Game: Combat Soldiers - In the Battle of the Bulge

Thread: Re: NonTraditional wargame, still has some depth & fast playtime

Kennyth — 2007-10-04T21:36:12+00:00

This game does demand someone who is determined to make it work for his group of gamers. I haven't found any "holes" in the rules,but the first playing raised a lot of rules questions that demanded referencing and cross referencing rules sections.
We tried it with 6 players and it seemed that once you got weakened there was always someone to keep you down. A 4 player game seemed much better. The "best" things to do are not always self evident. I was all set to change one of the major rules regulating limits on how many cards you can hold when an insightful friend discovered what the rules were forcing you to do to solve the problem of too few cards in your hand.
The answers are there in the game. You just have to puzzle them out. To me, that's a good thing. There is some sup[rising depth to the game. But, not everyone likes solving the problems of how to make best use of your cards to achieve victory.

Thread: Re: NonTraditional wargame, still has some depth & fast play

colinkun — 2007-07-31T15:34:33+00:00

Good little review, thanks.

I bought the game about a year ago hoping for a unique multi-player war themed game. The rulebook is a little fiddly as you mentioned, and finding the right group is a challenge; both are reasons why i haven't played it yet. I still need to figure out how it plays so that i can effectively teach it when I do find the right group.

It really does seem like a interesting and fun little game, and I can't figure out why it has such a small following.

Thread: NonTraditional wargame, still has some depth & fast playtime

thoia — 2007-05-06T18:15:47+00:00

Alright on deck today for examination is Combat Soldiers: Battle of the Bulge. "This is not a wargame" the die hard grognards will cry. "This is too much of a wargame" the non-wargamers will herald back in response. "It's just a card game" comes the complaints of the boards gamers followed closely by the "There's too much to it" as the card gamers sift through the chits. Honestly the game is all of that and that's what makes it such a unique game.

A wargame? Certainly but not in the typical you play this side I'll play that style. Is it an American style game? Yes but you can see the attempt to give the game some diversity in it's approach as well. See the game is about getting VPs an not winning the war…hell or even winning the battle. It's more like "taking bets" on parts of the battle. No player plays the Axis or the Allies…everyone plays BOTH the Axis and the Allies. That right you can setup an army of German soldiers with on turn and have your already existing American troops move into a held area to contend for it. The goal of the game is still intact with this maneuver as you are really only looking to gain VPs. In fact the individual unit cards have different units and are played with one unit in the upright position indicating what unit want that card to represent. So I can easily see the wargamers thinking this just isn't right!

The game is pretty involved for a card game (and let's face the main component are the cards) and there are a lot of little rules that are easily to forget or not be able to find again in the rule book after reading it once or twice. The rules literally house a sub-section about half way through the book called 13.5.2.4. This makes the rulebook itself stretch out to a full 37 solid pages of rules. That can be a bit intimidating for those who are not use to it and for those who are these rules are going to be simple and common. Some of the verbage in the rules too gets a little inundating as your units can group, refit, reorganize or rearrange all of which does something different. In addition units can surround, pin, isolate or be entrenched or within a garrison. All of these little rules will easily be classified as fiddly to someone not use to wargames whereas it's all common place features our grognard friends will be more than comfortable with and use to.

Now I'm not going to go into detail on how the game is played as I said it's a 37 page rule book and that's just not my reviewing style. What I am going to say now is that if you are still reading this review then you have more than a casual interest in the game. I haven't run you off with the talk it not being your typical wargame when you wanted another Europe Engulfed. I've also managed to keep your attention in the face of the game being fiddly yet you are use to games with only a couple options on a turn. That's a good thing because by virtue of you still being here reading this you are about to discover a pretty cool little game.

Yes a turn in Combat Soldiers takes some time to get through as they are detailed turns. The sequence of an turn is as follows:

A – Reorganize/Withdraw
B-Attack
C-Deployment
D-Rest/Refit
E-Discard/Repair
F-Draw

The turn however flows smoothly and there is plenty of player interaction within the turn as attacks happen frequently and preparation for the attack that an opponent is obviously building is fundamental. There's no map (it's a card game remember) so there is no messing about with movement, opportunity fire, or terrain effects which is kind of nice, allows players to keep in the action and heat of battle which is what this game is really about. Further the game is about your foot units (it is called Combat SOLDIERS) and the few armor units in the game while being tough as hell when they attack can be taken out of play relatively easily if you have some anti-tank units out there. The game is also fit with event cards that can be triggered to keep things surprising and put players on the edge.

The game itself is made by Lost Battalion Games who self publishes all their titles. The cards and chits look fantastic and have a nice high gloss feel to them. You start the game by setting secret goals for yourself that you try and make happen regardless of how unusual the combination of those goals are. These goals if accomplished award more VPs come game end and hopefully a victory.

The big problem with this game is what group of people you end up playing it with. Convincing those eurogamers to give it a shot could be a challenge and even wargamers might feel the need to shy away from it. Choosing what players to put this in front of is paramount. You need to find the players who are open to a game with more meat to it than Memoir '44 and yet is not a board game. A game that has a lot of detail to it but doesn't cover every slight detail of a war. If you think you've got the group that can embrace this mindset then Combat Soldiers is a highly recommended game. I like the game but due to the play group really don't get to play it much. Then when the rare occasion comes that I do I find I'm referring to the rule book a lot as I'm so unfamiliar with it. Bottom line this is a good game, well thought out, with a unique approach and very nice pieces that is simply put not for everyone. Those who do like it are going to have hours of fun playing it though.

Thread: Re: Differences between Combat Soldiers and Guerilla

Beery — 2007-01-24T22:45:08+00:00

T-Mo wrote:
Any news on a 2-player version? My copy is gathering dust for lack of a 3rd player interested in this game type.

T-Mo

I tried playing Guerilla as a two player game. I didn't notice any big problems with it, but maybe this version of the game is different.

Thread: Re: Which is better Combat Soldiers or Guerilla

Beery — 2007-01-24T22:38:11+00:00

I only have Guerilla but I must say I don't see how the game mechanics would transfer well into a serious WW2 game. In Guerilla part of the fun is in playing both sides against the middle. It also has a bit of a tongue-in-cheek feeling because of that, which I doubt will be found in a Battle of the Bulge game.

In short, I'd buy a banana republic themed game any day - that stuff screams "backstabbing fun". But a Battle of the Bulge game? No thanks, that seems too heavy for me, I'll pass. So I vote for Guerilla.

Thread: Re: Just got the game...

Jeff Billings — 2006-10-31T21:36:14+00:00

We actually print the Rules in small quantities so, it is likely that the rules in the box are in fact up to date. You can download them at - http://www.lostbattalion.com/t-cs_Rules_download.aspx

Thread: Re: Pix of the cards???

sawtoothbarbie — 2006-10-10T19:04:42+00:00

The Boulder Games image is no longer there.

It seems they don't carry it any longer.

Thread: Re: Just got the game...

kimbo — 2006-10-10T00:04:38+00:00

Make sure you have the latest version of the rules. The latest version is available from the LBG web site. I've heard the printed rules are not completely clear in a number of areas and that the "Living Rules" clear up a lot of confusion.

Thread: Re: Just got the game...

BagpipeDan — 2006-10-09T23:30:50+00:00

I don't know anything about this game, but have you checked the consimworld forums? I don't know anything about them except they are all about wargames over there.

Thread: Just got the game...

colinkun — 2006-10-09T20:00:02+00:00

I just ordered the game (and it arrived in about 4 days) and just finished reading through the rules. I think it seems like a fun game, I like the multi player aspect of it, and the cards are colorful with nice illustrations.

Anyway, I'm not 100% on gameplay yet and hope to figure things out and maybe create a playing aid, condensed rules or something to help others out.

But I have noticed that there is not much vibe about this game anywhere, forums, etc. Is it that bad? Too new to have much of a following yet? What's the deal?

Image

thoia — 2006-04-27T23:05:10+00:00

Objective sheet/Turn Summary, a small pad this is the front/back of each sheet.

Image

thoia — 2006-04-27T23:01:58+00:00

Various action type cards.

Image

thoia — 2006-04-27T22:54:18+00:00

2 of what are called "White Back" cards that have special abilities.

Image

thoia — 2006-04-27T22:31:48+00:00

The 2 different types of armor cards and a couple other cards.

Image

thoia — 2006-04-27T22:23:12+00:00

Some Action Cards

Thread: Re: Which is better Combat Soldiers or Guerilla

West2 — 2006-01-27T19:40:36+00:00

I personally have only played GUERILLA so far - which I love - but I think its theme is better suited to the fog-of-war mechanics in NEal's design. The theme is also more unique than yest another WW2/Bulge game, and I like the graphics better. However, beeing inprint is definitely a big draw towards COMBAT SOLDIERS, I suppose.

Image

will64 — 2005-12-30T16:21:53+00:00

Combat soldiers, weapons.

Image

will64 — 2005-12-30T16:21:52+00:00

Combat soldiers officers.

Image

will64 — 2005-12-30T16:21:51+00:00

Combat soldiers cards.

Thread: Re: Which is better Combat Soldiers or Guerilla

chaosbreaker — 2005-12-12T00:51:06+00:00

BTW I forgot to mention

Combat Soldiers is Guerilla rethemed and change a bit by the original designer.

Thread: Re: Which is better Combat Soldiers or Guerilla

will64 — 2005-12-11T18:08:12+00:00

Hi,
I can't tell you which one is better (sorry) because I only own and play Combat Soldiers, but would like to own Guerilla too. As for Combat Soldiers, it's a very good, light medium WWII game that's easy to master, fun to play and has great quality cards and counters. I can actually get non-wargamers to play this one.

Regards
Will

Thread: Which is better Combat Soldiers or Guerilla

chaosbreaker — 2005-12-11T09:47:03+00:00

I am going to buy either Combat Soldiers or Guerilla.

Which is better?

Thread: Re: Differences between Combat Soldiers and Guerilla

Bk_Seal — 2005-10-18T14:19:52+00:00

The two-player rules have been posted on the Lost Battalion site in a PDF format:
http://www.lostbattalion.com/CombatSoldiers/rules/Combat_Sol...

Paul

Thread: Re: Differences between Combat Soldiers and Guerilla

Bk_Seal — 2005-09-01T18:41:12+00:00

The two-player game is in playtest. Timing depends on any problems that crop up, so far it looks really good.

Paul

Thread: Re: Differences between Combat Soldiers and Guerilla

T-Mo — 2005-08-10T01:27:40+00:00

Any news on a 2-player version? My copy is gathering dust for lack of a 3rd player interested in this game type.

T-Mo

Thread: Re: Pix of the cards???

Aerodynamics — 2005-05-03T21:48:09+00:00

There's a nice collage of the components at the Boulder Games website...

http://www.bouldergames.com/images/CombatSoldiersCom.jpg

Thread: Pix of the cards???

Moonicus — 2005-05-03T04:36:24+00:00

Are there any images of the cards for this game online anywhere???

Would be nice to see some of the cards before buying...

MD...

Thread: Reifferences between Combat Soldiers and Guerilla

Jeff Billings — 2005-05-03T01:30:58+00:00

A two player version is in playtest and when we have it done we will update the rules. It has taken Neal a while to come up with a system he was satisfied with.

Thread: Reifferences between Combat Soldiers and Guerilla

T-Mo — 2004-12-18T04:13:29+00:00

Walt Mulder (#68807),

From the website forum they stated that it is a 3-player game. Too bad - looks interesting but I'll wait to see more opinions on the game. Never did play Guerilla so I don't have a comparison point for deciding whether to purchase this or not but I did pick up their neat little hexbased individual combat game - Sergeants!

T-Mo

Thread: Reifferences between Combat Soldiers and Guerilla

Walt Mulder — 2004-12-03T04:51:24+00:00

cfarrell (#68732),
The game lists for 3-6 players. Would this work fairly well as a 2-player game? It seems like the worst problem with 2 players would be them each choosing the same objective as you mention, but then there wouldn't be other players around to gain from this issue.

Thread: Differences between Combat Soldiers and Guerilla

cfarrell — 2004-12-02T20:48:30+00:00

Here are some of the differences between Combat Soldiers and Guerilla:

- The major difference is in scoring. You still score points for eliminating units and occupying objectives, but there is no longer a running total for each side. Instead of having a secret identity, at the beginning of the game you secretly pick some objectives and the nationality to try to achieve them with (you have to pick at least one for each side, but you could pick 5 US and 1 German). Occupying an objective is worth basic points, the points printed on the card. If you occupy an objective you picked, but not with the side you picked it for, you get double points. If you meet your objective entirely, it's quadruple points. If another player controls an objective that you have recorded, regardless of which side controls is, you lose the basic points ... so note that if you picked, say, the Germans to own the Bridge, and the Germans do own the Bridge, but they are not your Germans ... negative points.

- It's a much bigger hit now if you don't control units of both sides. If I remember rightly, Guerilla reduced your hand size by a card if you didn't have units from both sides. Now you will be reduced from 8 cards to 4 cards. Ouch!

- Tanks are more plentiful, available to both sides, can't be evaded, and can be accompanied by a lone infantry unit. To compensate, some units now have AT weapons which give a bonus against tanks. Otherwise, tanks are the same.

- Guerllia's Scout didn't make it, nor did the Atrocity/Press and UN (naturally), but most of the other stuff did, more or less unchanged: Assassins are now Snipers, Arms Caches are now Offensives, Helicopters are now Airborne Assaults, Supply Cuts are Surrounded, etc., except that most hardware can now be used by both sides. Even the objectives have basically the same powers: the Police are now a Steeple (for Snipers, you see), the Bank is now a city, Airfield is a Hill (observation post), Bridge is a crossroads, Barracks ... are Barracks.

- There are some new cards that reflect the theme, including some artillery, anti-tank guns, mines, engineers, and a Stand Fast! order (for surrounded units).

- Instead of being just strength points, units can now be Rifle, Submachine Gun, and Light Macine Gun units. If you have one of each, you get a bonus in combat. Just a little chrome.

In all, nothing fundmantal except the victory point shift, but I admit to some concern over whetherthe new scheme will work in practice. If two players pick the same objective, they'll be at a significant disadvantage against players who have unique objectives; you've lost a lot of the tension over who is who, and there isn't much incentive to keep the overall battle close (due to the lack of a mercenary and no particular need to hide your objectives). I was expecting something where you could get points if your side controlled one of your objectives, even if you didn't, which feels a little more natural. But, without playing, who knows.

I'm actually pretty optimistic, mainly because I thought Guerilla was great, in its time at least. Looking forward to giving it a try, but if it doesn't work out, I'll just go back to the classic.

Thread: Re:Guerilla?

cfarrell — 2004-12-01T18:04:34+00:00

Walt Mulder (#68412),

I've never played NUTS! But I got the impression NUTS! was at least some attempt at a hard simulation, which this isn't really. When I say it's like Guerilla, it really for all intents and purposes is Guerilla, from what I can tell. There's been some fiddling, and you no longer get a role blind but instead have to support achieving some objectives for both sides, but it's basically the same game.

Thread: Re:Guerilla?

cfarrell — 2004-12-01T18:00:40+00:00

The Maverick (#68421),

Yeah, I agree. I think I got it just because I liked LBG's Battlelines, so I figured I'd check it out (and unlike many wargamers, I haven't done the Bulge to death ). I was a little disappointed to find out it was just Guerilla, with some extra chrome (!) but without the key hidden identities (although you do have hidden objectives, at least one for each side).

I was rather fond of Guerilla, actually, so I hope the game will get some play - but I probably don't need two versions that really are not funcationally different enough.

Thread: Re:Guerilla?

The Maverick — 2004-12-01T09:31:14+00:00

Thanks for the update... it would be nice if the ad copy specified this sort of thing!

Thread: Re:Guerilla?

Walt Mulder — 2004-12-01T07:38:26+00:00

cfarrell (#68174),
Can you compare this to the game NUTS! by DG? It seems like this one lacks the historical flavor and accuracy of NUTS! in terms of units and events.

When you say it compares to Guerrilla, are you trying to hide which side you play or is it clear from the onset whether you're US or Axis forces?

Thanks.

Thread: Re:Guerilla?

stayman — 2004-12-01T04:29:09+00:00

cfarrell (#68174),

Boy, you know your into wargames, when you interested in yet another Bulge game. They could practically dedicate a genre to this subject. Please let us know how it plays.

Thread: Guerilla?

cfarrell — 2004-11-30T01:27:18+00:00

Just got my copy of this, and it looks like a lightly-retooled version of AH's Guerilla (also by this designer).

Image

RolloTommasi — 2004-11-29T12:58:50+00:00

Counters sheet

Image

RolloTommasi — 2004-11-29T12:58:50+00:00

Game components