Recommend me

I invoke the collective wisdom of the forum,

recommend me:

one operational-level wargame
one squad level wargamge


consider the following:

I am not familiar with wargaming
I am a bits whore
I want a diverse collection of games, only the best get to stay in my closet, the rest will burn.
I will not tolerate different games trying to do the same thing in my closet. One game to rule them all applies, consider this.
I am ready.

Bring it.

Hmm, how about Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear? It's not overcomlicated and the bits look nice (I still prefer the simple ASL look though).

For squad level I like Conflict of Heroes and Combat Commander.

I wish Conflict of Heroes had more unit variety, but it's got nice bits and a ruleset I really like. Nice counters that are easy to handle. Fairly low unit density really, and no ridiculous stacking going on. The whole action/reaction thing is really neat and the fact that players basically have to alternate being the active player means that both players will be engaged the whole time. This has has tanks too.

Combat Commander in some ways, is almost like an Ameritrash Squad Level tactical game since you're dealing with crazy events happening, random objectives (sometimes) and other things that generally lend well to producing a really nice narrative. The rulebook is really well written and I like the card play aspect of it.

You'll hate it if you MUST have perfect control, and admittedly sometimes it's retarded that random chance just wont give you the move or fire card you need, but generally I feel like the player has quite a few options available to him at all times. I really like how the amount of cards you can discard is tied to the general combat flexibility of your nationalities units. Thats just a cool mechanic.

No tanks in Combat Commander, which I personally don't think is a big deal. I think epic tank battles are better suited for a larger tactical scale anyway (I like platoon level).

For operational level, what conflicts (and aspects of those conflicts) are you interested in? That might help narrow it down.

Tide of Iron is an option for squad level. I don't think it is as good as Conflict of Heroes or Combat Commander, and most serious wargamers wouldn't touch it with a really long war related implement but the bits are great and it's a fun game.

timeLESS wrote:

recommend me:

one operational-level wargame
one squad level wargamge


consider the following:

I am not familiar with wargaming
I am a bits whore

First off you should know that there aren't many war games with neat bits.

For a squad-level war game, there isn't much competition. Go with COH - AWAKENING THE BEAR.

The whole thing gets much more difficult with the operational-level game though. I could recommend plenty of games, which would only dissatisfy you, because they're either out of print, simplistic looking, complex or everything together. Your closest bet is probably STORM OVER STALINGRAD, but that one has a paper map and counters. More satisfying in the bits compartment to you would probably be one of the Columbia Games, that is either HAMMER OF THE SCOTS, ROMMEL IN THE DESERT or NAPOLEON. You could also consider AGE OF NAPOLEON 2nd, but this is rather a strategical game.

I never intended to say that "i am a quality bits-whore". I am more of a quantity bits-whore.

My intention is to get some really good games in widely different categories. Therefore recommendations need not be restricted to "gateway" wargames (whatever that means). Im much more interested in something with endless replayability/options then something which is "easy and accesible". Im willing to invest time and brainpower into the games people rate highly and am not inclined to reject a game just because i cannot master it in one go. Like i said before: I AM READY

Then go with SQUAD LEADER and NAPOLEON AT LEIPZIG.

Operational is a tough recommendation though I do think the options for tactical are quite clear.

For operational, can you narrow it down for us at all? Are there any conflicts you are more interested in than others? Time periods? Ancient greeks? Do you like gunpowder? WWII? Wars w/America in them?

Since operational level gaming is so wide open, that would help everyone choose something. There are so many outstanding operational level games that more clarification would be good, even if it they're just your historical interests.

I haven't picked up if you are a classic wargamer or a gamer wanting some wargames (I can be a bit slow). If the latter then I would recommend Tide of Iron especially if you are a quantity bits whore and love throwing lots of dice. I have played Combat Commander once, and I did enjoy it but it just didn't push my AT buttons as much as ToI (which I have now acquired).

Yeah, Squad Leader is the way to go for squad level, then given what's written above. It's got a FUCK TON of bits, and the number of scenarios is in the billions at this point. Advanced Squad Leader is all of this and a bag of chits (OH IT IS TO LAUGH), but it's only adding more, not necessarily better.

For ops level, I would really take a look at a block wargames, as noted above. Hammer of the Scots is an awesome time, with a weird quasi-squad feel for some of the units--inspirational leaders, &c. I'm more into the Revolutionary era conflicts, though, so I'm going with Quebec 1759, myself. I can also recommend Crusader Rex.

Squad leader seems like a good time, but dammit that is one massive investment! If i ever stumble upon a good package deal i will consider it. So far im getting really curious about the following titles:

Combat Commander: Europe
Commands & Colors
Here I Stand
Conflict of Heroes
Paths of Glory
Successors
Hannibal
Fields of Fire

Not necissarily in that order

Also all of the CDG's seem like a great investment. Right now I'm considering to get one CDG and one Tactical level game. At this point I'm really more interested in a game that can give me endless replayability then anything else.

I really want to keep my game collection "slim and tight" getting rid of games that are vying to achieve more or less the same thing and adding good/great games of different flavors currently underrepresented in my collection. Im mostly playing ameritrash games of all sorts but im also gettin interested in trying out some good wargames. I would also dig an option to play solitaire.

Paths of Glory will probably not offer the endless replayability you're looking for. It's a great game, but I'm not sure it's as flexible as you're looking for.

Commands & Colors = Memoir 44 BCE. Good sword & sandals and probably the best of the C&C systems.

Successors...it sits on my shelf now awaiting a play, so I can't really say.

Here I Stand--Do you like PBEM or do you have a large group willing to devote themselves to this one? If the answer to both is "no" I'm not sure it's a good choice.

Hannibal...I love this game and you can do far worse in the land of 2-player CDWGs

Fields of Fire. I'm still dicking around with this one and haven't formed a solid opinion yet other than "wow, novel!" However, as a solitaire game, it's a breed apart from everything else you list. It's worth buying simply because it really does stand alone.

CC:E. I am of mixed opinions about this family of games. Personally, I really enjoy it. There's a certain chaos to it that can be unbelievably frustrating. It's a great game though. If you're more into the "pseudo-simulation" type experience, you need to be looking more at COH or one of the big boys--ASL or Advanced Tobruk

[CC:P is worse on the frustration front to a certain degree as the USMC player appears to not ever be able to move but can lay down a metric fuck-ton of lead, while the Japanese can move like hell but seem to be mostly designed to get close and cut your throat with a bayonet]

timeLESS wrote:

Squad leader seems like a good time, but dammit that is one massive investment! If i ever stumble upon a good package deal i will consider it.

There's a difference between SQUAD LEADER and ASL.

SQUAD LEADER started just as a single game. It had everything in the box: Americans, Russians, Germans, infantry, tanks, artillery, etc. The game was a big success and expansions were added, namely CROSS OF IRON, CRESCENDO OF DOOM, GI: ANVIL OF VICTORY. These added so many rules, that pretty much everybody was confused after the release of GI and the whole thing was just one big mess, because the expansions simply added rules or overwrote others.

So ASL was created, which had one underlying rule set (which you have to buy before playing anything) and a dozen of modules, whereof some built upon each other and some were just optional. Most people playing ASL already played SL and thus for newbies ASL is particularly tough to grasp. But recently MMP is helping out here with the Starter Kits.

Still, SQUAD LEADER is one stand-alone game and it isn't too hard to learn, because it uses programmed instructions, i.e. you learn one aspect of the game and can then play a scenario. After a while you can come back and play a scenario with the full rules. SL is the granddaddy of tactical games and you can see newer games borrowing from it one thing or the other. It's also endlessly replayable, as a matter of fact the designer meant to give the players a system which they may than expand upon, i.e. build their own scenarios. However, the demand for new scenarios and options was so high that we are now facing this hopelessly bloated system, ASL, which seemingly scares more people away than encouraging new players to try it. And that's a shame really. I never played ASL, but SL is a great, if at first daunting game.

Dogmatix wrote:

CC:E. I am of mixed opinions about this family of games. Personally, I really enjoy it. There's a certain chaos to it that can be unbelievably frustrating. It's a great game though. If you're more into the "pseudo-simulation" type experience, you need to be looking more at COH or one of the big boys--ASL or Advanced Tobruk.

I hope you're not suggesting CC:E gives you a "real-simulation" type experience, because that's definitely not the case. One of these days I got to write a 1000 word article on why I don't like CC:E (I do see the merits of the system). Many people write that CC:E simulates "real combat", because there is so much chaos and so many random events.

Apart from the fact you can probably count the grognards with real front-line combat experience on one hand, I do believe that troops do not always fire and move when wished for by their commanders, but the CC game systems does not differentiate here enough. Alas you can find an elite squad 1000 yards from the enemy behind one row of houses, one wall, two rows of hedges and a dense forest unable to move, and the crucial heavy machine gun team unable to fire (not due to a jam, just generally so) at an enemy moving towards them over open street and in plain view, which is not realistic, but downright stupid.

Furthermore, simulating the command confusion or the ebb and flow of a real battle might be worthwhile, but this doesn't necessarily lead to a fun game experience. Frustration is the right word. I would prefer having to roll the dice before every move to determine whether a unit actually moves, because then this would be a risk I'd have to calculate into my decision making and I would not have to contain myself to what the cards dictate me.

From the little I know about "real" combat, the most "realistic" tactical war game is probably UP FRONT. This game also doesn't hide the fact that it is a card game and because of this having no move or fire cards on the hand is simply called "bad luck" and the lulls in the game where both players are discarding are significantly shorter since they are not distracted by some fancy map.

Not even close to what I was thinking there Simon....what I was really trying to say is that CC:E is much more "gamey" than the others I mention after it. While I personally don't think that any of these games truly *simulate* anything [no matter how hard ASL tries and/or its devotees claim--it's still just a game], some are more game than "consim" than others.

Chad has stated numerous times that Up Front was a significant influence on development of Combat Commander. Based on my limited experience with it, Up Front seems to do a fine job of giving one a taste for fire and movement tactics, but, in the end, it's still a card game where the luck of the draw dictates certain things. Without question, CC:E uses cards to dictate command and control; Up Front seems to assume that you have extremely limited battlefield intelligence while stumbling somewhat blindly [depending on the number and type of cards in your hand] hither and yon.

Both limit ability to fire and rally by luck of the draw, so similar frustrations abound in both systems as far as I'm concerned. And, in fact, *because* of that frustration, I find both to be great fun. Although I've played a hell of a lot more of the CC series than I have Up Front [only a few games], I find myself agreeing with Goldenboat's assessment of the two games: "Combat Commander is 'Attack of the Clones' to Up Front's 'Episode IV'." Still love to play CC:E/M/P though, and I expect to be getting my local CC opponent into Up Front as I'm certain he'll really dig it.

(It's probably also worth noting for folks that have never played either that, though both are squad-level games, the scale in UF and CC is a bit different. Up Front is essentially playing man-by-man 1 to 3 or so CC counters. As a result, I find that CC offers a much broader narrative experience; UF, on the other hand, is significantly deeper.)