Trashdome: Block Games vs. Card Driven War Games

WELCOME TO TRASHDOME!

This is part of a series of bloody matches to the death. Show support for your favorite game so it will do better in the fight. You can support it by writing why you think its the better game and more importantly by betting on it. End your first post in this thread with the title of the game you're placing a bet on (i.e. voting for) so its clear to me when reading it later. You have until Friday when I tally the bets and declare the winner. Counting expansions or not is entirely up to you just as playing with them or not is. I will reserve my bet for any tie-breakers.

Although you should be familiar with both games, there is no rule that says you have to have played both of them. The only rule in Trashdome is this;

Two types of games enter! One type of game leaves!

Block Games: Hammer of the Scots, Richard, 1812, Liberty, Crusader Rex, etc
Card Driven Games: Hannibal, Washingtons War, For the People, Path of Glory, etc

I must say I prefer CDGs, though I like block games. I find that the fog of war in block games is rarely all that well utilized and that there often aren't enough areas to really convincingly create any fog of war. There's also no ifs---you either know what's there exactly or you have 0 idea, which is pretty unrealistic.

I dislike both, but I am looking forward for the HIS reprint so:

CDGs

Most certainly CDGs

Here are my arguments:
- Twilight Struggle
- Here I Stand
- Successors
- Paths of Glory
- Sword of Rome
- Hannibal RvC
- Triumph of Chaos

Aren't Hammer of the Scots and Crusader Rex card driven, too?

I like both mechanics but if I had to make a choice of only one, I'd pick CDGs.


-Will

CDG's

I love the variety and difficult decisions that card-driven wargames bring to the table, and I'm also very impressed by the way that a well-designed CDG can actually teach the players history as the game progresses in a way that no other kind of wargame can.

As others have said, the fog-of-war mechanic in block games is often underutilized probably because when it is implemented properly - as in Rommel in the Desert - the game become almost entirely about paranoia and bluff, and very little else.

I enjoy block games. Especially columbia's, they are low-rules density games and are fairly easily accessible wargames. but I agree with most of the above, the fog of war isn't implemented like it should be. I think something showing its an 'infantry' or 'cavalry' unit, but no strength on the opponent's side, or something to give 'limited' intelligence would help.

CDGs can range from fairly simple (1960) to very complex. I enjoy the history and 'other' items injected into the game. I do find that having to use cards for everything sometimes feels artificially constricting.

Going back and playing Hannibal:RvC after playing a turn of successorsIII really highlights this. doesn't take long to get back into the flow, but I really like that successors uses cards to 'enhance' actions, rather than being the only actions.
in the end, i'll buy more CDGs. I've traded away all my block games. I'm looking to get a block game or two back into my collection though.

vote: CDG

CDGs

Block wargames can be awesome but can devolve into grinding and static fronts. Hammer is one of the few that successfully avoids this with the nobles returning home each winter.

I like the variance of CDGs, the "what the crap do I do with *this* hand!?!?" situations. I also prefer CDGs that have multiple uses for the cards themselves, to add another layer of decisions and tactics.

Tough call for me. I've played more CDGs, but I'm pretty burned out on most of them. As of late, I've opted to play Hammer of the Scots as opposed to Twilight Struggle or Washington's War. Yet Hammer of the Scots is the only block game I've played that I like (the only other one being FAB: The Bulge). I guess my vote is for CDGs.

For me, CDGs have far too much focus on area control and not nearly enough focus on actual combat. Since maneuvering/attacking is what I prefer - and the bluffing aspect adds quite a bit to the combat uncertainty and "fun" factor - I prefer block games by a wooden mile.

Vote: Block games

Vote: CDGs

My favorites include Hannibal, Sword of Rome, TNW/Welly/Kuz (jury's out on HiS), and Empire.

My biggest beef with CDGs is a tendency towards excess chrome in the rules. I would rather have the cards introduce mechanisms to simple rules than have cards tweak knobs in complicated rules. I actually prefer the latter in CCGs (e.g., 7th Sea, Doomtown, and Netrunner over Magic), but CCGs have more replayability for me so I don't mind that investment into making it a lifestyle game. So, I would probably play most block games before many CDGs.

For the record, I don't consider Twilight Struggle or C&C games to be CDGs.

C&C:Ancients has blocks and cards, but is neither a block game nor a CDG. Discuss.

C&C Ancients is neither. Twilight Struggle...maybe not a war game, but not a CDG? i'm not sure how you can argue that.

lj1983 wrote:

Twilight Struggle...maybe not a war game, but not a CDG? i'm not sure how you can argue that.

For me a CDG means more than just the sum of the mechanisms. For one, it is a wargame. I will credit TS for being far more innovative than just about every CDG, but it feels like something different in the end.

(I really didn't want to discuss all that, there's enough threads on TOS for that. I just couldn't resist the Linda Richman reference.)

dave wrote:

C&C:Ancients has blocks and cards, but is neither a block game nor a CDG. Discuss.

In a (true) block game the blocks are not visible to your opponent.
The label CDG is only applied to games derivative of "We The People".

And TS is a CDG, fool.