Recommend
22 
 Thumb up
 Hide
31 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Frontline: D-Day» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Initial Impressions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Robert Pollard
United Kingdom
Bristol
Avon
flag msg tools
mbmb
On opening the box I was surprised at the quality of the components. All parts, including the rule book were of a very high standard.

I have now played two games in solitaire mode, both of them the Pegasus Bridge scenario. Prior to the second game I decided to brush up on rules by visiting this forum and re-reading the rule book.

It's weird, in that many people say that Up Fronts! manual is incomprehensible, but I managed to get games up and running straight away with only a few minor issues. However, despite the Frontline manual being of good quality and being well illustrated, I finished reading that manual without any real idea on how to play! Could be just me, maybe I'm more used to AH's style of rules?

What I did ascertain from the first read was that terrain is handled very differently from Up Front! in that all terrain is known. I initially thought that this would be a game killer because I believe that Up Fronts! abstract way of handling terrain is quite realistic in that one never really knows what is on the ground even with maps. Having done a number of real military exercises I can vouch for its realism. It seemed to me that this was a strength of using a card system over hexes, yet Frontline seemed to be ignoring this strength!

In many respects this almost killed it for me. I thought what's the point of having just 9 'range bands'? What could be tactical about that?

However, despite my reservations, and my cluelessness with regard to the rules, I decided to try at least one game - if only to fathom out how the whole thing hangs together.

Well I'm happy to report that despite losing my first game on turn 4, I managed to pick up how the game works, despite many initial rule cock-ups and actually found the experience to be quite addictive. So addictive, that I decided that I must have another game!

However, before starting the second game, I decided to pop over to these forums to read peoples rules q's to consolidate my understanding of them.

Turned out that I had been doing a few things wrong, including forgetting to use troop quality rules!

The second game was much smoother and I now firmly believe that my understanding of the game system is now at a level where I could play others. That said, I still lost on turn 4, although we did inflict more German casualties.

I think what surprised me the most is how different the game is from Up Front! It plays faster, casualties mount faster and I would hesitate to say that the tactical decisions one must make in Frontline are harder to make than in Up Front! - a good thing.

It seems the core of Frontline is centred primarily on good card management. The reason for this is that unlike Up Front! one does not get a full hand at the start of every turn. Instead one must obtain cards by primarily putting a section into Prepare mode, which alas, prevents it from doing anything else for that move! So one has some quite tough decisions to make as cards are needed to assist with attacks and also to help mitigate the effects of enemy fire.

In solitaire mode, enemy fire is relentless. They seem to reload way too quickly and will always open fire when at close ranges. To make things worse for the player, the enemy over time start to build up an number of additional capabilities like permanent enhancements to cover or firepower. The only way a player can mitigate these enhancements is to put one of his sections into Prepare mode, thus preventing that section from firing.

The player's firepower is further diminished because the player needs cards and needs ammo, so regardless, he must Prepare on a fairly frequent basis, again preventing the player from firing. This all adds up to situations where the firepower coming from the player falls way short of what the solitaire AI is dishing out.

Another issue that I have noticed is that the game really penalises imbalances of troop numbers - at least in solitaire mode. The side with most troops will always end up in a situation where they can fire on you without you being able to do much about it due to lack of cards and the fact that all your sections have acted. In these situations, your troops really take a pounding.

Despite some of my reservations with the system, I actually like it a lot and will be playing it much more in the future. I still prefer Up Front!, even though I'm a newb with Up Front! I find the battles are more balanced and seem to have a narrative that I can relate to.
23 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Ames
United States
Woburn
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
However, despite the Frontline manual being of good quality and being well illustrated, I finished reading that manual without any real idea on how to play! Could be just me, maybe I'm more used to AH's style of rules?


It's not just you. A lot of people have issues with the rulebook. Everything's in there but it's hard to find it easily. I got fed up with it and made up a condensed rulebook.

It's a fun game to bust out when you want to play a wargame but don't have hours upon hours to play one.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Verssen
United States
Glendora
California
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmb
We'll be starting work on Frontline Guadalcanal in a month or so. Our goal is to improve with every game we design.

What did you find confusing with the rules, and what can we do to make the next rulebook better?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Ames
United States
Woburn
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's been a while since I've looked at the rules proper, but off the top of my head, I would have to say the general layout. The rules just didn't seem to be organized in a straightforward manner.

I prefer rules to be set up in one of two ways:

1. In an easily referenced order so I have to do the minimal amount of page-flipping to find what I'm looking for.

2. A general overview of the rules followed by programmed instruction of some kind (for instance a series of tutorial scenarios or perhaps a turn-by-turn example).

I can cite more examples later tonight when I get home and look over the rulebook.

P.S. - I love the Combat Commander rulebooks. Everything's neatly listed and it has good examples.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vasilis
Greece
Heraklion Crete
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Since Dan actually asked about advice for the Frontline series, I'll just write some of the things that I'd like to be better.

Before I do that let me say in advance that I think the system is great and the game is really good. My following suggestions are things that in my opinions will improve the game.

Here goes:

1} I'd prefer increased relative range between enemy sections so that there are a few turns of maneuvering before they can exchange fire. {exceptions are mortars and snipers of course}
As it is now many sections can start firing immediately from turn 1.


2} I don't understand why Tanks have the same Firepower rating at all ranges.

3} I'd propose adding some MISS counters to the hit counter mix so that they burn some Firepower value and make it less deadly. There are instances where a Section can produce 35+ firepower and the opposing section can only respond with much less because its own counter-attack Firepower is halved. Then hit counters are drawn and slaughter the section.
Halving the firepower is a bit too much in my opinion. Maybe another mechanic is needed here.

4} Continuing from 3 above I'd like to say that if you don't want to change the basic mechanics of the game because that would mean that you must then provide new components for Frontline: D-Day owners there are easier solutions. Just change the game's rules somewhat.

For example, I'm considering implementing an idea that I have for some weeks now: When a soldier is Pinned and receives another Pin counter that Pin is NOT transformed to a Morale hit. This simulates the soldier ducking and hiding from enemy fire. More Pin results don't actually make him worse.
I'm also considering allowing excessive Morale hits to be ignored and not be transformed to Wound hits but I believe this will create problems making some soldiers more durable than they should be.

But I believe that the game needs some way to lessen the effect of excessive Firepower. I mean if a player can produce that much Firepower then it's his accomplishment but if the defender can counter-attack then he shouldn't be penalized so much by halving his Firepower.

It happens many times that I could actually have Sections ready for a counter-attack but halving the Firepower really crippled their ability to provide a decent Firepower rating so I just don't do it to preserve cards.

I believe that players should be penalized harshly only if they don't counter-attack at all. If they do perform a counter-attack then they shouldn't be punished so much. They should give a Cover bonus anyway to the attacked section regardless of their actual FP rating or maybe with a modifier table or something like that.

It's way too easy for a section to Rapid Fire and produce 40+ Firepower so that even a counter-attacking section with Rapid Fire cannot produce enough Firepower to stop it because even if they do produce 40+ FP too it gets halved and drops to a useless -20. This is even more apparent if the counter-attacking section produces less firepower. After halving it its effect is so small that most players just prefer to sacrifice their attacked section by Preparing, drawing cards and letting them die. At least that's what I've seen in our games.

This excessive Firepower problem is more apparent when the receiving section is standing on Light cover {which is perfectly OK} but even on Medium cover it's a little bit too much.

So to put it in a few words, I think that there must be a rule to lessen the effect of Firepower especially when there is a counter-attacking section. {adding MISS counters to the mix for example}a rule to protect a section that receives an attack but it's owner managed to do a counter-attack. Halving the Firepower is too harsh.

I've found myself many times able to do a counter-attack but not actually executing it because after halving the Firepower the remaining FP wasn't nearly enough to do any good.
For too many times I've chosen a Prepare action for my soon-to-be-dead section just to draw a few cards from them before they die while I did have a section ready for counter-attack.

I've written about my opinion for how to make the game even better in another post so I'll just copy-paste it here:

Quote:
a. I want Sections to maneuver for a few turns before they can shoot each other. I don't like that in almost all situations the scenarios begin in firing range. More terrain numbers will solve this problem. 0-12 would be good.

b. Tanks. They have the exact same FP in all ranges. I really don't like that. They are equally effective in every range so they don't really have to move. Just go to the nearest Heavy cover and shoot like crazy. I'd prefer it if the game didn't have vehicles at all but some people are going crazy if their WWII game has no tanks in it so I can understand why they had to add them in. Oh well...

c. It might be more interesting if all ranges affected the FP ratings and not certain groups of them. Why do ranges 0-1, 2-3, 4-5 or 6-7 have the same FP bonus?

d. I'd like to see some "MISS" counters thrown into the damage chits mix. This will further reduce the effectiveness of FP and create more tense situations while drawing chits from the cup.



I believe that there are flexible solutions to change the current ruleset and incorporate most of these changes without even having to add new components to the game or change existing components for owners of Frontline: D-day.

Guadalcanal will be stand-alone as far as I know but most players are expecting it to be able to combine seamlessly with D-Day's armies too. A common ruleset but with some corrections regarding the "problems" that I've mentioned above should be really good. At least for me. laugh

Just my two cents.


P.S. I didn't have any problems with the manual and the way it was written by the way.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Hiske
United States
Kentwood
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I want to love this game so much and yet I find the scenarios so unbalanced and the first player advantage frustrating to enjoy it a lot. Some in my group have complained about how powerful the sniper can be. Somehow I feel the game needs to have fewer activations for the first couple turns so each side can formulate a strategy. Guadalcanal sounds like good stuff and I look forward to checking it out.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Verssen
United States
Glendora
California
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmb
This is the perfect time to tell us what you like/dislike. Our goal is to make every game better than the last.

We will be starting the design work on Guadalcanal in a month or two.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Janik-Jones
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Combat Commander, Up Front, Breakout Normandy, Fields of Fire! The Raven King (game publisher) ... that's me!
badge
Slywester Janik, awarded the Krzyż Walecznych (Polish Cross of Valour), August 1944
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DanVerssen wrote:
We'll be starting work on Frontline Guadalcanal in a month or so. Our goal is to improve with every game we design.


Let us all know when the pre-order page goes up!

Actually, I think I really like one of the ideas that Vasilis has come up with. The idea of multiple pins accumulating rather than becoming Morale hits. It ties into one of the mechanics in Jim Krohn's upcoming tactical WW2 game Band of Brothers: Screaming Eagles that differentiates morale and proficiency.

Assume pins represent effective volume of fire onto a unit or into a terrain area. This causes men in the field to become increasingly pinned down and unable to move and fire back effectively. We might describe these increasing states something like hit the dirt, pinned, disrupted etc. Pinning simply takes away a unit's ability to do something because they're increasingly hunkering down from more and more incoming fire. An inability to remove these accumulated pins fast enough means that a unit stands a good chance of being over-run by the enemy, or more vulnerable to future attacks and real damage.

Morale, on the other hand, might be the measurement of a unit's proficiency to continue to act under any condition of battle. Their iron will to carry out orders, and perhaps also reflects the ability of a unit to motivate itself and others to carry on (a small-scale command).

If you use multiple pins, it's simply an indication of having to slowly scout your way back into a clear patch within your terrain, or a cessation of incoming fire over time. It takes your unit a bit to formally prepare, fix bayonets etc, and get their heads up to effectively fight.

Morale hits represent more actual damage to the unit and the more emotional effects of the combat experience on a unit's pysche. A breaking point they reach when they will no more fight forward and simply go into a shell-shocked defensive mode only.

Did that make sense? This might not work for a mano-to-mano scale of game, perhaps better with squads or platoons, but I might try tinkering with that to see if I break the game mechanics.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean McCormick
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The sample game is very helpful for getting a feel for the flow of things, but I agree that there are definitely more grey areas and/or exceptions that gave me pause when I first started to play Frontline. (The troop quality, for instance, changes things quite a bit, and is very easy to lose track of. I missed things like the fact that elite troops draw a card at the start of either player's turn while veteran troops only do so at the start of their turn, for instance.) It's unclear exactly when you can play equipment, or what restrictions there are in some cases.

There is definitely an advantage to having more groups, which is why you want to concentrate on whittling down the solitaire opponent one group at a time rather than spreading your effort out (they rally quicker than you in any event, which makes dispersing your fire an ineffective strategy). As you will always want to prepare with one group every turn, it does allow you to wipe out those accumulated advantages relatively quickly.

Glad you like the system. I'd want to play some games via Vassal, but I don't believe there is a module forthcoming anytime soon. I like the system myself, but I agree that the action might be a bit too bloody too quickly (although that can be a function of player inexperience and will go down when you have a better feel for how to protect your troops; it is hard to come to grips with just how few rally cards there are, though). It's also a bit clunkier than it needs to be in spots. I'm looking forward to seeing how the system develops.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lehr
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
DanVerssen wrote:
This is the perfect time to tell us what you like/dislike. Our goal is to make every game better than the last.

We will be starting the design work on Guadalcanal in a month or two.


No game or rules handy, but off the top of my head…

I don’t like how a hand size increases the more advanced you get. I don’t see what this represents. There is already plenty of advantage and incentive to advancing (flanking, key location, victory conditions). I would recommend instead something like just giving both sides a base number of cards (3 cards for example-this could vary with troop quality) and then add the number of lead groups to this base number to determine hand size.

I think there is too much of an emphasis on sitting and shooting and too little emphasis on maneuver.

Having firepower diminish more with range (including gun/tank firepower) would be helpful in emphasizing maneuver over just sitting and shooting. It would also diminish the "going first" advantage.

Increasing the effectiveness of counter attacking fire might be helpful. This might diminish the “going first” advantage a bit too.

Drawing extra cards for running back and forth across open ground seems kind of strange.

I like the above mentioned idea of adding some “MISS” counters to the hit counters. This would cut down on the predictability of attacks.

Maybe having a few sort of “gully” cards in the action deck would also help with maneuver. If you draw one, you can place it on one of your groups and they are now in some sort of depression and can only be fired upon by someone at their range or perhaps someone on a hill(?). The “gully” could allow the group to move forward or backward “out of sight” to the next range card.

The sniper seems too strange - having their sniper ability decrease the closer the target gets to them! Maybe their sniper firepower/ability should be on a separate line from their regular firepower.

I do think Frontline is fun; it has some cool innovative ideas which is why I put time into thinking about it. Looking forward to Guadalcanal....and the East Front…. and Africa….and France 1940………………………!!!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
CA
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

The Frontline: D-Day system has promise; but after the first few games it was too game-able to get into an almost unbeatable situation.

Getting the first shot on the first turn could setup the whole game, getting a bad first hand could screw up your game. Perhaps having an ability to pitch and draw some of your cards on the first card draw could allow the player to tune his cards before the shooting starts.

One of my regular gaming colleagues is a very good card-game manipulator; he is an expert at utilizing all avenues in getting good card flow and getting a large size hand of cards. Once he had that setup he was unbeatable.

By getting a large squad in good defensive terrain; with a large hand of cards; he could use the worse soldiers in the squad to soak-off most of the damage and keep his best soldiers unharmed. You then need a sniper to take out the leader; and I am sure he would have a counter to that tactic; like a good defensive card for a spare leader to take over.

Snipers: awesome, perhaps too awesome. That sniper on the other side of the battlefield has the perfect view of everyone of your squads; even you best officer hiding in a building that is behind another building.

The chit draw for the "cost" of different types of hit is neat; but it is very deterministic and the cost spread on each counter is narrow. I would like to see more randomness in the fighting and less predictability; perhaps add a die roll to defense to add some chance of not getting hurt. Have some of the counters with higher or lower spread of numbers for the type of wounds. I would like more luck and chance.

Cards for terrain is a nice idea; but I would agree with there not being a lot of depth, and I would like more width; a higher ability to flank, this was a basic tactic and in this game you can only do it if you have a card.

Against opponents who are not experts at exploiting the game; then it is fun and quick; when playing against the 'sharks' then I would play something else.

Tim
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Pollard
United Kingdom
Bristol
Avon
flag msg tools
mbmb
DanVerssen wrote:
We'll be starting work on Frontline Guadalcanal in a month or so. Our goal is to improve with every game we design.

What did you find confusing with the rules, and what can we do to make the next rulebook better?


I think its the rules layout. The text itself is good and understandable, but because of the ordering of the topics it can be hard to get the necessary overview.

What the rules really need, up in the early pages is a detailed sequence of play, with brief explanation of each phase. Then the rest of the rulebook and be broken down into sections expanding on this sequence.

Some other potential layout issues:
1. The scenario's section should really be at the very end of the booklet - after the play examples.
2. There are a number of instances, where a related set of rules are quite widely separated such as troop quality. Also the troop quality main rules are after the scenario section, under 'optional' rules - so the chances of a first time player using them in a historical scenario is limited.
3. Hierarchical para numbering would go a long way to make the rules more readable. It took my second read to realise that the Prepare section was the 3rd section of 3 expanding on the player options. This is because without nested para numbering its harder to see a rule's overall context.

That said, I like the text itself and the manual does have quite a quality feel to it.

It terms of gameplay, the Solo AI needs a bit of a tweak. That said I have only played one of the scenario's so you might want to take this with a pinch of salt :)

I feel that firepower is either too effective or the cover that the terrain is providing is not effective enough. Loved the points mechanism used based on terrain cover that the defender was in. Maybe these points can be tweaked or perhaps more terrain cover types introduced? I know that in WWII taking out troops that are well entrenched in a building was very difficult with firepower alone and often required one to close and initiate a melee to remove them.

One other thing that could be improved is the provision of additional status counters for solo play. A lot of the solo play cards impart semi-perminent effects on the opposing troops, which I found quite difficult to keep track of once the game was in progress.

That said it is an enjoyable system and quite addictive - one thing for certain I will be buying the sequel when it comes out :)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Colpaert
Belgium
TEMSE
Oost-Vlaanderen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DanVerssen wrote:
This is the perfect time to tell us what you like/dislike. Our goal is to make every game better than the last.

We will be starting the design work on Guadalcanal in a month or two.


I like the game, but the solo AI is indeed a bit too strong, especially the multitude of cover possibilities without even needing to prepare which is a handicap for the non-AI player.

I noticed as well the remark concerning the randomness of terrain. Wouldn't it be possible to create some kind of "Combat(/Team) Leader"-game, maybe even combined with some kind of "Tank Leader"-game, based on the Hornet/...-Leader and U boat-Leader systems, Dan?

You could create soldier/tank cards that you would have to equip with weapons/grenades/shells,... and then let them sweep to a random drawn area with all kind of enemy resistance (from soldier to tanks and maybe even aircraft), just like in the Leader-systems.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
  • [+]
  • 7112. neo.colpaert
  • 1d10 =
  • (3) =
  • 3
  • Wed Jan 5, 2011 8:29 pm
  • [+]
  • 7113. neo.colpaert
  • 1d10 =
  • (8) =
  • 8
  • Wed Jan 5, 2011 8:29 pm
Sean McCormick
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would strongly disagree with the notion that the solo AI is too strong. Once you figure out how to manage it, the solo AI becomes very beatable. (Of course, the British really are quite underpowered in the Pegasus Bridge scenario, which exacerbates the challenge to a certain effect. It requires a fairly different mindset than some of the other scenarios.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean McCormick
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaveyJJ wrote:
DanVerssen wrote:
We'll be starting work on Frontline Guadalcanal in a month or so. Our goal is to improve with every game we design.


Let us all know when the pre-order page goes up!

Actually, I think I really like one of the ideas that Vasilis has come up with. The idea of multiple pins accumulating rather than becoming Morale hits. It ties into one of the mechanics in Jim Krohn's upcoming tactical WW2 game Band of Brothers: Screaming Eagles that differentiates morale and proficiency.

Assume pins represent effective volume of fire onto a unit or into a terrain area. This causes men in the field to become increasingly pinned down and unable to move and fire back effectively. We might describe these increasing states something like hit the dirt, pinned, disrupted etc. Pinning simply takes away a unit's ability to do something because they're increasingly hunkering down from more and more incoming fire. An inability to remove these accumulated pins fast enough means that a unit stands a good chance of being over-run by the enemy, or more vulnerable to future attacks and real damage.

Morale, on the other hand, might be the measurement of a unit's proficiency to continue to act under any condition of battle. Their iron will to carry out orders, and perhaps also reflects the ability of a unit to motivate itself and others to carry on (a small-scale command).

If you use multiple pins, it's simply an indication of having to slowly scout your way back into a clear patch within your terrain, or a cessation of incoming fire over time. It takes your unit a bit to formally prepare, fix bayonets etc, and get their heads up to effectively fight.

Morale hits represent more actual damage to the unit and the more emotional effects of the combat experience on a unit's pysche. A breaking point they reach when they will no more fight forward and simply go into a shell-shocked defensive mode only.

Did that make sense? This might not work for a mano-to-mano scale of game, perhaps better with squads or platoons, but I might try tinkering with that to see if I break the game mechanics.


That does make sense, and I think it's a good idea. I also like the idea of having variable ratings on some of the hit counters, particularly the higher ones like wound or death.

As far as improvements I would like to see, there are several. First, I would like to dispense with the ammunition counters by having the soldier in an ammo-less state printed on the back of the card, thus cutting down on clutter. I would like to see the size of the groups and engagements be somewhat larger. A German squad, for instance should easily accomodate a 3 man LMG team and a 5 man maneuver element, while an American (or Russian or Japanese) squad should be quite a bit larger again. In the average Up Front scenario, you've got about 10-15 men per side going at it, and I think the Frontline scenarios require a higher number of participants. (This would also help address the fact that fire is so deadly, as that is magnified in an encounter between 5-6 per side.)

I think the current equipment rules could use some tinkering and/or be made more explicit.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lehr
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
seanmac wrote:
I would like to dispense with the ammunition counters by having the soldier in an ammo-less state printed on the back of the card, thus cutting down on clutter.


Where do you put your equipment and damage markers? I, so far, have tended to put them on top of the soldier card which would make flipping them back ban forth to show ammo state kind of a hassle.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean McCormick
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lehr wrote:
seanmac wrote:
I would like to dispense with the ammunition counters by having the soldier in an ammo-less state printed on the back of the card, thus cutting down on clutter.


Where do you put your equipment and damage markers? I, so far, have tended to put them on top of the soldier card which would make flipping them back ban forth to show ammo state kind of a hassle.


Fair point. You could put those markers underneath the soldier card, I would think. I've been experimenting with leaving out the ammo chits and simply rotating a card 180 degrees when he is out of ammo, which works fine. Anyway, I'm primarily interested in reducing chit clutter, which I think is a bit of an issue with the design as currently constructed. I could also see taking a page from the solitaire approach and keeping equipment in a central pile, pulling from it as necessary during action.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lehr
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
seanmac wrote:
Fair point. You could put those markers underneath the soldier card, I would think. I've been experimenting with leaving out the ammo chits and simply rotating a card 180 degrees when he is out of ammo, which works fine.


I think the playing area would be less cluttered if you can keep the counters on the soldier card. This would be especially helpful if you have a small playing area. If the back of the soldier card is used for something, perhaps it could be used for something that does not tend to change as frequently as ammo - such as wound status.

seanmac wrote:
Anyway, I'm primarily interested in reducing chit clutter, which I think is a bit of an issue with the design as currently constructed.


Always worthy to look at ways to reduce clutter. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but counters like the morale counter could have a 1 on one side a 2 on the other side while other morale counters have a 3 on one side and a 4 on the other (kind of like DiF damage markers). This way you only need to have one morale counter on a soldier card at a time.

seanmac wrote:
I could also see taking a page from the solitaire approach and keeping equipment in a central pile, pulling from it as necessary during action.


I have never played solitaire and don't have the rules handy, but shouldn't each soldier carry his own equipment?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lehr
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
Bowmangr wrote:
For example, I'm considering implementing an idea that I have for some weeks now: When a soldier is Pinned and receives another Pin counter that Pin is NOT transformed to a Morale hit. This simulates the soldier ducking and hiding from enemy fire. More Pin results don't actually make him worse.
I'm also considering allowing excessive Morale hits to be ignored and not be transformed to Wound hits but I believe this will create problems making some soldiers more durable than they should be.


These seem like they could be great ideas! They make sense to me anyway and seem worth playtesting.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lehr
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
One other thing that seemed a little off in FD...

The "Panzerfaust" guy.

It seems like the Germans should get a couple panzerfaust equipment counters instead of having one guy with a bunch of panzerfausts.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
Where the heck did this interest in WW1 come from?
badge
Ashwin in front of Tiger 131
Avatar
mb
I was thinking of getting this game and am now not so sure. If you had to summarise would you say this a great game that needs some tweaking or one you wouldn't recommend?

p.s. I bet Dan wishes he hadn't asked now!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Pollard
United Kingdom
Bristol
Avon
flag msg tools
mbmb
Ashiefan wrote:
I was thinking of getting this game and am now not so sure. If you had to summarise would you say this a great game that needs some tweaking or one you wouldn't recommend?

p.s. I bet Dan wishes he hadn't asked now!


It is a great game in that it is very addictive. I guess the best way of describing it is as a great game with a few rough edges. One thing for sure, I don't regret my purchase and I will be buying the sequel when it comes out.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vasilis
Greece
Heraklion Crete
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ashiefan wrote:
I was thinking of getting this game and am now not so sure. If you had to summarise would you say this a great game that needs some tweaking or one you wouldn't recommend?

p.s. I bet Dan wishes he hadn't asked now!


There isn't a single game in the galaxy surprise right now that has players who would not have a lot of suggestions and/or fixes for it if asked to comment on it.

Get the game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lehr
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
Ashiefan wrote:
I was thinking of getting this game and am now not so sure. If you had to summarise would you say this a great game that needs some tweaking or one you wouldn't recommend?

p.s. I bet Dan wishes he hadn't asked now!


I think it is a fun game with nice components. Recommend! thumbsup
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
Where the heck did this interest in WW1 come from?
badge
Ashwin in front of Tiger 131
Avatar
mb
Ok, cool. Now I'm just wondering now what some of you guys say when your wife/girlfriend asks you 'Do I look fat in this?' whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.