Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Wargames» Forums » General

Subject: Game like Rommel in the Desert / East Front? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
K A
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
I'll play the Klingons
badge
I'll play the Klingons
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I really like the following in Rommel in the Desert & East Front

1) unknown strength of enemy units
2) emphasis on maneuver to cut enemy supply lines (defeating the enemy through maneuver in addition to the usual concentration of mass).
3) the balance between having concentration of force while keeping enough forces out of the battle to react to other circumstances. If your forces are engaged, they cannot react to the latest enemy maneuver. Resolving battles over multiple turns really makes this work.

However, the battle resolution takes a considerable portion of game time with determining/executing the blocks order of attack and the results of that attack.

Is there a game that emphasizes the top items while streamlining battle resolution?

Thanks!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Szarka
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
When it is your turn to send a VASSAL move, the wait is excruciating. When it's my turn, well, I've been busy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quebec 1759 and War of 1812.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nagato Fujibayashi

Athens
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Napoleon's Triumph, The Guns of Gettysburg, Maria and Strike of the Eagle are all games where maneuver plays a very important role. Supply might not be a factor to every single one of them but in Napoleon's Triumph for instance you certainly don't want your opponent to break your lines and penetrate to your rear, so the effect is the same.

Napoleon's Triumph uses a procedural battle of 10 steps- it lasts a bit(much less than any Columbia dice fest for sure, keep in mind here that I like Columbia games very much myself but I have the same problem like you considering the battle system)but it's a game within the game- there are decisions to be made that will determine the result.

The Guns of Gettysburg uses a similarly procedural system combined with battle cards that are transformed in artillery tokens because where you put them plays also its role.

Maria uses a simple battle card system that produces great tension.

Strike of the Eagle I cannot say a lot because I have only played solo for learning purposes as of now. But the battle is fast, agonizing, there are decisions to be made again.


In general one of the main reasons I chose them for my collection is exactly because their battle systems are diceless, so even if a battle lasts a bit longer here and there it is actually good because, as opposed to rolling dice, during the battle you keep playing instead of calculating, rolling and waiting for the result which means there is never a pause in the flow of thinking/decision making.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K A
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
I'll play the Klingons
badge
I'll play the Klingons
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
shinobu wrote:
Napoleon's Triumph, The Guns of Gettysburg, Maria and Strike of the Eagle are all games where maneuver plays a very important role. Supply might not be a factor to every single one of them but in Napoleon's Triumph for instance you certainly don't want your opponent to break your lines and penetrate to your rear, so the effect is the same.

Napoleon's Triumph uses a procedural battle of 10 steps- it lasts a bit(much less than any Columbia dice fest for sure, keep in mind here that I like Columbia games very much myself but I have the same problem like you considering the battle system)but it's a game within the game- there are decisions to be made that will determine the result.

The Guns of Gettysburg uses a similarly procedural system combined with battle cards that are transformed in artillery tokens because where you put them plays also its role.

Maria uses a simple battle card system that produces great tension.

Strike of the Eagle I cannot say a lot because I have only played solo for learning purposes as of now. But the battle is fast, agonizing, there are decisions to be made again.


In general one of the main reasons I chose them for my collection is exactly because their battle systems are diceless, so even if a battle lasts a bit longer here and there it is actually good because, as opposed to rolling dice, during the battle you keep playing instead of calculating, rolling and waiting for the result which means there is never a pause in the flow of thinking/decision making.

You are definitely addressing the issue. I don't mind dice at all but the number of successive die rolls in the games in the header seem to slow the pace and decision making while adding to game length.

I sold off Napoleon's Triumph because I realized that I just would not get it to the table enough to internalize the many steps in the combat resolution. I REALLY regret selling of Bonaparte at Marengo years ago. The 2nd version that was being developed sounded like it would bring the game to an even higher level but now I don't know if it has hope of coming out.

I will look into Strike of the Eagle.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon DeS***
United Kingdom
Sheffield
SouthYorkshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
so you want blocks + brutal supply rules.

Of the block games i've played, other than those already mentioned Pax Baltica is worth a look. Surrounding an army or cutting it off from its homeland is a very legitimate strategy. Normally this is done to force a battle on favorable terms rather than outright annihilation.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K A
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
I'll play the Klingons
badge
I'll play the Klingons
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DukeofChutney wrote:
so you want blocks + brutal supply rules.

Of the block games i've played, other than those already mentioned Pax Baltica is worth a look. Surrounding an army or cutting it off from its homeland is a very legitimate strategy. Normally this is done to force a battle on favorable terms rather than outright annihilation.

and + streamlined battle resolution

I'll look into Pax Baltica
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Judd Vance
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
Who's the master?
badge
"Just get that sucka to the designated place at the designated time and I will gladly designate his ass...for dismemberment!" - Sho Nuff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GamePlayer wrote:
I really like the following in Rommel in the Desert & East Front

1) unknown strength of enemy units
2) emphasis on maneuver to cut enemy supply lines (defeating the enemy through maneuver in addition to the usual concentration of mass).
3) the balance between having concentration of force while keeping enough forces out of the battle to react to other circumstances. If your forces are engaged, they cannot react to the latest enemy maneuver. Resolving battles over multiple turns really makes this work.

However, the battle resolution takes a considerable portion of game time with determining/executing the blocks order of attack and the results of that attack.

Is there a game that emphasizes the top items while streamlining battle resolution?

Thanks!

WestFront & Forged in Fire: The 1862 Peninsula Campaign.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
GamePlayer wrote:
However, the battle resolution takes a considerable portion of game time with determining/executing the blocks order of attack and the results of that attack.
Those are two of my favorites, so I wonder if we can't figure out a way to speed up the part which is too slow for you. (I don't have a problem with it myself, except against one guy who insists on rolling each die individually in Rommel in the Desert, and in looking at me... then down at the die in his hand... then back at me... for every roll.)

Anyway, here are some half-formed ideas:

If it's the rolling the pile of dice and totaling up the hits itself, maybe a pile of color-coded dice, similar to Eclipse--one color for single fire, another color for double fire? (You could even scribble in the pips on faces which are misses, to make it even more obvious whether it's a hit or not.)

If you don't mind consulting a table, and slightly adjusting the probabilities, you could have a chart which has number-of-dice along the top, and 2d6 results along the side, and the number of hits in the middle. So if you have to roll 4 at SF and 10 at DF, you roll 2d6 once and look in the "4 SF" column to see how many hits you got from your single-fire guys, and the "10 DF" column to see how many hits you got from your double-fire guys. (If none of this makes sense, I can make an example.) (Oh, that doesn't handle repulses, and I like that they're done in the same roll as defensive fire.)

Or, at least in EastFront, where in the vast majority of battles, each side will only have have up to 16 steps in some combination of SF and DF, it might be easy to make a deck of cards which each have one table of results in a 16x16 grid. (Plus a separate section for air strikes, I guess.) So, for each hex, you flip a card for the air strike, and apply any hits; then you flip a card for defensive fire, and crossreference the number of defending SF & DF units to see how many hits you apply to the attacker; then you flip a card for offensive fire, and crossreference the number of attacking SF & DF units to see how many hits you apply to the defender. (Heck, you could use the same card for all three steps... that might even be more "fair" than drawing separate cards.)

You could probably come up with a deck of battle cards for Rommel in the Desert, too, where it tells you how many hits you got depending on how many units of each class... mumble... that's a little more complicated, though, because unlike in EastFront, your hits aren't just determined by the class of the firing unit, but also by the class of the target.

Anyway, do any of those help, or am I missing completely? (You're not rolling the dice one at a time, and eyeballing your opponent unnecessarily, are you?!)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nagato Fujibayashi

Athens
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:
Or, at least in EastFront, where in the vast majority of battles, each side will only have have up to 16 steps in some combination of SF and DF, it might be easy to make a deck of cards which each have one table of results in a 16x16 grid. (Plus a separate section for air strikes, I guess.) So, for each hex, you flip a card for the air strike, and apply any hits; then you flip a card for defensive fire, and crossreference the number of defending SF & DF units to see how many hits you apply to the attacker; then you flip a card for offensive fire, and crossreference the number of attacking SF & DF units to see how many hits you apply to the defender. (Heck, you could use the same card for all three steps... that might even be more "fair" than drawing separate cards.)

You could probably come up with a deck of battle cards for Rommel in the Desert, too, where it tells you how many hits you got depending on how many units of each class... mumble... that's a little more complicated, though, because unlike in EastFront, your hits aren't just determined by the class of the firing unit, but also by the class of the target.


This is what I have started doing myself for Hammer of the Scots. This is the hardest game of my collection to transform the dice rolling battle resolution into battle cards. If I succeed, I will go to the other games and do the same but most probably it will take me some time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
shinobu wrote:
This is what I have started doing myself for Hammer of the Scots. This is the hardest game of my collection to transform the dice rolling battle resolution into battle cards. If I succeed, I will go to the other games and do the same but most probably it will take me some time.
That might be easier than Rommel in the Desert, because all that matters is whether they hit on 1/2/3/4, not the target unit class. So you look at the card you've drawn for this battle (or this round of the battle, or this A/B/C-phase of the round, whatever) and say "I had 6 dice hitting on 1s, so that's 0 hits, and 4 dice hitting on 2s, so that's 1 hit, and 8 dice hitting on 3s, so that's 3 more hits."

Using the same card for both sides in a battle is actually pretty interesting; it means that in a battle where I got good rolls, you got good rolls too, which is appealing in some ways.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
suPUR DUEper
United States
Villa Hills
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Paths of Glory might make the cut here. While strengths are known, the CRT embeds fog of war in the wide variety of possible results.

Plus, your opponents cards (which is where the true capabilities lie) are "foggy" as are the combat cards.

PoG has some pretty vicious supply rules especially on the Eastern Front.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark J.
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
Texas Glory: 1835-36 reminds me of the Barbarossa scenarios in
EastFront II. I have never played another game as brutal as Rommel in the Desert.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Fridy
United States
Kent
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just about anything by Columbia Games.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon DeS***
United Kingdom
Sheffield
SouthYorkshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pax Baltica does use the standard block combat system. Battles tend to be quite small though. I think they have a 3 or 4 round limit and very rarely involve more than 5 blocks per side.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K A
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
I'll play the Klingons
badge
I'll play the Klingons
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:
GamePlayer wrote:
However, the battle resolution takes a considerable portion of game time with determining/executing the blocks order of attack and the results of that attack.
Those are two of my favorites, so I wonder if we can't figure out a way to speed up the part which is too slow for you. (I don't have a problem with it myself, except against one guy who insists on rolling each die individually in Rommel in the Desert, and in looking at me... then down at the die in his hand... then back at me... for every roll.)

Anyway, here are some half-formed ideas:

If it's the rolling the pile of dice and totaling up the hits itself, maybe a pile of color-coded dice, similar to Eclipse--one color for single fire, another color for double fire? (You could even scribble in the pips on faces which are misses, to make it even more obvious whether it's a hit or not.)

If you don't mind consulting a table, and slightly adjusting the probabilities, you could have a chart which has number-of-dice along the top, and 2d6 results along the side, and the number of hits in the middle. So if you have to roll 4 at SF and 10 at DF, you roll 2d6 once and look in the "4 SF" column to see how many hits you got from your single-fire guys, and the "10 DF" column to see how many hits you got from your double-fire guys. (If none of this makes sense, I can make an example.) (Oh, that doesn't handle repulses, and I like that they're done in the same roll as defensive fire.)

Or, at least in EastFront, where in the vast majority of battles, each side will only have have up to 16 steps in some combination of SF and DF, it might be easy to make a deck of cards which each have one table of results in a 16x16 grid. (Plus a separate section for air strikes, I guess.) So, for each hex, you flip a card for the air strike, and apply any hits; then you flip a card for defensive fire, and crossreference the number of defending SF & DF units to see how many hits you apply to the attacker; then you flip a card for offensive fire, and crossreference the number of attacking SF & DF units to see how many hits you apply to the defender. (Heck, you could use the same card for all three steps... that might even be more "fair" than drawing separate cards.)

You could probably come up with a deck of battle cards for Rommel in the Desert, too, where it tells you how many hits you got depending on how many units of each class... mumble... that's a little more complicated, though, because unlike in EastFront, your hits aren't just determined by the class of the firing unit, but also by the class of the target.

Anyway, do any of those help, or am I missing completely? (You're not rolling the dice one at a time, and eyeballing your opponent unnecessarily, are you?!)

No. I'm also not muttering "my precious" before each die roll. As you captured in your post, there are a number of considerations and limitations to trying to reduce these to faster combat resolution methods. In a sense, I enjoy RitD combat resolution for its detail and nuance but it slows the game considerably. So I'm looking for something similar but more fluid in play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hoss Cartwright
United States
California
flag msg tools
Stratego fits all your categories. Scouts are of limited supply to gain information on location of Spy and the #1 piece. Total fog of war as well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls