Recommend
23 
 Thumb up
 Hide
46 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Wargames» Forums » General

Subject: Sometimes I wonder ..... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
..... just why there are not many CDGs based upon the PoG-style mechanic?

Paths of Glory came out way back in 1999. I am not sure when it gained in popularity, but it certainly did. As I write this, it stands at #3 on the BGG wargame rankings and #20 overall. Rather impressive. And the ravenous fan base speaks loud and clear about their love for the game.

Since then, by my count we have had a grand total of three five published games that one might categorize as being "PoG-style" plus one more in the hopper. These are:

Thirty Years War: Europe in Agony, 1618-1648 (2001) - courtesy of morsecrossing
World War II: Barbarossa to Berlin (2002)- courtesy of Shauneroo
Triumph of Chaos (2005)
Shifting Sands (2006)
Pursuit of Glory (2008)
Crusade and Revolution: The Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939 (Pre-order)

There may be more, but as I say these are the only ones off the top of my head.

Four Six games? Three Five really... in 13 years? As we all know in Hollywood or on television once they think they have a hit it often gets repeated ad nauseum via copying or sequels.

But not in this case it seems. I am surprised that we have not seen more games using this mechanic or style since 1999.

That's something that I wonder about.

Is there anything about our hobby that has you scratching your head?

EDIT: Adding two more.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
It's just a ride...
England
Bury St Edmunds
Suffolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
World War II: Barbarossa to Berlin also.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russell/Karen Morse
United States
WOONSOCKET
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
missing another game Thirty Years War: Europe in Agony, 1618-1648
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Shauneroo wrote:


Right! I have even played that one. Odd that it did not trigger a memory. Then again....I did not care for it as much as the others. LOL!

Will modify above.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Walters
United States
Chesterfield
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
"...the art of manoeuvering armies...an art which none may master by the light of nature. but to which, if he is to attain success, a man must serve a long apprenticeship." -- G.F.R. Henderson
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What differentiates the POG-style mechanic from other CDGs?

I'm thinking about For the People, Wilderness War and maybe even We the People/Washington's War.

What about Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage? Sword of Rome? The Napoleonic Wars (Second Edition)? Clash of Monarchs? The Halls of Montezuma? No Peace Without Spain!? Unhappy King Charles!? and more....

Sure, a good number of these designs came BEFORE Paths of Glory but that game was clearly inspired by them.

One might even classify Hearts & Minds as a CDG that is POG-style! If not, what style would we classify it as?

What do we call Twilight Struggle, Labyrinth: The War on Terror, 2001 – ?, and the upcoming Andean Abyss?

Maybe we leave off Empire of the Sun and Stalin's War off the list of POG-style CDGs because they involve hexes and are not "point-to-point" (and to me, area games aren't much different than point to point!).

I'd say CDGs as a whole are doing quite well as a genre! One good example is John Poniske's upcoming Lincoln's War.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
morsecrossing wrote:


Oh yeah? This I did not know. So it has things like a multitude of card options (other than just OPs or Event) and also mechanics like limited card hands and mandatory offensives? Perhaps I should look into this title more then. Cool! Thanks..
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Good questions Eric.

I am certainly no CDG expert, but I have been mucking around a lot with them over the last three years or so. During which time, I have seen a couple of general design themes along with some outliers.

The most prevalent in my mind is the WtP-style. That would include many of the ones that you mention. Games like We the People, Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage, Wilderness War, For the People, Spartacus and Unhappy King Charles! amongst many others. They often share many design features like:

Cards that are either OPs or Events (yes...I know WtP, HvC and Washington's War do not follow this).
Leader/stack activation based on card OPs and leader initiative.
Often one stack activation unless a "campaign" card is played.
Variable hand sizes (sometimes fairly large).

The other major theme I have noticed is the PoG-Style. These games share such things as:

Cards that have many potential uses other than just OPs or Event.
OPs activate spaces/locations and not just units within a space.
Multiple space activations per card play.
The use of mandatory offensives.
Limited hand size (six cards normally - ups the tension).
Combat losses based on DF capacities (Defensive Factors).

As I played more and more CDGs, I found these distinctions to be rather profound. So much so that the "feel" of a PoG-style game was quite different from a WtP-style. Sure there were similarities as would come about from sharing cards as resource allocation devices, but overall the different styles seemed quite apart from one another.

Outliers....hmmm.... Hearts and Minds: Vietnam 1965-1975 would be one for sure. Games like España 1936 are more card influenced than card driven. Here I Stand and The Napoleonic Wars kind of live together in their own bubble....maybe more WtP-style than anything.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Oh yes.... CDGs are doing well. VERY well in fact. Much to my happiness.

But given my categories and broad assumptions... there just seems to have not been a lot of these PoG-style games. Maybe... LOL! Not as many as I thought there would have been by now.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
New Zealand
Dunedin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
This is timely, Jon. I was just talking to a fellow wargamer last week about the dearth of quality CDGs appearing (or failing to appear) in the last year or two, and the pattern seems to be continuing into the near future. The God Kings: Warfare at the Dawn of Civilization, 1500 – 1260BC has just come out, and Kingdom of Heaven: The Crusader States 1097-1291 is right on the cusp, but they aren't exactly PoG-style. Virgin Queen is about to be released as well, but it's a multiplayer CDG in the style of Here I Stand.

But after that? I've tried to get excited about 1989: Dawn of Freedom, but I can't see ever choosing to play it while Twilight Struggle sits in my game closet. Volko's COIN designs, exceedingly questionable simulation issues aside, are multiplayer. There just don't seem to be medium-heavy or heavy CDGs on the immediate horizon for CDG wargamers, aside from Crusade and Revolution: The Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939 (and I beg of everyone reading, please, preorder the damn thing.). There's also Herr Doktor's 'Triumph of Fascism', I suppose, but that seems a couple years from publication.

More to your point, PoG and it's direct descendants have a tightness of play, a stringent decision matrix, that many other 'loose' CDGs (Washington's War etc) simply don't provide.

Le sigh.
4 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Hey World Traveler!

It is a bit of a headscratcher for me. Given your (much better than I can do) description of the PoG-style ("a tightness of play, a stringent decision matrix"), you would have to think that several more designers would stand up and take more notice? Perhaps there is something inherent in the design methodology that makes it less appealing for some situations? Smarter folks than me would have to come up with an answer for that.

I should point out that I rather enjoy the other types of CDGs as well. Each style, indeed each individual game, has merits. I have a few shelves full of testament to my addiction... umm... err... attraction to these games.

Quote:
..., aside from Crusade and Revolution: The Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939 (and I beg of everyone reading, please, preorder the damn thing.).


I hear you. OK, I will get all sloppy about it.... Folks, please please preorder this title. In the name of Antonio's stick figure body! At the very least it would be great to add another PoG-style game to the pantheon.

8 
 Thumb up
0.04
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
"L'état, c'est moi."
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
admin
designer
Roger's Reviews: check out my reviews page, right here on BGG!
badge
Caution: May contain wargame like substance
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wolvendancer wrote:
But after that? I've tried to get excited about 1989: Dawn of Freedom, but I can't see ever choosing to play it while Twilight Struggle sits in my game closet.

I'm of a different mind of 1989 - I find it a lot harder to play well than TS. It seems to live in that nebulous in between spot where there are event linkages that have to happen a certain way and the open ended "anything can and will happen" on the spectrum.

I'm finding I'm starting to prefer card assisted games (e.g. España 1936, No Retreat! The Russian Front) better than most of the newer card driven games.

The one game that seems to have straddled that fence beautifully for me has been Unhappy King Charles!.

Card driven in the sense that you have to play cards to do stuff, card assisted in the sense that you have cards that are only ops, or only events, and in the latter instance you can only execute your own and your opponent's events can only be used for a very limited subset of actions.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Cirone
United States
Mansfield
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe what is most characteristic of the Paths of Glory style CDG is the choice between Ops-RPs-SR-Event and how Ops is usually something you "have to do" rather than something you "want to do." This is opposite games like Washington's War and Twilight Struggle, where heavy Ops play is preferred to having to slog through Events and such (it's a little more nuanced in TS I realize).

The stressful-but-exciting decision between Ops-RPs-SR-Event in PoG is what makes the game great... it's not just about what to do with your points (like most CDGs) but which option to take, each of which has very different effects on the game.

Ultimately, perhaps the modern warfare the Paths of Glory, Pursuit of Glory, and Barbarossa to Berlin simulate is better suited to this style of CDG, but I will not make a definitive claim on such a matter.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
New Zealand
Dunedin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
leroy43 wrote:

Card driven in the sense that you have to play cards to do stuff, card assisted in the sense that you have cards that are only ops, or only events, and in the latter instance you can only execute your own and your opponent's events can only be used for a very limited subset of actions.


To each their own, of course, but the latter games are, to me, drastically regressive. When all are you are doing is adding a few event cards to a game, cards that only interact with the primary game mechanics obliquely, what you've created is, well, an Ameritrash game. AT games have been doing 'event cards' for a long time, and for good reason, as they add a bit of flavor and a bit of chaos to a game; in return, event cards tend to 'loosen' they tactical and strategic gameplay. Aside from very facile 'watch out for that particular card when you plan you attack' elements, event cards add nothing directly to gameplay.

(I very much enjoy many At games, but I think, mechanically, they often fall short of wargames, and this is one such area. I would love it if AT games would begin to influence wargames thematically, and wargames would begin to influence AT games mechanically.)

On the other hand, consider PoG or TS. Here, the 'event card' mechanic has been fully integrated into the design. Card play is not a bit of bounded flavor tacked-on to the game; rather, card play is allowed a place along side the other primary mechanics (movement of pieces, attack and defense, etc). Treated seriously as a game mechanic, the game designer is forced to consider not only the niche cards will play in the game, how the basic mechanic of card play will interact with the other primary game mechanics, he also must consider the role of every single individual card.

And when the designer does his job well, a wonderful thing happens. Each play of every card within the CDG becomes excruciating, and I mean that in the best possible sense. When the active player must not only consider the immediate effect of the card, but what he or she is giving up by playing it this way and not that, how that play will affect the composition of his deck (and perhaps his opponent's), how his or her opponent may react, how the side effects of that particular play of that particular card might change the board state, and more... each card play becomes as mentally demanding a game situation as exists in wargames. It's this (along with a realization that player-role is wargames has always been problematic, and thus, that we need not subscribe to a strict interpretation of player = general; what we might call the Naturalistic Wargamer Fallacy) that brings avid CDG players back again and again.

Speaking only for myself, I crave that particular flavor of demanding, elegant game play that only PoG, TS, and a few of their progeny can give me. The feeling that an intricate (but bounded) web of possibilities opens from every card in my hand, and that it's my job to fuse those possibilities with my own plans, to tease out which alleys are traps, which are suboptimal, which may be optimal, which gambles I wish to take and how I might lure my opponent into traps of his own... it's intoxicating. I love it. I want more, and I'm often disappointed when game designers, through design choices (bloated combined decks, a lack of appreciation of any number of issues, including probability, card/board interaction, etc) fail to deliver equivalently challenging and rewarding gameplay.
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Cirone
United States
Mansfield
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wolvendancer wrote:
And when the designer does his job well, a wonderful thing happens. Each play of every card within the CDG becomes excruciating, and I mean that in the best possible sense. When the active player must not only consider the immediate effect of the card, but what he or she is giving up by playing it this way and not that, how that play will affect the composition of his deck (and perhaps his opponent's), how his or her opponent may react, how the side effects of that particular play of that particular card play might change the board state, and more... each card play becomes as mentally demanding a game situation as exists in wargames. It's this (along with a realization that player-role is wargames has always been problematic, and thus, that we need not subscribe to a strict interpretation of player = general; what we might call the Naturalistic Wargamer Fallacy) that brings avid CDG players back again and again.

Speaking only for myself, I crave that particular flavor of demanding, elegant game play that, right now, only PoG, TS, and a few of their progeny can give me. The feeling that an intricate (but bounded) web of possibilities opens from every card in my hand, and that it's my job to fuse those possibilities with my own plans, to tease out which alleys are traps, which are suboptimal, which may be optimal, which gambles I wish to take and how I might lure my opponent into traps of his own... it's intoxicating.


An excellent explanation of what is so wonderful about Card-Driven-Games of the Ops/Events variety.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm just kind of a CDG addict... anything by GMT I'm all over and even a little Richard III: The Wars of the Roses. CDG's just kind of speak to me, as a wargamer. The cards have this wonderful way of accurately portraying a "chaos of war" type feel. Especially in PoG and Nappy Wars. You're always given a certain number of options, whether it be combat/strategic movement or the often time game changing events, they always tend to give a cohesive feeling of war...in that it's planned, but always unpredictable. I think that regardless of how many new releases we have, the staples are so good that we'll always keep coming back for more.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Judd Vance
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
Every Man a (K-State) Wildcat!
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
ericmwalters wrote:
What differentiates the POG-style mechanic from other CDGs?

I'm thinking about For the People, Wilderness War and maybe even We the People/Washington's War.

What about Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage? Sword of Rome? The Napoleonic Wars (Second Edition)? Clash of Monarchs? The Halls of Montezuma? No Peace Without Spain!? Unhappy King Charles!? and more....

Sure, a good number of these designs came BEFORE Paths of Glory but that game was clearly inspired by them.

One might even classify Hearts & Minds as a CDG that is POG-style! If not, what style would we classify it as?


Many of the early CDGs used a leader and the OPS card would activate the leader. This came from We the People and was carried over in Hannibal, Washington's War, and Wilderness War.

With PoG, you placed a number of Move or Battle markers on the board, it also used a step loss system with large counters and small counters and loss factors on each with the reserve box, which to me, is the most unique trait of the PoG system. It also introduced strategic movement. All of it was revolutionary in the CDG genre.

PoG also did not allow you to spend OPS points to bring in reinforcements. You brought in each one from a card. We the People had a schedule for the Brits, but required an OPS card to bring them in, while the Americans brought in reinforcements equal to the OPS card. Hannibal had some come in with cards, some come in on schedule, and 1 could come in with the play of a 3 OPS card. PoG only allowed them to come in from cards, and then it limited you to one per nationality.

So PoG has an awful lot of things that define it and its children as PoG-style games. If a game doesn't have the move/battle markers and the reserve box, it's not a PoG-game to me. Empire of the Sun is a completely different animal and is unlike any CDG that I have seen.

As per Jon's question, I don't know.

To me WW2:B2B just doesn't feel right with it. It's like trying to force the square peg through the round hole. Shifting Sands uses it perfectly. I don't know about the others listed.



4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
"L'état, c'est moi."
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
admin
designer
Roger's Reviews: check out my reviews page, right here on BGG!
badge
Caution: May contain wargame like substance
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
usrlocal wrote:
Capt_S wrote:


Quote:
..., aside from Crusade and Revolution: The Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939 (and I beg of everyone reading, please, preorder the damn thing.).


I hear you. OK, I will get all sloppy about it.... Folks, please please preorder this title. In the name of Antonio's stick figure body! At the very least it would be great to add another PoG-style game to the pantheon.



 
Microbadge coming soon! It's in the queue for approval.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Powers
United States
Marble
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Capt_S wrote:

The other major theme I have noticed is the PoG-Style. These games share such things as:

Cards that have many potential uses other than just OPs or Event.
OPs activate spaces/locations and not just units within a space.
Multiple space activations per card play.
The use of mandatory offensives.
Limited hand size (six cards normally - ups the tension).
Combat losses based on DF capacities (Defensive Factors).


It seems to me that's a pretty specific and restrictive list. Therefore it doesn't surprise me in the least that you can't find many. For example, mandatory offensive rules are almost certainly more about the particular topic of the game than a something to use to limit categorization in the sense you seem to be attempting. I think your definition is too finicky and therein lies at least part of your issue.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
I prefer "fuss farty" thank you very much!

No, you have a point Ryan. As I was writing that list it occurred to me that there may be subject limiting answers to my question. Also scale/scope limiting answers too.

Then again, even if that were the case and we limit ourselves to the possibility of just covering 20th Century conventional conflict, then there are still a lot of meat on the bones to pick at which, I feel, could nicely be covered via the PoG-style. Even to focus on aspects of previously covered topics (a la PuG vs PoG).

*******

I wonder if at some level this is a matter of personal perception or interpretation? Some players see CDGs as one big lump (the "Card is the Thing" camp) whereas others see links between individual games and so categorize them into subgroups (the "Sum Total Experience" camp). Hmmm.... maybe not. Might just be talking out of my ass. LOL!

I mean, if I play PoG and Wilderness War, I can see that there are similarities, but more so some profound differences. If I were to later play Shifting Sands, the link it shares with PoG is pretty obvious. But not just in the mechanics....I think the feelings / impressions / anxiety the three games generate further cement the PoG / SS link. As others have more eloquently noted above.

Not saying one "style" is better than the other. Just different.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
(Soto voce)

In essence, we are talking about someone (me) who cannot articulate his experiences and impressions from games as well as others here can. That is one of the most important benefits for me regarding hanging out on BGG and CSW; reading the thoughts of friends who can critique aspects of the art (design and play, not box) of the hobby.

I was always kind of crappy in English class in high school for that matter. Same idea. Surrounded by friends who could see the repression of heteronormative society in a story whereas I just see a poem about Jack and Jill going up a hill....



But I digress.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Jayne Starlancer wrote:
I believe what is most characteristic of the Paths of Glory style CDG is the choice between Ops-RPs-SR-Event and how Ops is usually something you "have to do" rather than something you "want to do." This is opposite games like Washington's War and Twilight Struggle, where heavy Ops play is preferred to having to slog through Events and such (it's a little more nuanced in TS I realize).

The stressful-but-exciting decision between Ops-RPs-SR-Event in PoG is what makes the game great... it's not just about what to do with your points (like most CDGs) but which option to take, each of which has very different effects on the game...


Well put Adam. I especially agree with you about the OPs-RPs-SR-Event decision choices causing tension. In fact, I would add the corollary that having so few card actions (6) each turn is the cherry on top of the angst-ridden sundae. And together, these are front and centre the most distinguishing feature of the PoG-style.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
usrlocal wrote:
By the way Jon, I just wanted to thank you for this thread because it made me realize that Crusade and Revolution: The Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939 is a PoG system CDG. I just preordered it.

thumbsup


Booyah!

Not only that, but it is available for play now as the designer would appreciate some playtest feedback. At least it was available some months back. Plus the more folks yapping about it, the more interest is hopefully generated.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
leroy43 wrote:
...
The one game that seems to have straddled that fence beautifully for me has been Unhappy King Charles!.

Card driven in the sense that you have to play cards to do stuff, card assisted in the sense that you have cards that are only ops, or only events, and in the latter instance you can only execute your own and your opponent's events can only be used for a very limited subset of actions.


Well, I am even more intrigued about 1989 now than I was before. Thanks Roger.

I had forgotten that UKC followed the OPs or Event model. It is interesting that you see it as straddling the fence between driven and assisted. I lean more towards the driven, but you have given me something to think about. I suppose something like Washington's War would fit into that camp too?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
wolvendancer wrote:
...On the other hand, consider PoG or TS. Here, the 'event card' mechanic has been fully integrated into the design. Card play is not a bit of bounded flavor tacked-on to the game; rather, card play is allowed a place along side the other primary mechanics (movement of pieces, attack and defense, etc). Treated seriously as a game mechanic, the game designer is forced to consider not only the niche cards will play in the game, how the basic mechanic of card play will interact with the other primary game mechanics, he also must consider the role of every single individual card.


As an aside to this, I have felt that the PoG-style games utilize a very strong "must play event" component. I do not want to overstate the importance of certain events over others, but I do not believe there appears to be definite event paths or gutters that players can opt for (or not). Playing one card means you can play another down the road as the former is a prerequisite for the latter. What allows this, in my opinion, is the individual player decks combined with the splitting of the decks into early, mid and late war subgroups (more PoG-style characteristics). There are many players who dislike this aspect and I understand their arguments. I just see it as a different design methodology.

Deck management is a very distinct feature of these games.

wolvendancer wrote:
...And when the designer does his job well, a wonderful thing happens. Each play of every card within the CDG becomes excruciating, and I mean that in the best possible sense. When the active player must not only consider the immediate effect of the card, but what he or she is giving up by playing it this way and not that, how that play will affect the composition of his deck (and perhaps his opponent's), how his or her opponent may react, how the side effects of that particular play of that particular card might change the board state, and more... each card play becomes as mentally demanding a game situation as exists in wargames. It's this (along with a realization that player-role is wargames has always been problematic, and thus, that we need not subscribe to a strict interpretation of player = general; what we might call the Naturalistic Wargamer Fallacy) that brings avid CDG players back again and again.


Very well put.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
airjudden wrote:
...
To me WW2:B2B just doesn't feel right with it. It's like trying to force the square peg through the round hole. Shifting Sands uses it perfectly. I don't know about the others listed.


I think, for me, the issue with B2B is the oft-stated one here on these forums. Whereas other games feel like they have a theatre balance, the emphasis placed on the Eastern Front diminished the impact of the other Fronts. In many respects this is a realistic interpretation of WW2, but not necessarily a fun game. Better it was just the Eastern Front and be done with it... perhaps...
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.