Josh P.
United States
Tucson
Arizona
-
Re-confirming why I put this on my wishlist. Thanks!
-
David
United States
California
-
anathemus wrote: This is going to be my first wargame when I have the money for it!  tks for the review
CoH was my first wargame that got me into the hobby. Well...I had memoir 44 before, but thats not a wargame 
-
Joe Steadman
United States
Evart
Michigan
-
gh0ul wrote: anathemus wrote: Well...I had memoir 44 before, but thats not a wargame
Amen
-
Neil Siddons-Smith
United Kingdom
derby
Unspecified
-
Hi, I was wondering out of this, combat commander and tide of iron which do you prefere and why. I'm not an asl player although i do have the original squad leader and have played it a couple of times which i have enjoyed. I'm just this last month been listening for the first time the first 20 of the dice tower and been enjoying it.
So how would you compaire these games with memour 44 as a simulation of world war 2 game................... although i don't think its a simulation more of a game with a reasonable theme that does work. although i don't play it as much as it doesn't have the right feeling for me for a squad based game.
cheers
Neil
-
Bill Henders
United States
Byron Center
Michigan
-
Vedalikt wrote: Hi, I was wondering out of this, combat commander and tide of iron which do you prefere and why. I'm not an asl player although i do have the original squad leader and have played it a couple of times which i have enjoyed. I'm just this last month been listening for the first time the first 20 of the dice tower and been enjoying it.
So how would you compaire these games with memour 44 as a simulation of world war 2 game................... although i don't think its a simulation more of a game with a reasonable theme that does work. although i don't play it as much as it doesn't have the right feeling for me for a squad based game.
cheers
Neil
Tide of Iron, for all its good looks and tasty bits, leaves much to be desired for me. In fact, the bits themselves make the game nearly unplayable...the little guys are a pain to put in their bases, a pain to take out of their bases, and seem to be bumped or fall out when they should be in their bases. The rule system is clunky and there are about a billion pieces of cardboard around the map. TOI NEVER sees the table anymore.
M44 is a fun and playable game but doesn't have enough meat to feel as if it is representing real combat. Fun, but not on the same level as CC or CoH.
I have enjoyed many games of CC. The rules are a step up from M44, but is well worth the investment if you are interested in wargames. Every scenario is involving and it has a great "feel" to it. This DOES feel like a "real" wargame and will draw you into the action. Random elements (it even has a random scenario generator that really works)keep this game fresh without making it too chaotic. A couple of quibbles though. Whether realistic or not, waiting for the right card to play as your opponent is bashing you can be downright annoying. I know that may be exactly representative of real combat, but sheesh, as a game mechanism it is aggravating. Also, CC occasionally breaks down into a hand-management battle rather than a real battle. Overall, however, CC is a blast to play. Highly recommended.
CoH, especially if played with the new SoS rules(you can use these rules with AtB),is a highly playable game. It is pretty easy to learn while remaining a true wargame. Player interaction is high, there is no downtime, and best of all, it is FUN! With the SoS rules the game flows beautifully...no dead points or stops and starts like are possible sometimes with CC. Also highly recommended!
Between CC and CoH? I don't think you could go wrong with either, but right now CoH sees the table more. How about buying both 
-
Rhi Stormbringer
Australia
-
Thank you for the review.
Actually.. no... it made me add the game to my purchase list and pushed it over budget....That meant I had to adjust the budget upwards....
and yes.. I BLAME YOU 
-
Pieter
Netherlands
Maastricht
-
I played the game at Essen 2009, and it was really the suckiest game I ever experienced. It depended almost entirely on luck, it looked dull, and it was a bore to play. I guess that shows that I am simply not at all interested in wargames.
One thing I remember is that the guy who explained the rules of the game to me at Essen started off with saying that this game was actually developed for the US military to train officers in combat tactics. And I was thinking "Is that supposed to make the game entertaining?"
-
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
-
Flyboy Connor wrote: It depended almost entirely on luck
This is factually wrong.
-
Pieter
Netherlands
Maastricht
-
DaviddesJ wrote: This is factually wrong.
Then perhaps the guy explained it wrong, but in the end the game came down to die rolls: you can position yourself all you want, but if you do not roll the required value, you miss. And if one player manages to defeat a unit of his opponent, he is far ahead and it will be hard to defeat him.
-
Christoph K.
Germany
Berlin
Berlin
-
Well, okay. If you understand it as "at some point in the game a die is rolled and this removes any and all influence I have on the outcome", as you seem to do, then yes, this game is probably not for you.
However your choices and actions have tremendous impact on what kind of rolls you will be making and what you need to roll.
Your actions and decisions that are not die-roll related greatly affect wether you end up rolling 2d6 against 12 or 5.
Believe it or not, but if your decisions consistently generate the situations where you roll against small numbers while forcing your opponent to roll against high number, you are actually a lot closer to winning than he is.
I think that this is rather well suited to simulate decisionmaking that is aiming to generate situations favorable to yourself and denying the opponent situations that are favorable to him. Or as we sometimes call it "tactical decisionmaking".
Cheers,
Chris
-
MikeM
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
129/420
-
chrisdk wrote:
Believe it or not, but if your decisions consitently generate the situations where you roll against small numbers while forcing your opponent to roll against high number, you are actually a lot closer to winning than he is.
Yes, very true. Even seemingly slight differences here (you rolling on 6's often and your opponent rolling on 8's) make a huge difference.
-
Christoph K.
Germany
Berlin
Berlin
-
Well that seemingly slight difference is actually roundabout 30%. That's why this area is the sweetspot for using CAPs on dierolls or getting that extra modifier from somewhere.
Cheers,
Chris
-
Daniel Coats
United States
California
-
This video was very helpful!
-
Kevin
United States
Lake Elsinore
California
-
I had to grit my teeth when I watched him muscle the boards out of the box. I couldn't help but imagine the box ripping apart....like finger nails on a chalk board
 
-
Joe Steadman
United States
Evart
Michigan
-
Nope,they are pretty tough
-
|
|
