Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
35 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Wargames» Forums » General

Subject: Battle card driven rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Evelin Auger
Canada
Portneuf
Québec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What is it with the battle card driven games? I got one last month and tried it twice. Twice I had a lot of armies in one point and could do anything because I did not have the right cards. Only one block would have won the battle against my six.

I dont really get why people like it so much.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Paradis
Canada
montreal
Québec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iulius12 wrote:
What is it with the battle card driven games? I got one last month and tried it twice. Twice I had a lot of armies in one point and could do anything because I did not have the right cards. Only one block would have won the battle against my six.

I dont really get why people like it so much.



What do you mean by "Battle-Card" driven games? Something in the likes of Commands & Colors: Ancients?

People like it probably because it does limits your battle choices, and you thus have to focus their actions on the resources available only, which makes the game a little less "open ended"; like building your deck in "Magic the Gathering" (see the note below about that*). Mind you, I can give you a LOT of historical examples where the exact situation you have mentioned happened (I could have won the battle right there, but that mindless right wing general just decided to regroup his forces and stopped attacking instead of pressing on!).

Personally I do not mind that type of game too much, you just have to plan and act accordingly to the known limitations you get in the rules. hey, some players could complain that in a regular game without card they just rolled unlucky "1s" for their attack die-rolls, and that is "unrealistic" and a bore. meeple

* Note: I am in the midst of designing a variant for many "Battle Card" games where you can customize your card deck to a point, giving you more choices. But for this to work you do need some extra card decks for each agme.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iulius12 wrote:
What is it with the battle card driven games? I got one last month and tried it twice. Twice I had a lot of armies in one point and could do anything because I did not have the right cards. Only one block would have won the battle against my six.

Smaller forces DID sometimes win battles against much larger forces in historical conflicts, due to various reasons, including command confusion etc. Are you saying that you don't want the possibility for that sort of thing to happen in a wargame?

When I'm playing a wargame, I'm interested in war simulation, which includes such random swings of fortune and units not doing what their commanders want. It just goes with the territory.

When I'm interested in not having that kind of random swing of fortune, I play other types of games, e.g. abstract strategy games.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kent Reuber
United States
San Mateo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What game are you referring to? When I think of battle cards, I think of games like We the People.

For those that dislike the Commands & Colors-like "command cards", one game you should look at is Advanced Vive l'Empereur. You use command cards to order units, but you get to pick them within limitations, rather than having them dealt to you at random.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Reinhard Mueller
Germany
Gauting
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iulius12 wrote:
What is it with the battle card driven games? I got one last month and tried it twice. Twice I had a lot of armies in one point and could do anything because I did not have the right cards. Only one block would have won the battle against my six.

I dont really get why people like it so much.


How do you feel when you roll a die and it doesn't give you the number you need?
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evelin Auger
Canada
Portneuf
Québec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
[q="iulius12"]
Smaller forces DID sometimes win battles against much larger forces in historical conflicts, due to various reasons, including command confusion etc.


I agree with that. I played Sekigahara and got in two games six or seven blocks and I could not even advance because there was only one block on the road and I did not have one card to play there. And many times, because you don't have the good cards you can't do anything or you have good cards and the opponent can't do anything. It becomes too hard or too easy.

I appreciate when there are cards that would brings events in a fight but not just that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Ladson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
iulius12 wrote:
What is it with the battle card driven games? I got one last month and tried it twice. Twice I had a lot of armies in one point and could do anything because I did not have the right cards. Only one block would have won the battle against my six.

Smaller forces DID sometimes win battles against much larger forces in historical conflicts, due to various reasons, including command confusion etc. Are you saying that you don't want the possibility for that sort of thing to happen in a wargame?

When I'm playing a wargame, I'm interested in war simulation, which includes such random swings of fortune and units not doing what their commanders want. It just goes with the territory.

When I'm interested in not having that kind of random swing of fortune, I play other types of games, e.g. abstract strategy games.


Good point. There's nothing wrong with a wargame where two guys hover over the map like omniscient demigods in which even the smallest unit does exactly what they want when they want it, but there's nothing wrong with a wargame in which there is a real possibility of units sitting on their hands for lack of cards which can be taken to simulate real war situations with less than perfect communication, lack of lower-ranked personal initiative, lack of motivation, etc.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evelin Auger
Canada
Portneuf
Québec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
etagimbo wrote:

How do you feel when you roll a die and it doesn't give you the number you need?


With dice the game can be very accurate on the random results if it has modifiers or a good system. I like ASL but hate Risk.

What would be the good card driven games?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Confusion Under Fire
United Kingdom
Warrington
Cheshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iulius12 wrote:


What would be the good card driven games?


If you accept that Card Driven Games do have a small amount of luck involved then I would suggest Combat Commander. More often than not the better player will win which proves it isn't predominantly based on luck which some people believe it is. It has numerous scenarios based over several different theatres of war. It also has an excellent scenario generator.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iulius12 wrote:
russ wrote:
Smaller forces DID sometimes win battles against much larger forces in historical conflicts, due to various reasons, including command confusion etc.


I agree with that. I played Sekigahara and got in two games six or seven blocks and I could not even advance because there was only one block on the road and I did not have one card to play there.


I think there's sort of an 'eternal conflict' in wargames between historical simulation (which necessarily must include these kinds of frustrating situations of command confusion, chaos, wild swings of fortune, etc) and competitive strategy game (which preferably would not have as much of that kind of thing). Different people are looking for different things in wargames: I think this is the answer to your question, and you're simply more at one end of the spectrum than the wargamers who are not bothered by that kind of thing.

For me, I like both kinds of experience, but if I'm wanting to focus on competitive strategy, I do prefer abstract strategy games: the additional rules overhead in wargames doesn't seem worth it for me, in the sense that I can get a great pure competitive strategy experience with far less rules overhead in an abstract strategy game like Go or Shogi or GIPF etc. So my own personal motive for spending the additional time & effort to learn wargames is to get more of the "historical simulation" experience rather than primarily the "competitive strategy" experience. But de gustibus non disputandum est...
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Swider
United States
Harrisburg
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Library of Napoleonic Battles does FoW rather well. It uses multiple mechanics to achieve FoW effects. Cards that are used are based upon period research. My mind is more on the map when I play rather than my hand of cards.

Various GMT card driven games also do well in this regard, though some keep you off of scripted paths better (Unhappy King Charles!) than others (Shifting Sands).

Chit picking sequences also are interesting FoW innovations. If you're interested in FoW, remember there are other ways beyond cards and hidden units.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evelin Auger
Canada
Portneuf
Québec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How about the ancient times card driven games?

Iulius Caesar and the others alike?

I appreciate the comments on this subject because I don't have a lot of experience with this system.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iulius12 wrote:
How about the ancient times card driven games?

Iulius Caesar and the others alike?

I appreciate the comments on this subject because I don't have a lot of experience with this system.

I have been playing Julius Caesar lately and enjoying it a lot. Very nice clean system, and playable in a couple hours or so at most. There are a few fairly powerful random events but you get dealt 6 cards each year and discard one, so usually you don't get too screwed. Most of the cards have 2 or 3 movement points and 1, 2, or 3 build points (and you get to use move and build points with the same card play), so I think you might find it less "swingy".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Daglish
United Kingdom
Cheadle
Cheshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iulius12 wrote:
What would be the good card driven games?


Hannibal, Wilderness War and Unhappy King Charles, and they'll ask you how good you are.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin C.
United States
Easton
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I played Sekigahara and got in two games six or seven blocks and I could not even advance because there was only one block on the road and I did not have one card to play there. And many times, because you don't have the good cards you can't do anything or you have good cards and the opponent can't do anything. It becomes too hard or too easy.


What do you mean by "a card to play there"? To move, you don't need to discard a specific card, but any card. Plus, if there was one enemy block and you had six or seven, wouldn't you just overrun him?

Even if you didn't have a matching mon for combat, you would crush him on the movement.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.

At any rate, I think the issue is with looking at this with a "I need good cards to do something" mindset. As was said above, the main point of most of the games is to make do with what you have.

Sure there is an epic play that would be great to pull-off, but you only have limited resources and you have to plan around those, not the ideal.

That isn't to say you don't get frustrated from time to time, but in all the times I've played CDG's (100's of times over the years), I've never felt I could do "nothing."

Waiting for "good" cards is sure to wreck the experience for you. The mindset really needs to be to work with what you have.

It shouldn't be too hard or too easy unless there is a big difference in experience between the players.

Kevin
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron A
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iulius12 wrote:

What would be the good card driven games?


I know there really isn't a lot of WWII in your collection, but you might want to look at Bulge 20. It has cards, some you can reuse, some are one time only (they are tied to special events).

The 4 types of cards :

G-1: allows you to assign, detach or transfer corps (smallest sized unit) to armies
G-2: Intelligence-- allows you to negate enemy G-2 card, or look at their OOB or objective
G-3: lets you move or attack
G-4: logistics/support-- gives you combat add or move add, also lets you reconstitute destroyed units.

Each side has a certain number of cards each turn, the Germans have more cards at the start of the battle, but as time goes on, they get fewer and the Allies get more. Still, YOU decide which cards you want in your hand.

Combat is more 'traditional' you count the combat strengths of units involved, and you roll dice to resolve each battle.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff K
United States
Garner
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
natsean wrote:

Waiting for "good" cards is sure to wreck the experience for you. The mindset really needs to be to work with what you have.


Kevin is absolutely spot on here. Sounds to me like you were fighting the game.

Then again, as Russ alluded to, perhaps these are just not your thing? FWIW, it does seem a fairly high frequency comment. I would agree with Russ that many CDGs are much better games than simulations, with some exceptions (for example, I do feel Empire of the Sun is a very good sim, as I've often said.)

But the "I can't see how these are popular" question? It's really pretty simple: not everybody likes what you like (or any of us likes, for that matter).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Khan
msg tools
I initially wrote off Combat Commander, because it seemed silly. I'm glad I gave it a chance though, as I can't stop playing it. Combat Commander is exceptionally well designed, you may not always be able to do what you want, but you can almost always do something, and every once in a while you will pull off some clever maneuver with a hand that seemed like absolute shit at first glance.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
j b Goodwin

Lynchburg
Virginia
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
licinius wrote:

* Note: I am in the midst of designing a variant for many "Battle Card" games where you can customize your card deck to a point, giving you more choices. But for this to work you do need some extra card decks for each game.


Very interesting, sir!
Tell us more!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eryk B
Poland
Wroclaw
Lower Silesia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi guys,
I am quite new here, recently got introduced to games command card based wargames like Battle Cry and Memoir '44. After few years of making war models.

I hate them. They restrain you and make the gameplay quite abstract.

What we did after few games was complete removal of zone based cards, give each player a total of 3 to 5 cards(no drawing during game) and give each player 3 field generals, each movable as a unit during it's turn phase with possibility to give orders to other units. (unit's too far from their general can take 1 or no action during turn) killing general makes his underlings basicly useless.

Right I am trying to put up a game as a whole (set of new rules, with published set of cards for orders (depending on scenario player get fixed set of orders to choose from) and I am ordering ww2 set of minis i 6mm scale. I hope to make the game open print and play and i'll publish some of ready stuff as soon as I can. Tell me your ideas on what a game should be like. This will be fun.
Or should I start a new thread?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin C.
United States
Easton
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
What we did after few games was complete removal of zone based cards, give each player a total of 3 to 5 cards(no drawing during game) and give each player 3 field generals, each movable as a unit during it's turn phase with possibility to give orders to other units. (unit's too far from their general can take 1 or no action during turn) killing general makes his underlings basicly useless.


I'm not sure what to say about this...

The whole point of the C&C system is the zone cards. You've removed that and made your own homebrew, which is fine, but I don't know that something like this needs a print and play.

If I don't want C&C, I just play one of the other 100 or so wargames that I own with all different command and control systems.

What you describe sounds, off the top of my head, like Summoner Wars maybe?

In other words, I think it is fine to tinker around and make the game work for you, but successful extrapolation like this to others seems unlikely.

I love the C&C system, so I don't see much that needs a homebrew there. When I get a different itch, like I said, I play something else...I just put C&C away and grab a different system.

Good luck with your project, but the skeptic in me doesn't see much need for something like this.

Kevin



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eryk B
Poland
Wroclaw
Lower Silesia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks,
that's what I wanted to hear, I know making something from scratch is not even needed here, not to mention huge number of ready games of that tyype. What I am interested in is how a gameplay changes depending on a scenario consisting of different set of units, exchangable rulemmoules, army sets and even custom battle dice. That was the point when I realized what we did was entirely new game. This even changed a scale of battlefield. It made usage of cover ESSENTIAL to survival.

I think c&c based systems could be all about customisation of gameplay. And this is my point: try to tweak your command deck and set of rules you're using and see how that affects your gameplay, ok?
why not even try having a gamemaster?
Quote:
That's a f****** antitankrifle! that tank kolumn doesn't stand a chance. 1d20 = (12) = 12

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
  • [+]
  • 551042. katzi
  • 1d20 =
  • (12) =
  • 12
  • that tank kolumn doesn't stand a chance.
  • Wed May 28, 2014 6:53 am
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mb
katzi wrote:


I hate them. They restrain you and make the gameplay quite abstract.




Point #1 is a part of the design idea. It strips away the godlike
ability of a commander to use troops according to his will, as if
they are some extension of a hive mind.

Point #2 is more problematic though. If you're worrying about trying
to manage the deck, it's very hard to try and justify, much less believe
the choices you are making. Worse, if removing godlike control of troops
with godlike control of things the side the player represents should have
no control over, the trade off seems a poor choice. There are cleaner
ways of providing the same kind of control limitations. I suppose it's
fine if you're just playing 'the game' rather than participating in the
story though.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin C.
United States
Easton
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I think c&c based systems could be all about customisation of gameplay. And this is my point: try to tweak your command deck and set of rules you're using and see how that affects your gameplay, ok?
why not even try having a gamemaster?


I think I get where you are coming from...I just don't understand why you want to cling to the C&C system to do this.

The zones and "limited choices" are the defining characteristics. Calandale can speak to this much better than I can, but there is hardly a command and control system here to speak of.

I think it is first and foresmost a game that provides some "cool" choices, the primary one being "what part of the battlefield can I activate this turn?"

Without that, it just isn't C&C.

Tweaking the command deck sounds like Combat Commander or something like that.

I guess my point would be that if the main mechanic of the system so rankles you, ditch the system and find the one that better matches what you seek.

Plus, there are a bunch of iterations that do tweak the command deck while holding true to the C&C system. Battlelore has some different cards than C&C:N, for example.

The rules also change from game to game. (Battle back, leader, etc.).

There is some decent variation here.

Kevin
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Confusion Under Fire
United Kingdom
Warrington
Cheshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
katzi wrote:
Hi guys,


What we did after few games was complete removal of zone based cards, give each player a total of 3 to 5 cards and give each player 3 field generals, each movable as a unit during it's turn phase with possibility to give orders to other units. (unit's too far from their general can take 1 or no action during turn) killing general makes his underlings basicly useless.



This sounds just like Combat Commander.

Orders are not zone based but can be given to any unit which has not already been activated this turn
Players have between 4 and 6 cards depending on pose
A player will have 2,3 or 4 leaders in most of the scenarios
The leaders can give orders to units in their command range
Killing leaders does make units under his command almost useless
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  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.