Ok, I'm a traditional hex and counter type guy, or should I say I use to be. For years I stuck to the good old bread and butter of Avalon Hill, some counters, a hex map and a ton of dice. I was happy doing so. Then I discovered card driven wargames and that was cool. If you like strategic level gamings those are fantastic when it comes to historical simulations at the strategic level.
Recently however I have been getting more and more interested in block gaming. I didn't like the idea of block games at first. I don't mean I hated them, but I wasn't exactly in a rush to try them. At my gaming group on Tuesday nights some of the guys had been playing Hammer of the Scots and Crusader Rex and I'd been invited to play. I simply never felt the interest.
Then one day a friend of mine invited me to play Sam Grant. Now with me, I'll play any Civil War game once, so I figured what the hell. I can at least see what this block gaming thing is all about. I liked it. I was surprised at how much the game followed the strategy of the actual war. Rivers were very important in terms of supply in the Civil War in the western theater and it the game mirrored very well that aspect. Meanwhile it wasn't all fiddly as supply rules often can be. Thus I have now begun my decent into the world of block games.
Since I'm a newbie when it comes to block games I thought a good thing to do was throw out a geeklist about them. I'm curious to see what folks like and dislike about them? What are the best block games and what are the turkeys?
Posted On: 2007-11-27 14:58:43
Must pre-order block game from GMT / Columbia; must pre-order block game...
Lists like this are why I continue to buy games faster than I can play them.
You're killing me, Brian
I own and have played both games. The rules are the same so why should one game be better than the other?
Many people who have commented in the rating section claim that the conflict is not interesting to play at the strategic level, or that the map scale is wrong, leading to a congested board. So it would be strictly a problem with the scenario, not the underlying system.
OK, you're making a point. But I guess that's a matter of taste. I must admit both games play a bit different (although some gamerules make it possible to connect BL and SG) but I personally enjoy Sam Grant as well as Bobby Lee. In particular the way in which it is possible to play the games on a strategic level (on the mapboard) and at a tactical level (on the battleboard).
I tend to agree with the people who find it excessive. It is weird in terms of gameplay, as cavalry are strictly better than infantry after the change. And I doubt that breech-loaders were quite as effective historically, at least not if used by cavalry who rely on speed and surprise rather than massed fire.