Game: DAK2

Thread: Re: VASSAL module map?

22GCT_Cook — 2008-11-22T19:55:34+00:00

It worked for me too!
Thx Ryan!

Image

Runes — 2008-11-08T16:27:55+00:00

Operation Compass is about to start

Thread: Re: Reprint

b5mith — 2008-10-30T12:45:59+00:00

Don't worry Immanuel, one of my copies will be up on sale for 700 Euros shortly.

Thread: Re: Reprint

mikeb13603 — 2008-10-30T08:59:57+00:00

if you are looking on ebay and all that, remember there's not much difference between DAK and DAK2 (and all the changes are documented thoroughly in the DAK2 rulebook, which is on the web somewhere), so you can easily bring DAK up to the DAK2 standards.

Mike

Thread: Re: Reprint

tppytel — 2008-10-29T15:49:58+00:00

According to Brian from MMP, it's extremely unlikely. DAK2 was itself a reprint of the original DAK and took a very long time to sell out, even after fire sales where it listed for only $70. Given the game's size, it's a very expensive print run, so it would end up being a lot of money sitting on a shelf. If MMP ever decides to reprint this one, it's going to be years from now when there's enough new demand.

Thread: Reprint

Bondservant — 2008-10-29T15:36:45+00:00

Will this game every be reprinted?

Thread: Re: Red Triangles near Sollum

mikeb13603 — 2008-09-26T09:04:30+00:00

They are mentioned in the optional rule on escarpments (?). Rule 6.something. So feel free to ignore them.

Mike

Thread: Re: How to setup

Xenophon — 2008-07-20T17:31:30+00:00

Thank you for your help

I hope/believe every minute spent in setup is worth it.
I am also playing World in Flames with all expansion availible, so I have my experience with "setup patience"

T.

Thread: Re: How to setup

LordStrabo — 2008-07-20T12:21:56+00:00

Yes. "w/i [a number] [named hex]" mena "Within [that number of hexes] of [named hex]."

Another answer to the question of 'How do you set up DAK' is: 'With great patience'.

Thread: How to setup

Xenophon — 2008-07-20T11:44:22+00:00

Hello!

I wanted to play the Operation Compass scenario with a friend of mine. At one point during setup we both where not sure if it was right the way we did it.

At page 21 in DAK Vol. I is stated that some troops had to setup at w/i 1 C 35.18. We interpreded this that the troops could be deployed at hex 35.18 an every hex adjacent to it. Is this right?

Thanks a lot!

T.

Image

kiraly — 2008-07-15T09:19:02+00:00

The entire map (with RitD map for comparison).

Thread: Re: DAK2 Example of Play

skink — 2008-05-02T22:16:51+00:00

Oops - thanks very much for catching those mistakes. I've edited the offending sections to note the errors. Kudos for reading so carefully!

Thread: Re: DAK2 Example of Play

Cogust — 2008-05-02T18:39:33+00:00

Excellent session report! If this doesn't get people interested in playing OCS, then I thnk nothing will get them.

I did spot two minor mistakes in the report (I know it's nitpicking, but it would be unfortunate if such a great report couldn't be as perfect as you deserve to have it), nothing that affected the outcome though.

Both concern the 8th Hussars and the fight to first encircle Strafer Gott and then to relieve him, when the Italians attack 8th Hussars suffers a Do1 result that had them retreating SE to a low hill. This is in the ZOC of an Italian MG Batallion to the NE so the Brits would be DG by retreating ther, they could however retreat to the hex that contains 3rd Hussars as that hex isn't in a ZOC (a better Italian play would probably be to place this hex in ZOC as well to hamper any retreat from the combat).

Then the 8th Hussars overruns an Italian infantry division with 8:14 odds, this would be rounded to 1:2 as you divide both numbers by the smaller number (getting 1:1.75 which is then rounded to 1:2). In the actual combat this would probably not have mattered as the British achieved attacker surprise and rolled a high combat roll, but I'm only nitpicking here as I said.

One thing that really hampers the Italians in the early campaign game is that they are forced to keep one Corps HQ, three infanry divisions, one artillery regiment/brigade and five other units east of the line running through Alam Hammid (inclusive). In the training scenario the rule is optional and ignoring the rule will make the scenario more exciting and even than forcing the Italians to keep a major force east of the Mussolini line.

Thread: Re: Gazala scenario

bactrian5 — 2008-04-06T05:21:37+00:00

Just found this game today on a gamestore shelf! $120.00 but worth it I think, can't wait to dive in. The early war in the desert is some of the most interesting and exciting gaming I can imagine. Thanks for posting this teaser for us all.

Thread: Re: Gazala scenario

kypros — 2008-04-06T00:28:42+00:00

dcjackso wrote:

Jason, you've mentioned really liking Sicily, Burma (despite its "difference" in that supply is such a puzzle), Tunisia, Case Blue, DAK2...and probably others that I am forgetting. Are there any OCS games that you don't enjoy? Or that you perhaps enjoy much less than other OCS titles? Surely a system with so many titles must have laid an egg at some point.

-daren

Korea. I wouldn't call it an egg by any means, but it's my least favorite OCS title (something has to lose).

You left out Hube's Pocket... Another great one, IMO.

Cheers,
Jason
www.wargamedepot.com

Thread: Re: Gazala scenario

mcdeans — 2008-04-04T20:23:54+00:00

taragalinas wrote:
Had they been slightly bigger it'd been perfect.

Ummm, you did try clicking on them, right? (And make sure your browser isn't reducing them to fit.)

Thread: Re: Gazala scenario

taragalinas — 2008-04-04T19:31:27+00:00

Mike: Great session report! An easy and comfortable read. Including pictures was a great idea. Had they been slightly bigger it'd been perfect.

Jason: Sound words. I agree completely. Once you go OCS...

Thread: Re: Gazala scenario

dcjackso — 2008-04-04T17:57:39+00:00

Great AAR and set of commentaries, Mike and Jason. Thanks! (Oh, and Mike: great pics. We're getting spoiled now with great AAR's on BGG and consimworld that don't just have pictures, they have *really good* pictures.)

Jason, you've mentioned really liking Sicily, Burma (despite its "difference" in that supply is such a puzzle), Tunisia, Case Blue, DAK2...and probably others that I am forgetting. Are there any OCS games that you don't enjoy? Or that you perhaps enjoy much less than other OCS titles? Surely a system with so many titles must have laid an egg at some point.

-daren

Thread: Re: Gazala scenario

kypros — 2008-04-04T14:33:51+00:00

mcdeans wrote:

So, after a whole 2 games of OCS, what's the jury saying? A big thumbs up, and currently my favorite game series of all time. (Second is the GMT Glory series, thanks for asking.) Long? Oh, yes. Detailed? You betcha. Worth the time spent? Absolutely!

Amen, brother. OCS has practically ruined me for other games. It's probably around 90% of my gaming time and I wouldn't mind if it were more.

mcdeans wrote:

I certainly found that attacking is hard (no sh*t, Sherlock!) and there are so many things to juggle in order to at least hope for success.

Once you get the hang of attacking, you may find that defending is harder. When you play Case Blue (Eastern front games are particularly tough in this regard due to more mobilty, generally) and have to move first in a turn, trying to defend against a possible double move by your opponent is very difficult.

Garrison, garrison, garrison! And I don't just mean sticking a single "security" unit on your HQs, trucks, SPs, etc... (but do that too) In many games it means putting top-notch Pz or motorized Divisions on key rail lines, roads, or supply entry points.

Oh, here's a nice little thing to keep in mind. Let's say you have an HQ sitting on an airbase and a large supply dump. Key hex, obviously. But you don't have a lot of units to spare to garrison duty. Use Pax and Eq units. You'll need 1 or 2 others with a decent AR for defending, but if you put several replacements in there they defend great. You've got your AR from the 1-2 "real" units. You have a nice 5 combat factors from your combat-mode HQ. The RP units hardly count for stacking (1/4) AND they can take step losses (by the way, try to keep your stacking at 3 REs or less). Wonderful use for them in certain situations.

The need to garrison with a substantial % of your force is usually the hardest thing for us wargamers to come to grips with. I know it took me about 5 games and many hard lessons of games ending too early to realize just how much needs to be in the rear area....just like real commanders had to do. We gamers have been coddled by nearly every other game and have gotten used to putting all of our units at the front. OCS is totally unforgiving in that respect.

Sorry for rambling on there. I don't want you to suffer as I have! It's no fun ending a game of Hube's Pocket after 4 turns due to "front greed". Just a few more 13-3-3's in back and I would have been fine...

mcdeans wrote:

Fifth, overruns can be risky. Then again, it could just be the 3 4's I rolled for surprise in 4 overruns (and 2 of them with a +2 DRM), followed by more low numbers in the combat roll, that has jaundiced my view of them. Trying an overrun without having air barraged the defender into DG is risky with a capital 'Rrrrrrr'.

DGs are absolutely key in OCS. Try to always have your target DGed when attacking. As you no-doubt realize.

If you have the higher AR and can hipshoot, you probably should be overruning a lot. As you said, you'll break some eggs. That's OK.

Cheers,
Jason
www.wargamedepot.com

Thread: Re: Gazala scenario

mcdeans — 2008-04-04T05:08:28+00:00

(My follow up post with thoughts on our playing and OCS in general.)

So, after a whole 2 games of OCS, what's the jury saying? A big thumbs up, and currently my favorite game series of all time. (Second is the GMT Glory series, thanks for asking.) Long? Oh, yes. Detailed? You betcha. Worth the time spent? Absolutely!

This game was a lot harder for me, as we had a few new concepts to deal with (e.g. mines, KGs), a whole lot more units, and I had to come to grips with this attacking lark. I certainly found that attacking is hard (no sh*t, Sherlock!) and there are so many things to juggle in order to at least hope for success.

So, what did I learn, specifically? First, keeping HQs up with the attack is critical. That was probably my biggest mistake in the game, not putting DAK HQ into move mode and pushing it forward. This lead to me stalling out due to being unable to draw trace supply to my lead units any further than they already had gone. I then compounded the error by moving the Italian HQs forward, when I should have moved DAK, even if it meant pulling back a little into trace supply range.

Second, KGs are really, really useful for reacting to the Allied moves. They give the Axis player a lot of flexibility to respond to the Allied player, and I'm sure Eric will be more wary of them as well!

Third, mines are nasty. Really nasty!

Fourth, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Wait, that's from the cookery class. No, I was right the first time - you're going to lose some units, deal with it!

Fifth, overruns can be risky. Then again, it could just be the 3 4's I rolled for surprise in 4 overruns (and 2 of them with a +2 DRM), followed by more low numbers in the combat roll, that has jaundiced my view of them. Trying an overrun without having air barraged the defender into DG is risky with a capital 'Rrrrrrr'.

Overall, I'm still loving the game, although I certainly wasn't loving that first turn. It's the whole feel of the game that continues to have me so enthused about it. It really feels as close to operating a real army as it's possible to get whilst just pushing around bits of cardboard. I haven't seen any system even approach it, although I'm also very interested in the van Borries East Front series. (However, that is limited to the East Front, and nothing more.) Yet, for all its feel, it is still a very playable game. Long, yes, but not unmanageable.

However, as good as they are, I think the scenarios limit the feel of the game. They restrict you by setting arbitrary conditions on set up, flow, and ending of the game. The campaigns seem to be where the game would really shine, giving you the ability to truly plan and execute your own campaigns, not be pushed around by scenarios conditions.

Of course, that would take a serious level of commitment, something that just isn't possible while one has to work to earn a crust. And which also limits your prospective opponents. If I hit the lottery big time, one thing I would do is splash a few mill on my gaming partners, so we could spend our work hours gaming. Hmm, that would make for an interesting job title.

I just can't wait for the next opportunity to get OCS back on the table.

Thread: Re: Gazala scenario

sludgemariner — 2008-04-03T18:29:30+00:00

The heart of the OCS series is supply, without you can do nothing. The trick is to attack and move with only those units you need to achieve your aim, unlike most other games where you can move and attack with anything and everything you have. This has the effect of creating a tempo of operations very close to the real. I love this series, it's my favourite so far, although now that TDC is out...

Thread: Re: Gazala scenario

kypros — 2008-04-03T17:22:49+00:00

Nice AAR! Good job on all the photos. Keep those trucks and SPs well guarded!

Sicily is a fun one, and underappreciated in my opinion. One piece of advice...use the historical landings. Quicker and much easier for the first time playing it. I wish I had done that the first time I played it! But NOOOOO, I had to go and bite off more than I could chew.

Cheers,
Jason
www.wargamedepot.com

Thread: Re: Gazala scenario

cscottk — 2008-04-03T16:18:52+00:00

Great session report. I want to dive into this soon as well, but the rules are bit daunting at the moment as I haven't played OCS yet.

Thread: Gazala scenario

mcdeans — 2008-04-03T15:41:16+00:00

(This is reposted from my blog Thoughts of Chairman Mike, of a game with my regular Two Sides of the Coin opponent, Eric (Basilius).)

After our Tunisia game (2 Sides takes, mine, Eric's, photos, BGG post), Eric and I were keen to get some more OCS experience under our belts, Tunisia having truly whetted our appetites for more. After some discussion, we settled on the Gazala scenario from DAK2 over one from Case Blue, much as we both wanted to dive into the Eastern Front. We've also agreed on trying Sicily in the future (probably at the WBC-W gathering) and already agreed that he'll be the invading Allies, so Eric offered me the chance to take the attackers here, the Axis again, coincidentally, and I accepted.

Here's the initial set ups.

My plan was pretty much the same as the original, sweeping the German Panzer formations through the desert, around the Allied flank. Hopefully this would suck forces from the fortified front line, allowing me to punch up the coast road, where there were some strong Italian divisions.

The initial plan had me push a unit forward into contact with 4SA Amored Car company (at the very south of the Allied line), hipshoot it with the Stuka (outside air Patrol Zone, so no worries about interception), then overrun it with another couple of battalions from 90Le, opening the door for 15P and 21P. Meanwhile, the Italian Ariete armored division would push through in front of the Allied line of mines, clearing the other Allied units there. Not a bad plan, but there were two major flaws.

First, I didn't fully understand the importance of pushing the DAK HQ forward with the lead divisions. Given that this was my first game as the attacker, this is, perhaps, forgivable. In the previous game, I had a very compessed defensive area and was tracing supply directly from supply sources to the consuming units without requiring the intervention of HQs. So, it took me a turn or two to figure out what I needed to be doing in terms of supply and HQs, and then a few turns to execute.

The second problem was that the plan called for the lead units to remove the token defense, allowing the main force to drive deep. I successfully completed the first part of the plan, leaving 4SA disorganized and facing a 6-1 overrun, with +2 on the AR in my favor. However, the second part blew up as I rolled a 4, giving the defender surprise. With the combat roll also a 4 I ended up losing a unit. I tried once again, 5-1 and still with a +2 AR. Another 4 for surprise, and another unit lost, this time along with the KG. Well, phooey! (Actually, it was a lot stronger than that.)

From there I decided to play it safe, advancing a couple of big units, to ensure that I blew that pesky 4SA clean away. From there I was able to advance up the road, to an advance position. Now for Ariete. I advanced a couple of big units, but once again rolled a 4 for surprise, this time for a maximum 6 column shift, and with a low attack roll both armored units were lost.

What a wonderful start to the game! I think this is the position before my combat phase:

After combat and Allied movement it looked like this:

The best success I had was against 3Ind infantry brigade, killing it in one go. I also did some artillery bombardments on the coast, but to no great effect.

It was about this time that I recognized the problem with the Trace Supply and HQ positions. However, my lead units were far enough forward that I needed DAK HQ to remain in position in order to keep them supplied, so pushed forward the Italian HQs. In retrospect, I should have had them eat off the map (consuming SPs) and pushed DAK forward, but I was concerned that I'd used around 10SP in the first turn, and didn't start with an awful lot more than that.

So the Axis advance stalled for several turns. End turn 2:

End turn 3:

I'd also realized that the road running from Rotonda Mteifel (B45.16), through Rotonda Ualeb, then south to Bir Hacheim was going to be critical to developing my supply net for the forward units, so started trying to push in that direction. The big problem was going to be the big stack of French units in Bir Hacheim.

By the end of turn 4 I'd cleared a gap in the mines in B44.16, just south of Rotonda Ualeb, cutting off the French stack. DAK had finally set up, and I could push forward, but by this time he Allies had strengthened their defenses in that area.

Turn 5 saw more preparation, and trying to push against the French stack. Despite massed artillery attacks and combat along the line, not much has changed. The big plan to persuade him to thin the line to deal with the flanking threat didn't materialize, mostly because the flanking threat didn't amount to much.

However, turn 6 saw the fun and games start as the flanking threat turned into a flank attack:

My dash to the coast captured the airfield outside Sidi Rezegh, as well as cutting the coast road, isolating the whole Allied front from supply, and threatening the large airbase at Gambut. I'd also started to make some headway up the coast road, just to give Eric something else to think about. Here's a close-up of the armored thrust:

Turn 7 saw me attempt to consolidate my grip on the noose. I was concerned that my forces, although strong, were very thin on the ground. However, with the Italians threatening to overrun the whole of the Allied defensive line there was a lot for Eric to think about.

Turn 8 saw me with the first move, and I mounted an attack on Gambut, successfully capturing the base and lots of supply (I think I doubled my SPs on the entire board). It was at this point that I found that I'd manage to catch all the Allied trucks in Tobruk in the process of ferrying SPs, which meant Eric was unable to move any of those very tempting SP dumps. In his turn Eric built a mega stack and started to push towards El Duda (B46.07). However, I was able to activate a KG and move some artillery to bombard him, and with around 6 RE had a massive modifier, causing a casualty and a DG. And so to the battle of El Duda, featuring two big DG stacks. In the end, the battle went my way, big time, and I breathed a good bit easier.

At the western end of the battle, things were turning wild and wooly, as I broke through the middle and started isolating individual units.

By this time it was getting late, and we'd been going for around 9-10 hours. We played a little of turn 9, which saw the Axis go first, and again hammer the main Allied stack, this time with artillery in combat mode. At the other end the Trigh el Abd highway was opened, giving 15P and 21P a solid supply line to trace along. The Allied line was now a thumb stretching out from Tobruk, with a couple of isolated units (mostly those pesky French).

Here's a couple of views on the position when we stopped:

Eric felt I had a chance at driving to Mersa Matruh looking for the win (Axis need to take Tobruk or MM, any other result is a draw), but he had a couple of good, high AR, units there, and it would have been a risky proposition. So the final outcome was a draw.

At the start of the game the dice went strongly against the Axis, but it balanced out in the end as I definitely had the better of the dice rolls in the last few turns.

Here's the Axis losses. Note that 3 of the 4 German units and the two strongest Ariete armor units were all lost in that first turn, so not much was lost after that.

The Allied losses:

That's enough for the replay - I'll post thoughts in a separate post.

[Edited to correct url]

Thread: Re: Do i need DAK 2 or is the original DAK fine?

mikeb13603 — 2008-03-20T09:30:18+00:00

OCS is indeed a very cool system.

I am sure you could play the original DAK as comes in the box absolutely fine.

On the other hand, you might find problems playing opponents if you have DAK and they have DAK2, and you might not get any rules questions addressed as efficiently.

So you could buy DAK and try to "upgrade" it to DAK2. You would need to download the v4 OCS rules, and the DAK2 rulebooks. You could then play with your counters and maps. I am sure most of the time you'll be fine.

The changes between DAK1 and DAK2 fall into 3 categories:

- fixing genuine mistakes/typos in the original
- small amendments for improved historical accuracy
- changes needed because the system rules have moved on from when DAK1 came out (DAK1 came with v2, DAK2 came with v3, and there is now a v4). The most important of these is the revised Axis shipping chart.

They are all listed in detail on the back page of Vol 1 of the DAK2 rulebook, which the previous poster linked to.

I think Tunisia is a better game to learn OCS with, but if you like the desert campaign and you can get DAK cheaply, then go for it.

Mike

Thread: Re: Do i need DAK 2 or is the original DAK fine?

Chessjester — 2008-03-20T00:29:59+00:00

Page 62 of the first volume of DAK2 game specific rules has the complete list of changes from DAK, found here: http://www.gamersarchive.net/theGamers/archive/dak.htm

for other information on the OCS games look at consimWorld here:http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?50@610.lcKQd962SGW.21@.ee6b...

You could also start with a smaller game in the OCS like Tunisia which is availible from MMP for $43

Thread: Do i need DAK 2 or is the original DAK fine?

imanarchy — 2008-03-19T21:47:07+00:00

Hello everybody,

Im new to wargaming (recently just got back into the hobby and we have mainly been playing euros).

I want to try a very complex wargame and The OCS series seems to be cool. I've noticed most are out of print. The one that i saw that still is in print is Deep Blue, which looks cool. But at $180 its a bit out of my range as someone just getting into hobby.

So I was looking for DAK 2 which also seems out of print. But i understand that when it was in print, it listed for for $120. So my question is, is there any reason that you would need DAK 2 over the original DAK? I have an oppurtunity to get DAK at a reasonable price. Did the second edition add anything substantial? If i really get into the game am i going to regret buying the first edition?

There was a previous thread on this topic but they basically answered by referring to this...

http://www.grognard.com/info1/dak2.html

Which basically means nothing to me having never played the game. So i need someone with experience on this game to tell me if i need the second edition or if the first has everything i would need.

Thanks guys!

Thread: Re: VASSAL module map?

keethrax — 2008-01-27T23:28:38+00:00

From the VASSAL forums:

1. Open the DAKII module in the module editor.
2. Bring up the properties dialog under DAKII [Module] > DAK [Map Window] >
[Map Boards]
3. Click the 'Select Default Board Setup' button.
4. Click 'Ok' in the board setup dialog to choose the empty setup as default.
5. Click 'Ok' in the properties dialog.
6. Save the module.

Worked great for me.

Thread: Re: VASSAL module map?

sassypickle — 2008-01-26T02:56:38+00:00

You can change the default memory setting in VASSAL by adding -Xmx switch to the vassal.bat file. Just edit the .bat file with a text editor and add/adjust that setting. For example:

-Xmx512M (for 512MBs)

-Xmx1G (for 1GB)

so on and so forth.

YMMV, void where prohibited, no purchase necessary, etc, etc.

-Brian

Thread: Re: VASSAL module map?

keethrax — 2008-01-24T20:52:18+00:00

I can now (sort of) get the maps.

I still can't get the dialog to ask me which maps I want, but I can edit the default configuration in the module file to give me the ones I need.

Not a great solution, but for now it'll do.

As far as memory goes, I tried opening the module in an older version of VASSAL. That lets me try to open them, but does give me a memory error if I open all five. I could probably tweak the memory settings in that version to make it work, but would rather be able to run the module properly under the newer versions of VASSAL.

Thread: Re: VASSAL module map?

tppytel — 2008-01-24T04:21:08+00:00

I vaguely remember some talk on the VASSAL mailing list about this. Something about the default memory settings not being large enough to handle the DAK2 map properly. You may want to ask there.

Thread: VASSAL module map?

keethrax — 2008-01-24T03:13:28+00:00

Went to use VASSAL to challenge a friend of mine, and seem to be having an issue with the module.

I can't seem to get it to display the maps.

Digging into the module file shows me they're there, but when I use "Play Module" I don't see any of them (or any obvious way to get at them).

Thread: Re: 4.0 final rules in DAK2

charshep — 2007-09-22T16:36:01+00:00

I'm an intermediate wargamer myself (I think it's "wargamer" ) and I'll second Africa - 2nd Edition. OCS isn't as hard to learn as people make out but it's hard enough that I wouldn't attempt it yet if you're brand new to wargaming. What makes it hard isn't the rules complexity (although they are pretty complex) but simply knowing what to do with all that info and all those counters. I felt pretty paralyzed on my first turn of Tunisia, but having an expert on hand to ease me into it really helped.

I started out with similar titles to the ones you're playing and I think all 3 are fine choices for starting out, but I felt Fire in the Sky and Bonaparte at Marengo were on the dry side. Also, the rule book for Bonaparte at Marengo, although well written, feels a little like it was intended for a computer rather than a human.

Other titles I'd recommend if you're new are A Victory Lost, Columbia's block games, and, if you like Shifting Sands, some of the other card driven wargames. Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage is about to be reprinted by Valley Games while most of the rest are available from GMT. I especially like Wilderness War, although it's out of print and still a ways from being reprinted. There are also a lot of good geek lists that cover introductory wargames, you might want to check those out.

Thread: Re: 4.0 final rules in DAK2

nyhotep — 2007-09-22T13:48:13+00:00

The version 4.0 rules are here:

http://www.gamersarchive.net/theGamers/archive/ocs.htm

The operational combat series is one of the most complex around (at least for a beginner) and is much more complex than those titles you mention. You might be better off trying the much simpler Afrika II by the same company, which uses the Standard combat system rules.

Afrika - 2nd Edition

Thread: Re: 4.0 final rules in DAK2

Faithful — 2007-09-22T11:37:08+00:00

Not to sound like I have no idea what you are talking about, but I have no idea what you all are talking about!

I am totally new to war gaming and have looked at this game to purchase, but what are 4.0 Rules and where do you get them?

I recently (just arrived in the mail yesterday) purchased three games to start war gaming.

Fire in the Sky
Shifting Sands
Bonaparte at Marengo

I have been reading the rules to Fire in the Sky to try to get a handle on things since I am new to little squares with a lot of information on them.

So, is DAK 2 good for someone like me and if so where do I get these 4.0 rules to play it by?

Also, I have looked at Devil's Cauldron but not sure if that might not be a bit overwhelming.

Oh, is it wargaming, or war gaming?

Thanks for the help and if I need I can post this in a new thread so not to hijack this one.

Faithful

Thread: Re: 4.0 final rules in DAK2

ibn_ul_khattab — 2007-09-22T01:17:04+00:00

4.0 rules were fine in the 2 scenarios I played under them.

Thread: Re: 4.0 final rules in DAK2

charshep — 2007-09-22T00:15:51+00:00

LordStrabo wrote:
I've played Tunisia with the 4.0 rules, and didn't find any problems that I can remember. I've also rememeber reading on the Consimworld forum that a group managed to play the _complete_ DAK campaign, and didn't find any problems.

We didn't notice any problems either. Andreas, what kinds of problems did you find?

I think I remember reading in the design notes that someone managed to play the DAK2 campaign solo 3 times(!) during 4.0 development.

Thread: Re: 4.0 final rules in DAK2

cloudboy — 2007-09-21T23:40:16+00:00

LordStrabo wrote:
I've also rememeber reading on the Consimworld forum that a group managed to play the _complete_ DAK campaign, and didn't find any problems.

You mean, other than the problem of being divorced and jobless?

Thread: Re: 4.0 final rules in DAK2

LordStrabo — 2007-08-15T13:04:06+00:00

lundinandreas wrote:
I've played Tunisia, and there were some issues with the 4.0 rules, but I can't remember what they were. Well I just play on and see what happens. Thanks for the replies!

I've played Tunisia with the 4.0 rules, and didn't find any problems that I can remember. I've also rememeber reading on the Consimworld forum that a group managed to play the _complete_ DAK campaign, and didn't find any problems.

Thread: Re: 4.0 final rules in DAK2

lundinandreas — 2007-08-13T20:19:21+00:00

I've played Tunisia, and there were some issues with the 4.0 rules, but I can't remember what they were. Well I just play on and see what happens. Thanks for the replies!

Thread: Re: 4.0 final rules in DAK2

mikeb13603 — 2007-08-13T19:20:10+00:00

Go with version 4; the changes from 3 to 4 make the game play a little faster, if anything.

If you have never played OCS before, then do start with the 6 turn Operation Compass training scenario.

Mike

Thread: Re: 4.0 final rules in DAK2

ermj1986 — 2007-08-13T17:24:06+00:00

I have played it "solo" with the 4.0 rules with no problems. I think the 4.0 version is superior. The only thing you need to check on is whether you can "shut down" an enemy port, i.e., Tobruk, by having a combat unit adjacent to it. There may have been an exception made (or a special rule)for the DAK game.

Thread: Re: DAK2 Example of Play

lundinandreas — 2007-08-13T13:58:41+00:00

I am thinking a long time already to buy an OCS title but can't make up my mind. DAK2 is next on my list!!

Why not wait for Case Blue? Then you'd get latest rules and stuff...

Thread: 4.0 final rules in DAK2

lundinandreas — 2007-08-13T12:42:29+00:00

Hi, I recently bought DAK 2 and never has my flabber been so totally gasted before! And that by only reading the Game Rules and seeing the components. I realy want to set this up and try it out ftf, but I am considering using the 4.0 rules instead of the series rules provided in the box. Do I have to make any changes to the game for using the 4.0 rules or can I just go for it as written?

Thread: Re: DAK2 Example of Play

Harae — 2007-07-25T10:27:23+00:00

Very, very cool stuff!
I am thinking a long time already to buy an OCS title but can't make up my mind. DAK2 is next on my list!!

Thread: Re: DAK2 Example of Play

GamerbyDesign — 2007-07-07T01:50:01+00:00

Nice work. I enjoy the OCS system alot. I haven't played in some time although I will be giving GB2 a go next year. Maybe I will play via ADC or Cyberboard someday. EatG is my favorite. The nail biting Burma is next. I had a small contribution to Burma and Sicily.

I enjoyed the fact that you brought forth the many different actions that the game can entail. I know it took alot of time and effort to bring this to reality!

Thread: Re: DAK2 Example of Play

egli — 2007-06-28T13:37:55+00:00

Thank you so much for this great and awesome example of play, you did a job there that will bring me back into OCS for sure! I'm even considering buying DAK2 (I own DAK with laminated maps) 'cause of you!

Thread: Re: DAK2 Example of Play

lundinandreas — 2007-06-28T11:53:41+00:00

Great example of play! Sure helped me (a newbie) getting into OCS. Thanks!

Thread: Re: DAK2 Example of Play

jackcoostow — 2007-06-27T11:35:33+00:00

Jim,

I too must applaud you for this example of play. It was this article that really introduced me to the OCS system, and helped me decide to pick up a copy of the game. Re-reading this has also helped clarify and understand the rules as I read them.

Thank you for all the effort you put into this, from the notes you took as you played as well as the time taken to transcribe them and provide the pictures.

Aside from the explaining of the rules, it also makes a very entertaining read!

Jay

Thread: Re: DAK2 Example of Play

duckweed — 2007-06-16T19:28:20+00:00

Awesome. You obviously put a huge amount of effort into this, and it shows. This is the best example yet of OCS play, and it will probably be the #1 guide for new players for years to come.

If there are not already links to this on grognard.com and CSW you should do that.

Thread: Re: DAK2 Example of Play

garysax — 2007-06-11T23:43:27+00:00

This is the kind of stuff that makes BGG awesome--and I'm not even into OCS.

Thread: Re: DAK2 Example of Play

ToddK — 2007-06-11T23:00:33+00:00

This would be an excellent article for the Operations mag.

Thanks for doing this,

Keith

Image

artavash — 2007-01-19T00:08:16+00:00

This is what comes in the box!

Image

Fulminata — 2006-10-15T20:41:44+00:00

Issue features a new scenario for DAK2

Image

Abraxx — 2006-03-15T17:52:08+00:00

And the rear of the DAK2 box

Image

Abraxx — 2006-03-15T17:42:49+00:00

A nice look on the DAK2 Box

Image

Radz — 2006-01-23T02:00:56+00:00

DAK2 Markers Countersheet Front

Image

Radz — 2006-01-23T01:54:15+00:00

DAK2 Countersheet 4 Front

Image

Radz — 2006-01-23T01:48:31+00:00

DAK2 Countersheet 3 Front

Image

Radz — 2006-01-23T01:48:07+00:00

DAK2 Countersheet 2 Front