Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Holly Hill
South Carolina
flag msg tools
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've just gotten this game, after much debate with self (as I like all the other C&C types, and have all BL#1) and happened upon it cheap.

The only thing I find really disappointing about it so far, is that in MOST EVERY game played so far, it was over before the last turn. IE point spread dictated the winner, before the last turn was resolved. The last one was no exception, with Chaos having an early lead, and even though his army was pretty much decimated, the Lord side couldn't possibly tie during his half of the turn.

And the frustrating part is that this isn't uncommon, as I can't even remember one of our games that didn't end before the final bell, as one player just looks at the board and says that it's impossible and resigns.

I find the victory points in this game way too easy to accumulate also, and the person that has the early easy access to them (or a simpler extra condition) seems to walk away with it just about every time (as long as their strategy is just go jump on VP's, and let the chips fall as to their army's destruction.

As to the condition of destroying one side or other, I've NEVER even seen it close in any of our games so far, and we are some very bloody gamers.

I do confess being new at this particular game, but long time player of all the other C&C games (with favorite being Ancients, followed closely by Nappy)

Anyone else find this kinda anticlimactic also?

IMHO perhaps 16 VP is too low, or the spots are too common, or???
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Millette
United States
Henderson
Nevada
flag msg tools
badge
God Bless the USA
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Try the Richard Borg scenarios online. I haven't tried them yet, but I suspect they may fit your tastes better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcus Baumgarten
Germany
Braunschweig
flag msg tools
storytelling gamer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dear Orion,

I understand your arguments and it's true: in most cases you don't play till 16 points or the great final turn.
But in BL1 I played many games too, that ends 6:1 or 6:2. BL2 is more strategic and some scenarios are asynchron or unbalanced. So it's your business to manage that problem. And sometimes (as Uthuk) it's better to destroy the whole Daqan-Faction, than to try to hold victory points.
And, if you like, play the Online-Scenarios with the "old" victory point system, like Ambush.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Battles are rarely fought to the destruction of one army.

If what you suggest is truly a flaw, it's the same as Basketball, which I gather has a few fans.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've had some lopsided games, and some very close games. With the lopsided ones, sure, the last turn isn't really needed, but with a close game, it can often be very important.

If playing a campaign, you may want to play the last turn anyway, since it affects the overall points for the campaign.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Bezio
United States
Lyndon Station
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would say yes...the majority of the time you can do the simple math and see if you have a chance or if the battle is already lost.

If it's close, however, i've found we play one or two hypothetical rounds, just to see what would happen...you know, "if only I had one more round I would have won!!", and that has been fun.

Either way...and we may be odd, we usually spend another 30 minutes or more discussing and analyzing the battle. What we did right and wrong, what we wish we had done differently, cursing our luck, and all that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Holly Hill
South Carolina
flag msg tools
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, last game as example, lasted 5 turns. Chaos scored 2-4-4-4-2, and their army was decimated but still did score the two on the 5th turn for the impossible tie for the Lords. Every turn except the first and last they were able to get 4 points (2 for terrain, 2 for banners). Yes, they were kicked off of one or more each turn, but were able to leap right back on, and never till the last were the Lords able to kick them out of their own terrain (hill/tree combo for 1 pt.).

Lords with every bit as aggressive play came up with only 11 points going into their 5th turn, so (again, as seems normal with this game) without getting 5 points in their half of turn 5 (which was totally impossible in the scenario), heck, I'd pretty much called it from turn 3, as it's much tougher to kick people out of vp areas PLUS take them than to just jump on them to start with.

And I believe I've never seen a game of this so far go up to even ten turns, as normally you're racking up the points at least 2-3 per turn. That seems to me awful poor return on the game's set-up & play potential, given its bloodline in the gaming family/genre.

I understand where this scoring came from, the "noisy"s about "not just scoring VP for killing units", but this to me seems like FAR overkill, kinda like tossing out the baby with the bath water. The game has dissolved very quickly into just a VP spot grab, and hang out until decimated, instead of any kinda tactical strategy, maneuvering or anything else besides the most basic rock/paper/scissors tactics; (besides beginning forces and setup, but that's fairly cut and dried also).

I'm beginning to think this is more "pretty & fluff" than a good follow-up on BattleLore 1E or any of the other C&C games really. I do like the individual unit ideas, and the way the units interact and seem (so far) to stay in their armies character, but I'm also wondering just how far they can take this and maintain balance also between armies.

And will each "army" only get 5 types? Will there be more types that can be added to only these two armies? Or some kinda mixed bag?? And I REALLY wish they'd stayed true in scale to the original, so that one could explore more possible interaction between the two easier.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derek M
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Based on the numbers you are quoting, it sounds like you have been playing with the scenario cards that offer the high end of VPs per turn. I've only played 2 full games with the scenario cards, but in each of those cases each side only had 1 1 point banner and a way to earn only 1 VP via the scenario VP rules. Both games were very close, with one of them going to 19pts before we had a victor.

Try some of the scenarios with less VPs available. You may get better results.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Bezio
United States
Lyndon Station
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have yet to play a game where all I have to do is take a VP spot and sit. Battles are constantly being fought to take and retain these positions. Tactical decisions are constantly being made to effectively use your forces to deny your opponent his special VP conditions while simultaneously accomplish your own.

I've been playing C&C games forever, and I find this one to be the most versatile, challenging, and entertaining. I also think it has the most potential for growth and extended play (and that means a lot, since I still enjoy playing other C&C games after all these years).

I honestly have no idea where this "grab a hex and sit" opinion comes from after actually playing the game? I thought it might be a problem aster just reading the rules...but after playing I found nothing could be further from the truth.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Martinez
United States
Irving
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know. Doesn't seem like a flaw to me. If anything, I rather like that the game makes clear when victory is all but assured. Nothing worse than playing a game where you suspect you have no choice, but must continue playing on the off chance you might somehow get lucky.

This isn't a unique condition in many games, where victory or loss is secured and yet, by its nature, the game must continue to its logical conclusion. Battlelore has a built in system that says "Game Over, No Need to Keep Playing Unless You Feel Like It" and that's actually pretty awesome as far as I'm concerned.

The only difference here is that Battlelore makes it official and easy to measure. Lots of games are over before the final turns (sometimes well before the final turns), but they aren't so kind as Battlelore to just make it clear.

Once the game has been won or lost, I'd much rather end it and begin another rather than play with the illusion that things are going to go a different way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Martinez
United States
Irving
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
grubman wrote:
I honestly have no idea where this "grab a hex and sit" opinion comes from after actually playing the game? I thought it might be a problem aster just reading the rules...but after playing I found nothing could be further from the truth.


I'm with you on this. All my battles have been intense back and forth struggles. Sure, they're usually struggles over objective points, but there should be a constant struggle. I have a feeling the turtle complaint is because a few people decided this upon reading the rules (before actually playing the game) and have been playing this way ever since. Groupthink at work.

But, no, in my experience, a unit controlling a VP Objective doesn't usually get to hold it for long.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Holly Hill
South Carolina
flag msg tools
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually I had to be corrected, it was 5 turns not 6, and the scenario cards were the ones giving points for tree/hill combo + one banner, and one with two banners in cities but which could also score by keeping inf. away from the cities. B2 chaos D1 lords

So only three banners (singles) on the board, and like always with an alternate way of scoring too.

Also, I'm not quite follow logic of the principle of here; As this was played EXACTLY with the given way of set up, the given rules, and was according to Hoyle in all aspects (Via the rules in the box and online F&Q's)...As have all our games of this so far.

Hence I'm thinking that perhaps this ain't the best it could be, eh? Perhaps so more tweeking is in order (though USUALLY I'm the one that doesn't believe in house rules, as normally I'll just switch games, LOL!)

And I'll (or actually EITHER of US) would be happy to play any close person(s), ftf, using what we've determined pretty much "AI" rules of play, grab the points, and hang on/beat back. So far as we determined/remembered, its worked 100% of the time... Hence our contention with the VP scoring...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Holly Hill
South Carolina
flag msg tools
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KingCroc wrote:
grubman wrote:
I honestly have no idea where this "grab a hex and sit" opinion comes from after actually playing the game? I thought it might be a problem aster just reading the rules...but after playing I found nothing could be further from the truth.


I'm with you on this. All my battles have been intense back and forth struggles. Sure, they're usually struggles over objective points, but there should be a constant struggle. I have a feeling the turtle complaint is because a few people decided this upon reading the rules (before actually playing the game) and have been playing this way ever since. Groupthink at work.

But, no, in my experience, a unit controlling a VP Objective doesn't usually get to hold it for long.


Don't have to hold it long, only have to get it back EACH turn to make your points. If you can get the spots early, then you've the game, so far from our plays.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leber
Canada
Orillia
ON
flag msg tools
Yin
badge
Yang
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My experience definitely mirrors Alex and David's. Although it also appeared to me to be a potential issue on paper, it's really not been the case in practice. I've been shocked at how close the games are. I also haven't found any issue with players controlling the same VP's for the entire game (or each and every turn). A surprising amount of games have gone into tie breaker rounds, and most others are rather close.

Of course, there have been the exceptions to the rule... a runaway lead once or twice (usually due to very suboptimal play, generally from experimenting), or one player just dominating the last 3 or 4 turns of points. But it's not the norm for us, and certainly nothing we'd consider an issue.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Martinez
United States
Irving
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
OrionDD wrote:
KingCroc wrote:
grubman wrote:
I honestly have no idea where this "grab a hex and sit" opinion comes from after actually playing the game? I thought it might be a problem aster just reading the rules...but after playing I found nothing could be further from the truth.


I'm with you on this. All my battles have been intense back and forth struggles. Sure, they're usually struggles over objective points, but there should be a constant struggle. I have a feeling the turtle complaint is because a few people decided this upon reading the rules (before actually playing the game) and have been playing this way ever since. Groupthink at work.

But, no, in my experience, a unit controlling a VP Objective doesn't usually get to hold it for long.


Don't have to hold it long, only have to get it back EACH turn to make your points. If you can get the spots early, then you've the game, so far from our plays.


Hasn't been my experience, but everyone will play differently and also, things will play out differently based on other factors. In my games, early leads don't usually happen though, so if they do, I can see it being a bit of a problem. Though, again, the nature of the game means a decisive victory allows for a shorter game and less time wasted on a foregone conclusion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Schmo
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
Just wanted to make sure I have the ending conditions correct. I've just played the learning game so far. It says that the game ends when you could VP points at the beginning of the turn and they equal 16, that's your winner. So I assume when someone achieves 16 the other player still gets one more turn since the winner needs to have 16 at the start of their turn?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mentioned this in the other thread, but you check for victory at the beginning of the first player's turn. So if the first player gets the VP total first, the second player will have a turn to try and catch up.

However, if the second player gets the VP total on his turn before the other player, the game will end when his turn is done; the first player doesn't get another turn.

Basically, the rule just allows both sides an equal number of turns, so that the first player doesn't win just because they got to go first.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Holly Hill
South Carolina
flag msg tools
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oddly just reviewing this game to see if anyone came up with something new on it. It's been sitting on the shelf for months now, and no one even wants to try it anymore. Heck, first edition's been played several times since, but seems this one's not going to be given anymore chances after the first flurry of plays. Dead Dog???

And this is a table that C&C:Ancients, C&C:Nappy, Memoir 44 and even once in a while BattleCry hits frequently.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Giulio
Italy
Scandiano
RE
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is possible that your previous experience with these C&C games is somehow biasing your approach to BL2. Of the games you mention, the only one I played regularly (a lot) is Memoir '44. And BL2 is a COMPLETELY different game. All the troop repositioning, probing your enemy, prepare an ambush, collecting the right hand of cards... all these considerations disappear in BL2. The scenario provided in the base game are fast and furious skirmishes. No time at all to reposition troops or long-term manoeuvring. No time to collect the right hand of cards. You have just to collect the highest number of VP points in the shortest possible time, while impeding your opponent to do so. You opponent get 4 medals in two consecutive rounds? This is something that you should avoid in any possible way. Use your best cards, sacrifice your best troops. This is a game without tomorrow (read next round) so there is no reason to spare them. If I can dare to give you a suggestion, the key of BL2 is "pressure". Constant and from the first round. At any cost. This is completely different from M44, in which you typically aim to exercise the highest possible pressure precisely at the right moment in the right place. In BL2 your should force your opponent to activate AT LEAST one unit for each VP he wants to obtain. This represents an ideal situation which is not always possible to achieve, but this should be your aim. Remember: if he has to re-take the hill, maybe he has no orders left to contest your banner. I play this game quite often with a friend with similar skill/knowledge. Games last 6-8 rounds. Sometimes the turn of the second player in the last round get not played, but this is far from being the rule.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fernando Robert Yu
Philippines
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've had close games and lopsided games, but this is true for many other games!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Bezio
United States
Lyndon Station
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OrionDD wrote:
no one even wants to try it anymore. Dead Dog???


Really? Exaggerated for dramatic effect?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I find it hard to believe that any fans of C&C, and C&C style wargames would ever "shelf" Battlelore 2nd edition. I can understand playing the other games for a change of pace, genre changes, and the subtle changes in each systems tactics...I can even understand preferring one of the other games (If I was into Napoleonics and not fantasy, or WWE2 instead of fantasy, for some examples)...but on it's own merits, it's an absolutely fabulous game. If your group has "shelved it" I feel sorry for you. Your loss I guess.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Holly Hill
South Carolina
flag msg tools
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grubman wrote:
OrionDD wrote:
no one even wants to try it anymore. Dead Dog???


Really? Exaggerated for dramatic effect?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I find it hard to believe that any fans of C&C, and C&C style wargames would ever "shelf" Battlelore 2nd edition. I can understand playing the other games for a change of pace, genre changes, and the subtle changes in each systems tactics...I can even understand preferring one of the other games (If I was into Napoleonics and not fantasy, or WWE2 instead of fantasy, for some examples)...but on it's own merits, it's an absolutely fabulous game. If your group has "shelved it" I feel sorry for you. Your loss I guess.


No exaggeration, simply the facts man. My main wargaming buddy and I played the most plays, and also played/taught the others. He and I generally have very aggressive styles and we won every game we played with others, and split them between ourselves (approx. can't remember exact scoring). It was as we were showing a couple of others that we discussed that our moves were completely obvious; that you could just about set up a very simple AI program to play this optimally (given whatever forces you had, and a reasonable selection) if one knew how to program such.

With a couple others joining in at the last session (that had previously played 1st ed. we could pretty much show the moves on the fly, which pretty much were completely simple; grab the VP hexes, hang on, and have a backup to grab them once the original unit died. The player that started out in the lead, stayed for the duration. Memory doesn't serve totally all our thoughts, just that everyone felt that it was a "solved puzzle", never to be of interest again. (and understand, this is coming from memory of a while back, with many other games/sessions "under the bridge" since. I DO remember one game early on, where Rick told me during the second or third turn that I'd lost already, and he was correct. There wasn't a thing I could do to stem the early lead, even though the end score was very close.)

As our colleague from Italy notes, it's a game of quick aggressive play, which is EXACTLY how we played it. We just found the strategy was (without any exceptions in our plays) single focus, and very simple, compared to ANY of the other C&C games (not counting Westeros which I personally don't believe should be even counted as a C&C type).

BTW We play:
BattleCry (seldom)
BattleLore 1st ed. (fair amount)
C&C:Ancients (my favorite for this genre)
C&C:Napoleonics (my second favorite for this genre)
Memoir 44 (a couple of the other players favorite)
Samurai Battles (fair amount, but it's the newbie more or less)

We also play a lot of other games as well, from Euros to ASL, so do have a wide variety of experience. I've been playing the longest, but some of my younger friends up here in the area are pretty quick studies. Anyone in the Holly Hill, SC area is welcome to come challenge...

We just found this game very disappointing, especially since it has to stand on it's own because FFG in their infinite "wisdom" (shades of which make me feel like they're perhaps sliding to the darkside with their GW friends across the pond) made it 100% incompatible with 1st ed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Holly Hill
South Carolina
flag msg tools
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sdiberar wrote:
Battles are rarely fought to the destruction of one army.

If what you suggest is truly a flaw, it's the same as Basketball, which I gather has a few fans.


BTW In rereading this thread I found this was a very silly statement in my opinion. Just noting...blush
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.