather than straightforward kill-scoring. Try the Eastern Front expansion for more restrictive command rules. Try the Terrain Pack for variance in the terrain types and special rules.

The game is very light, compared to other wargames. Some scenarios are unbalanced. That's the nature of this game.

You are often at the mercy of what command cards you have in your hand. In my mind I consider this to be an abstraction of the breakdown in communication during the chaos on the battlefield. Compared to other wargames, this is a major paradigm shift. You aren't the all-knowing eye in the sky who can react perfectly to whatever happens anywhere across the broad front of the battlefield. For this reason I prefer Battle Cry to Memoir '44, because it's easier for me to feel that the general in command of the battle would be in the dark about specific skirmishes in the days before radio communication and air recon.

The dice are another random element that is going to frustrate you sometimes. However, in most wargames the dice can swing fortunes one way or the other, so this is easier to accept for most people, I would think.

Because this game is driven by the cards in your hand, my best strategy advice is to work from the strength of your hand, even if it doesn't seem like the best tactical situation when looking at the battlefield. The advantage that M44 has over Battle Cry in this regard is that there are ways that many cards can be used in different ways. You're less "stuck" with "bad" cards than you would be in Battle Cry.

I don't think any of the M44 expansions will do much to help you feel like the game is more strategic or reduce the luck. You really have to approach this game with a different mindset than you do other wargames.

Very good observations. I often have the same feeling when playing Memoir. One issue the expansions would address is the #1 one in the original post (that of premature scenario ending). The Eastern Front expansion, for example, has some scenarios that are more massive (going up to 8-10 medals if I remember correctly?), and will certainly result in longer games.

Yes, Specificly the Red Barricades Factory Complex (Stalingrad), for which you need 10 medals.

There are also many player-created scenarios on the M'44 website that are long.

Finally do the new Breakthrough maps give longer game play simply because of the size of the maps.
The first of these, Breaktrough to Gembloux, (included in Memoir '44 - Campaign Bag)
requires a whopping 12 medals to win!

I think part of the problem as well, is you roll so few dice, which increases the randomization. In other more "hardcore" war games, you roll a lot dice (generally) which makes the results more predictable.

We were playing Scenario #9 I believe, it had elite German tanks and the Allies had 2 tanks in the corner, and Hill 317 with special air strike rules. I do not recall the name of the scenario.


I guess maybe this game just isnt my cup of tea. Too bad, because it looks remarkable when it is set up. I will give it a few more runs before I pass final judgement.

Another note....

Thanks for the comments all. This is my first posting and everyone here seems great. I used to game a lot in high school and earlier, but now that I am getting older (30 this year) I find myself drawn back to it. There are so many games to choose from, its hard to sift through all the information.

Any reccomendations on a light to medium tactical war game? Here is what I am looking for/not looking for:

More strategic complexity than Memoir 44

Play time less than 3 hours (ideally 90 min or less, but this may be tough)

Still tactical in nature (vs strategic ala Axis and Allies, not crazy about that game)

good fun factor and balance

does not have to be WWII theme, I am open to any theme, medieval, space, doesnt matter.

Prefer one playable by two players

For more complex tactical games, I would try Lock N Loads' games:

Lock 'N Load: Band of Heroes for WW II
Lock 'N Load: Forgotten Heroes Vietnam for Vietnam - 2nd edition/reprint is on their P500 system
Lock 'n Load: A Day of Heroes for modern combat in Somalia - Blackhawk Down
The three above all use the same system with era/unit specific rules.

World at War: Eisenbach Gap for hypothetical 1980's cold war era war of the Soviets invading Germany and tangling with American forces.

They all play within 3 hours once you learn the rules. And, once you learn one of the Lock N Load games, you can pretty much play the others and only need to learn the specific rules for that game.

Michael

Thanks a bunch for the tip. I will take a look into Lock and Load.

Has anyone played Tides of Iron? Also looked cool, I picked up the box at my game store and it seemed to weigh 40 lbs. Any other game reccomendations would be great.

You might take a look at Valor & Victory which is a FREE print and play wargame system that is much more detailed than Memoir and has excellent components.

As to your comments. Playing your cards to their best ability is a "skill" that comes with time. For instance there is basic the urge to play your bigger cards first, such as a 2 in each region. However that can be maximised by playing the other single cards to move units into position before playing the big cards.

Knowing when to use the Digging in card is a major lesson. There are many combinations you'll learn how to best use.

The short scenarios of 4 medals are some of the more tactical serious games where every move counts. There is some depth there, but of course the nature of the cards is that every now and then you will have a fairly duff hand.

I enjoy this game for what it is. But I think it could be better with an improved "manage your hand" mechanic. Something like Combat Commander where you can discard your whole hand instead of playing a card might be helpful. At times, the cards play you rather than the other way around.

TOI is more complex, but it also takes longer to play.

It's got that great toy factor too (like M44)

For me, it took a couple of games to figure out the importance of terrain effects. They have a huge impact on the game and how it plays out. Infantry can be quite tough in the forests or a city, but out in the open against a tank, in particular, is fodder.

As far as the cards go, I find that part of the challenge is dealing with what you've got. It's very satisfying when dealt what seems like a hand of lemons to end up making lemonade.

Of course, it just might not be your kind of game. I did learn to really like it over the course of several games, however, and maybe that could be the case with you too. I think the complaints about randomness are not really fair. Yes, there's randomness and luck, but a really skilled Memoir player will kick an unskilled player's butt every time.

Hey Patrick,

If you decide to get rid of your Memoir '44 game, I'm running a Memoir '44 club for 4th graders at the school I teach at...we would be happy to buy a slightly used set for cheap!

I introduced a house rule (and wife agreed so it passed :): you can once in a game change all your cards with new ones instead of acting (move/battle, etc) but you'll get minus 1 card (if you had 5, you will be able to replace them with 4 new cards - the downside: you will have only 4 cards to choose from till the end of the game).

We are not hardcore gamers and tacticians, but for us it is a good rule (since sometimes the cards in hand are not great, frustrations arise and it's not that great for this game which otherwise perfectly fits our wishes and style :).

adixor

I would highly recommend Combat Commander: Europe. It fits all your requirement, and imo is one of the best tactical wargames out there.

Well yes, it is different from the standard wargame; no tables to cross-reference, no morale checks and not a lot of accuracy because all effects of combat are dictated by that set of dice you roll. And of course unit strength is abstracted away to the number of pieces.

While the dice may be less predictable than you require, the play of a card is where the player gains back his control. This is why there are a few of us saying an experienced player will usually wipe the floor with the inexperienced opposition.


Your being an experienced gamer it shouldn't be a problem, but that scenario is towards the deep end.


Well you're probably right that M44 isn't your thing; it's certainly not designed to be anything hardcore.



You might find Napoleon's Triumph interesting; it's rather different from what we are discussing here but it might just be what you're after. It certainly fits your criteria.

I also like CC:E but since part of his frustration was having cards that did nothing for him, I think CC:E would make him more frustrated.

Thanks again to everyone for your insights.

I think I am trying to "force" myself to like this game, because the components are so cool and it is so widely regarded. How can so many gamers be wrong?


I think my problem is this:

I am a big fan of some other Euro-games, like Ticket to Ride. In TTR, I win sometimes, but not a lot. There is a lot that can happen in TTR that is beyond a players control to prevent a victory (bad tickets, getting blocked early, waiting for a specific color, etc). I am pleased with the result if I did the best I could with what I was dealt. The fact that first time players have a good chance to win is a big source of TTRs appeal in my opinion. I always try to win, but I am not dissapointed if I dont.


On the flip-side of those games, I am also a fan of abstract strategy games as well, such as Khet, Chess, Go, and Diplomacy (Even though some would call this a war strategy game, to me its more abstract strategy with a war theme). These have 0% chance and are 100% skill based. When I lose, there is usually either a specific mistake or brilliant opponent move I can point to as what caused me to lose. Even in defeat, I can find some satisfaction and learning that makes me a better player.


Wargames fall somewhere in the middle. I guess for me Memoir 44 falls too close the the Euro style of game and less towards the abstract strategy side. In every game of 44 I played, I never felt like I did much to "deserve" to win or lose. There is a very big dispairity in M 44 between the very powerful cards and the weak cards, and only rolling 1-3 dice for most rolls makes each roll very random. I feel like these elements offer a new player who has never played a war game a chance to win right off the bat. Many consider this a good thing, but its not what I wanted out of a wargame.

When I play a 2 player wargame, I want each player to have a fair opportunity to win. But I want that win to be more based in good decisions and less on luck. In most wargames, dice are used, and good and bad dice can always be a difference maker. I am ok with a certain level of randomness. But I like to have an opportunity to maximize my odds, which is a big part of what war strategy is about. (Blood Bowl is a good example of a game that is very, very random, but the better player tends to win the vast majority of times).



Im not looking for ASL complexity or length of play either, and even though it shouldnt matter to a full grown adult, I like the plastic minis better than cardboard counters. One of the things I hated about 40k (back when I played it was on 2nd edition) is the rules were so complex that often the player that knew the rules better won. Thats not a fun game, one that turns out to be an exam on how well you know the rules. I was hoping for something simple yet tactical/strategic, and I feel like they got the simple part but sacrificed too much of the strategic part.

I can understand your concerns about the random/luck factor in Memoir. The first time I read the rules it bothered me too, but then I found a nice way to reduce at least the card drawing luck a little bit. I split all the command cards in nearly two identical decks (sure, there are some 1-of's, but even these can be nicely balanced out between the two decks so that no one has a unfair advantage over the other, f.e. one player gets the barrage attack, the other the air attack card, and so on...), so that there is at least a theoretical equality in what cards you can draw, because both players have nearly the same pool at their disposal.

I play with this rule from the beginning (I just started playing Memoir in october 2008), and I am very satisfied with it - all the 15 matches I played so far were mostly very close battles, which tells me that maybe this rule adjustment helps to balance out the luck-factor (and if just for a little bit).

There's one point in your statement I can't really agree with: most of the time I didn't have the feeling that I didn't deserve the victory, because I often had to make tough decisions that could change the outcome of the battle dramatically. And very often you really need to work out the best way to play your cards and manage your ressources. For me this isn't random at all, but more a matter of skill in combination with a good sense for the game and it's rules.

And the dice? well, that's one thing you really can't change I guess ;)

I disagree about the dice comment. Rolling 2 or 3 D6, with 3 sides hitting resulting in a hit (infantry vs infantry) is very random. Without getting into the statistical analysis of it, there are better ways to handle the dice (rolling 2D6 and adding the results to get a bell curve distribution).

I dont like the fact than on attack A, I can reduce the squad by 75% (3 hits) and an identical attack B could result in nothing at all. That is a big discrepancy.

Strictly speaking, at the level of abstraction you are playing in M44, that's not an unacceptable swing. That aside, however, those dice are giving you a distribution. If each of three dice hits on three of its faces, it's essentially like rolling 3D2 (or flipping three coins). This gives a probability of scoring at least one hit of 0.875, I think. I believe it's also 0.125 for three hits or three misses. Over the course of a game, therefore, you should see roughly 85% hits coming out (disregarding terrain effects, etc).

Thus your game is one of risk management too; do you close in for the kill or sit back and harrass? Do you outflank and increase your chances of routing the enemy at the risk you may be encircled yourself? Should you sit in the protection of the woods, or chance that armoured counter-attack in the open? Any of these choices made will affect the number of dice (and kill probability) for you and your enemy.

Your math is correct.

The breakdown for 3 dice on infantry is:

1/8 = 3 hits
3/8 = 2 hits
3/8 = 1 hit
1/8 = 0 hits


There is a very big difference between the 4 results in terms of the overall affect on the game, but not a very big difference in the probabilites of that happening. (As compared to say, if you rolled 10d6, and hit on a 5 or 6, the results would be more predictable).

There is also the random nature of the flags. There is no rhyme or reason to what causes a unit to retreat, and a unit can be forced to retreat without taking losses. (generally retreating units take little or no losses, becasue some of the dice were taken up by the flags).

Ususally a retreat is actually o the benifit of the retreating player, because they get a "free" move into cover.

Dont get me wrong more predictable is not necessarily better. As I mentioned above, I am a big fan of Blood Bowl, and that game usues 1d6 for most rolls and is very random. But other than terrain or cards that give you bonus dice, there is no way to improve your odds in Memoir.

For example, you cant attack with 2 units vs 1 and roll 6 dice all at once. This seems like a pretty basic wargame staple (strength in numbers, attacking your opponents weak points) that is lost in Memoir. I have found myself in game situations where I move two tank units in on an enemy infantry unit left in the open, only to roll two flags with my first tank unit and they get to move freely back to cover.

Sounds like a wise decision on the part of the infantry unit's commander - tough luck. Those two flags are very unlikely though. While retreats can often be beneficial they usually aren't.

As for rolling two attacks together; I can come up with several thematic reasons behind it. I just don't think it's worth reasoning; it's just one of those little rules foibles that irritates us all from time to time.

If possible, you have to plan your attack taking into account the possible retreat after the 1st combat. Again, when possible, I avoid attacking with both units from the front, if one of them can attack from behind then I resolve the front combat first, and then the other unit will be able to continue the attack even if the enemy has just retreated.

I think this reflects the need of coordinating a multiple unit attack in a very schematic but simple way. You may not be used to it because more traditional games don't require you to do it, but here the game does, so you have to learn how to optimize your chances with the rules as they have been designed.

I am playing with my 8 yo kid, and he often throws the dice without specifying which unit attacks which, he has yet to understand that, in this game, choosing the attack order is a very important part of the attack. Sometimes you can minimize the chances of the last ordered unit not having an enemy at range when its attack turn arrives.