Luka Kovač Plavi
Hello folks, this year i've been sucked into the world of boardgaming and I didnt need much to shift towards the wargaming, so I set myself on a pre-christmas spending mission to buy a few of the must-have wargames representing different areas of wargaming.
You see, I have to buy it all in a bunch cause shipping is killing me here just outside the European Union, and I have to order from abroad cause prices in my local store are spicy.
So, I got to order from two local stores and achieved the needed money line to get the free shipping, but in the last minute one of the two stores got BoB in stock. The one i've been reading and drooling about since y'all started playing this game and singing praises publicly
So far, I am ordering these games, each to represent one type of the wargaming genre:
Hammer of the Scots - block game
No retreat! - stategic level
Apache Leader - solitaire
BoB and FF - squad level
So, the problem is that I have two squad based games, and i'd like to know what do you think, would these games 'cancel' each other so i'd end up playing only one and the other being a wasted investment (i assume it would be BoB pushing out the FF), or are these two different enough? Also, considering ff is more rules heavy and takes longer to play I guess BoB would be easier to get into and will hit the table more often...
In the case of dropping the ff i'd take Washington's war as a representative of CDG.
I prolly wouldnt be able to get another game for a long time after this, only allowing myself to dive into my wallet once more for Up Front reprint, and after that i'll un-favorite marco's reviews and start studying (you betcha xD).
Oppinions and thoughts welcome
- Last edited Sat Dec 1, 2012 11:55 pm (Total Number of Edits: 3)
- Posted Sat Dec 1, 2012 11:22 pm
“Whatever you do, He will make good of it. But not the good He had prepared for you if you had obeyed Him.” Perelandra, C.S. Lewis
"He died not for men, but for each man. If each man had been the only man made, He would have done no less.” Perelandra, C.S. Lewis
The right answer is both.
FF is platoon-level, though the units can divide into squads. There are some complexities, but the rules are very clear. Great decision points, great tension. There is also a lot of innovation here that makes FF a real gem.
BB is squad-level. The rules are considerably lighter than FF, but the game is no less fun. Play is faster, and the suppression mechanic is innovative. This hasn't dislodged Chad Jensen's first great, Combat Commander Series, as my first choice for squad-level combat.
Again, the experiences are considerably different, and you will likely enjoy both.
Up Front fan, Cats were once worshipped as gods and they haven't forgotten this, Combat Commander series fan, The Raven King (game publisher) ... that's me!, Fields of Fire fan
Slywester Janik, awarded the Krzyż Walecznych (Polish Cross of Valour), August 1944
BoB and FF don't cancel each other as they're quite simply very different games. Phil has explained the basic differences of scale in his post. FF has an extremely well written rulebook (it is Chad Jensen after all). The new v1.1 BoB rulebook has fixed any relevant FAQ and clarified any of the first-release issues.
The one thing you won't get with FF, though, is a fast-playing game ... the scenarios will take a great deal longer to play than anything BoB has to offer. Many many hours in fact, for some of them.
Both excellent games. Washington's War is also an outstanding example of a CDG in the war genre.
- Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2012 2:18 am (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Sun Dec 2, 2012 2:17 am
The games really are very different. If you only have to get one, I would recommend Band of Brothers without question. It's an incredibly clean and intuitive design, and I think it's brilliant. That said, I also enjoy Fighting Formations, which is fun and interesting in its own right.
There are some significant differences. Not only is FF platoon based, but the scenarios are mostly much bigger engagements. As a result, the games take a lot longer to play. Combat is also much more attritional, as you really have to grind to break down platoons into squads and then make those squads disappear off the map. I have them both and am happy to have both.
And Washington's War is an absolute gem. It and BoB may be my two favorite designs.
Get BoB and wait for Ghost Panzer...
It really depends what scratches your itch, so many question to ask yourself if you want operational level or tactical level, what period of time, do you prefer more of naval warfare, or aerial, or ground combat... the best is to read the reviews of the games you like, so when you finally make that decision, you know that the games you just bought will be hitting the table often. it helps a lot to read example plays and rules books aside from the reviews and comments.