$10.00
Recommend
38 
 Thumb up
 Hide
52 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Combat Commander: Europe» Forums » Reviews

Subject: CC:E - First Games, First Impressions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Doug Cooley
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Me rocking out with my band, which you can hear at www.raindriver.com
mbmbmbmbmb
This is a short review of GMT's new tactical WWII game, Combat Commander. My group has been anxiously anticipating this game coming out, and I spent a good chunk of Friday (the day it came) clipping counters, reading the rules, and going through the example of play, all to prepare for playing my friend Chuck on Saturday.

First, the components (as always). In general, very good. Chuck felt the cards were on the flimsy side, and I suppose they could be beefier, but considering that they're going straight into protectors and deck boxes, that shouldn't be an issue. The box is the same size as Command & Colors: Ancients, which is to say bookshelf-sized, but deep enough to hold a Plano box for counter storage. Too many of the bookcase boxes are too thin to hold a deck box, so the extra depth is appreciated.

I really like the counters, but of course there are a couple of nits. The grey and green counters are very similar in color, and in less than stellar lighting that could be a problem. Also, for some reason I keep confusing the leader and team counters, although neither was a problem during play.

Finally, the rules. I've been advocating this particular style of rules (give the basic flow, then break out specifics in the back of the rules, combining the strengths of user's guides with reference manuals). Combined with an excellent index, this is the best rules set I've ever seen, and I've been wargaming for 30 years. Well done, Chad and GMT. These rules will set the standard for years to come.

Next, learning the game. The process referred to in the rules, reading the Components, Core Rules, Orders, and Op Fire action entry, is possibly a bit too much. What I did was read the Components and Core Rules, then set up the example of play and ran through it. As I got to a section that discussed, say, movement, I'd go look up that rules section. It worked well enough that Chuck and I got through our first game (Scenario 1) in less than two hours the next day. Of course, I have enough experience with Squad Leader and Up Front (the obvious ancestors of this game) that most of the concepts were very familiar.

Finally, how did it play? Quite well. We played the first two scenarios, with me as the Germans in both cases. In the first, I foolishly held the initiative, allowing Chuck to move first. My primary weapon squad and leader moved into Op Fire range, of which one broke, and the other was broken by a sniper. It went downhill from there, and I never felt like I ever got a chance to get back in the game - I kept getting tagged by snipers while Chuck went untouched in the first few turns, and recovery cards were nowhere in sight for the Germans. We were considering this a learning game, so it tolerable, and I'd definitely move with the Germans before I even considered hanging on to the initiative.

In the second game, I was defending Bocage country from the American advance. I started out with a pretty strong defense (I put the light MGs up front, holding the heavies back along some obvious advancement lanes), only to have Chuck do quite well with his melee rolls - I lost the three I was involved in, despite having multiple Ambush cards in every case. I ended up losing before the Time marker hit the Sudden Death marker through loss of units, which was killing me - in every melee, I lost a leader and a squad. Clearly I was doing something wrong, but we agreed that luck was not with me in the second half of the scenario.

Still, I had a great time. The game takes the tactical feel of Squad Leader and pairs it with the strong elements of Up Front. UF was a great idea hampered by an unreadable and error-filled rulebook, not to mention amazingly involved attempts to handle the intricacies of manuever through cards. Unlike Squad Leader, terrain and weapons are approachable and consistant. If I could name a game that comes close to having the same feel, it would be the Victory Games' chestnut Ambush!.

We really only had one question not easily addressed by the rules, namely what constitutes the end of a movement activation (for purposes of placing smoke - can a unit place smoke after you've used up all of its MP?) Even then, it was pretty clear that you could, although I think this is an unusual situation.

By comparison, the other game I was really excited about getting this year, Shifting Sands, suffered from the twin CDG maladies of Must Play Events and When Does My Critical Event Show Up, exacerbated by too-large event decks. While the initial prognosis on that game was very good, it became clear that many cards simply had to be played in order to thin your deck down as a missed event would likely cost you the game and there were at least two chances for something like this to happen.

Combat Commander, on the other hand, by it's very nature can be balanced. While bad luck can play a role (and did to some extent in my two games), the games are short enough (our second game was about two hours as well), and the various victory conditions mean that even though you are losing units that you're only one really successful combat away from turning things around. In our second game, even though I was losing units I was also very close to winning on points if time ran out because of an extra 5 points for an objective that I still held, and had I won the last melee it would have been very close indeed.

Perhaps best, you are constantly deciding how to play cards. Do you take a shot at the unit about to advance into your position, or hold the card for it's ambush action? Answer (in this case) - Ambush. Definitely. Melee's are all or nothing, and every additional differential is incredibly important.

So who would like this game? Anyone who's wanted to play ASL but is daunted by the rules commitment and acronym insanity, who's really wanted to like Up Front but the rules and conceptual acrobatics get in the way, who's ever enjoyed Ambush but wished for a live opponent instead of an AI and paragraph system, who'd like to play a wargame that (insomuch as a game can) gives the kind of tension you would imagine you'd have in actual combat. Sans bullets whizzing by your head and you crapping your pants, that is.

Is it perfect? I'd say there are quite a few compromises - a big one is that mortars require a line of sight from the hex firing, and the only thing they bring is to avoid fire attack modifiers for intervening terrain such as hedges. There are no vehicles, although off-board artillery is simulated at a pretty accurate level. If you want a game that will give you complete control over your situation other than a few die rolls, this is not a game for you, and I suspect that a lot of hard-core ASLers won't be impressed. Still, considering that I was into this game in about two hours (to read the salient rules and to run the example), that's quite an accomplishment.

Once again, well done to Chad Jensen, the playtesters, and the developer. Considering this game only started being designed in it's current form a couple of years ago, it is quite well conceived. Brilliant.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
howl hollow howl
United States
Hillsboro
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Did Chuck like it (and, more imporantly, would I)? I proposed playing it with him on Wednesday and I'd like to study the rules ahead of time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
E J
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Great review Doug. It gave me a great perspective regarding the game's difficulty level.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael W.
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Well done review. It just solidified what I already thought

After I downloaded the rules and started reading I thought this might be a game I could play with (newer) wargamers.

All the rulebook comments and the card idea drew me to this game too, enough so that I ordered it this week!

I'm glad the complexity is medium (?) so that I can sit this one down with my nephew after New Years and some solo play.

Happy Holidays!

Santa bring me CC as fast as you can

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Foley
United States
Warren
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
dcooley wrote:
We really only had one question not easily addressed by the rules, namely what constitutes the end of a movement activation (for purposes of placing smoke - can a unit place smoke after you've used up all of its MP?) Even then, it was pretty clear that you could, although I think this is an unusual situation.


Doug, the first sentence of A24.1 reads Actions may be announced by either player at any time via a Fate card played from the hand so long as that Action's listed condition or prerequisite is met.

The Smoke Action does not reference Movement Point expenditure, but rather defines the Smoke Action capability for units with boxed Movement and that it must be played while that unit is activated to move.

So (a) once you have activated a unit with boxed Movement, (b) irrespective of how many MPs it expends, (c) you may play the Smoke Action. You may play it before you expend MPs, during the expenditure of MPs and after you have finished expending MPs. It is particularly exciting to have more than one Smoke Action for a key unit making a key dash at a critical moment in the game.

Your question really is looking for what terminates the state of that particular Movement Order (and thus the point at which you may no longer play the Smoke Action upon the given unit)? When either you or your opponent plays the very next Order. Because the Smoke Action is defined by the play of an Order, the symmetry of closure comes with the play of the next Order, without regard to the expenditure of MPs.

I hope this makes it clear.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Koens
United States
Watsonville
California
flag msg tools
marks the spot.
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Your question really is looking for what terminates the state of that particular Movement Order (and thus the point at which you may no longer play the Smoke Action upon the given unit)? When either you or your opponent plays the very next Order.


Should this not say: "When you play another order or draw cards to end your turn."

I doubt you can draw cards and then continue to play orders? Or am I wrong? Is that in the rules somewhere?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexander B.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb
I hate to say anything even remotely negative about a game that looks so good as far as components and is obviously quite good after having read the rules.

For me though, there is one big flaw, and that flaw is that ASL does exist.

I personally don't think that the basic infantry rules for ASL are THAT much more complex than this, and one they are learned, it opens up a whole world of sophistication. The tanks alone are something that, while indeed adding complexity, also add to the depth and realism and can be "eased into" over time.

I'm sure it is largely a preference, but if I'm going to do something, I'm going to do it right. The number of compromises here are very many, and if it takes 4 hours to get into basic infantry ASL with a world of further promise, or 2 hours to get into this where... this is it, I just don't see the benefit to learning a different system like this.

That said, if you tried ASL and just barely couldn't handle it, then this might at least get you in under the bar

If it weren't for the "starter kits" for ASL, then this might be a different story, but with them, why not go all out?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
designer
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
mbmbmb
Quote:
Should this not say: "When you play another order or draw cards to end your turn."

I doubt you can draw cards and then continue to play orders? Or am I wrong? Is that in the rules somewhere?


Your quoted statement is correct and is covered in rule O14.2.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Christopher
United States
Salem
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
In the wonderful game, Bonaparte at Marengo, this is how to get nasty Frenchies out of a village.
mbmbmbmbmb
diamondspider wrote:
If it weren't for the "starter kits" for ASL, then this might be a different story, but with them, why not go all out?

Well, I've not played ASL, but I have played Squad Leader, and (I'll attempt to make this relevant) Star Fleet Battles. Both of the latter games fill a different game style-niche than Combat Commander does. They're both games that are very detailed, with rules for just about anything you can conceivably try, and work in very mechanistic ways. Thus, they're great when I'm in the mood for that typwe of game.

CC fills a different niche; it's more a visceral, almost emotional game, where the others are much more methodical. When I want a 'fly by the seat of my pants' infantry game, I'm not going to pull out SL, I'll pull out CC.

Indeed, after playing this and SL, I don't see playing much of SL any more. I really like the methodical game style found in SFB for a tactical space game; I've just found that I prefer the emotional style in CC for infantry combat; it feels more authentic than SL (said as someone who's never been in any armed forces) and creates really fun games. At the moment, I can't imagine any reason I'd try ASL.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
designer
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
mbmbmb
diamondspider wrote:
I hate to say anything even remotely negative about a game that looks so good as far as components and is obviously quite good after having read the rules.

For me though, there is one big flaw, and that flaw is that ASL does exist.

I personally don't think that the basic infantry rules for ASL are THAT much more complex than this, and one they are learned, it opens up a whole world of sophistication. The tanks alone are something that, while indeed adding complexity, also add to the depth and realism and can be "eased into" over time.

I'm sure it is largely a preference, but if I'm going to do something, I'm going to do it right. The number of compromises here are very many, and if it takes 4 hours to get into basic infantry ASL with a world of further promise, or 2 hours to get into this where... this is it, I just don't see the benefit to learning a different system like this.

That said, if you tried ASL and just barely couldn't handle it, then this might at least get you in under the bar

If it weren't for the "starter kits" for ASL, then this might be a different story, but with them, why not go all out?


Alexander, CC gives you something different from ASL, not something better. CC was never intended to be a replacement to any other system, just an alternative.

I think people generally play multiple games on similar topics because they play differently, not because of some perceived mandatory complexity progression ("I've now played a 7-complexity game so any that are rated 6-complexity or less are no longer fun.")

I love ASL (the only game I've rated a 10 here on the 'geek) and CC.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
A bigger question for me, along the same lines, is this:

If I think that Up Front is just about the greatest game ever concerning WWII squad encounters in a card game format, is there any reason for me to play CC?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark crane
Qatar
Provo
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Plus, don't forget the unlimited Christmas Eve tech support from the designer!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexander B.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb
Chad Jensen wrote:

Alexander, CC gives you something different from ASL, not something better. CC was never intended to be a replacement to any other system, just an alternative.

I think people generally play multiple games on similar topics because they play differently, not because of some perceived mandatory complexity progression ("I've now played a 7-complexity game so any that are rated 6-complexity or less are no longer fun.")

I love ASL (the only game I've rated a 10 here on the 'geek) and CC.


Have you read the rules to this game? It is about 80% ASL with less rules, and 20% new (basically the cards are it as far as I can see on the "new" front).

My whole point is that this games doesn't seem to give much new. Trimming a set of preexisting rule down really isn't new. My main point was that the COST of getting access to these trimmed down rules (which are ALSO trimmed down anyway by the ASL starter kits) is that those who wish to then proceed to stuff like realistic tank battles will not be able to do so with this game, but easily can with ASL.

Again, my intent here is not so much to be negative on this game, as to point out that people should be careful to realize that besides the counters looking better and the hexes being bigger, the differences between this game and the ASL starters is pretty small: the main difference is that one has a LOT more that can be gotten into and the other doesn't.

So, indeed, if this really was an entierly new experience it would be apples to oranges, but after reading the rules, I got the distinct impression of "ASL starter with nicer components and much less depth available".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark crane
Qatar
Provo
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
diamondspider wrote:
Chad Jensen wrote:

Alexander, CC gives you something different from ASL, not something better. CC was never intended to be a replacement to any other system, just an alternative.

I think people generally play multiple games on similar topics because they play differently, not because of some perceived mandatory complexity progression ("I've now played a 7-complexity game so any that are rated 6-complexity or less are no longer fun.")

I love ASL (the only game I've rated a 10 here on the 'geek) and CC.


Have you read the rules to this game? It is about 80% ASL with less rules, and 20% new (basically the cards are it as far as I can see on the "new" front).

My whole point is that this games doesn't seem to give much new. Trimming a set of preexisting rule down really isn't new. My main point was that the COST of getting access to these trimmed down rules (which are ALSO trimmed down anyway by the ASL starter kits) is that those who wish to then proceed to stuff like realistic tank battles will not be able to do so with this game, but easily can with ASL.

Again, my intent here is not so much to be negative on this game, as to point out that people should be careful to realize that besides the counters looking better and the hexes being bigger, the differences between this game and the ASL starters is pretty small: the main difference is that one has a LOT more that can be gotten into and the other doesn't.

So, indeed, if this really was an entierly new experience it would be apples to oranges, but after reading the rules, I got the distinct impression of "ASL starter with nicer components and much less depth available".


I think that Chad has read the rules to the game.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/designer/6331

I hope that Combat Commander doesn't attract the same sort of rabid naysaying that Railroad Tycoon has. Although Age of Steam is better
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexander B.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb
craniac wrote:


I hope that Combat Commander doesn't attract the same sort of rabid naysaying that Railroad Tycoon has. Although Age of Steam is better


To my eyes, RRT and AoS are much different games than these we are talking about and, again, that is my point. Leading people to believe that ASL and CC:E are simply "two different wargames" like those two are "two different rail games" is highly deceptive.

A point which, so far, no one has directly commented on: when spin and tangent is the preferred response, this usually indicates something to the persceptive reader

These games are similar enough that I would honestly be afraid to play both around the same time due to certainly mixing-up rules between them! "Wait, when we rout, do we have to end-up in good cover or not? etc. etc."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael W.
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
diamondspider wrote:

Have you read the rules to this game? It is about 80% ASL with less rules, and 20% new (basically the cards are it as far as I can see on the "new" front).

My whole point is that this games doesn't seem to give much new. Trimming a set of preexisting rule down really isn't new. My main point was that the COST of getting access to these trimmed down rules (which are ALSO trimmed down anyway by the ASL starter kits) is that those who wish to then proceed to stuff like realistic tank battles will not be able to do so with this game, but easily can with ASL.

Again, my intent here is not so much to be negative on this game, as to point out that people should be careful to realize that besides the counters looking better and the hexes being bigger, the differences between this game and the ASL starters is pretty small: the main difference is that one has a LOT more that can be gotten into and the other doesn't.

So, indeed, if this really was an entierly new experience it would be apples to oranges, but after reading the rules, I got the distinct impression of "ASL starter with nicer components and much less depth available".


First as someone already stated Chad is the designer (rofl)

And you may have read the rules but you haven't "PLAYED the game"!!!

ASL players on http://talk.consimworld.com/ that have actually "PLAYED the game" have expressed that the game is a different experience, those that have just read the rules say that it is just like ASL.

I'll defer to the ASL players who have read the rules and "played the game"

I own ASLSK 1 and 2 and own (well am waiting by the mailbox) for CC.

Have a Happy Holiday!

Reddog (who wishes he had his copy and could also "PLAY the game"
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexander B.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb
reddogfive wrote:
ASL players on http://talk.consimworld.com/ that have actually "PLAYED the game" have expressed that the game is a different experience, those that have just read the rules say that it is just like ASL.


Of course the game is a different experience, with similar rules. That is my point. Not that it is exactly the same, but it is highly similar, but without the ability to move on to further detail (with the advantage of nicer components. Which is a solid advantage of CC:E)

I'm not against or for either game, but I don't like misrepresentation.

An not, I don't feel that my opinions will only be valid once I have paid for and played the game. The similarities between these games are obvious from the rules, but nobody is arguing that there are not also differences: another spin...

I'm perfectly open to a list of, say, ways that it is enough better than ASL to balance the lack of, say, no tanks. But apparently, spin and tangent is all that people have at this point.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
designer
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
mbmbmb
Quote:
Have you read the rules to this game?


I wrote them.

CC does emulate ASL -- and SL, and Ambush!, and Up Front, and PG and many other games that I have played and enjoyed. What new game doesn't borrow some ideas and mechanics from what came before?

Time and time again, during demos for CC, I've heard the phrase "looks like ASL with cards". Then AFTER that player has actually played the game, he usually comments on how different it is from ASL (and Up Front, and LnL, and ATS, and PG...).

If you'd like to see what CC has to offer specifically, I invite you to join our discussion over on ConsimWorld. The CC folder can be found in the "WWII tactical game series" section.

Cheers. (and have a great holiday, all!)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael W.
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
diamondspider wrote:


Of course the game is a different experience, with similar rules. That is my point. Not that it is exactly the same, but it is highly similar, but without the ability to move on to further detail (with the advantage of nicer components. Which is a solid advantage of CC:E)

I'm not against or for either game, but I don't like misrepresentation.


So you feel CC is being "misrepresented" as what? A more detailed tactical game than ASL?

I haven't seen anyone do that here.

I understand that you feel the rules are very similar to ASL. I think that by playing you will see that though the rules may be similar the game play and result is very different (yes and it is withought tanks)

I think (like many others) that there is room enough for many tactical games out there (especially good ones like ASL, PG and CC)

And if you go to the ASL forum on Consimworld you will see ASL rules guru Perry Cocke states (in the ASL forum that):

"If Company Commander were _completely_ lifted from ASL, then the place to discuss that would still be in the Company Commander or GMT folders (or the Censorship folder if shut out of those).

Even more so since it isn't completely lifted from ASL."

He'd be the one to know, no?

Happy Holidays, Reddog
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think that will happen here, as this is more of a Euro-centric site. AoS was a Euro, and RRT was a "mass-market Euro". Not enough ASL representation here to do that, as CC:E will cater to a more Euro crowd. now on Consimworld, I'd guess there will be TONS of backlash against CC:E, which is too bad.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Cooley
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Me rocking out with my band, which you can hear at www.raindriver.com
mbmbmbmbmb
As the guy who wrote the review, I'll clarify my original comparison to other games:

This game feels much more like Up Front! to me than ASL (although I'm limited to experience with Squad Leader, let's pretend they're close enough for government work for our discussion as SL is long out of print). Up Front!'s reliance on getting to the right card at the right time is the kind of feel that CC brings to the table, which I compare to the uncertainty and confusion of the battlefield. What CC adds to the mix, in my book, is to eliminate the insane cartwheels that Up Front! goes through to try to simulate maneuver and relative position (including flanking). That, and a sane rulebook!

As far as comparisons to ASL go, I'll just say that the idea of getting to the point where I've internalized the ASL ruleset will take me much longer than 4 hours, especially at the rate I play wargames. One of the guys on the Point 2 Point podcast refers to his "ASL Life Partner" which pretty much says it all. I'm not knocking ASL, I'm just saying that CC gives a similar (and I mean that word in a very liberal manner) experience to ASL.

FWIW, I own ASL and all of the AH first edition (pre-MMP) modules, the 2nd ed rules, and the first two starter kits. It is a phenomenal game, but one that without me devoting almost all of my gaming time to it, I will never internalize the ruleset anywhere close to the point where I will look at the game as more than a rule lookup session. If you have the mindset and time for ASL, I think it's a fantastic game and worth picking up. I am not that guy, and I am delighted that CC is here to give me a game that has enough of the same detail to keep me happy, but also me enough uncertainty and tension that I don't even really care if I lose, it's that good of a ride.

Play what gives you joy (PWGYJ, for ASLers)

Doug
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Davide Banchini c/o SELED
Italy
Faenza
Ravenna
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Windopaene wrote:
...
If I think that Up Front is just about the greatest game ever concerning WWII squad encounters in a card game format, is there any reason for me to play CC?


For me Up Front IS the greatest game ever, period.

I'm not playing CC yet because now, while we are speaking, it's parked in some UPS storehouse in Philadelphia waiting to take off to Europe. (Or worse bounce to another UPS point: It started in California, then Kentucky and now Pennsylvania).

Hope in Pennsylvania there's a good weather so CC plane can fly safely here.

(Current activity: following my CC package through UPS tracking web page. Oh Man, the pain.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Mathews
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
markus_kt wrote:
diamondspider wrote:
If it weren't for the "starter kits" for ASL, then this might be a different story, but with them, why not go all out?

Well, I've not played ASL, but I have played Squad Leader, and (I'll attempt to make this relevant) Star Fleet Battles. Both of the latter games fill a different game style-niche than Combat Commander does. They're both games that are very detailed, with rules for just about anything you can conceivably try, and work in very mechanistic ways. Thus, they're great when I'm in the mood for that typwe of game.

CC fills a different niche; it's more a visceral, almost emotional game, where the others are much more methodical. When I want a 'fly by the seat of my pants' infantry game, I'm not going to pull out SL, I'll pull out CC.

Indeed, after playing this and SL, I don't see playing much of SL any more. I really like the methodical game style found in SFB for a tactical space game; I've just found that I prefer the emotional style in CC for infantry combat; it feels more authentic than SL (said as someone who's never been in any armed forces) and creates really fun games. At the moment, I can't imagine any reason I'd try ASL.

I agree with you. I have never played a WWII game like this (unless Memoir counts) and I don't see any reason why I would want to try any other game like this like ASL, ATS, TOI, etc. My wife will play this with me and it's a very emotional and tense game where the rules seem to meld with the game to flow very nicely into a great narrative. After the first few games, we haven't had to crack the rule book again. I think that this niche is filled for me and I'll look to other games for other niches.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Mathews
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Also, could someone please enlighten me as to something? Both in this thread and over on the CC thread in CSW, there are people talking about how similar the rules between CC and ASL are and how CC seems ripped off from ASL based on the fact that they have similar concepts in them. Why is this? While I haven't played ASL, I am smart enough to know that both games are WWII squad-level tactics games that are trying to simulate the battle experience.

With that in mind, especially considering the simulative aim behind both games, why wouldn't they be very similar? Both have the same goal, the same subject matter, and possibly the same battles. Why wouldn't they appear very similar? Both having snipers, morale checks, machine guns, range, leadership, op fire, etc seems natural. It's like complaining about two pirate games trying to simulate the pirate life both having wind rolls, combat, pillage rules, etc. Of course these two games are similar, why wouldn't they be? I would imagine that every single D-Day game has the Germans entrenched and the Americans coming ashore with a difficult assault. Shame on them for copying each other.

So what is it that I am missing? Is there a good reason why two squad-level, tactical, WWII games shouldn't resemble each other in concepts and rules? Please, enlighten me.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Cooley
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Me rocking out with my band, which you can hear at www.raindriver.com
mbmbmbmbmb
EventHorizon wrote:
...why wouldn't they be very similar? Both have the same goal, the same subject matter, and possibly the same battles. Why wouldn't they appear very similar?


I suspect that much of the reason is because the two games share a certain "look and feel". Both have counters with pictures of infantry on them. Both have counters for specific weapons, fortifications, and smoke. Both use terms like LoS and FP (although as far as I can tell that's as far as Acronym Fever goes in CC). Both have multiple maps that represent terrain in similar ways. However, they are different games that will appeal in some respects to different gamers.

A good simile might be PC operating systems. The Windows OS borrows heavily from the Mac OS, as evidenced by the new Vista OS looking quite a bit like Mac OS X. Actually using the two systems, however, gives a much different experience once you get past the cosmetic differences, at least in my usage. I'm not trying to bash MS, I'm simply saying that these are two different OS's with a market that overlaps to some extent.

That said, CC looks almost nothing like Up Front!, despite my belief that it actually owes more to that system (which to be sure owes much of it's pedigree to ASL) in a conceptual sense than to ASL.

It is quite possible to produce a game that looks and feels nothing like ASL but that still captures the feeling of WWII tactical infantry combat. Tide of Iron is doing that very thing, but it is aimed rather squarely at non-wargamers, perhaps the Memoir '44 crowd that wants to move up to a more rewarding experience. There will be little comparison with ASL in discussions of that game, I suspect. However, CC is aimed at much the same audience as ASL, so there will be more comparisons.

In contrast, games like Paths of Glory and Shifting Sands are extremely similar in many respects, I would say much closer in concept and heritage, yet no one complains that one is a "rip-off" of another. Similarly, Monty's Gamble's rules were intentionally cloned from those of Breakout: Normandy, yet no one complains about that either as it was done to make it an easy game to learn from those fans of the earlier title. The only significant difference in these games have to do with transporting the system to another conflict or battle, and that seems to be OK to everyone.

Just my thoughts on the whole issue. There certainly seems to be a considerable amount of borrowing in the entire wargaming design community, which parallels closely with art, especially before it became commercialized. I'm frankly glad to see designers refining systems over time and willing to allow others to do so as well. We all come out ahead in the long run.

I expect to teach CC at a game day this week, I will report back in a session report as to how easy/difficult it is to teach to people who have not played Up Front! or ASL/SL.

Doug
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  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.